Author: Mathieu Pagé
Date: 10:06:57 09/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2004 at 12:44:26, Roger D Davis wrote: >On September 09, 2004 at 09:58:09, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>It seems to me that the bulk of this board's contents these >>days is non-programmer, i.e. "I have this program which I didn't >>write and I am going to play it against that program which I >>didn't write so I can prove absolutely nothing but look like a >>computer chess programmer in the process, which I'm not." >> >>Personally, I'd favor a board that is programmer's only. To get >>in, you have to have created a program *** from scratch *** >>and be willing to talk about it and help otherr programmers >>as well. >> >>I think there are a lot of onlookers here and while I enjoy that >>they get impressed by chess programs I don't like the fact that >>they are heightening the bandwidth requirements and will ultimately >>put it out of business. >> >>If ICD keeps anything, keep two boards: one you can keep and which >>isn't a bandwidth load: CTF, however horrid and rabid it may be at >>times, and the other, a pure programmer's board -- no wannabe's. >> >>With this plan, your bandwidth requirements will drastically drop, >>you will keep both core groups happy, and you can jettison the >>wannabe's. >> >>Or conversely, do as above, but let the wannabes on in read-only >>mode -- this will also reduce bandwidth. They can read and learn >>but that's about it. If they are truly curious about computer >>chess programming, they should welcome this (but they won't.) >> >>Further, computer chess programmers on this new board would not be >>allowed to not post. After a period of inactivity or unimportant posting, >>to be determined by the moderators who are computer chess programmers, >>a warning note would be sent and the computer chess programmer's account >>deactivated, after a lengthy warning interval. >> >>Many like the laissez-faire approach of this board but it is just that >>approach that has gotten it into trouble with 1) bandwidth requirements >>creeping up from wannabe's, resulting in high expense and 2) losing the focus >>on a better original goal of computer chess programmers interacting without >>the paranoia that has characterized the field, first in academia and then in >>commercialism due to research dollars and sales dollars. >> >>Stuart > >Is bandwidth really that big a deal? Well, I guess we could stop quoting the >complete message. That would reduce bandwidth way way down. > >I also guess someone could recode the board so that posts could be assigned a >type when they're submitted. "Engine vs. Engine Test" would be one such type, >and you could set your preferences to exclude such posts. That would allow >wannabe programmers and programmers to co-exist. I already suggested this, and I know for sure that a lot of programmeurs here are more than willing to do it for free (at least I am) If I only knew it would be accepted/appreciated I would do it. Mathieu Pagé
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.