1. Due to the new server creating new accounts doesn't work yet
2. He created the account just when the forum moved and this caused the problems
I will inform Dadi
>No, definetly not! This is possible because the forum changed the server, but no censur!!! Otherwise I would personally remove the moderator who did that
Felix, this morning after reading SMKs original post, I was curious to see if this was his first post in this forum, so I clicked on his name to see the number of posts he had here. I got an error message which said something like:
"No such user exists in this database."
I clicked on the report button to report this error message in case it was happening to other users.
-/- By Stefan Meyer-Kahlen [de] Date 2008-07-17 07:12
What the hell are you talking about?
You might believe it right now but let me tell you that Rybka is not the
only center of our computer chess world. There are still other ways to
improve a chess program than simply copying Fruit/Strelka/Rybka even though
I admit this seems to be quite popular right now. If this will no longer be
the case I will probably stop computer chess.
Over the years my policy was always to treat my competitors in a fair way
and thinking about this I believe I deserved being treated in the same way.
Having said that I think that a puplic excuse would be appropriate right
author of Shredder
>What the hell are you talking about?
To what thing Larry has said Stefan was replying?
Aside from the Strelkadata, there was an unintended release of the Rybka eval in early '07 due to someone fraudently pretending to be me. Shredder's author even called it to Vas's attention (though he already knew about it) so obviously the info is widely dispersed. I am not suggesting anything unethical here; all the programmers use all the publicly available info about other programs. I've just been told that Shredder made good use of it. Anyway, Rybka's eval is so much better now that it is no longer a concern that this old eval became public.
I guess he was responding to the comment highlighted in Bold.
PS: I´m only testing your high IQ. :-)
I think that larry does not need to apologize.
Larry did not excuse Stefan in something unethical or illegal and it is clear that he did not mean to insult stefan.
I believe stefan but
I think that there is no need for a public excuse.
In general I think we should discuss such things privately and not suspect other programmers in public. Espacially since we all know Stefan as a talented, honest programmer, we shouldn't do that. Be fair!
looking forward to Mainz :)
>OK, Larry, some proofs or an excuse is expected :-)
I don't think any excuse is needed.
Larry said that: "I am not suggesting anything unethical here;"
This is clear.
He has also said that: "I've just been told that Shredder made good use of it."
What is the bad thing here in Larry's part? That he has been told something by someone?
Nothing bad here also....
Anyway as SMK have said, Rybka is not the center of the world and there is no need for someone to see Rybka's code in order to improve his program, even more than Rybka.
> What is the bad thing here in Larry's part? That he has been told something by someone?
> Nothing bad here also....
I've just been told, that George Tsavdaris remains clobbering his wife.
Let's tell it to newspapers and TV
(that this is told to me)
and let us discuss it in each forum
(that this is told to me)
and write it into the manual of each manual of each engine
(that this is told to me)
"I do not know really,
but many people on the street say, that George Tsavdaris is a XXX, a real YYYY, and anyway a ZZZZZ.
Lastly he has been a VVVVVV since years.
People say so. I wash my hands in innocence!"
No, I dont't agree with you. Such a behavior would not be OK.
It would give a reason for an exuse.
And so I'm really interessted in what Larry really wanted to express.
OK no problem if you feel it that way.
But if you said these things for me i would not accuse you. I would just asked you who told you these things....
If you didn't tell me and from your initial sayings would not occur any real problem for me in any way, then no problem for me, i would just not be your best friend. :-)
But if you didn't tell me who told you that, and from your initial sayings there would occur a problem for me(for example the police would accused me of something, or the business i run would go into a crisis) then indeed i would have to force you to tell me, who said these things for me.
But my point remains:
If someone says to me "Mike.X has killed J.F. Kennedy."
And i say in a forum, where Mike.X participates, for example: "Someone told me that Mike.X murdered J.F.Kennedy."
I have done nothing bad here since i have just said a valid and correct thing. That someone told me that.....etc.
I'm NOT saying that Mike.X has killed Kennedy. I'm saying that someone told me that Mike.X has killed Kennedy.
A big difference.
It's not like i'm accepting what he has told me. In that case i would say:
"It comes to my mind that maybe Mike.X has killed Kennedy as i have heard rumors about it. But i'm not sure of course."
THAT is a bad thing to say. That is a negative rumour.
As I see it, it makes a difference if a verifiable source of an a rumor, or of an assumption (etc.) is included or not. For example, instead of "someone told me A murdered B" you'd need to say "CNN has a video where an FBI spokesman said yesterday, A is suspected of murdering B." But you cannot shift the blame for a possibly wrong accusation to an anonymous "someone."
> It's not like i'm accepting what he has told me. In that case i would say:
> "It comes to my mind that maybe Mike.X has killed Kennedy ...
I think, acting like this very often occurs with the intention, that some dirt will remain glueing.
And I think, some dirt will remain glueing!
Therefore it's not OK for me.
I appreciate a lot all you posts exept 1.
I really like all information/posting you give here.
I have lots of respect also for SMK and all the work he did.
(Also, people keep using the word "excuse" in place of "apology", and I have never before heard it used this way, and apparently dictionary.com hasn't, either.)
> would be the same as requiring a public apology for accusing Shredder 11 of being boring
But it's not boring :), perhaps it's more boring than Shredder 10 but a lot of fun when compared to Naum ;)
> after a years work on S11 that the main progress from S10 to S11 came from some "stolen" code from Rybka
First, nobody said that except yourself.
Second, the public excuse has already been made.
> