Silicon Graphics World Checkers Championship - day 3
Jonathan Schaeffer
until Thursday.
Peter Stein
Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Marion Tinsley was not feeling well on Wednesday, so the games were postponed
>until Thursday.
Hey guys I hate to ruin your party but this discussion group
is rec.games.chess, that's right *chess* NOT checkers. You've
wasted enough bandwidth already and I have better things to do
than edit my kill file. Could you please move this f*cking
thread elsewhere? Thank you.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Johannes Fuernkranz
ualberta.cs.general, so this is not necessarily rec.games.chess and
you do a real bad job in representing rec.games.chess.
2) Computer Checkers is also of high interest to computer chess. As long
as there is no group for computer chess (which I highly favor) you have
to live with it.
3) Do us all a favor and pull your lower lip over your head and swallow.
Juffi
Jack van Rijswijck
>>until Thursday.
And the computer agreed to this? :)
Is there a mailing list or other information provider about the state of
the art in computer game playing? Esp. computer chess, checkers, draughts,
go, backgammon. Thanks,
Jack van Rijswijck
jav...@bausch.nl
Robert Williams
Please understand that this is not a flame nor is it intended to be
sarcastic. In fact a reasonable answer could even change my behavior.
Obviously putting a note about checkers on this conference seems to have
upset you plenty, even though we've seen comparisons between chess and go
on this conference. In times past people have compared chess playing
computers with checker playing computers so there is some overlap...
Let me ask you, do you read every posting in this conference or do you look
at the directory and pick out the stuff you want to read. If the latter,
can't you just hit the down arrow past the checkers stuff?
Or, on the other hand is this a question of principle... that Chess
conferences should be for chess only, just on principle... no intermixing
of conferences... is that your thinking? I believe this is something upon
which reasonable men may disagree...
Or is it something else. Again, I just want to know what bugs you so much
about a checkers post on the chess conference...
skip
Adrian Powell
>Hey guys I hate to ruin your party but this discussion group
>is rec.games.chess, that's right *chess* NOT checkers. You've
>wasted enough bandwidth already and I have better things to do
>than edit my kill file. Could you please move this f*cking
>thread elsewhere? Thank you.
Hahahahah!
Christ, I almost took you seriously! Imagine how irretriveably stupid
someone must be to complain about someone crostposting to five newsgroups
by crossposting to five newsgroups. I hate to burst your insular little
bubble, but I am reading this message on ualberta.cs.general, not
rec.games.chess, as you rabidly assert.
Adrian.
Hal Bogner
Dear Peter,
Please calm down. As I said earlier, this happened two years ago, too; it IS
of ineterest to lots of us; and it will pass pretty soon, anyway.
You are an asset to rgc. Please don't use this occasion to reduce your value
here by 40%! ;->
-hal
Peter Stein
Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>In article <1994Aug19....@hal.depaul.edu>,
>Peter Stein <pst...@falcon.depaul.edu> wrote:
>>In article <32vurl$d...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>,
>>Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>>Marion Tinsley was not feeling well on Wednesday, so the games were postponed
>>>until Thursday.
>>
>>Hey guys I hate to ruin your party but this discussion group
>>is rec.games.chess, that's right *chess* NOT checkers. You've
>>wasted enough bandwidth already and I have better things to do
>>than edit my kill file. Could you please move this f*cking
>>thread elsewhere? Thank you.
>>
>>Peter Stein
>>pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
>>
>1) You have cross-posted your article to rec.games.abstract and
> ualberta.cs.general, so this is not necessarily rec.games.chess and
> you do a real bad job in representing rec.games.chess.
My newsreader did not act predictably when I posted my response. The problem
with the newsreader will be corrected. My apologies to those readers of the
other newsgroups who have been courteous and constrained their postings to
the appropriate newsgroups. Most reasonable people would correctly infer
that I did not intend my response to be cross-posted. However this may not
be such a bad thing as it gets the point across to those who have been
cavalier with their cross-postings.
>2) Computer Checkers is also of high interest to computer chess. As long
> as there is no group for computer chess (which I highly favor) you have
> to live with it.
Wrong. RGC has a charter and this charter does not include checkers. At the
very least any checker related material should be posted to the appropriate
checkers discussion group. Please don't try to rationalize cross-postings
which are clearly inappropriate because you have an interest in the subject
matter. If no discussion group exists for your subject of interest you have
several options: create a discussion group or form a private discussion group.
The latter was done in the case of the CBUFF utilities, clearly it would not
have been fair to the RGC readership to heap all the CBUFF discussions on them.
