Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:18:30 08/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 13, 2005 at 20:13:46, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On August 13, 2005 at 16:37:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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??? > >Easy. You said the source was available for everybody, but looking in the >Internet, I did not find anything that proves this point. Crafty Blitz (?!), or >whatever this program was called, was considered an amateur by that time... >Interesting. And also Chess 4.X was an amateur? Interesting too. > >Where can I find the source of these old programs? Source for chess 4.x was in the old CDC Cyber user's group stuff. They distributed a tape every 6 months or so to all CDC users. Chess 4.x was included. Cray Blitz was distributed in the Cray user's group stuff, and was also available via ftp from me for years. I've seen at least one person run an old copy of blitz (prior even to Cray Blitz) on ICC a year or two back, he had gotten the source in the 1978 time frame... > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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... > >If you dont understand it... It is offensive here in Venezuela. America is not >only USA.... USA is just one of the countries in America... so If you like to >laugh when somebody misses some information and I dont know how you are patient >with your students... Where did I 'laugh'??? I simply said "this is a mistake, because ..."
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.