volant: For me the longer names are still broken up.

volant: youll be lucky to get an answer...as this seems to be the computer programme discussion board now

pauloaguia: "But in correspondance chess (and other games) usually the help of books, move databases or even computers is not forbidden. Some of those (if not all) are even good ways to learn how to play the game. And since it can't be controlled anyway..."

This is exactly,what I have said many times before.In addition,I would say this is even the reason, why a correspondence chessplayer plays the game so slowly: He wants study his moves in the books,in the databases and in his engines to decide about one move rightfully. Which other reason should he have to suspend his games over and over?

And if I hear people saying :I want not play against a computer!
Perhaps you have played many times against a computer in the past without knowing it?
But mostly it is a mixture between human and machine.

My list of favorite boards and fellowships on the right side of my screen is wider than it used to be causing the red numbers to dissapear off the right side. The boards and fellowships with longer names used to be broken up and shown on 2 or 3 rows now each one is shown only on one row. Is this a change in BK or a change in my puter?

of course you can always ask a machine to play a rated game ;)

everything can be done 'in overleg' (i dont know the right english word right now ... 'when talked about' :))

Why unrated? If I beat a darn good machine, I want my rating to reflect that... And if I loose, well I probably won't mind it going down either since I lost in the first place... As a matter of fact rated games are probably more chalenging, since there is a motive to try and win against the machine - there will be a reward in the end.
The only thing I ask is to know if I'm playing againsta an engine or not. Even though it may bias a little my way of play, it will go a long way against the possibility of me feeling defrauded when I find out about it later on in the game (if I find out, that is).

About the user agreement... Well, in my oppinion it should be changed though maybe not right now (the subject is too hot for most people to think about the big picture and abstract from this particular case). But in correspondance chess (and other games) usually the help of books, move databases or even computers is not forbidden. Some of those (if not all) are even good ways to learn how to play the game. And since it can't be controlled anyway...
Maybe BK's user agreement could say something in the lines of "everything is allowed however it is common courtesy to warn your opponents of any outside help you may be using" (I won't suggest a proper sentence... my english just isn't good enough to detect all possible side interpretations, I'll leave that to others).
Oh, and would everyone stop calling it "the rules"? The word guidelines is written all over that page. It means (even according to my bad english) that there can be exceptions to what is written there.

Since this post is getting huge (at least as seen in this tiny message box) I've highlighted some of the key words in it. Just to sum it up.

[Hrqls - I had the opposite problem. People used to call me pauloaquia in another site, preciselly because of the underline ]

*nod* the main point of protest though is that it was a prize tournament and not unrated

Aboiut Sumerian and programs, I am fairly certain that I announced programmers from the Gothic Chess Computer World Championship were all invited to participate.

I don't see the logic in the posts that say "once one engine is allowed, all must be allowed." This was a special tournament. I believe disallowing engines by default, unless so specified by the tournament director, is a good policy.

Suppose players have a collection of chess engines and they want to see how they perform against one another?

Why not have an unrated tournament where all of the engines can bash it out?

That might be something of interest to the whole community.

I will try and find my post(s) about inviting the computers in the event.

Sumerian: all names are fun :) on another board where i am posting (and moderating) i am being called hrgls because most people didnt see the q when it was underlined .. hrgls made them think of hourglass ... so now i once in a while yell 'its a Q!' ;)

Hrqls: The name SMIRF is an abbreviation for: "Strategic Game Program with intelligent recursing Facilities". If there would be too much jokes on it, I will give it a real name - maybe "WoW" (Wrath of Wotan), that would produce real fear and trembling.

Luke Skywalker: lol ... not for me .. i like puffins better .. not those little blue creatures ... before you know it someone will start a grgml or zrl and i will be running for my life ;)

Hrqls: "smrf" now comes to my mind :)

Sumerian: *nod* i think you can rename your account .. i never tried it though .. i cant think of another name without vowels ;)

Hrqls: Your idea is not that bad. But because even a program has a playing strength, why should it not have a BKR? I think, that a naming convention might be helpful: how about "Engine_Smirf"? May be the account Sumerian could be renamed / migrate into this.

