![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
He destroyed this forum? How so? Anything that happened was helped by all the people that kept replying to his posts.
How so? Before Bob, many different topics were discussed in depth, in many cases by very impressive people. Now, everything is about Bob and his silly, self serving assertions that Vas is a crook, Rybka 1 Beta is full of copied Fruit code that only he is smart enough to understand, etc. ect. It has all become rather tendentious...
> Before Bob, many different topics were discussed in depth, in many cases by very impressive people. Now, everything is about Bob and his silly, self serving assertions that Vas is a crook,
And that's 50% the fault of the people replying to bob, you included. If he was ignored from the beginning this wouldn't have gone out of proportions.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
The problem is: Hyatt replies to many posts. So ignoring him doesn't solve the problem. Even worse: some people belive the stuff he writes. So replying sometimes is unavoidable.
I think that if nobody would have replied to his posts from the start he would have lost interest and left (that's what trolls do, anyway.) The attention he's getting makes him come back for more.
Perhaps you are right and an experiment is in order...
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
How about this experiment: Nothing new has come up here in months. A few interesting debates about specific evidence, but nothing new, nothing changed.
I'm more than willing to let this be my last post here. It IS pretty much a waste of time anyway...
So, reply to anything I have posted today. No more answers from me. Then you can live in a made-up world where all is well, and nothing was copied, and Vas is the most ethical person you know. (that last should warn you about the company you keep, but it is probably too subtle for you to catch...)
I'm more than willing to let this be my last post here. It IS pretty much a waste of time anyway...
So, reply to anything I have posted today. No more answers from me. Then you can live in a made-up world where all is well, and nothing was copied, and Vas is the most ethical person you know. (that last should warn you about the company you keep, but it is probably too subtle for you to catch...)
You will not be missed...
Does he really recognize the so-called evidence is crumbling? Does he understand he's loosing?
I can't believe it. But why else should he leave right now?
I can't believe it. But why else should he leave right now?
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
I suspect the realisation that, when the bit board/mailbox code is abstracted away, as for example in the mobility cases, there's no code left(!) to be equivalent, may have come as a bit of a shock. It's total collapse of the code equivalence argument and hello to parallel use of ideas and recipes. And that reserve argument is far too weak to sustain their case.
> But why else should he leave right now?
Because he is told so ?
Else he w(c)ouldn't leave.
Think LOOP.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
I'm more than willing to let this be my last post here. It IS pretty much a waste of time anyway...
Bob, that would be your best decision ever! I FULLY agree with you here!
Bob, that would be your best decision ever! I FULLY agree with you here!
An Ode to the sad departure of Hyatt ...
When abstraction delved, all code was out
What then is same source about?
When abstraction delved, all code was out
What then is same source about?
Even if I'm the only one, I disagree with the idea that it's good that you leave. It would be best for computerchess if you stayed and tried to understand why Vas wasnt cheating. because the alleged proof was refutated by Ed, Chris and many others. That would re-unite our community. Ken asked you on the panel if you had asked Vas for the source code and the answer was "No!". That alone does count. It means that you will never prove what you have pretended to be able to prove for over 5 years. Now you were the right man who could tell the ICGA and its panerlists that you had been on the wrong track. Everybody would understand you because you have been in a sort of mass suggestion or hystery. It will serve your good name if you could admit your catastrophical mistake. To make it easier for you please try to see it this way.
Perhaps you could have had a case if you were allowed to rip apart our whole community including torture against Vas, at best water-boarding, but hey, Bob, we are arguing in a game, a sport, an entertainement. We are all friends more or less.
If you could send over that message to the ICGA staff, and they would roll back the message of July 2011 with corrections in the NYT in special and DER SPIEGEL, we could finally come back to our main interests.
If anyone could do such a reformation then it's you in my eyes.
Perhaps you could have had a case if you were allowed to rip apart our whole community including torture against Vas, at best water-boarding, but hey, Bob, we are arguing in a game, a sport, an entertainement. We are all friends more or less.
If you could send over that message to the ICGA staff, and they would roll back the message of July 2011 with corrections in the NYT in special and DER SPIEGEL, we could finally come back to our main interests.
