Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Really About Fruit &Crafty code? Or vehicle for a Ban!
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Read the license. I encouraged them to use it for their own investigation into various computer chess areas. I explicitly did not allow them to use my code in tournaments.
Why is that so hard to understand? Do you have _any_ original thoughts, or do you intend to be a parrot repeating what others say without understanding what it means and why it is wrong?
Why is that so hard to understand? Do you have _any_ original thoughts, or do you intend to be a parrot repeating what others say without understanding what it means and why it is wrong?
Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Bob!
looks like even you can't go a day without copying someone else's work...
> looks like even you can't go a day without copying someone else's work...
Why Bob- Do you recognize it! We used this phrase with our clients in group therapy -I thought it might help you to recollect yourself.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
He copied code
The general summery of the ICGA report make a similar "over claim" :
"Analysis of various versions of the Rybka program showed specific program lines which appear to have been copied from Fruit."
Many other places the ICGA investigation report more cautiously talk about "derived code". Maybe someone can prove to me that Rybka 1.0 beta contains code copied from fruit - The ICGA report only make a case for "derived code".
The general summery of the ICGA report make a similar "over claim" :
"Analysis of various versions of the Rybka program showed specific program lines which appear to have been copied from Fruit."
Many other places the ICGA investigation report more cautiously talk about "derived code". Maybe someone can prove to me that Rybka 1.0 beta contains code copied from fruit - The ICGA report only make a case for "derived code".
The ICGA report shows _both_. copied code-- copied verbatim and unchanged. derived code-- initially copied verbatim, and then modified.
Both are present. Both are shown.
Both are present. Both are shown.
copied code-- copied verbatim and unchanged.
I would be grateful if you could tell me which of the ICGA investigation reports and on which page its shown that Fruit code was copied verbatim. I could not find it.
I would be grateful if you could tell me which of the ICGA investigation reports and on which page its shown that Fruit code was copied verbatim. I could not find it.
Did you go to zach's paper? I have only answered this a dozen times. If you don't like the PST analysis, skip it and start to look. You will find chunks of code side-by-side, one from Fruit, one from Rybka. The easy ones are down at the section on "flags" and then the section on "phase" although there are many others...
>I would be grateful if you could tell me which of the ICGA investigation reports and on which page its shown that Fruit code was copied verbatim. I could not find it.
Hold your tongue, Rob... steady.... hold your tongue... let it go...
"we've gotta get out of this place... if it's the last thing we ever do... we gotta get out of this place... there's a better life for me and you"
You aint a chessplayer, hence you cant understand it. It's a time problem and someone with some tricks, but these tricks come only into play from a certain stage upwards, This is why I wanted to debate with you how this taking was in general handled in computerchess. Show me a single of the guys who has invented something important. Vas has found something that brought him 300 points higher. Now the others have stolen his tricks and so on. But now Vas says it's enough with these cheaters I enter a new stage with the cluster, baby. The losers say Please Vas, on your knees, the big President will reconsider, but you must confess.
Simple examples of "things invented."
Beal/Donninger/Morsch. Null-move search.
SMK (Shredder) and Tord, reductions.
Slate: iterated search, killer moves
Greenblatt: transposition/refutation tables
Hyatt: high-performance parallel search, time overflow on fail lows, rotated bitboards.
There are others.
BTW I _am_ a chess player. Was a member of USCF for several years and played in many USCF tournaments, and in university-chessclub-sponsored tournaments. You, I'd bet have never sat at a table in a tournament game. He can come clean. He can continue to maintain his innocence. His choice.
Beal/Donninger/Morsch. Null-move search.
SMK (Shredder) and Tord, reductions.
Slate: iterated search, killer moves
Greenblatt: transposition/refutation tables
Hyatt: high-performance parallel search, time overflow on fail lows, rotated bitboards.
There are others.
BTW I _am_ a chess player. Was a member of USCF for several years and played in many USCF tournaments, and in university-chessclub-sponsored tournaments. You, I'd bet have never sat at a table in a tournament game. He can come clean. He can continue to maintain his innocence. His choice.
You and Stefan are the inventors. Now my point was, but all others are using your inventions, correct? And you are alienating Vasik. What a hoax.
Everybody uses our "ideas". They did not copy our source code.
Big difference. If you don't get that, there's little I can do about it.
Big difference. If you don't get that, there's little I can do about it.
