Flake: That's exactly what Sumerian does. (read the next 200 posts, it's all there).
In the case of the tournament, he was invited by the tournament creator (who knew about SMIRF)

If I can write my opinion, there it is: I would never use any programme to win a game. In your case it´s sure you don´t use the Smirf because you want to win but beacause you want to test it. OK, I accept it. BUT - don´t you think it would be better to do that in "classic" games (especially unrated), not tournaments? If you write to GC players that you´d like to test your programme in this way, I think you will find some. For example me (although I´m not so good in GC). I don´t agree with using Smirf in the tournaments but in "classic" games I support it.

ughaibu: That might be the task of those who want to make me leave that tournament just because I have frankly written what I am doing. Writing this open message to this board will do for me.

Sounds fair. How will you ensure the other participants are all aware of this proposal?

Well, I want to end the discussion here. Therefore I suggest the following:

If all other participants of that GC tournament would write me an email/message that they have not used a 10x8 playing computer program in that tournament and will not use one until its end, I will not continue playing in that tournament.

Sumerian told in his profile that he was using a program... If someone uses a program he should tell them at the beginning of a game... that way they can either delete it or know what that person is using...
If a programmer programs a program and would like help into testing the program... I am all for helping out...
He should not use in tournaments but regular games...

I had a checker game with a bearded gentleman from another country and he was and is a very nice guy. He was learning checkers from books he said and I was real pleased to have another convert to checkers. I beat him a couple of times then all of a sudden he moved like a Grand Master and beat me. He then told me he was trying out a program he had found and even sent the the print out of what it had told him to do to win the game. I just smiled and did not stomp around like Rumplestillskin but I will admit for one brief moment I felt like Ugh was describing. In the end I looked at it as a learning experience for him as well as me. Now intense tournament prize games may indeed be another matter.

Obvioulsy we (mainly I) have to stop discussing it here..... So since Fencer agrees with the situation (i'm not not 100% sure of this of course--but seing no obvious disagreement i can assume this) i suggest to stop arguing here......
Now everyone have learnt that he is using Smirf so.................

And this ties in with Trice's failure to announce Sumerian's computer's presence. . . . . .

"Hundreds of players are much better than one, for testing........"
MEANS:
Having AS AN OPTION for testing hundreds of players instead of one is better.........
AND NOT:
He played with hundreds of players for testing.....

I dont know how many players he's deceived, I took the liberty of assuming your figures were responsibly posted. The rest of my sentence independently stands.

I just said that, the hundreds of testers as a reason for didn't invite Ed Trice to testgames (Tha Andersp said), was mine and not his, so we couldn't accuse him for " arrogance of assuming the right to deceive "Hundreds" of players to test his computer".........

I'm not talking about anyone's opinions but about Sumerian's behaviour and his attempts to justify it.

The behaviour of Sumerian is unacceptable, the arrogance of assuming the right to deceive "Hundreds" of players to test his computer is a clear betrayal of the trust required by a community such as BrainKing

These are not his opinions but mine........

Stevie: I was a newcomer then (at Brainking) and that was at Reversi 8x8 only and i used my own program to play. As i thought that other people use programs too for Reversi 8x8, i used it to see which is stronger (right now it outplays WZebra with a 80%) and to see how i can improve it, as it is a program that plays differenly than others (It's purpose is to solve Reversi 8x8 and plays according to some general rules i found-I didn't manage to do solve it yet).

And i was not keeping it a secret, as i immediately told you after our game when you asked.
I could just say that it was me who was playing, if i wanted to cheat..........

I had to add that the improvement my program gained from playing some games here(as i played many without it by myself) is zero, as the opponents were not computers as i originally thought but humans and humans can't play good this game........

The behaviour of Sumerian is unacceptable, the arrogance of assuming the right to deceive "Hundreds" of players to test his computer is a clear betrayal of the trust required by a community such as BrainKing.

Stevie: Its more fun to lose than cheat :)

I can give a possible answer: Hundreds of players are much better than one, for testing........

Chessmaster1000: and you are one who used programmes to beat players without telling them also. And then when runbled you said you didnt like to lose.
Its no wonder you think it is ok

His purpose doesn't change a thing, his behaviour was in direct contravention of site rules. The lack of understanding is yours if you cant see that.

Chessmaster1000: I asked Sumerian why he didnt invite Trice to testgames instead of testing his robot in a 500-dollar tourney with a lot of low rated players..no answwer yet.

And understanding is important too....... But i don't see many, that understand the purpose Reinhard had using Smirf here.........

That's fine. This is a community and trust is an important foundation of it's structure.

