Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:34:13 08/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2004 at 10:14:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... To be exact you posted there was 0% difference in speed between the different L2 cache sized Xeons. Which renders your entire discussion with Tom Kerrigan as complete nonsense from your side. > >> >>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.