Call me a fool but why do you compare your issues always with literature? There it's also the language for sure, that is sort of poetry, but for me the plot, the story is essential. So, just because you have it all about hardware and clever programming code but the chess related tricks are all the same, is it really a cheating if someone begins and takes something of another program, so he isnt fully original but he also doesnt want to be a rare entity, all this comes later, then he begins to compete, why shouldnt this be allowed. I'm talking about first steps, not a yearlong clone existence. Just a tweaking here and there. Then a rewrite. And then sometime he has it as his own. Why do you want to forbid this?
Under originality I understand something else. Take Tal from Chris a romantic attacker and combination seeker. Different of the other mainstream. So, in my eyes Chris had originality. But actually times have changed and everybody mainly has the same frame. Not that I knew something about it.
I dont understand the logic of your and the ICGA's reasoning. Please answer me on this argument even if it may sound crazy for you. But I just dont understand it. In my view the orfer of originality is false if all competitors basically have the same ingredients. It's all about hardware adaption with our software. But there is no personality of chess. (like in Tal)
If Vas took many things and then his Rybka is 2o0 stronger than the models he ripped, where is your problem? You cannot argue that this still is the former program, so no originality in the new one. How could it be so much stronger? It's foolish what Fabien declared that Rybka were his Fruit. How? Fruit is so much weaker. Being stronger is a feature of originality. The other way is over, that all play differently.
After all these years, if all play the same chess but in tournaments Rybka is winning then this is originally stronger, not because somewhere 5 years ago something has been taken.
Uri, Miguel, Chris, Ed are all programmers who think that Rybka isnt just that strong because Vas took many things or even copied code. Why do you ignore these experts?
Please give me an extended answer to all aspects. Not just no, Vas never was 200 stronger period.
Under originality I understand something else. Take Tal from Chris a romantic attacker and combination seeker. Different of the other mainstream. So, in my eyes Chris had originality. But actually times have changed and everybody mainly has the same frame. Not that I knew something about it.
I dont understand the logic of your and the ICGA's reasoning. Please answer me on this argument even if it may sound crazy for you. But I just dont understand it. In my view the orfer of originality is false if all competitors basically have the same ingredients. It's all about hardware adaption with our software. But there is no personality of chess. (like in Tal)
If Vas took many things and then his Rybka is 2o0 stronger than the models he ripped, where is your problem? You cannot argue that this still is the former program, so no originality in the new one. How could it be so much stronger? It's foolish what Fabien declared that Rybka were his Fruit. How? Fruit is so much weaker. Being stronger is a feature of originality. The other way is over, that all play differently.
After all these years, if all play the same chess but in tournaments Rybka is winning then this is originally stronger, not because somewhere 5 years ago something has been taken.
Uri, Miguel, Chris, Ed are all programmers who think that Rybka isnt just that strong because Vas took many things or even copied code. Why do you ignore these experts?
Please give me an extended answer to all aspects. Not just no, Vas never was 200 stronger period.
One response only. I do not think rybka is only strong because he copied code. I am absolutely certain it is so strong today because he did copy so much code. He therefore shaved a lot of time off of the basic code development, and got to dive directly into the search/eval and tweak as he wanted. But that act of copying violated several things, from ICGA rules to copyright/GPL. It can't be excused "just because rybka was made stronger..."
Your analogies would be closer on target if you could find one who may or may not have copied a version that went nowhere and performed horribly, THEN went on to be unbeatable for a period of time.
It isn't "vas won 5 years in a row on stolen code" it is "vas entered allegedly altered code YEARS AGO AND LOST WITH IT, *then* made it much better and dominated.
Sorry for the resurrection of zombie thread.
It isn't "vas won 5 years in a row on stolen code" it is "vas entered allegedly altered code YEARS AGO AND LOST WITH IT, *then* made it much better and dominated.
Sorry for the resurrection of zombie thread.
> I don't think Levy will regret it
It's a matter of hypotheticals. If Levy were compelled to read ALL of Hyatt's posts since June 28 in this forum he would surely regret it. But he won't, of course.
No, but if he were compelled to read all the nonsensical justifications for why the ICGA process was flawed, he'd certainly destroy his computer out of frustration...
I think he'd get a fuller picture of public opinion than what he heard in star chamber.
