Originally posted by jsmith RHP should do what GameKnot has done and forbid Tablebases whether Nalimov or Thompson or your own generated ones.
How many places will you infect these forums with suggestions that we mimic an inferior site? Posting this sort of *advertising* for a "competitive" site constitutes trolling.
Originally posted by Wulebgr How many places will you infect these forums with suggestions that we mimic an inferior site? Posting this sort of *advertising* for a "competitive" site constitutes trolling.
I think it's valid to point out how other sites approach these things as they *may* have an approach which may possibly work well here as well.
As for "inferior", I can vouch for GameKnot as being a well-run site with a good player community base. They may do some things better, some things not quite as good, and some things just plain different.
I am still testing out this site, but thus far, I've been fairly impressed with some things here as well, and would recommend this site as well.
Originally posted by geepamoogle I think it's valid to point out how other sites approach these things as they *may* have an approach which may possibly work well here as well.
As for "inferior", I can vouch for GameKnot as being a well-run site with a good player community base. They may do some things better, some things not quite as good, and some things just plain different.
...[text shortened]... been fairly impressed with some things here as well, and would recommend this site as well.
I play there too, and stand by my assessment that it is inferior. See Thread 38770.
The user to whom I responded has made a total of nine posts, three of which reference GK (and most of the others offer personal attacks on established users here). That looks like advertising and/or trolling to me.
I agree that the RHP adminstrators can learn from other sites (and they do).
Originally posted by Wulebgr How many places will you infect these forums with suggestions that we mimic an inferior site? Posting this sort of *advertising* for a "competitive" site constitutes trolling.
No need to get your knickers in a twist. Aren't you the troll for misquoting a moderator and potentially misleading everyone? Did that Re3 is disallowed suggestion come out of your behind or what?
Originally posted by jsmith No need to get your knickers in a twist. Aren't you the troll for misquoting a moderator and potentially misleading everyone? Did that Re3 is disallowed suggestion come out of your behind or what?
Learn to read. The misquote to which you refer was a post completely without quotation of a moderator. You are new here, so some tolerance might be expected, but you better shape up quick. Your inappropriate flames are unnecessary and inappropriate.
If you disagree with something I've posted, argue with me. Throwing flames reveals only your failures to reason. In this case, it also seems to reveal a failure to read with comprehension.
I've explained my reasoning for why 10.Re3 might seem to be disallowed.
here is steven lopez' (writer for chessbase) take on this issue, which was just recently posted: ( from http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3749 )
"The Ken Thompson and Eugene Nalimov Endgame database disks work under the same principle as a game database; in fact, the endgame disks are merely databases of all possible positions with a certain combination of pieces (King and Queen vs. King and Rook, for example). You just set up a board position and the computer displays all the legal moves with the eventual result of the game, assuming perfect play for both sides. These disks fall into a bit of a grey area in the minds of some players. Isn't this cheating?
It's actually not cheating, by definition. The computer is not generating a move for the player; it's merely accessing a database of stored board positions and assembling them in logical order. In theory, a human player could do the same thing "by hand", though it would be prohibitively complex and time-consuming to do so.
By now, you can see a pattern emerging here. Using a computer to generate (think up) a move is illegal. But using a computer to ease a research task that a human player could (at least in theory) perform for himself is not illegal. "
Originally posted by pinkthunder "Using a computer to generate (think up) a move is illegal. But using a computer to ease a research task that a human player could (at least in theory) perform for himself is not illegal. "
I don't think that his logic holds there: by the same reasoning using an engine isn't generating a move, it's just assessing all possible consequences of a given move a certain number of moves ahead. A human could do the same thing, it would just be very time-consuming...
Originally posted by pinkthunder here is steven lopez' (writer for chessbase) take on this issue, which was just recently posted: ( from http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3749 )
"The Ken Thompson and Eugene Nalimov Endgame database disks work under the same principle as a game database; in fact, the endgame disks are merely databases of all possible positions with a ce ...[text shortened]... ask that a human player could (at least in theory) perform for himself is not illegal. "
I totally disagree with him. In theory, a human could research every possible move from the start of the game until the end. In practice, this is absolutely impossible. How does he propose that a human player figures out for himself all the positions in a mate that is 100+ moves away, as a tablebase can?
Which is worse in your opinion? An engine suggesting a move based on programmed algorithms, which may or may not be a winning move, or a tablebase giving flawlessly winning moves (generated by an engine) to mate?
10 Mar '07 16:221 edit
Looking up end game positions considered cheati...
Back to Top