"An Open Letter to Cock de Gorter and the CSVN Board"

[alfons]

i'd like to give an impression from an innocent and foreign bystanders perspective:

the whittingtons chris impressed me with written thoughts i can twine on and new vocab stuff (miscreant and oik) - however: the williamsons way disappointed me, well, to be more precise: it bored the pants off me.

why?
consider this: the sudelmeister has been cornered (with his boring and filthy trousers down) and all i can see are attempts to weasel out with - hold your breath - cheeky ONLINERS! Yawn.

"Oh you cheeky monkey! Cheekycheekymonkey!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6oajPBSnO8

advice to williamsons: do some serious journalist's work. do, for instance, a nice and shiny* documentary about blackpool pleasure beach. do something about monkeys! cheeky ones.

do it NOW!

*if telly isn't your medium, move "up north" and air it through radio norwich then - it might be of interest to the "locals"!

[BB+]

one man one vote is a fine idea when voting for government

Err, why?

I think that Zach started such an invitation-only producer's forum at some point but complained that it wasn't really getting used.

It was not used too much. I managed to get into an argument with VD about eval-tuning, but by and large not much was posted (under 100 posts for the few months of existence).

[Chris Whittington]

I thought CCC was setup to protect Ed from the Pope !?

Sean

Nice one.

only partly, and Rolf pushed that idea endlessly, I presume because it increased his apparent importance in the affair

[Chris Whittington]

i'd like to give an impression from an innocent and foreign bystanders perspective:

the whittingtons chris impressed me with written thoughts i can twine on and new vocab stuff (miscreant and oik) - however: the williamsons way disappointed me, well, to be more precise: it bored the pants off me.

why?
consider this: the sudelmeister has been cornered (with his boring and filthy trousers down) and all i can see are attempts to weasel out with - hold your breath - cheeky ONLINERS! Yawn.

"Oh you cheeky monkey! Cheekycheekymonkey!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6oajPBSnO8

advice to williamsons: do some serious journalist's work. do, for instance, a nice and shiny* documentary about blackpool pleasure beach. do something about monkeys! cheeky ones.

do it NOW!

*if telly isn't your medium, move "up north" and air it through radio norwich then - it might be of interest to the "locals"!

you missed "chav"

[Chris Whittington]

one man one vote is a fine idea when voting for government

Err, why?

I think that Zach started such an invitation-only producer's forum at some point but complained that it wasn't really getting used.

It was not used too much. I managed to get into an argument with VD about eval-tuning, but by and large not much was posted (under 100 posts for the few months of existence).

actually it's a really lousy idea, it creates a corrupt political class and who needs a bleeding government anyway. Leeches the lot of them. New thread? hehe


frankly, and in contravention to the general view, I think rgcc 1995-97 was about as good as a producers forum gets.

[Chris Whittington]

one man one vote is a fine idea when voting for government, but incredibly stupid for a forum that was set up as a place where producers and creatives would discuss issues relating to them and their industry. Allowing consumers to read is not normal with an industry forum, but I find that ok. Allowing consumers, or just any passing internet person, to write is extremely generous and consumers should see it as a privilege, but allowing voting rights to consumers which now swamp the producers is just plain crazy; it turns the forum into a consumers forum, which of course is what the shop wanted all along and ultimately a reason why the most producers and creatives now stay away. There's no reason at all to grant consumers rights on an industry forum.

I have to agree with you I suspect that a large number of the users they have now are not interested in anything from the shop or in paying for any engine they use.

So the only "real hobbyists" are the ones who consume the commercial offerings? Come on, there's more to life than buying and selling, and as long as there are people willing to share their work for free, there will be a "market" for those products, too. Does that make it hard to convince users to part with their cash for a for-profit engine? Of course, but it's great incentive for the for-profit authors to provide something really extraordinary.

As for the whole industry v. dirty consumer argument... elitist much? I think that Zach started such an invitation-only producer's forum at some point but complained that it wasn't really getting used.

Is it annoying that people with absolutely no technical knowledge, neither of programming in general nor of chess engine programming specifically, get to run the show if they receive sufficient votes? Sure, that's annoying, but that's how that site works. There's still more technical discussion there than here, and we barely have moderators. Maybe we let too many dirty, non-paying, open-source-loving freeloaders in the door.

Or maybe I've misunderstood the gist of your argument.

Jeremy

who are you replying to?

[Sean Evans]

I think rgcc 1995-97 was about as good as a producers forum gets.

I agree with you. I would go one further and call this period of time the "golden age of computer chess", which ended when Kasparov lost to Deeper Blue. Once the World Champion lost to a computer it seemed to "kill" public interest in computer chess tourneys. Humans can no longer beat them, so the masses are no longer interested. Computer chess programs have virtually everything you could possibly want built into the GUI, so what is left to discuss?

Fighting over whether Rybka is better than Houdini

Cordially,

Sean

[Jeremy Bernstein]

one man one vote is a fine idea when voting for government, but incredibly stupid for a forum that was set up as a place where producers and creatives would discuss issues relating to them and their industry. Allowing consumers to read is not normal with an industry forum, but I find that ok. Allowing consumers, or just any passing internet person, to write is extremely generous and consumers should see it as a privilege, but allowing voting rights to consumers which now swamp the producers is just plain crazy; it turns the forum into a consumers forum, which of course is what the shop wanted all along and ultimately a reason why the most producers and creatives now stay away. There's no reason at all to grant consumers rights on an industry forum.

I have to agree with you I suspect that a large number of the users they have now are not interested in anything from the shop or in paying for any engine they use.

So the only "real hobbyists" are the ones who consume the commercial offerings? Come on, there's more to life than buying and selling, and as long as there are people willing to share their work for free, there will be a "market" for those products, too. Does that make it hard to convince users to part with their cash for a for-profit engine? Of course, but it's great incentive for the for-profit authors to provide something really extraordinary.

As for the whole industry v. dirty consumer argument... elitist much? I think that Zach started such an invitation-only producer's forum at some point but complained that it wasn't really getting used.

Is it annoying that people with absolutely no technical knowledge, neither of programming in general nor of chess engine programming specifically, get to run the show if they receive sufficient votes? Sure, that's annoying, but that's how that site works. There's still more technical discussion there than here, and we barely have moderators. Maybe we let too many dirty, non-paying, open-source-loving freeloaders in the door.

Or maybe I've misunderstood the gist of your argument.

Jeremy

who are you replying to?

A bit to both of you. To Harvey for suggesting that the purpose of CCC is to move merchandise for "Your Move" and that the availability of very strong, free and/or open-source engines leads to a forum full of (my interpretation) non-paying, unwanted freeloaders.

And to you for asserting that posting on a computer chess forum is a privilege granted by the technical elite to the lowly consumer, who should (my interpretation) shut up and be grateful for the opportunity to touch the hem of said technical elite's garment.

I wonder what could be done here to spur more technical conversation. I know that we have a lot of developers lurking here, just not so many posting.

jb

[kingliveson]

Forgot to attach the ban screenshot after the mute -- this is of course one of a couple.

[Chris Whittington]

one man one vote is a fine idea when voting for government, but incredibly stupid for a forum that was set up as a place where producers and creatives would discuss issues relating to them and their industry. Allowing consumers to read is not normal with an industry forum, but I find that ok. Allowing consumers, or just any passing internet person, to write is extremely generous and consumers should see it as a privilege, but allowing voting rights to consumers which now swamp the producers is just plain crazy; it turns the forum into a consumers forum, which of course is what the shop wanted all along and ultimately a reason why the most producers and creatives now stay away. There's no reason at all to grant consumers rights on an industry forum.

I have to agree with you I suspect that a large number of the users they have now are not interested in anything from the shop or in paying for any engine they use.

So the only "real hobbyists" are the ones who consume the commercial offerings? Come on, there's more to life than buying and selling, and as long as there are people willing to share their work for free, there will be a "market" for those products, too. Does that make it hard to convince users to part with their cash for a for-profit engine? Of course, but it's great incentive for the for-profit authors to provide something really extraordinary.

As for the whole industry v. dirty consumer argument... elitist much? I think that Zach started such an invitation-only producer's forum at some point but complained that it wasn't really getting used.

Is it annoying that people with absolutely no technical knowledge, neither of programming in general nor of chess engine programming specifically, get to run the show if they receive sufficient votes? Sure, that's annoying, but that's how that site works. There's still more technical discussion there than here, and we barely have moderators. Maybe we let too many dirty, non-paying, open-source-loving freeloaders in the door.

Or maybe I've misunderstood the gist of your argument.

Jeremy

who are you replying to?

A bit to both of you. To Harvey for suggesting that the purpose of CCC is to move merchandise for "Your Move" and that the availability of very strong, free and/or open-source engines leads to a forum full of (my interpretation) non-paying, unwanted freeloaders.

And to you for asserting that posting on a computer chess forum is a privilege granted by the technical elite to the lowly consumer, who should (my interpretation) shut up and be grateful for the opportunity to touch the hem of said technical elite's garment.

I wonder what could be done here to spur more technical conversation. I know that we have a lot of developers lurking here, just not so many posting.

jb

well, I'm inclined to doubt I need to teach you about "systems", but one does need to look at a wide range to get an overview to the question of the "purpose of a system such as CCC". eg, a dog could be seen as a system that has inputs food and outputs crap, or a system with inputs care and attention and outputs affection, or a system with inputs food and outputs blood for sucking - depends on whether you view it as a street cleaner, it's owner or a flea etc etc etc.

In the case of something like ccc, if you wish to understand it, it's important to consider its purpose from POV the owners and/or effective controllers, and, in such a case, to deny it exists in order to increase sales revenues would seem a bit dumb. Business exist in order to maximise revenues and profits, no?

Your penultimate paragraph is a bit of a cheek. talkchess is not just *A* comp chess forum, it was set up by a group of producers/creatives to continue the role of the effective producer/creative forum rgcc without also being spammed by stroppy endusers and members of the public. ie a place for creatives to discuss. This original role has essentially been hijacked by the shop ICD who wanted all along no more than a replacement for the redundant CCR, ie control over a media channel to encourage endusers into their space and provide the more fanatical amongst them of a feeling of "home". It never made sense in a creatives forum to give endusers a vote with the result that enduser hobby ideology dominates and creatives go elsewhere.

Or are you saying a creatives forum was never acceptable to you in the first place?