Sumerian: create a new account (pawn could be enough, paying would be better for fencer ;)) named smirf-program or smirf-computer or something like that .. play only unrated games with it

that way noone can object (i think)

(as fencer is looking over the text in the rules he might change it a bit .. maybe to 'only unrated games are allowed when using external aid' ?)

Sumerian: If you refuse my proposal, give me an alternative how I should behave.

Maybe you should delete all the information from your profile and publicly claim here that you are no longer using any engine and just continue using Smirf secretly, thus becoming a real cheater ...
Obviously, this would be the worst solution for all of us, but it looks as it is the only way your opponents (the "It is in the rules !" people) will stop complaining.
I think what you are doing is acceptable and, in a sense, honest. And I don't need rules and User Agreements to tell me the difference between right and wrong.

so who modded Harley then? or did she remove her own post?

ho hum

Im still banned on features board, as there was no need for it in the first place, maybe i should have my posting rights back as its over 24hrs too

And Harley`s suggestion shows the right direction - to the reality!

Sumerian: If you refuse my proposal, give me an alternative how I should behave.

Just continue playing.............Just simple as that
Now people know it so they would know in the future too! What have been done, it's history. And if someone wanted to win this tournament, he could, without caring about Smirf's existence. Smirf is not an invicible opponent.

Fencer is the master of this site and since he hasn't expressed any disagreement then everything for now are OK. In the future i'm sure he will create some better "user agreement" and everything will be OK again.........

Ah, ok, I didn't realise that. I thought it logical that a programme is only as good as the person who makes it. Obviously not! But I'd still like to steer away from getting personal about Sumerian. He hasn't deliberately cheated, but he has brought a new situation to light which needs resolving. It could do more for the site if peoples suggestions/ideas can be discussed without accusations.

If it was added to the rules that a programme may be used only in certain tournaments - or if previously agreed upon with an opponent - would that do any good? I know I wouldn't know if I was playing a person or a programme in most games.

Chessmaster1000: If you refuse my proposal, give me an alternative how I should behave.

harley: (As you might have seen from my earlier posts) Every engine has to be allowed if one is, doesnt matter who created them.
You lose a game mostly because you make a mistake when making a move..if you use a "robot" you eliminate the risk of making mistakes.
If Trice wants a "robottourney" let him have it..but please dont fill BK with cheats!

harley: "... Sumerian is using one he has wrote himself, therefore can only be as good as his own play. (I guess!) ..."

Smirf has indeed become stronger now than I am playing without any books, written notations or gathered experiences.

harley:
Sumerian is using one he has wrote himself, therefore can only be as good as his own play. (I guess!)

Your guess is COMPLETELY wrong! One can write a very good program, that would even be at the top of it's area, without being himself(or herself) even a little good at this area.......
Todays top Chess programs have a strenth of FIDE ELO= 2700 or more, but all of their programmers have even less than 2000 ELO or they do not have any ELO at all. Exceptions exist of course but there are VERY few and are not above 2400 ELO..........


As for the message to Sumerian, i completely disagree to the whole thing. So although i haven't used any program, as i'm 100% sure that there is not even a 0.00000000001% probability that all the 56 participants will send him a message and as i completely disagree to the message procedure, i will not send him any message.

A board game is an interactive social event, computers are incapable of play and under no circumstances should they be playing on a site for humans.

Sumerian: I don't know much about chess and programmes, but I don't think you need to back out of the tournament.
The tournament creator knew you were using the programme, and Fencer hasn't ruled it illegal so I would carry on as you are unless either person states otherwise.

I think this discussion should stay with the problem of how to handle the use of programmes (of all games, not just chess) in the rules. Are some programmes worse than others? Sumerian is using one he has wrote himself, therefore can only be as good as his own play. (I guess!)
Would it be ok for people to use their own programmes, but not shop bought, professional ones that have been created by masters? Or should it be absolutely none at all, under any circumstances?

Sumerian: I have added my proposal to my profile. It will become visible during the next time. Until now I havn't received any email or message related to this.

Ok, I didn´t know all the circumstances, I just wrote my opinion.... That´s all :)

Flake: a) I have been explicitely invited including SMIRF to participate.
b) I am using a self written unfinished program. Regard it as if I would gather my experiences into just that form. There is no help from an external side.
c) Obviously the problem has not been the usage of Smirf but confessing that frankly. Thus arguing against me in that case is arguing against telling the truth.

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