You had better stop and look around. "public opinion" is not defined by what 5 or 6 people on the Rybka forum think. Regardless of your opinion of your self-worthiness. There are plenty here that have accepted the ICGA report as the truth. Many more than those that have not. And I'd bet that if we could get Spock to do a Vulcan mind-meld with the nay-sayers here, that all of those agree that code was copied, and that they/you are just arguing to forestall the inevitable and remain in a state of self-induced denial.
You misread me. I am not important at all and don't think I'm important. My video performances: not really noteworthy in any respect. I am a modest man of modest accomplishments. You, on the other hand, consider yourself a repository of Absolute Truth. That's quite a delusion.
As for public opinion, I think I breaks down into several groups:
1. Guilty as charged
2. Guilty, but it doesn't amount to a row of beans
3. Probably guilty, don't really care
4. Not sure
5. No opinion/don't care
6. Probably innocent, don't really care
7. Innocent, victim of a vindictive lynch-mob
You honestly believe position #1 in this list is the majority opinion? How deluded you are! #3-6 combined probably constitute 80%!
As for public opinion, I think I breaks down into several groups:
1. Guilty as charged
2. Guilty, but it doesn't amount to a row of beans
3. Probably guilty, don't really care
4. Not sure
5. No opinion/don't care
6. Probably innocent, don't really care
7. Innocent, victim of a vindictive lynch-mob
You honestly believe position #1 in this list is the majority opinion? How deluded you are! #3-6 combined probably constitute 80%!
Only the general masses might go for #2, never having been in a computer chess tournament, never having seen one, never having even read about one. Not a single programmer will ever choose "guilty but doesn't amount to..." I'd bet all realistic programmers would vote 1. I'd bet the general computer chess enthusiast would vote 3. Only a half-dozen _here_ would vote 7.
BTW 1-3 would carry the majority I'd bet. The rest would vote 8. I don't care...
BTW 1-3 would carry the majority I'd bet. The rest would vote 8. I don't care...
Actually I have never come out with a clear opinion because I don't have a definitive opinion. You may think I consider Rajlich absolutely innocent, but that is not my position and I don't think I have ever stated that. I am prepared to concede that he might be a little bit guilty. I do not consider my saying that to be equivalent to saying a girl is a little bit pregnant. It's not an absolute 1 or 0 choice. There are degrees of sin. Everyone is a sinner but not everyone is equally sinful. In this case, no one can deny that he learned a great deal from the Fruit code and made very extensive changes. Sure, you can say "a derivative is a derivative" but at some point that tenaciously-held assertion becomes increasingly ridiculous and tortured, as it has in this case.
On the other hand, on purely subjective grounds I do find him tremendously more sympathetic than the grisly gang that seeks to convict him of these charges. Say whatever else you will about him, he is an innovator. Don't even think about delegitimizing his bona fide achievements. You ought to revere them.
On the other hand, on purely subjective grounds I do find him tremendously more sympathetic than the grisly gang that seeks to convict him of these charges. Say whatever else you will about him, he is an innovator. Don't even think about delegitimizing his bona fide achievements. You ought to revere them.
You cannot debate with undemocrats who dont respect fundamental rights of all human beings. Who want lynch justice commited by themselves. Who cant realize the massive problem in their mind. - In a free world with legal justice such a 5 yearslong hate campaign would never happen. My point is now that this wasnt necessary because all other commercial players are doing some cheat too. Simply because they know, nobody sane would ask for another 5 years for each of the 10 other progs which resulted into a 50 years research.
BTW for your personal benefit. In your interviews you made clear through your mimic that you were not really happy with Vas' performance. But you didnt waste your time with thinking how you would feel if you would be scapegoated, outsingled and character assassinated without any proof existing. Try to show a bit more empathy, thanks.
BTW for your personal benefit. In your interviews you made clear through your mimic that you were not really happy with Vas' performance. But you didnt waste your time with thinking how you would feel if you would be scapegoated, outsingled and character assassinated without any proof existing. Try to show a bit more empathy, thanks.
That's an amusing word you use, 'undemocrats'. I don't think this is a question of democracy at all. It isn't a matter of majority opinion or popular election or opinion. But I think I understand what you mean: you actually mean people with an authoritarian or totalitarian mentality.
No, I was not entirely pleased with Vas's performance, but I was not completely pleased with my own performance either. I could have asked better, sharper questions. Vas could have been more polished and explained his case and attitude far more comprehensively. He could have addressed the specific charges point for point without my needing to ask questions. Things might have gone better behind the scenes, too. We had terrible technical problems at times which caused a lot of exasperation and distraction on my part, throwing me off-rhythm and wearing me out. But no excuses, we're each responsible for our end-products.
As for my lacking empathy, that's a hard thing to answer. As I said in my interview notes, if it were you or me who had our reputation assaulted in this way I am sure we would have a very, very different reaction. I personally would refute the charges very angrily. Not because the ICGA is an important organization, not to preserve the world titles, but because an unjust attack on my integrity invariably angers me. If you look at how Vas responds you can only conclude that his personality, value system, world-view, priorities are highly idiosyncratic. (This is not really that unusual in people with high creativity, but encountering such a person is rare, at least in the circles I run in.) Once you understand Vas's uniqueness you realize that a conventional interview geared to a general public becomes tricky to pull off. I didn't feel the slightest bit qualified to turn the interview into a psychiatric session. He is what he is and while it would be interesting to ask him questions about his world-view and philosophy, that would be so far afield from where he or the audience expected to go, let alone my own preparation, that I simply could not go there.
No, I was not entirely pleased with Vas's performance, but I was not completely pleased with my own performance either. I could have asked better, sharper questions. Vas could have been more polished and explained his case and attitude far more comprehensively. He could have addressed the specific charges point for point without my needing to ask questions. Things might have gone better behind the scenes, too. We had terrible technical problems at times which caused a lot of exasperation and distraction on my part, throwing me off-rhythm and wearing me out. But no excuses, we're each responsible for our end-products.
As for my lacking empathy, that's a hard thing to answer. As I said in my interview notes, if it were you or me who had our reputation assaulted in this way I am sure we would have a very, very different reaction. I personally would refute the charges very angrily. Not because the ICGA is an important organization, not to preserve the world titles, but because an unjust attack on my integrity invariably angers me. If you look at how Vas responds you can only conclude that his personality, value system, world-view, priorities are highly idiosyncratic. (This is not really that unusual in people with high creativity, but encountering such a person is rare, at least in the circles I run in.) Once you understand Vas's uniqueness you realize that a conventional interview geared to a general public becomes tricky to pull off. I didn't feel the slightest bit qualified to turn the interview into a psychiatric session. He is what he is and while it would be interesting to ask him questions about his world-view and philosophy, that would be so far afield from where he or the audience expected to go, let alone my own preparation, that I simply could not go there.
Thanks for this extended answer, Nelson. Since you will make a third interview IMO I will comment this later. But there is no question that I have no explanation, for all not a psychiatric one, look, and that sahould be a first contra from my side for you, look how long Vas replied, and compare it with other big names. They dont talk at all. So, for me, thhis is a joy to see your interviews.
Pssst Jeroen....
Email me! It is urgent we discuss what is really happening here!
I found a pair of glasses that allows me to "see" that Bob is really an Alien from another World! Mark and Zack too! They are all Aliens attempting to destroy Vas! Most of the ICGA and panel are Aliens too!
There are a few people I have seen with the glasses that I know are still human on our side! Chris... Rolf.... turbo... Nelson... Alan... a few others... (although Alan may be compromised)
I dare not say more as certainly "they" are onto me by now! Use the code word “They Live” when contacting me so that I know it’s really you!
Email me! It is urgent we discuss what is really happening here!
I found a pair of glasses that allows me to "see" that Bob is really an Alien from another World! Mark and Zack too! They are all Aliens attempting to destroy Vas! Most of the ICGA and panel are Aliens too!
There are a few people I have seen with the glasses that I know are still human on our side! Chris... Rolf.... turbo... Nelson... Alan... a few others... (although Alan may be compromised)
I dare not say more as certainly "they" are onto me by now! Use the code word “They Live” when contacting me so that I know it’s really you!
Glad to see the adults are in the room............
You have to see it from my prospective! Note Ignoreman's posts - nothing! A wonderful world of less idiocy!
A wonderful world of less idiocy!
Thats pretty cool I didn't know you could see other peoples avatar that way.
Where is yours? You can make and up load it on to Gravatar.com to make it personal-if you didn't already know that.
What would be your favorite symbol?
Well if I finally win my state championship this weekend, I may put up one with me holding a plaque.
Besides that it would probably be something chess related. I'll have to look something good comes to mind.
Besides that it would probably be something chess related. I'll have to look something good comes to mind.
And you're wishy-washy Robert...
As you replied to one of my post a couple nites ago.
As you replied to one of my post a couple nites ago.
It is very odd that bob is trying to defend his position so aggressively. It is like "Methinks the bob doth protest too much."
It is hard to believe that bob does not consider the evidence indisputable. Yet if he did, why not take a position of quiet humility? Is the evidence not strong enough to stand on its own?
Even if every single Rybka forum member was violently anti-ICGA and was filled with inaccurate information and baseless opinions, what difference would it make? It would do nothing to prove that the evidence was faulty, or that the ICGA made a mistake.
Yet bob has made hundreds upon hundreds of posts since the news broke. I can't help but get the impression that bob feels that there is something to debate. What do you think?
It is hard to believe that bob does not consider the evidence indisputable. Yet if he did, why not take a position of quiet humility? Is the evidence not strong enough to stand on its own?
Even if every single Rybka forum member was violently anti-ICGA and was filled with inaccurate information and baseless opinions, what difference would it make? It would do nothing to prove that the evidence was faulty, or that the ICGA made a mistake.
Yet bob has made hundreds upon hundreds of posts since the news broke. I can't help but get the impression that bob feels that there is something to debate. What do you think?
I'm trying to address questions/issues/complaints about the evidence and the process. So far, all I have seen is a lot of whining about the penalty, very little about the evidence or actual copying issues. It is pretty funny that you say "I protesteth too much" when I am _responding_. Food for thought?
At least 50% of the posts I have seen have zero technical merit nor content. I don't generally respond to those. So there is a _lot_ more protesting coming from "the far side" than from me...
At least 50% of the posts I have seen have zero technical merit nor content. I don't generally respond to those. So there is a _lot_ more protesting coming from "the far side" than from me...
> At least 50% of the posts I have seen have zero technical merit nor content. I don't generally respond to those.
Well, that's a bald-faced lie! My posts have zero technical merit nor content and you ALWAYS respond. You cannot help yourself. Show some backbone, Bob, and don't reply to this one!
> So far, all I have seen is a lot of whining about the penalty, very little about the evidence or actual copying issues.
Oh, God, Bob! If any one is whining it would be you! I could consolidate 1200 or so of all your posts down to a 1/3 if the repetitious content were removed. You're like loop music in a grocery store. Whining abut Vas' cheating, and if no one sees it your way there is something morally wrong with them. Everyone has to argue within the premise that you set out or there is no argument- otherwise you go on as if they are not there- and go into your loop diatribe dialogue.
I could collapse all of your posts down to zero bytes if the everything-but-technical-content parts were removed.
so what?
You (and others) keep making the _same_ bogus arguments. But I am out of line for providing the _same_ reason that proves that each time?
:)
so what?
You (and others) keep making the _same_ bogus arguments. But I am out of line for providing the _same_ reason that proves that each time?
:)
> You (and others) keep making the _same_ bogus arguments. But I am out of line for providing the _same_ reason that proves that each time?
Actually, Bob, it is you that continues to make the _same_bogus arguments. But am I out of line for providing the _same_reason that proves that each time? (Bob, you're whining again!)
>I'm trying to address questions/issues/complaints about the evidence and the process.
What for?
What is your goal in addressing the 'complaints'?
>very little about the evidence or actual copying issues.
Do you think there is something to be said?
>So there is a _lot_ more protesting coming from "the far side" than from me...
This is to be expected.
It's kind of like 1+1 = 2 , surely you believe the evidence that 1+1 = 2 is as strong as the panel's evidence against Rybka. If a large cult came about that believed that 1+1 = 3, and they continually questioned you on your 'belief' that 1+1 = 2, how much would you respond? Obviously the 1+1=3 group would be doing most of the arguing and protesting, and you would fully expect the 1+1=2 group to be mostly quiet, letting the evidence for their position stand as a large heavy wall.
Do you actually believe that there are reasonable arguments against the evidence?
Not so far. But I am willing to listen...
I can't answer your last question. At the moment, I do not see any reasonable arguments being presented. Nor can I think of any myself, as we ironed all of those things out in the panel discussions. That is not to say that someone won't come up with something that bears discussion. I simply don't know.