If anyone could do such a reformation then it's you in my eyes.
Nothing new has come up here in months.
That is not entirely true. We found out you copied Fruit's bishop PST and that the ICGA report and procedure were a scam.
That is not entirely true. We found out you copied Fruit's bishop PST and that the ICGA report and procedure were a scam.
Bob,
this morning on another site, and without any provocation, you managed to yet again insult this community by saying "jackasses in the Rybka Forum" and calling everyone here ignorant. You continue to be a sad embarrassment, bringing down everyone associated with you.
Same goes for your moderator colleague, the author of piece of garbage engine (English for Predateur) who has stated that the poll was 75 percent in favor of ICGA until "Rybka Forum" heard about it, infiltrated talkchess and skewed the poll to just about 50:50; This kind of paranoid non-sense does not originate from a normal mind.
I heard Rolf was a psychiatrist. Maybe he should consult on the two of you.
this morning on another site, and without any provocation, you managed to yet again insult this community by saying "jackasses in the Rybka Forum" and calling everyone here ignorant. You continue to be a sad embarrassment, bringing down everyone associated with you.
Same goes for your moderator colleague, the author of piece of garbage engine (English for Predateur) who has stated that the poll was 75 percent in favor of ICGA until "Rybka Forum" heard about it, infiltrated talkchess and skewed the poll to just about 50:50; This kind of paranoid non-sense does not originate from a normal mind.
I heard Rolf was a psychiatrist. Maybe he should consult on the two of you.
If I am interpreting Monsieur Marcel's post correctly-the dear boy he is troubling over what he considers outsiders coming in and influencing the numbers on the latest poll.
Monsieur Marcel should be aware that every forum has its silent membership.
But, regardless, why shouldn't the visiting viewer, who, having an interest in computer chess, weigh in and make their voices heard? Is there some unspoken law that states that that is forbidden??!
Oh! Yes!
The ICGA, Hyattian law! Maintain bias, prejudice and when that is not possible, detract, discredit, derail, delete, and finally, redirect and make obscure what offends to the nether regions.
Monsieur Marcel should be aware that every forum has its silent membership.
But, regardless, why shouldn't the visiting viewer, who, having an interest in computer chess, weigh in and make their voices heard? Is there some unspoken law that states that that is forbidden??!
Oh! Yes!
The ICGA, Hyattian law! Maintain bias, prejudice and when that is not possible, detract, discredit, derail, delete, and finally, redirect and make obscure what offends to the nether regions.
Well said Robert.
The moderator guy is basically insulting his own forum members by calling them ignorant subversive Rybka fans.
I give kudos to the moderators in this forum who put up with one year of Hyatt's anti-Rybka insane rantings with utmost dignity and tranquility.
The moderator guy is basically insulting his own forum members by calling them ignorant subversive Rybka fans.
I give kudos to the moderators in this forum who put up with one year of Hyatt's anti-Rybka insane rantings with utmost dignity and tranquility.
What happened to that Poll? Is it really gone?
Does it really surprise you that Bob would make an unfavorable poll disappear? You know that anyone that doesn't agree with Bob is a murderer, right?
> You know that anyone that doesn't agree with Bob is a murderer, right?
No, but everyone that doesn't agree with Bob is wrong
>"Rybka Forum" heard about it, infiltrated talkchess and skewed the poll to just about 50:50
Sounds like I should register there just to vote
Why wouldn't you?
I have to disagree. Bob isnt a chessplayer himself but as a simulator he understood the aspect of addiction in chessplayers, so all he's doing to justify his existence is the simulating of an addictive person. We are all profitting from his messages because why do we play chess if we wouldnt win basically on the mistakes of our opponents? Bob is an absolute must for every student or otherwise interested in intellectual games just because of his mistakes. Or do you ever have insulted a chessplayer for making his mistakes that made your wins possible? And dont forget, it's a legendary tradition of Americans that they discuss in all openess what they have done wrong. So please all join the debates with Bob and the satisfaction of the winner is yours in future. Dont blame Bob for his mistakes but try to show why he's always wrong! Dont fear the risk that sometimes he's not wrong at all! Well, that is the fun you can have. Please dont ever talk about chess. This is called computerchess.
You are a fraud, not Botwinnik. I already told you several times that your actual paradigm is ridiculous because the program doesnt play chess but only plays the earlier implemented opening moves. Done by book authors, not the machine. Only if the machine would decide all that on itself then you had a case of artificial intelligence. Botwinnik was on the right track, he saw that *your* tech wasnt chess of a machine personality but a fraud due to several tricks. Basically like the one of the Dwarf in the box. The highlight of computerchess fraud was the alleged win of IBM team over Kasparov who simply was psyched out through impolitness but not by the strength of the machine itself. You yourself have never played chess or why dont you show us a single example of your games as a young boy?
So humans don't memorize opening lines?
I do.
I do.
![[dk]](/mwf/v12/flags/dk.png "Denmark")
If you can memorize opening lines, how come you weren't able to memorize Fruit PST values in Crafty ?
We had the same point a couple of years ago and you made the same statement, thinking that it would prove or justify practically the same incidents in opening books and human learning but it's still wrong. A machine plays the orderedd moves without understanding the sense, a beginner does something similar, but no smart and well trained human chessplayer does it this way, i.e. what you implied for yourself and therefore claiming for all players, that they memorize the naked moves and play them in the mode of classical conditioning. But that is a totally wrong conception.
A chess master is trained to analyse concrete positions. What you do is typical for smart students in academia. Learning by heart all the openings is not identical with learning to play chess.
I have a favorite topic in human chess that became important in the Gibraltar Open this week. Since long I think that Judit Polgar sure is a well trained chess talent but she's not a natural born prodigy. Her Elo height is purely a result of her concentration on tournaments with few super GM. Then these players are in a sort of double bind. Should they beat her raw and dirty? Of course not because that would destroy the charme of a female participating. So they play their book moves that Judit has learned by heart from childhood on, perhaps you know that the three Polgars were trained in chess without having attended schools. We had a 6 year old girl in Germany who played some odd C40 lines by heart lwhat et her look like an experienced master but that wasnt the case. A decade later she had left chess because she had no motivation for the more male nastiness in tournaments. The same would happen with Judit, example the loss against Hou Yifan right now. Because human chess isnt just playing sober best lines but moves with a secret that would turn bad if the naive opponent would choose them. That's why home preparation is so important. Against Judit males dont play this way. So she looks good and with five 2700 you will soon be also in that category but this is caused by statistics of Elo and a couple of draws. - Judit admitted that she hadnt the stamina to play a raw match in chess. Because that is going into tense mode. She only had one or two rapid matches but never one in classical mode. Another aspect. Judit doesnt fear _male_ opponents because of the gender problem that causes males to be nice at the board. She fears females. Look, her sister Susan already had claimed conspiracy against Judit because she had two or three times a female [sic!] opponent at the Rock. Isnt it funny? But this is what chess is all about, that you get certain opponents you dont like, who are not nice, who dont deliver some easy Elo points.
It was very unfair towards Hou the way bloggers downgraded her for being lucky. In truth she is already a stubborn fighter like Karpov in his early youth. She has the talents for chess competition. How she handles defeat, this is just marvelous! After the loss in the tie against Short she smiled to him with open face while he had a face as if he had just bitten on some sour fruit or stone, his eyes looked into a different direction but not to her... He felt ashamed IMO, just because of the hidden order of the males being nice towards a female. BTW Short gave away many points to Judit in the past.
A chess master is trained to analyse concrete positions. What you do is typical for smart students in academia. Learning by heart all the openings is not identical with learning to play chess.
I have a favorite topic in human chess that became important in the Gibraltar Open this week. Since long I think that Judit Polgar sure is a well trained chess talent but she's not a natural born prodigy. Her Elo height is purely a result of her concentration on tournaments with few super GM. Then these players are in a sort of double bind. Should they beat her raw and dirty? Of course not because that would destroy the charme of a female participating. So they play their book moves that Judit has learned by heart from childhood on, perhaps you know that the three Polgars were trained in chess without having attended schools. We had a 6 year old girl in Germany who played some odd C40 lines by heart lwhat et her look like an experienced master but that wasnt the case. A decade later she had left chess because she had no motivation for the more male nastiness in tournaments. The same would happen with Judit, example the loss against Hou Yifan right now. Because human chess isnt just playing sober best lines but moves with a secret that would turn bad if the naive opponent would choose them. That's why home preparation is so important. Against Judit males dont play this way. So she looks good and with five 2700 you will soon be also in that category but this is caused by statistics of Elo and a couple of draws. - Judit admitted that she hadnt the stamina to play a raw match in chess. Because that is going into tense mode. She only had one or two rapid matches but never one in classical mode. Another aspect. Judit doesnt fear _male_ opponents because of the gender problem that causes males to be nice at the board. She fears females. Look, her sister Susan already had claimed conspiracy against Judit because she had two or three times a female [sic!] opponent at the Rock. Isnt it funny? But this is what chess is all about, that you get certain opponents you dont like, who are not nice, who dont deliver some easy Elo points.
It was very unfair towards Hou the way bloggers downgraded her for being lucky. In truth she is already a stubborn fighter like Karpov in his early youth. She has the talents for chess competition. How she handles defeat, this is just marvelous! After the loss in the tie against Short she smiled to him with open face while he had a face as if he had just bitten on some sour fruit or stone, his eyes looked into a different direction but not to her... He felt ashamed IMO, just because of the hidden order of the males being nice towards a female. BTW Short gave away many points to Judit in the past.
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
You realise that's borderline insane? (A bit like some of your comments on the Rybka/Fruit issue) Judit Polgar made it into the Top 10. She'd never have played in any super-GM events if she hadn't earned her right to be there by winning lesser events, and if you think the very best grandmasters wouldn't instantly pounce on any weak link in a tournament you haven't followed much top chess. Plus of course openings have always been one of Polgar's weaknesses (her father concentrated on tactics), and you'd have to explain e.g. last year's European Championship, where she finished tied for top place despite that being a big open rather than a closed field super-GM event. If you were interested in gender-specific Elo issues it would make more sense to look at the decline she suffered during the period she gave birth to her two children.
Let's agree to disagree. Basically you made a good argument for my position. If she's weak in the openings the super GM normally should be able to exploit it. If they dont , it must have something to do with a different motivation, namely to support her playing in these tournaments. I wanted to see them play like all other spectators too. But I dont believe she's a super GM herself.
We are talking in a computerchess forum, therefore my point was that also machines play far above their chess if they get GM books to avoid opening errors. Here I see the relevance for a player like Judit. In Opens many different players play dangerous systems that are inferior in super GM chess, but you must be able to prove it at the instant. That's her problem.
Since you mentioned her father, I believe that it's wrong to train children on exclusive jobs and keep them out of school. Unless perhaps they are prodigies. But these girls were not. Or could you tell me about them a story like the one about the great Polish child prodigy Sam Reshevsky? As a kid he came to Berlin and gave a show of his talents. In a couple of minutes he could memorize 40 different numbers, normally people are happy with some 7 numbers, when this is a natural limit. Of course you cant train a kid for such a task. Father Polgar, although an expert himself, did an experiment with his kids that was wrong. There is no doubt that also females can be eidetics but you cant train for such a special gift. And even with it, the issue of chess isnt a natural first choice.
We are talking in a computerchess forum, therefore my point was that also machines play far above their chess if they get GM books to avoid opening errors. Here I see the relevance for a player like Judit. In Opens many different players play dangerous systems that are inferior in super GM chess, but you must be able to prove it at the instant. That's her problem.
Since you mentioned her father, I believe that it's wrong to train children on exclusive jobs and keep them out of school. Unless perhaps they are prodigies. But these girls were not. Or could you tell me about them a story like the one about the great Polish child prodigy Sam Reshevsky? As a kid he came to Berlin and gave a show of his talents. In a couple of minutes he could memorize 40 different numbers, normally people are happy with some 7 numbers, when this is a natural limit. Of course you cant train a kid for such a task. Father Polgar, although an expert himself, did an experiment with his kids that was wrong. There is no doubt that also females can be eidetics but you cant train for such a special gift. And even with it, the issue of chess isnt a natural first choice.
"If she's weak in the openings the super GM normally should be able to exploit it. If they dont , it must have something to do with a different motivation, namely to support her playing in these tournaments."
Magnus Carlsen is also (relatively) weak in the openings but you don't see too many super GMs managing to exploit that either. In his case the reason seems to be his wonderful positional intuition, while in Polgar's case it's that she's better tactically than some of the very best grandmasters and can outplay them in unbalanced positions.
I don't understand your point about Opens - I gave you an example of her finishing top in last year's European Individual Championship - an Open. There's absolutely no evidence she's had problems beating sub-super GM players over the course of her career. In fact, that's the level were her tactical talent is most devastating.
It's hard to talk about prodigies as we have no idea what Judit might have done if she hadn't been part of the "experiment", but it's likely that training alone doesn't explain how good she became. Sergey Shipov: "If you created such conditions for the youngest child in millions of multiple-children families it’s by no means certain that even a single one of them would grow into a chess player… never mind a chess player of Judit Polgar’s level. She’s a phenomenon. Unique." http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1668 On whether or not it was "wrong" to try what her father tried - it's hard to say. From the same source you can see that the sisters had a loving childhood, got to see the world and socialise with lots of people and grew up into healthy adults. So on balance I'd have to say they were lucky rather than that they suffered. Of course it can be different if you get a parent who's just driven to succeed vicariously and tyrannises the child rather than providing a loving, supportive environment. Gata Kamsky and his father would probably be the best negative example.
Magnus Carlsen is also (relatively) weak in the openings but you don't see too many super GMs managing to exploit that either. In his case the reason seems to be his wonderful positional intuition, while in Polgar's case it's that she's better tactically than some of the very best grandmasters and can outplay them in unbalanced positions.
I don't understand your point about Opens - I gave you an example of her finishing top in last year's European Individual Championship - an Open. There's absolutely no evidence she's had problems beating sub-super GM players over the course of her career. In fact, that's the level were her tactical talent is most devastating.
It's hard to talk about prodigies as we have no idea what Judit might have done if she hadn't been part of the "experiment", but it's likely that training alone doesn't explain how good she became. Sergey Shipov: "If you created such conditions for the youngest child in millions of multiple-children families it’s by no means certain that even a single one of them would grow into a chess player… never mind a chess player of Judit Polgar’s level. She’s a phenomenon. Unique." http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1668 On whether or not it was "wrong" to try what her father tried - it's hard to say. From the same source you can see that the sisters had a loving childhood, got to see the world and socialise with lots of people and grew up into healthy adults. So on balance I'd have to say they were lucky rather than that they suffered. Of course it can be different if you get a parent who's just driven to succeed vicariously and tyrannises the child rather than providing a loving, supportive environment. Gata Kamsky and his father would probably be the best negative example.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Memorable quote from the original Tron movie:
"Dumont: Yes I'm old. Old enough to remember when the MCP was just a chess program!"
"Dumont: Yes I'm old. Old enough to remember when the MCP was just a chess program!"
And I'm old enough to remember that line from the movie in first release...
People try to discredit both, when it is painfully obvious they have not even read either.
Many have, pointing out the misleading code labeled Rybka, to name but a few things that are horribly wrong.
Also Dalke has read it, and it is now becoming absolutely clear that you are trying to turn a troll (the report) in a Miss World.
Many have, pointing out the misleading code labeled Rybka, to name but a few things that are horribly wrong.
Also Dalke has read it, and it is now becoming absolutely clear that you are trying to turn a troll (the report) in a Miss World.
banned for life wrote, "The Dalke analysis is just the latest attack on your sinking ship."
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/controversy-over-rybkas-disqualification-and-ban-update
andrew dalke writes the following at chessvibes:
"I found out about this controversy from a recent posting to the forum site "Hacker News."
"As I don't know anything about chess evaluation engines,"
"While I read that the essential algorithms are similar (and I have not the background to judge this),"
"I take as granted that ICGA can and does have its own rules. I only talk here about copyright issues."
"I am indeed nearly clueless on this topic, which is why I read through this PDF."
"there's no way I can do a full analysis of the entire document."
so this is supposed to be an expert that discredits the entire evidence presented to icga?
banned for life wrote, "No, he certainly didn't. Hyatt has been claiming for years that Vas was using his rotated bitboard code in released versions Rybka. This was false from R1B to the present. There has never been any Crafty in released versions of Rybka."
question for hyatt: i think you won your arguments proving crafty code in rybka 1.6.1 (posters should at least give credit here), but i'd like some clarification. did you unequivocally state that crafty code was in commercial releases but then later found out that wasn't true?
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/controversy-over-rybkas-disqualification-and-ban-update
andrew dalke writes the following at chessvibes:
"I found out about this controversy from a recent posting to the forum site "Hacker News."
"As I don't know anything about chess evaluation engines,"
"While I read that the essential algorithms are similar (and I have not the background to judge this),"
"I take as granted that ICGA can and does have its own rules. I only talk here about copyright issues."
"I am indeed nearly clueless on this topic, which is why I read through this PDF."
"there's no way I can do a full analysis of the entire document."
so this is supposed to be an expert that discredits the entire evidence presented to icga?
banned for life wrote, "No, he certainly didn't. Hyatt has been claiming for years that Vas was using his rotated bitboard code in released versions Rybka. This was false from R1B to the present. There has never been any Crafty in released versions of Rybka."
question for hyatt: i think you won your arguments proving crafty code in rybka 1.6.1 (posters should at least give credit here), but i'd like some clarification. did you unequivocally state that crafty code was in commercial releases but then later found out that wasn't true?
> question for hyatt: i think you won your arguments proving crafty code in 1.6.1, but i'd like some clarification. did you unequivocally state that crafty code was in commercial releases but then later found out they weren't true?
Great question, and we are many that are still awaiting his promised reply.
"I found out about this controversy from a recent posting to the forum site "Hacker News."
I see nothing wrong with that...
"While I read that the essential algorithms are similar (and I have not the background to judge this),"
Nothing wrong with this either. The overlap in essential algorithms amongst all high quality chess engines is very high.
"I take as granted that ICGA can and does have its own rules. I only talk here about copyright issues."
Agree 100%.
"I am indeed nearly clueless on this topic, which is why I read through this PDF."
Did you expect him to learn about this from osmosis?
"there's no way I can do a full analysis of the entire document."
There is no need to disprove everything. Disproving things here and there is sufficient.
so this is supposed to be an expert that discredits the entire evidence presented to icga?
He is one of many.
I see nothing wrong with that...
"While I read that the essential algorithms are similar (and I have not the background to judge this),"
Nothing wrong with this either. The overlap in essential algorithms amongst all high quality chess engines is very high.
"I take as granted that ICGA can and does have its own rules. I only talk here about copyright issues."
Agree 100%.
"I am indeed nearly clueless on this topic, which is why I read through this PDF."
Did you expect him to learn about this from osmosis?
"there's no way I can do a full analysis of the entire document."
There is no need to disprove everything. Disproving things here and there is sufficient.
so this is supposed to be an expert that discredits the entire evidence presented to icga?
He is one of many.
ok, a person who has a lack of knowledge, lack of background, and is clueless about chess engines is perfectly fine to be your expert... one that seems to have accidentally come upon the rybka case through the "hacker news" site. he doesn't even seem to be a chess enthusiast from a chess forum.
ok that's perfectly fine, make him president of the chess club, lol.
fabien writes, "The short answer was "no", it [Strelka] was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal."
dalke admits he's only looking at a copyright issue, whether or not there's a verbatim copy. apparently he's barking up the wrong tree.
the icga report states, "Note the rules require programmers to list all authors and the source of code, even 'derived' code."
bb+ writes, "Dalke notes this task-similarity about the UCI parsing, and seems then to extrapolate that a chess engine in its totality is quite formulaic in its construction. Again I don't think that chess programmers would much agree with this for search and specifically evaluation."
