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

[Chris Whittington]

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

it is perhaps a little known fact but both Bruce Moreland and Bob Hyatt were strongly against the creation of CCC, they argued, correctly as it turns out im, that although they understood the difficulty with stalkers, and the difficulty to be able to discuss because of stalkers (Rolf being considered the most difficult at the time), that he and the others were containable. They both wanted to continue with rgcc. Bruce was eventually persuaded to change his mind, but I think this was more down to the quantity of argument rather than its quality, he didn't want to get left out of what seemed likely to come about. Once Bruce crossed over, then the same argument acted even stronger on Hyatt who also crossed over, but with reservations, namely that he was going to continue posting in rgcc.

I thought at the time that the one person who eventually persuaded Hyatt to subsequently turn away from rgcc, and it took him some time, was you, Sean

[Hood]

Hi,
just wondering :HW is the despotic person and an information manipulator. Why there are so many people wanting to dispute with him .

Rgds
Hood

[thorstenczub]

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

i doubt the universe needs merchandising. if somebody wants to
get advertisments, he can visit a commercial forum such as hiarcs or rybka.
with the disadvantage that people like williamson decide which postings are
"constructive" and can be allowed and which postings/people are not constructive
and can be wiped out.
why should i give my life into the hands of stalin, ahmenidschad or george bush ?
no sorry. we don't need those dictators to "lead" us.

second i doubt the universe needs an elite.
chris likes to see a forum like a "club" , this reminds me on the
british clubs where girls were not allowed and the elite sat and
read newspaper, drank alcohol and did politics.

i think this is a fossile from 19th and 20th century.
today we don't need an elite driving a forum or a country anymore.

so... nobody likes the sherif of nottingham. nobody likes guy gisbert.
but we need IMO more robin hoods, more rebels and fight against
the conservative establishment that leads us into wars,
poverty and racism.

[thorstenczub]

Hi,
just wondering :HW is the despotic person and an information manipulator. Why there are so many people wanting to dispute with him .

Rgds
Hood

if you have a pile of shit in front of your house, do you allow it to stay there ?

[Chris Whittington]

Hi,
just wondering :HW is the despotic person and an information manipulator. Why there are so many people wanting to dispute with him .

Rgds
Hood

if you have a pile of shit in front of your house, do you allow it to stay there ?

leave, go elsewhere, vote with your feet

[thorstenczub]

thats what the people, or most people, did. they left CCC and post somewhere else.

[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

i doubt the universe needs merchandising. if somebody wants to
get advertisments, he can visit a commercial forum such as hiarcs or rybka.
with the disadvantage that people like williamson decide which postings are
"constructive" and can be allowed and which postings/people are not constructive
and can be wiped out.
why should i give my life into the hands of stalin, ahmenidschad or george bush ?
no sorry. we don't need those dictators to "lead" us.

second i doubt the universe needs an elite.
chris likes to see a forum like a "club" , this reminds me on the
british clubs where girls were not allowed and the elite sat and
read newspaper, drank alcohol and did politics.

i think this is a fossile from 19th and 20th century.
today we don't need an elite driving a forum or a country anymore.

so... nobody likes the sherif of nottingham. nobody likes guy gisbert.
but we need IMO more robin hoods, more rebels and fight against
the conservative establishment that leads us into wars,
poverty and racism.

well, you can vote for the One Party State at talkchess oblast if you want

btw, there's no reason an industry forum should be a club, all that is usually needed is a forum under the control of the industry, not under the control of a shop or a far right christian tcadmin who nobody can ever sack (not even the shop - beware of factotums who gain control of the software). The problem and solution is simple, never give the forum to a commercial capitalist entity and do not give out voting rights to any member of the public who turns up. Voting should have remained with the creative class and not have been extended to consumers and others.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

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?

Sure, which is part of the reason why OpenChess was started. However, faulting the membership for not being consumers is also a bit dumb.

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?

Not at all. In fact, I think that creatives need a place for discussion away from the noise necessarily created by non-creatives. You just can't have it both ways -- if you open the doors for everyone, including testers, normal users, freaks and cranks, you can't tell all of those people you let in to stfu and let you have your discussion.

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

[kingliveson]

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the forum?

[Jeremy Bernstein]

If developers wanted to have a private discussion forum on OpenChess, for instance, where they could share technical information with a small circle of other developers, I would be all for it (a private club within an otherwise public forum). It could be invitation-only, self-moderated, etc. Some members might not like the idea (although most wouldn't even need to know that it exists), but I personally don't see a problem with it, especially if it led to more interchange between devs.

Jeremy

Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the forum?

No. The purpose of the forum (AFAIC) is to provide an independent, uncensored, non-influencable discussion platform revolving around the topic of computer chess. If a group of the membership believes that their discussion needs to be held in a smaller circle of specialists, I don't see how that's in conflict with independence or lack of censorship. We don't let everyone read what we write in the moderator forum, either -- it's a sub-discussion which isn't relevant for most members.

I'm not saying that this is my greatest wish for the forum, but I'd like to acknowledge the validity of the issue that Chris is concerned about.

Jeremy