If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."
"Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)."
I am still trying to sort out the rebuttals to Soren Riis and I have not come to my own conclusion on this issue yet. I will have a lot of reading to do before that happens. I am still very concerned Rybka wasn't given a fair "trial", although we must remember that the ICGA is a private organization and they can pretty much do whatever they want with their members.
I would still prefer of course they turn out to be an honorable organization since that's ultimately what would be good for chess.
I am still trying to sort out the rebuttals to Soren Riis and I have not come to my own conclusion on this issue yet. I will have a lot of reading to do before that happens. I am still very concerned Rybka wasn't given a fair "trial", although we must remember that the ICGA is a private organization and they can pretty much do whatever they want with their members.
I would still prefer of course they turn out to be an honorable organization since that's ultimately what would be good for chess.
I have collected all that information too - it will be a lot of reading (although perhaps quite interesting all the same).
I note that David Levy has a very interesting point: Rybka (well, the creator of it) was accused and found guilty of only one thing: failing to comply with Rule #2 of the ICGA regarding competitions - failure to disclose sources of code and other author's work (paraphrased) - the actual rule is:
Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
I wonder how this would play out in a Texas court with a civil RICO suit against the ICGA and the individual members of the committee that made that finding, a jury trial and a lawyer paid on a contingency basis, or have they closed that loophole?
"The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."
"Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)."
The second label does not apply, as the next paragraph of your source reveals: "The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
I would add that, strictly speaking, neither of your labels apply, Garvin, for reasons already stated.
It might be amusing to apply the rules of Logic to the blandishments of a TV infomercial. But here we have a murkier situation than the "premises that are generally accepted" in the paragraph above, and the "total BS" of an infomercial.
The second label does not apply, as the next paragraph of your source reveals: "The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."
I would add that, strictly speaking, neither of your labels apply, Garvin, for reasons already stated.
It might be amusing to apply the rules of Logic to the blandishments of a TV infomercial. But here we have a murkier situation than the "premises that are generally accepted" in the paragraph above, and the "total BS" of an infomercial.
Sigh.... Talking about Rybka's association to chessbase or Soren Riis association to Rybka is whether you believe/understand it or not...an attack on Soren Riis character (and the people at Chessbase's character) but not addressing any of the arguments Soren made in his 4 part series on that site. (In technical terms this is known as the genetic ad hominem fallacy.)
Now, whether you agree with me on this (very) minor point or not...do you intend to say one thing about his actual arguments from the four part series?
If not, I'm strongly interested in hearing the insights of the many chess community's programmers (and others interested in the Rybka vs ICGA debate) on Rybka's guilt or innocence...
For those of you interested in the actual issue here is an article by David Levy showing some of the history of "cloning" in the computer chess competitions:
Now, whether you agree with me on this (very) minor point or not...do you intend to say one thing about his actual arguments from the four part series?
If not, I'm strongly interested in hearing the insights of the many chess community's programmers (and others interested in the Rybka vs ICGA debate) on Rybka's guilt or innocence...
Garvin, the sources you quoted still show you wrong about both of those labels. If one disagrees with the sources, best not to quote them. Oh wait, since it's Wikipedia, a person can quote them and then edit the inconvenient bits. Or ignore them. I suppose that the Chesstalk multitudes will give you the benefit of the doubt, since you've profited from that Grade 9 class in "reasoning" but I have not. My brother Nick is a strict logician in the mould of Spock (Mister). He left behind books like "Wittgenstein's Tractatus" and the paperback two-in-one logic blockbuster by Lewis Carroll "Logic" and "The Game of Logic". In another universe I might have been able to face them, but instead went for "Alice in Wonderland". Now I'm paying the price, still feeling young, but outgunned in this week's episode of "Logic Train".
Just this morning I saw part of a CBC Television program, the Doc Zone, episode title "Magical Mystery Cures", which was an infomercial (from the point of view of Science) debunking a series of infomercials (from the point of view of purveyors of quack cures). It was a cynic's / skeptic's jamboree, but nothing ad hominem about it.
My original reply was simply to correct the label you applied to Keith MacKinnon's pithy comment. One cannot have a useful debate if one starts off biased. See, I care more about your rhetorical equilibrium than about whether a program contravened ICGA's rules of competition.
Computer programs have come a long way since Ribbit. I seem to recall that program playing against people in an event at Hart House back around 1974. It was only against people who agreed to the pairing as I recall. Can't recall the program being very strong in that competition.
Reviewing this thread five and a half years later, I am amazed that I answered every question. Today it might be "[Expletive deleted]" and move along.
But what happened finally? Will somebody summarize the result of the controversy, in 250 words or less, for somebody who has been lite on the computer chess scene for, well, in two weeks it will be 2017 days? Thank you.
Tweet
Comment