Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:14:18 08/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2004 at 09:56:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 25, 2004 at 05:41:09, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On August 25, 2004 at 05:04:00, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>On August 24, 2004 at 20:54:33, Christopher Conkie wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Eduard, >>>> >>>>It's all very interesting these differing opinions. I'm just wondering whether >>>>all the users who want to discuss about computer chess would like to go to >>>>USENET. I'm not sure that Steve thought it was a good idea either. >>>> >>>>You have got me facinated however. Where is this moderate, frugal, limited, >>>>ordinary place we should all go to talk about computer chess? >>> >>>http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&group=rec.games.chess.computer >> >>I'm neither pro or contra USENET here, but keep in mind, that the discussion >>style would change slightly. In USENET it can take up to a day until everyone >>can see the post. It's also possible that you see the answer to something w/o >>seeing the original question yet. Nothing wrong with that, but it's something >>different to how CCC works at the moment. > >A big problem of CCC is that it moves too fast and that searching in archives >never works and after a day or 2 all postings you did you can't read any reply >from anymore as they are gone. Usenet gets saved everywhere. > >A good example is that a few years ago here at CCC hyatt posted that he had >tested quad xeons with 1MB L2 cache versus Xeons with several MB's L2 cache and >saw zero difference in speed. Grow up. There were _never_ xeons with "several MB's L2 cache". I specifically tested 512K 1024K and 2048K. The results I posted a few years back simply said "the larger cache is not worth the much larger cost." Feel free to make up whatever you want, of course. You always do... > >Now we have a big thread here where he denies it. > >At RGCC such an idiocy would not happen. You search his old posting and dang, he >has to shut up. > >Now there have been tens of postings with Kerrigan in all his rights exploding >and Hyatt keeping posting nonsense. > >Even worse is that in CCC this nonsense gets posted within a few minutes. In >RGCC it takes at least 1 minute for your posting to show up and a few minutes >for world wide distribution. > Shows your ignorance of usenet news. It all depends on how your local newsfeed is configured. We send and receive usenet news articles _continuously_ here, so that there is little delay on our end. If your local newsfeed only uploads every 15 minutes, you will see a 15 minute delay before your articles get out. But that isn't the case for general usenet news. >Note that if you want to pay for a message board system that will cost you the >big amount of 12 dollar a month, if you want your own root server with 1.2 >terabyte bandwidth a month it goes up to 50 dollar a month soon. > >Starting a member paid message board system is the biggest idiocy i ever read >about. > >CCC is already reaching so little persons. > >Someone interested in computerchess will not soon find CCC. In fact they never >find it as you need a username and a password to login. > >I do not know a single computerchess enthusiast who found himself this forum. > >Now let alone people who are interested in computerchess but are not very >fanatical searching for information. > >>Also, messages which only make sense for a few minutes or hours (like >>game-number of a certain game in ICC) won't be possible anymore. Some people >>will consider this a good thing, others a bad thing. >> >>Another point is that moderation as it works here won't work there. You either >>have no moderation or you have a moderated group, where each post has to be >>approved first before it gets forwarded to the group. (at least I think that's >>how it works, please correct me if I'm wrong) >> >>Sargon
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.