Originally posted by Schlecter what about this wiki....???
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Hot_Pawn
Last line in the uncyclopedia entry is funny:
"It is highly illegal to use an engine for assistance playing chess or inputting moves faster than humanly possible. It is also utterly undetectable, and thus practiced by about 98% of players."
Originally posted by divegeester I doubt that the "'wild-west' atmosphere of the early forum activity" and the "controversy" surrounding players being banned for engine use are quite what Russ had in mind as being representative of RHP. I also suspect that what you refer to as "the more controversial bits of RHP" are only of interest to existing members involved with such controversy.
I'm just saying that responsible reporting must offer the bad with the good.
Originally posted by HandyAndy It's a sad day when there isn't time for a smile. 🙁
I've nothing against smiles. I only meant that uncyclopedia is not the appropriate model of unbiased and objective reporting. Russ didn't ask for a parody of RHP.
Originally posted by moonbus Recommendation noted. Thanks.
I'd reckon it would be appropriate to include links to other chess web sites' wikipedia pages (if they have them) and state that they offer comparable facilities for chess play and related interaction or learning.
Originally posted by moonbus I've nothing against smiles. I only meant that uncyclopedia is not the appropriate model of unbiased and objective reporting. Russ didn't ask for a parody of RHP.
Originally posted by FMF I'd reckon it would be appropriate to include links to other chess web sites' wikipedia pages (if they have them) and state that they offer comparable facilities for chess play and related interaction or learning.
Originally posted by divegeester I doubt that the "'wild-west' atmosphere of the early forum activity" and the "controversy" surrounding players being banned for engine use are quite what Russ had in mind as being representative of RHP. I also suspect that what you refer to as "the more controversial bits of RHP" are only of interest to existing members involved with such controversy.
Even those of us involved in the controversial bits of RHP, no longer care about things said, or done in the past. Majority of us you can almost hold a conversation with now. 😉
Originally posted by Very Rusty Even those of us involved in the controversial bits of RHP, no longer care about things said, or done in the past. Majority of us you can almost hold a conversation with now. 😉