> I'm trying to address questions/issues/complaints about the evidence and the process. So far, all I have seen is a lot of whining about the penalty, very little about the evidence or actual copying issues. It is pretty funny that you say "I protesteth too much" when I am _responding_. Food for thought?
>
> At least 50% of the posts I have seen have zero technical merit nor content. I don't generally respond to those. So there is a _lot_ more protesting coming from "the far side" than from me...
+1.
From my point of view, discussions such as these not only serve to educate the public and those willing to learn but also to new comers to computer chess who aren't aware of these events yet. Should they come across these discussions about Fruit-Crafty-Rybka, they'll see & understand the factual, technical contents Bob presents in response to the twisted stories being circulated.
Yes, very odd someone of Bob's stature would come here to try to explain to all y'all why the decision was made that was made when nearly everyone here has nary a clue what he is talking about.
Maybe he's just a good natured fellow that loves to teach despite the fact you can't hold a candle to his knowledge. And despite how rude you have been to him (just like your post now labyrinth and nelson's).
Y'all should be grateful he takes the time to answer your questions. Instead it is... "well... can't contradict his knowledge and experience... so let's just make up whatever vulgarity that passes between our ears and accuse him of that." or "let's come up with some nefarious reasons why he must be here."
Lest you forget...
h.g. muller,
Zach Wegner &
Mark Lefler
Have all graciously been here to explain "things" to a forum filled mostly with ingrates who know-it-all yet know nothing.
Y'all can't take the attitude... "this doesn't seem fair... help us make sense of this." No humility here.
Like I said... ingrates.... mostly arrogant, hypocritical ingrates.
Edit:
Thanks Robert for stepping in and helping to make my point
Maybe he's just a good natured fellow that loves to teach despite the fact you can't hold a candle to his knowledge. And despite how rude you have been to him (just like your post now labyrinth and nelson's).
Y'all should be grateful he takes the time to answer your questions. Instead it is... "well... can't contradict his knowledge and experience... so let's just make up whatever vulgarity that passes between our ears and accuse him of that." or "let's come up with some nefarious reasons why he must be here."
Lest you forget...
h.g. muller,
Zach Wegner &
Mark Lefler
Have all graciously been here to explain "things" to a forum filled mostly with ingrates who know-it-all yet know nothing.
Y'all can't take the attitude... "this doesn't seem fair... help us make sense of this." No humility here.
Like I said... ingrates.... mostly arrogant, hypocritical ingrates.
Edit:
Thanks Robert for stepping in and helping to make my point
>And despite how rude you have been to him (just like your post now labyrinth and nelson's).
I haven't been rude at all.
Even if I was it's nothing he can't handle (he's heard a million times worse).
Actually I have more respect for bob than you do, because unlike you I know that bob can speak for himself and doesn't need some loud mouthed hanger-on to follow up every time.
Good thing bob isn't like Tuco:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTAmKmw2_Ts
>I haven't been rude at all.
then may I suggest you read:
"How to Win Friends and Influence People" as I have a nerd friend or two who have recommended this book for those folk that lack requisite social graces.
>Even if I was
You were. Trying to understand someone's behaviour (when you can't figure out how to behave yourself) and talking about him in the third person when you know he's reading the forum...
That... is rude.
>Actually I have more respect for bob than you do
hahahahahahahaha... ok... read the book... maybe you'll figure it out.
>talking about him in the third person
I was replying Jeroen.
>for those folk that lack requisite social graces.
It is truly laughable that you would consider yourself a reasonable judge of "social graces".
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
> Vas indicated his interest in Fruit and spoke of it openly.
Openly? That only such few ELO points came from Fruit (he only had 'interest'), as Vas tried to declare to the world some years ago, nearly no one was willing to believe (even not some years ago!)!
I have another idea of the verb 'openly'. But, OK, that was not really evil.
Quap
> -enough so that others were dying to know her secrets.
I accept, that developers want to keep the sources in secret!
But ICGA rule described, that it can occure that sources must be shown to specialists. Vas accepted, and Vas refused then. And he lost ICGA titels. Anything astonishing? I think: No.
BTW: Didn't Vas declare, that with Ippollit the secrets of strong Rybka-3 had been opened to the world? No secret anymore?
BTW: http://cluster.rybkachess.com/history.html ignores the ICGA decision consequently. :-)
Quap
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Really About Fruit &Crafty code? Or vehicle for a Ban!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill