Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 16:05:27 10/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 1998 at 18:26:45, Steven Schwartz wrote: >On October 07, 1998 at 13:35:24, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: > >>On October 07, 1998 at 12:02:24, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On October 07, 1998 at 11:49:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>A couple of days ago, Amir posted a brief description of his 1/2 ply >>>>search. I found some information in my old "Cray Blitz" file about this >>>>subject and was going to initiate a discussion about the idea, as I am >>>>in the process of running some interesting tests on Crafty using this idea >>>>at present. >>>> >>>>However, when I tried to find Amir's post, it is *not* there that I can >>>>see. I even tried "filter", last 7 days, by author, and only found 3 >>>>posts by him, none of which was the one in question. >>>> >>>>Did it get deleted by accident or intentionally or am I confused in what >>>>the "filter" command should show? I even manually scrolled back thru >>>>"next group of messages" for a week, but couldn't find the post in question. >>>> >>>>Do we have a technical problem, a moderator problem, an operator problem, >>>>a Netscape problem (I use Netscape to access CCC) or what? >>>> >>>>Bob >>> >>>I think that it was more than a week ago so you could not see it by "filter" >>>last 7 days >>> >>>Uri >> >>I think this thread has become unaceptably small.. If ICD could did not have >>enough money for it to work properly why did it have to advertise and advertise >>and advertise on alt.rec.computer.chess to make people swap over to it? If it >>cannot run a decent thread then I don't see why not using alt.rec.computer.chess >>(those annoying "sean" I don't know what messages apparently have ceased >>bugging). > > >Messages stay on CCC without being archived for AT LEAST 7 days. Once >a week we move all posts that are over a week old to the readily available >archive. We understand that the archive does not have a search engine, >but that is one of our future projects. So the actual length of active >posts is 7 to 14 days. > >98% of threads die within the course of a week. 99.5% of threads >end within 2 weeks. And in almost every instance, more recent >threads incorporate the older thread's text within them. We used >these statistics to help us make our decision to shorten the thread >length. > >Bob's difficulty in finding Amir's post appears to be a function of >a technical problem that occurred wherein 6 hours of posts wound up >in hyperspace and had nothing to do with our shortening the length >of active posts. This problem had never happened before, and we have >taken measures to ensure that it will never happen again. > >As far as ICD "advertising and advertising and advertising" in the >newsgroup and then not "running a decent thread", I beg to differ >with you. We have worked very hard to create the layout of the >CCC, and we have worked even harder to make sure that it has worked >smoothly. You have no idea of the hundreds of man hours devoted >to this project - not to mention at least an equal amount of >work from the Founders and moderators. > >Just like every other legitimate company in the world, everything >ICD does is not open-ended, but I believe we have offered CCC members, >still offer CCC members, and will continue to offer CCC members a >tremendous value for their dues to CCC which, as you know, are zero. > >Today is our one year birthday, and if you check the hit count at >the bottom of the message board, you will see just how popular this >project has become. I do not know if your feelings about ICD, the CCC, >and our behavior in rgcc are shared with other CCC members, but I >would be curious to find out. > >- Steve (ICD/Your Move) For what it is worth, I am one CCC member who most definately does not share these views. Having programmed other games on ancient architecture, I wanted to program chess, but I needed a modern machine, so I bought one purely to develop a chess program (quite extravagant given my income!). Now my expensive new toy came with all sorts of goodies that I didn't really need for a chess program, like a modem. So I discovered the internet, and what a revelation - I started to communicate with other chess programmers! I have learnt a tremendous amount since then through my membership of CCC and through my programs participation in tournaments (made possible by communication with organisers via CCC). I find CCC more valuable to me than words can say, and I am eternally grateful to you and ICD for providing such a great service for free. The Computer chess world needs a forum like CCC. I believe this has, in many ways, enabled programmers and would-be programmers to write chess software that they either would not otherwise have written, or else would not have written so well, without the helpfull advive from fellow members of CCC like Bob Hyatt, Don Dailey, Ernst Heinz, Ed Schroder and many others. I know that CCC is more than just a programmer's forum, but for me that is the prime appeal. I am pleased that you intend to continue to provide this superb service, and I hope that there are not too many technical snags to be overcome. I suppose, given the extremely heated exchanges that have occurred from time to time, leading to the expulsion of those who could not control themselves in their posts, that there is bound to be some ill feeling still floating around, but I am sure that the great majority of CCC members think, as I do, that you are doing a great job, and in view of the ambitious new projects in the pipeline I think we can live with 7-day threads. In the case of the long and over-extended "Sean Evans" thread I think it would even have been a bonus! With best wishes, Roberto
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.