My rather caustic response was entirely appropriate because these checkers
posters displayed a blatant disregard for the charter of this newsgroup. The
last time a checkers thread emerged the checkers posters were politely asked
to move the thread elsewhere (not by myself). Maybe if I would have at least
seen some indication that an attempt was made to seek an appropriate channel
for these checkers postings I would not have become so irritated. My apologies
to the usual chess posters/readers on RGC for having to endure this, but none
will be extended to the checkers posters. This is my last word on the subject.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Peter Stein
All non-chess related postings on RGC "bug" me. Even with a threaded news
reader I find myself skipping over a lot of material, some of it even chess
related. The point is it shouldn't be neccessary to spend so much time
weeding out articles. I subscribe to many other newsgroups and people are
doing the same thing there, posting articles that have nothing to do with
the charter of the group. So I find myself spending a significant amount of
time screening articles and in some cases have actually had to modify the
"kill" file because abuse was so blatant. Why do people think so many
newsgroups exist? If you can't find an appropriate group for your subject
of interest and a lot of support exists for it (which is apparently the
case with the computer checkers thread) why not form a new discussion group
or form a private discussion? Is it fair to just dump postings unrelated to
the charter on an existing group? I contend that anyone ought to be able to
start reading articles at a random point in any group and at least have some
expectation that the article which comes up is vaguely related to the charter.
In a nutshell, I support the principle that there be intermixing of conferences
*ONLY* when a clear connection is apparent to the casual reader. As you can
surmise from my above statements I hold this view for pragmatic reasons. If
it becomes necessary for someone to invent a rationale for cross postings then
they shouldn't have occured in the first place. Again my apologies to the
regular RGC crowd for having to endure this.
Peter Stein
pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
Peter Stein
The problem with our new newsreader cross posting will be corrected.
But actually it may be a good thing because apparently you got the point.
Peter Stein
>In article <1994Aug19....@hal.depaul.edu> pst...@falcon.depaul.edu (Peter Stein) writes:
>>In article <32vurl$d...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>,
>>Jonathan Schaeffer <jona...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>>Marion Tinsley was not feeling well on Wednesday, so the games were postponed
>>>until Thursday.
>>
>>Hey guys I hate to ruin your party but this discussion group
>>is rec.games.chess, that's right *chess* NOT checkers. You've
>>wasted enough bandwidth already and I have better things to do
>>than edit my kill file. Could you please move this f*cking
>>thread elsewhere? Thank you.
>>
>>Peter Stein
>>pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
>>
>
>Dear Peter,
>
>Please calm down. As I said earlier, this happened two years ago, too; it IS
>of ineterest to lots of us; and it will pass pretty soon, anyway.
Thanks for pointing out the previous outbreak of checkers. I did, but I'm sure
nobody would believe me. Back then the checkers crowd was politely asked (not
by myself) to move the thread elsewhere, but here we are again.
Robert Williams
Seems reasonable enough to me. I'm outta here.
skip
rlwil...@gallua.bitnet
Johannes Fuernkranz
Peter Stein <pst...@falcon.depaul.edu> wrote:
>In article <3321m8$a...@infosrv.edvz.univie.ac.at>,
>Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
>>2) Computer Checkers is also of high interest to computer chess. As long
>> as there is no group for computer chess (which I highly favor) you have
>> to live with it.
>
>Wrong. RGC has a charter and this charter does not include checkers. At the
>very least any checker related material should be posted to the appropriate
>checkers discussion group. Please don't try to rationalize cross-postings
>which are clearly inappropriate because you have an interest in the subject
Please don't try to rationalize against cross-postings which are clearly
appropriate because you have no interest in the subject matter.
>matter. If no discussion group exists for your subject of interest you have
>several options: create a discussion group or form a private discussion group.
>The latter was done in the case of the CBUFF utilities, clearly it would not
>have been fair to the RGC readership to heap all the CBUFF discussions on them.
There have been several attempts to form a separate computer chess newsgroup
which for reasons inexplicable to me have not succeeded. At the time being
computer chess is part of RGC. Chinook is highly relevant for Computer Chess
(you may want to look at recent issues of the Computer Chess Journal or into
the proceedings of the 'Advances in Computer Chess 7' conference).
