Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:13:30 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 17:12:27, Torstein Hall wrote: >On February 13, 2006 at 12:57:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 13, 2006 at 10:43:24, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On February 13, 2006 at 10:23:28, Bernardo Wesler wrote: >>> >>>>and the truth is (people like it or not) that RYBKA is the best engine since its >>>>arrival..... >>> >>>Not one person has disputed that, not even the main competitors. On the other >>>hand, some people have let the Rybkamania to get so much under their skin that >>>they have concocted fantastical conspiracy theories on Vasik, suggesting this is >>>all some giant marketing plot, threatening CCC. >>> >>>Not only do we need to stop Evil Vas, but doing so is in the best interest of >>>CCC. And if you think I'm joking, read some of the posts discussing this is all >>>with CCC's best interests in view. >>> >>>It's funny, because over the years, I've seen (for example) Theron discuss his >>>work on Tiger, and answer any question that came up on it. Especially at the >>>time of Chess Tiger 13/14 and then Gambit Tiger. No plots were mentioned, nor >>>was the welfare of CCC in danger. Of course, the frenzy compared to Rybka wasn't >>>nearly so great, nor was it nearly so superior compared to other engines, but >>>his actions were not different. John Merlino, at one point, polled CCC members >>>on what they wanted in a future version of Chessmaster (CM8000 I think it was), >>>and discussed in detail what was going on, or might go on. He answered and >>>helped tech questions, and still does so I believe. Again, CCC was not in >>>danger, nor plots mentioned. And Chessmaster certainly dominates the chess >>>software market like no one else. Etc, etc, etc. >>> >>> Albert >> >> >>There are differences. >> >>Theron didn't have beta testing discussions here. >> >>He didn't discuss marketing plans, and have marketing strategy discussions here. >> No one knew he was aligning with Ed until it was "done" for example. >> >>I see nothing wrong with posting matches. I see nothing wrong with anyone >>answering questions, although I have not seen Vas really answer any technical >>questions about Rybka other than how to do something or to verify some bug >>report. > >Maybee you did not look so closely? >I did a search on Vas to check this out and the first two messages I looked at >where general chess program issues.... Notice I am talking about the thread Peter commented on, specifically. The specific thread discussing the issue of "subscriptions" and the like. That simply goes beyond Charter point #4... I don't particularly like all the beta testing stuff here, because this is not "the Rybka testing forum" but rather the "computer chess club". Beta testing is best discussed elsewhere in a private domain where that's all that will be discussed. Otherwise the signal-noise ratio goes thru the floor and useful content gets lost in the maelstrom of beta testing posts. > >> >>However, major beta-testing discussions don't belong here. I'm doing beta >>testing regularly and you haven't seen a single post about it here, because it >>doesn't belong here. Marketing discussions, polling users about a possible >>"subscription service" and the like do not belong here. Etc. > >I found the issue very interesting. The way chess programs are distributed >affect most of us a lot. I can see that CCC may not be the right forum for such >a discussion, but in no way will I consider it a marketing plot or anything like >that. There's not any "considering" necessary. It was _clearly_ about commercial interests only. > >Torstein > >> >>Much of what has been posted is perfectly ok. But there is a significant >>quantity of stuff that really is _not_ ok by our charter. That's the part that >>needs to dry up.
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.