Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 10:08:38 08/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 13, 2005 at 10:41:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 13, 2005 at 09:00:55, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>On August 12, 2005 at 16:15:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 12, 2005 at 05:46:42, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>> >>>>On August 07, 2005 at 00:12:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 21:27:32, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 06, 2005 at 20:15:07, gerold daniels wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Would it have much of an impact on the commercial Programs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Gerold. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don´t think it will have a strong impact for the Comercial Programs. >>>>>> >>>>>>However, your question is too too wide and any answer is a mere speculation. >>>>>> >>>>>>Ok, my answers (speculations) >>>>>> >>>>>>1) Fruit could become comercial. >>>>>> >>>>>>2) It would be a great surprise because it would be the first free chess program >>>>>>with open source in winning a Title. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Oops. :) >>>> >>>>This Oops means you asphyxiated. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Cray Blitz won several, and it was always "open source" as well. :) >>>>> >>>>>The chess 4.x guys distributed their source thru the CDC user's group as well... >>>> >>>>Was Cray Blitz and Chess 4.X Amateur Engines? As far as I know, Chess 4.X was >>>>the strongest engine in the 70s but was it considered an Ameteur? The same >>>>question goes for Cray Blitz. >>> >>>By any standard used by the ICCA/ICGA, yes. Just as Crafty is amateur today. >>>And both programs were public source as well as several others, dating back to >>>say COKO in the first ACM computer chess event in 1970, to mention just one... >>> >>>If you consider crafty an amateur program today, then CB has to be the same. I >>>was the author. Was working at a university during the development, was at UAB >>>for the last 10 years of CB's playing years (1985-1994)... >>> >>>Not sure how else it could be considered anything but amateur based on the >>>current ICGA definition of "amateur, semi-professional and professional" (all of >>>which are a complte crock in my opinion, but that is another subject..) >>> >>>> >>>>For me, Fruit would be the first engine in reaching an Official WCCC Tournament. >>>>Does it hurt your pride? >>> >>>No pride involved. Just facts. But claiming that (if fruit were to win) that >>>it is the first public-source amateur program to win the WCCC would simply be >>>dead wrong. Chess 4.x in 1977, CB in 1983/1986 were all open source and amateur >>>by today's definition. >> >>I did not claimed. You, guys of this Forum, have a problem accusing people of >>claiming things > >No, here _you_ have a problem. Here is a direct quote from the post by you that >I responded to: > >"2) It would be a great surprise because it would be the first free chess >program with open source in winning a Title." > >I simply pointed out that was _wrong_. Both Cray Blitz and chess 4.x were open >source and both won WCCC events, chess 4.x won one, Cray Blitz won 2. > >So how am I "accusing you of claiming things" when I simply responded to a >_direct_ statement that you made that was wrong... And I did it in a >non-hostile manner as well, just pointing out that you had overlooked two >examples of open source programs from the 70's, 80's and 90's... > > > >> >>I said: "However, your question is too too wide and any answer is a mere >>speculation. Ok, my answers (speculations)". I did not claimed. I entered in the >>terrain of the speculations..... > > >So? Your speculation was wrong, and it contained an erroneous statement since >it directly implied that no public source program had ever won a WCCC-type event >in the past. A speculation is not wrong. It is a mere speculation. I am not claiming anything. This is one of the problems of this Forum. No, I am being evaluated by the "Big Father" of the CCC. My God. I have not implied anything. This is a speculation to answer a question of somebody. Then your pride is blooded because I misse a point. Your followers in this Forum will stand your way, not me. > > >> >>I did not claimed. I only said a mere speculation if you can undertand. Your >>information was interesting for me but your opps,,, apsss,,,,,, remove your >>serious sense of the information. That is. >> >>Now, you pretend create a long thread from a speculation. My god. > >You have a serious problem. All you needed to say was "I didn't know that" and >move on. To make it simple, you were wrong on that count. I pointed out the >mistake. If you can't take someone pointing out a simple mistake, in a polite >way, then you have problems beyond not knowing your computer chess history... You also have a serious problem Hyatt. You overeacted with a sarcarsm. If you are a teacher, I dont know how your students can stand such sarcasms when they don´t know or miss something.
This page took 0.01 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.