The new policy should read that programs are not allowed and you will be punished if you get caught using one and since the only way you can get caught is to "tell" the real bottom line is to keep your mouth shut.

It was Trice's responsibility to put the facts in the tournament description but it was Sumerian's responsibility to personally inform all the players who entered the tournament, and had there been any objections from other entrants, Sumerian should have left that tournament.

He (Sumerian) already said that he always tells people when he plays with them. In the case of the tourney he was invited by EdTrice, so it would be Ed's duty to tell the other participants

Not all of us are critisizing sumerian, it would of just been nice to know that he was using a computer... i would of liked to of known this as i was in the group he was in too.
I didn't know i was playing agianst a computer, it doesn't really matter that its one hes made himself.. its still a computer which "helps" him make his moves.

If he genuinely stated to his opponents that he wanted their help in testing his program I wouldn't object but that isn't what happened, is it?

He hasn't said it, he wrote it on his profile and it is still a breach of the rules.

I say that Sumerian was sincere enough saying that he will be using his own program for playing and people critisizing him for doing that. I don't find this logical..........Just answer one question: Would have been better if he didn't say this? (I know the answer: Here computers are not allowed.......)

But he wanted to test his engine so he violated the rules. I don't have any problem with that. Obviously others have........

You are right , because we can see here the nonsense of rules which cannot be proved.

It's a question of abuse of trust, membership of BrainKing implies not using computer assistance.

Chessmaster1000: So you think its non-logical that every player should have the same right to use a "robot"? ....not sure i share your "logic"

I suggest to Sumerian to remove the sentence in his profile saying he uses a program.
Then nobody could say anything at all and all
these non-logical in my opinion voices would stop! As nobody could prove that he will be playing with a computer........
Do you see now why Sumerian is in fact too sincere to be treated in this way............?

Purple: I dont think anything, just because i dont understand what you mean

Andersp: I'm not necessarily advocating it but what would you think of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

EdTrice: Sure...start as many "test tourneys" you want who cares.

BUT AGAIN If one "engine" is allowed all "engines" must be allowed, doesnt matter who created them.

Caissus: This is a rule that is in place right now.
When rules are changed..then they are changed not before hand

Stevie: since which time do we have these game guidelines? Fencer has said that he want formulate them correctly in the next time.

Sumerian: no wether you tell it or not .. it remains the same .. you telling it clear to everyone is better than not telling .. but still i can see the point of people who dont want to play against a computer .. or if they do they want to be informed about it

by using a program and not telling anyone in any you are breaking the rules .. but using a program and making it possible for other people to find out is a vague area .. to use a program and tell everyone explicitely about it .. is a less vague area and could be allowed more easily .. not to use a computer would be the best though ;)

(not to make a computer to think out your moves for you of course .. you always need a computer to connect to this site ;))

Game Guidelines:

"NO CHEATING. This includes using outside programs to help play"

Why are you using this site? Test it at a site that allows computer.

Hrqls: "...but what about players who joined the tournament before you did ?"

But what, if I haven't told anything about it? Would then all have been happy to live in a world of illusion? You could not change reality by penaltilyzing those who frankly speak on that what they do. And in my special case I only have organized MY OWN experiences into the form of an unready program, I am not using any bought product.

Using computers is against the rules. The idea that it's the responsibility of other competitors to check whether or not anyone is admitting to breaking the rules is outrageous. What if a person admits on their profile to entering a tournament under several different names? Is that also okay because it's admitted? I dont see a problem with a computer user openly inviting an opponent to test the machine but the idea that it's the opponent's responsibility is ridiculous. I probably haven't read more than 15 profiles of all the members here and certainly dont want to start doing so. If I want to play with a computer I won't come to a site for humans, that's is obvious and any excuses about what's on a profile is eyewash.

Caissus: heh .. so lets say i am a top chess player .. would like to play persons and not computers .. i see a tournament .. i check all people who are signed up already to see if they are not computers .. they are not .. i sign up .. then just before the tournament starts i have to check all profiles of newly signed up players as well ? .. hmm i am lazy ;)
(but then again being lazy probably also doesnt give me a high chess rating, so its not really an issue fo rme personally ;))

Hrqls: They could read it too .

yesterday I couldnt access brainking for a while site not "available".. and today ever so often browsing is slow.
Is there something wrong Fencer? or my end?

Sumerian: but what about players who joined the tournament before you did ?

personally i dont mind (that much) playing against a computer .. you cant check it for real anyway .. but i can understand people who dont like it. especially if they have a high rating and can lose a lot

ughaibu: I do not expect it. But when one doesn't look, he should not be surprised, that he might have missed something.

It's nonsense to expect all entrants to tournaments to read the profiles of all the other entrants.