if you think it's fair game if you can get around copyright issues, then i would understand. i don't care if the video game "saints row" is a ripoff of the game "grand theft auto". copying happens all the time, but dalke hasn't disproven the evidence in my opinion.
ok that's perfectly fine, make him president of the chess club, lol.
fabien writes, "The short answer was "no", it [Strelka] was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal."
dalke admits he's only looking at a copyright issue, whether or not there's a verbatim copy. apparently he's barking up the wrong tree.
the icga report states, "Note the rules require programmers to list all authors and the source of code, even 'derived' code."
bb+ writes, "Dalke notes this task-similarity about the UCI parsing, and seems then to extrapolate that a chess engine in its totality is quite formulaic in its construction. Again I don't think that chess programmers would much agree with this for search and specifically evaluation."
if you think it's fair game if you can get around copyright issues, then i would understand. i don't care if the video game "saints row" is a ripoff of the game "grand theft auto". copying happens all the time, but dalke hasn't disproven the evidence in my opinion.
ok, a person who has a lack of knowledge, lack of background, and is clueless about chess engines is perfectly fine to be your expert... one that seems to have accidentally come upon the rybka case through the "hacker news" site. he doesn't even seem to be a chess enthusiast from a chess forum.
Wrong. Dalke is an expert in detecting copied code and many serious people take him very seriously.
dalke admits he's only looking at a copyright issue, whether or not there's a verbatim copy. apparently he's barking up the wrong tree.
As stated, he is looking at copyright issues. This is all that I am interested in, so as far I'm concerned he has exactly the right focus.
the icga report states, "Note the rules require programmers to list all authors and the source of code, even 'derived' code."
I continue to have no interest in ICGA rules.
if you think it's fair game if you can get around copyright issues, then i would understand. i don't care if the video game "saints row" is a ripoff of the game "grand theft auto". copying happens all the time, but dalke hasn't disproven the evidence in my opinion.
Mark has made it clear from the initial reports that copying and copyright was not his focus. His emphasis was on plagiarism. I am only interested in copyright and license issues. I don't thing the plagiarism charge makes sense because Vas acknowledged years ago that before R1B he had gone over Fruit backwards and forwards and taken many things.
Wrong. Dalke is an expert in detecting copied code and many serious people take him very seriously.
dalke admits he's only looking at a copyright issue, whether or not there's a verbatim copy. apparently he's barking up the wrong tree.
As stated, he is looking at copyright issues. This is all that I am interested in, so as far I'm concerned he has exactly the right focus.
the icga report states, "Note the rules require programmers to list all authors and the source of code, even 'derived' code."
I continue to have no interest in ICGA rules.
if you think it's fair game if you can get around copyright issues, then i would understand. i don't care if the video game "saints row" is a ripoff of the game "grand theft auto". copying happens all the time, but dalke hasn't disproven the evidence in my opinion.
Mark has made it clear from the initial reports that copying and copyright was not his focus. His emphasis was on plagiarism. I am only interested in copyright and license issues. I don't thing the plagiarism charge makes sense because Vas acknowledged years ago that before R1B he had gone over Fruit backwards and forwards and taken many things.
Only problem is that copyright law DIRECTLY addresses "non-literal copying" with regard to computer software. Not "verbatim copying". That doesn't apply to the eval code because it could not just be copied and used. It had to have the bitboard translation done. But that does NOT "dismiss copyright infringement" at all...
You're clueless. There isn't any copyright infringement, and the FSF isn't going anywhere with their investigation, and neither you, nor Fabien will be collecting any damages from anybody. But keep dreaming.
i said, "a person who has a lack of knowledge, lack of background, and is clueless about chess engines".
banned for life responded, "Wrong. Dalke is an expert in detecting copied code"
that's interesting how you respond about "copied code" and not "chess engines".
banned for life says, "copyright issues. This is all that I am interested in, so as far I'm concerned"
ok i understand your position now.
banned for life says, "i believe vasik and other programmers because i have met them in person, and they are fine young men. they write excellent code, and they post back to me in an honest and respectful manner." (paraphrase)
suddenly someone named "dalke" who you have not met and not corresponded with will "sink hyatt's ship". dalke does not play chess and has a one-dimensional perspective of the code. it seems banned for life has very low standards when declaring who is a trustful expert.