>
>My rather caustic response was entirely appropriate because these checkers
>posters displayed a blatant disregard for the charter of this newsgroup. The
>last time a checkers thread emerged the checkers posters were politely asked
>to move the thread elsewhere (not by myself). Maybe if I would have at least
>seen some indication that an attempt was made to seek an appropriate channel
>for these checkers postings I would not have become so irritated. My apologies
>to the usual chess posters/readers on RGC for having to endure this, but none
You have wasted an estimated 500 keystrokes on this paragraph. You would have
been able to skip 500 checkers messages instead or more conveniently edit
your kill file accordingly with far less keystrokes. Apparently time is not
your concern, so what is?
>will be extended to the checkers posters. This is my last word on the subject.
Good. This puts me in the position of having the last word in the thread :-).
>
>Peter Stein
>pst...@falcon.depaul.edu
>
Juffi
Johannes Fuernkranz
I do get the impression you waste more of your time in writing these
messages than you waste in deleting checkers articles or editing kill-files.
Juffi (who also likes to waste time with writing useless messages)
Bruce_L...@transarc.com
>is rec.games.chess, that's right *chess* NOT checkers. You've
>wasted enough bandwidth already and I have better things to do
>than edit my kill file. Could you please move this f*cking
>thread elsewhere? Thank you.
>
>Peter Stein
Speaking personally, I am very interested in the checkers match news, and would
be disappointed if it were to be withdrawn from r.g.chess.
I no longer play checkers (not since taking up chess in 1962) and no longer
work or even dabble in computer chess or other games (not since 1972).
However, I am fascinated by the developments in computer checkers.
There is no rec.games.checkers or any other bboard that I have access to with
"checkers" in the title. I wouldn't dream of subscribing to
rec.games.abstract. I wouldn't dream of creating a new bboard, either.
As a practical matter, rec.games.chess is all I have, and so I'm quite pleased
that people are willing to cross-post to it, even though this occasionally
means that some rather strange stuff comes through.
I have to add, that the topic is not the only thing that makes a message
interesting. 99% of posts by Jonathan Schaeffer are more interesting than
99% of posts by some other contributors, regardless of topic. (Don't worry
Pete--you're in the interesting category ;-) Also, there are plenty of
topics that I filter out almost 100%, even though they're purely chess.
Examples: questions about the rules; "can chess be solved by a computer";
chess vs. go. Ultimately, there is no simple criterion for what is, or is not,
"interesting". A message is interesting if ... if it's interesting.
Joseph Albert
<Bruce_L...@transarc.com> wrote:
>>Hey guys I hate to ruin your party but this discussion group
>>is rec.games.chess, that's right *chess* NOT checkers.
>
>be disappointed if it were to be withdrawn from r.g.chess.
this came up a little over a year ago when reports of the first/previous
Chinook-Tinsley match occurred. At that time, there were a significant
number of r.g.c readers interested, for various reasons, not the least
of which is that this match is probably providing a glimpse of things
to come in chess years in the future.
at that time, there were many fewer posts, however. while I am interested
in this thread, since other r.g.c readers are not, perhaps we should
for the remainder of this thread, keep a standardized subject so
threaded newsreaders and kill files work correctly. even though
I am following this, it is annoying to have a threaded newsreader
find 3 or 4 separate threads on the subject because of different
subject lines.
how about just "Checkers Championship" as the complete title from now on
for anything cross posted to rec.games.chess?
also, the last time, there was no rec.games.abstract to post to, so
how about if people only cross post to rec.games.chess only things
which are reporting information of the match, and have the followup
line set to rec.games.abstract, and *all* discussion takes place in
rec.games.abstract. if you're that interested to follow the
discussion as well, you can read rec.games.abstract.
Joseph Albert
alb...@cs.wisc.edu
Andy Duplain
Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>In article <1994Aug20....@hal.depaul.edu>,
>Peter Stein <pst...@falcon.depaul.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3321m8$a...@infosrv.edvz.univie.ac.at>,
>>Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>>>2) Computer Checkers is also of high interest to computer chess. As long
>>> as there is no group for computer chess (which I highly favor) you have
>>> to live with it.
>>
>>Wrong. RGC has a charter and this charter does not include checkers. At the
>>very least any checker related material should be posted to the appropriate
>>checkers discussion group. Please don't try to rationalize cross-postings
>>which are clearly inappropriate because you have an interest in the subject
>
>Please don't try to rationalize against cross-postings which are clearly
>appropriate because you have no interest in the subject matter.
If people who read rec.games.chess have interest in checkers then they
can simply read rec.games.abstract; just because you think there are
some people interested (which there clearly are) doesn't give you the
right to cross-post this thread to rec.games.chess. Keep this
thread out of rec.games.chess. The charter for rec.games.chess is
"Chess and computer chess"; the checkers world champioship is neither
of these.
>>matter. If no discussion group exists for your subject of interest you have
>>several options: create a discussion group or form a private discussion group.
>>The latter was done in the case of the CBUFF utilities, clearly it would not
>>have been fair to the RGC readership to heap all the CBUFF discussions on them.
>
>There have been several attempts to form a separate computer chess newsgroup
>which for reasons inexplicable to me have not succeeded. At the time being
>computer chess is part of RGC. Chinook is highly relevant for Computer Chess
In your opinion. Computer checkers are not related, and even if they
are, that still doesn't mean you post about computer checkers in
rec.games.chess.
>(you may want to look at recent issues of the Computer Chess Journal or into
>the proceedings of the 'Advances in Computer Chess 7' conference).
These publications have no influence upon USENET usage. Groups
have been set-up for chess and computer chess and that's all we
need to know.
>>My rather caustic response was entirely appropriate because these checkers
>>posters displayed a blatant disregard for the charter of this newsgroup. The
>>last time a checkers thread emerged the checkers posters were politely asked
>>to move the thread elsewhere (not by myself). Maybe if I would have at least
>>seen some indication that an attempt was made to seek an appropriate channel
>>for these checkers postings I would not have become so irritated. My apologies
>>to the usual chess posters/readers on RGC for having to endure this, but none
>
>You have wasted an estimated 500 keystrokes on this paragraph. You would have
>been able to skip 500 checkers messages instead or more conveniently edit
>your kill file accordingly with far less keystrokes. Apparently time is not
>your concern, so what is?
Perhaps it is appropriate for me to cross-post any or all articles
*I* feel rec.games.abstract readers would find interesting and then
use "well use a kill file" as a defence to the flames I receive.
Stop posting to rec.games.chess and we'll stop complaining.
>>will be extended to the checkers posters. This is my last word on the subject.
>
>Good. This puts me in the position of having the last word in the thread :-).
I have plenty more words.
--
Andy Duplain, Syntegra, Brighton, UK. dup...@rtf.bt.co.uk
#define DISCLAIMER "My views and opinions are my own, and not my company's"
Andy Duplain
Johannes Fuernkranz <ju...@ai.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
>I do get the impression you waste more of your time in writing these
>messages than you waste in deleting checkers articles or editing kill-files.
>
>Juffi (who also likes to waste time with writing useless messages)
How Peter spends his time is his own business. He obviously wrote
this message to persuade any of the resonable people who are cross-
posting to rec.games.chess to stop. You are obviously not a reasonable
person and still insist on imposing your opinion that this thread is
of interest to r.g.c readers. This is just your opinion and yet you
insist that you are right. I think enough r.g.c readers have posted
complaining that this thread is inappropriate and yet you still will
not stop posting. Just what gives you the right to decide that this
thread is of interest ? Because you read in a computer chess journal
that they were related ? If that is the case then those interested
parties will subscribe to both r.g.chess and r.g.abstract.
STOP POSTING ABOUT CHECKERS IN REC.GAMES.CHESS
Ed Seedhouse
In a previous article, dup...@btcs.bt.co.uk (Andy Duplain) says:
> I think enough r.g.c readers have posted complaining that this thread is
inappropriate and yet you still will not stop posting.
I am a fairly good chessplayer and a lousy checkers player. I like to
read about chess and study it and play it. I found the postings about
the recent checkers championship very interesting and am glad someone
(not me) posted them here.
Looks like about the only postings on this subject lately are the ones
complaining about the original postings. If everyone would stop complaining
and defending themselves against the complainers then I suppose the whole
thing would die. Just a thought.
--
Ed
CFC: 2134
Johannes Fuernkranz
Your sharp reasoning and the overwhelming evidence you have presented below
have in fact convinced me that Computer Checkers has nothing to do with
Computer Chess. And even if there were some relevance, as you have correctly
pointed out, rec.games.chess, the newsgroup for chess and computer chess,
would not be the appropriate forum for discussions on this matter.
I humbly apologize for trying to defend some informative (although clearly
inappropriate) posts on the results of the human-machine checkers world
championships.
I will refrain from posting any further comments on the charter of
rec.games.chess.
In particular not to rec.games.abstract and cs.ualberta.general.
Juffi
In article <1994Aug26.0...@btcs.bt.co.uk>,
jwes on BIX
>Looks like about the only postings on this subject lately are the ones
>complaining about the original postings. If everyone would stop complaining
>and defending themselves against the complainers then I suppose the whole
>thing would die. Just a thought.
>--
>Ed
>CFC: 2134
Bravo. I agree completely.
jw...@bix.com