Author: Timothy J. Frohlick
Date: 10:14:47 09/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
Stuart, You lack humility. The purpose of this forum is to discuss computer chess. Programming is of course the driving force behind the play but most computer chess enthusiasts don't program. In addition, the best programmers such as Stefan Meyer Kahlen don't give their secrets out for nothing. That would be stupid. Respectfully, TJF 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
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.