you've talked about "political failure" from rybka's side. is dalke your "political success"?
banned for life responded, "Wrong. Dalke is an expert in detecting copied code"
that's interesting how you respond about "copied code" and not "chess engines".
banned for life says, "copyright issues. This is all that I am interested in, so as far I'm concerned"
ok i understand your position now.
banned for life says, "i believe vasik and other programmers because i have met them in person, and they are fine young men. they write excellent code, and they post back to me in an honest and respectful manner." (paraphrase)
suddenly someone named "dalke" who you have not met and not corresponded with will "sink hyatt's ship". dalke does not play chess and has a one-dimensional perspective of the code. it seems banned for life has very low standards when declaring who is a trustful expert.
you've talked about "political failure" from rybka's side. is dalke your "political success"?
Any discussion that I am in relates to software copyright, and there are no special rules associated with computer chess software. The fact that Dalke is not an expert in computer chess is totally immaterial in a copyright case, and in fact it is highly likely that neither the judge, nor any member of the jury would have any knowledge of chess engines whatsoever. Mr. Dalke is a respected expert in software copyright issues though, and would be an outstanding expert witness. The same cannot be said for Dr. Hyatt.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/28/business/as-business-gets-lean-a-big-king-dares-big-mac.html
"the company will trumpet the introduction of a version of the signature Big Mac burger of the McDonald's Corporation. To be called the Big King" "McDonald's, faced with this challenge, is not about to be dethroned without a fight. It has laid the groundwork to strike back at Burger King by test-marketing its own version of Burger King's flagship Whopper. Called the Big and Tasty"
i remember this burger. it tasted very much like a big mac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28soft_drink%29
"Sprite was introduced to the United States in 1961 to compete against 7 Up."
again, copying happens a lot in capitalism. there's wiggle room to evade patents or copyrights.
if someone here can find a better poster than dalke or schroder and that poster provides irrefutable counter-evidence that passes hyatt's inspection, then i'll gladly be convinced that vas did no copying.
i don't think it's even a big deal.
"the company will trumpet the introduction of a version of the signature Big Mac burger of the McDonald's Corporation. To be called the Big King" "McDonald's, faced with this challenge, is not about to be dethroned without a fight. It has laid the groundwork to strike back at Burger King by test-marketing its own version of Burger King's flagship Whopper. Called the Big and Tasty"
i remember this burger. it tasted very much like a big mac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28soft_drink%29
"Sprite was introduced to the United States in 1961 to compete against 7 Up."
again, copying happens a lot in capitalism. there's wiggle room to evade patents or copyrights.
if someone here can find a better poster than dalke or schroder and that poster provides irrefutable counter-evidence that passes hyatt's inspection, then i'll gladly be convinced that vas did no copying.
i don't think it's even a big deal.
>if someone here can find a better poster than dalke or schroder and that poster provides irrefutable counter-evidence that passes hyatt's inspection, then i'll gladly be convinced that vas did no copying.
Start here - http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=395509
Even an aspirant programmer understands that 4 assembler instructions can't represent the Fruit code on the left.
if someone here can find a better poster than dalke or schroder and that poster provides irrefutable counter-evidence that passes hyatt's inspection, then i'll gladly be convinced that vas did no copying.
Nothing will ever convince Bob, so if you believe he is the deity, you will also never be convinced. That aside, most people accept the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and if you believe this you should be asking for proof from the people leveling the charges.
Nothing will ever convince Bob, so if you believe he is the deity, you will also never be convinced. That aside, most people accept the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and if you believe this you should be asking for proof from the people leveling the charges.
Miguel?
What happened to the poll asking if the ICGA made a mistake? Gone?
Best Regards,
Robert
What happened to the poll asking if the ICGA made a mistake? Gone?
Best Regards,
Robert
Well! I think we can safely say that no Lone Ranger Mod is going to turn Talkchess around anytime soon, not without a good sidekick and, Marcel, just ain't no Tonto to Miguel's Lone Ranger persona of riding into Talkchess on a white horse with guns blazing
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill