Fat Titz 1.0 released

[smatovic]

...
The name of this engine is needlessly offensive towards women. Joking about it does not change that.

+1

I get the satirical part of this thing, but from an outer point of view this is just pubertal and sheds bad light on this man-cave CC community.

--
Srdja

[Damir]

What I wanted to say is that whether men would be offended by "Fat Cock" is irrelevant to the issue that women would be offended by "Fat Titz".

Women have long suffered and still stuffer from sexualization by men. So references to female anatomy carry a lot more weight than references to male anatomy.

If you think it is just a joke, think of your engine being used by a female chess player....

There has not been a single female that complained about the name of this engine. There have however been 2 men who did on their behalf. Why are you victimizing women?

So references to female anatomy carry a lot more weight than references to male anatomy.

And you're trying to reinforce this backward view

It is rather obvious that on an exclusively male forum no women would react. And why the truth would be backward I do not understand.

Are you saying there's something inherently different to referencing female anatomy as opposed to male anatomy? Don't put your, or society's, prejudice as truth, please.

Yes it is different because of the context. This is not prejudice.

Many professional women find booth babes offensive, while few men would have problems with a male version.

The fact that "booth babes" are mostly female is precisely because men like to sexualize women.

If you are so easily offended than this is no place for you... Maybe you should move to Afghanistan and live under Taliban rule... They are the biggest defenders of women rights there...

[AndrewGrant]

Community is more upset about "offensive" language than they are about copyright violations and stolen goods. Interesting.

[dkappe]

Community is more upset about "offensive" language than they are about copyright violations and stolen goods. Interesting.

Another false dichotomy, Andy? Isn’t it possible to care about both? Fortunately for you, there is no GPLv3 violation or “theft” in the case of the corrected FF2, so you can rest easy.

Christmas is coming up, BTW. Time to get all those young chess players in your life a copy of Fat Titz by Stockfish(tm) as a stocking stuffer.

[DrCliche]

The name of this engine is needlessly offensive towards women. Joking about it does not change that.

Disregarding the fact that many people who don't identify as women have "tits"—and that indeed some of those people have "fat tits"—and allowing that many people may reasonably interpret "fat tits" to be an exclusive reference to post-pubescent human ~female-presenting anatomy, in what way is merely referring to that anatomy automatically offensive? Is the goal of the SJW movement to prevent people from ever even hinting at the fact that humanity isn't a homogeneous mass of clones?

Would "Fat Cock" be offensive towards men? Or chickens?

I expect that this would also have been found offensive to women. "Fat Titz" is men using their gaze as a weapon. "Fat Dikz", let's say, would be men using their phalluses as weapons. It's easy when you realize the the goal is simply to always take offense.

Women have long suffered and still stuffer from sexualization by men. So references to female anatomy carry a lot more weight than references to male anatomy.

This is admittedly outside my area of expertise, but I suspect that women and men sexualize each other to similar extents. The average man, however, experiences and expresses sexuality and sexualization in different ways than the average woman, for example.

This is why the hypersexualization of men in entertainment and the media—when directed at women—often results in portrayals like immortal vampire teens and impossibly rich 20-year-old business magnates. While they are still usually conventionally attractive and fit, their superficial characteristics tend to play second fiddle to those traits that the average woman is more likely to experience deep attraction to.

It's not clear to me that typical expressions of sexualization and how they vary across gender and sex roles has anything to do with the fact that women suffer at the hands of men. It certainly affects how women suffer at the hands of men, though, as behavior is driven by preferences.

Perhaps a reasonable argument can be made that one should generally avoid forms of expression that resemble (or could be construed to resemble) those of powerful, abusive people, but I'm not convinced that the mere mention of a defining physical or potentially sexual characteristic should be off limits. People often refer to each others' physical characteristics—even in a sexual way—in contexts and manners that are widely deemed to be normal, normative, and appropriate. The main thing that separates abuse from banter is precisely that context, which is why one can innocently appreciate a spouse's beauty and sexuality, say, but their boss can not.

And even though people are always complaining about jokes that are offensive to them, there still seems to be some degree of consensus that a good-faith attempt at humor—in a relaxed environment in which humor is either invited or reasonably excused—constitutes an appropriate context in which to make potentially offensive remarks, as long as you don't seem to be "punching down", unduly focusing on a non-cis-white-male demographic to which you don't belong, or inattentively ignoring the discomfort of those around you.

I believe that Sopel's original post was intended to be humorous—and the extent to which it was obviously meant to offend had only to do with satirizing the past behavior and opinions of Norman and Albert—which inclines me to give him a wide degree of latitude when it comes to policing the form of his expression.

In my experience, these forums—indeed most internet forums—are relatively tolerant of insouciance and attempts at humor, as long as not taken to excessive or disruptive extremes. And as far as I know, Sopel doesn't have a history of constantly making disruptive posts or "humorous" references to sex, or human anatomy, or perceived-as-exclusively-female anatomy, etc., so him choosing to do so here doesn't seem to indicate a regular pattern of misbehavior, even if I thought this thread's OP rose to the level of misbehavior in the first place, which I don't.

Given that, perhaps you would have been better received had you simply expressed the opinion that you disliked Sopel's attempt at humor, that you found it juvenile, unfunny, and inappropriate, and that you think these forums are best served when all members maintain higher standards of professionalism and decorum. As it stands, in my estimation, only one person in this thread so far has been unreasonably hostile and disruptive, and it isn't Sopel. It's you!

[Ghppn]

Stockfish_x64_270821_SSE41_popcnt - fat_titz_windows_modern_260821 / 10m+1s

https://mega.nz/file/7xZFQajZ#hogxPRiQb ... 4B1LM-o-P4
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3320M CPU @ 2.60GHz 2.60 GHz / 2core
Memory RAM): 16.0 GB (15.8 GB usable)
64-bit operating system, x64-based processor

[noobpwnftw]

So does this engine still distinguish pieces of different color, especially just white or black?
And how are you calling people who plays good chess, grand-what?

Why are you not cancelling chess by now?

[Harvey Williamson]

Time to lock this thread.