Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:37:50 08/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 13, 2005 at 16:21:07, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On August 13, 2005 at 15:19:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 13, 2005 at 13:08:38, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >>This is a tad ridiculous. You want to hide behind "speculation". That's >>ridiculous. Speculating about whether Fruit will win or not isn't the issue, >>and you can speculate about that all you want. But if it wins, it is _not_ >>speculation that it would be the first open-source program to win. Because that >>has _already_ happened, and therefore can not be speculated about today. > >No. It is just ridiculous how you overeact. I hope this doesnt happen with your >students. If you read the post >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?440555, other person wrote the >initial question. > >I answered a question. I did not hide anything. My favorite engine is not Fruit >neither your Crafty. I answered this question missing "your information about >world champions open source in the eighties" I would like to know if they were >already available for everybody before those Tournaments (although I doubt it) The answer is yes. Although I don't see what that has to do with it. Since the version of Fruit competing is _not_ publicly available yet, neither is the current version of Crafty, although it will be right after the WCCC ends. your point would be??? > > >> >>Again, the issue is that there is _no_ way _any_ program could become the first >>open-source program to win a WCCC. Why? Because it happened in 1977, 1983 and >>1986 _already_. >> >>So how can one speculate about something that could not possibly be true under >>any possible set of circumstances??? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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. >> >> >>There was _zero_ sarcasm in my post. Feel free to attempt to point it out. Or >>feel free to "speculate" where the sarcasm was. >> >>"oops" means "a mistake". I then explained your mistake. End of story. The >>rest of this is just rhetoric and crap. >> >>I don't believe you could recognize sarcasm if it fell and hit you on the head. >>Because there was _none_ in my initial post... > >Of course, I can believe. "oops" is understood here like "the poor guy slid". In >Venezuela, it is offensive. If you are used to doing that, well..., it is not >advisable to do that here. It's not offensive over here, nor anywhere else I have ever visited. Just means "I goofed" or "I made a mistake" or "I erred" or whatever...
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.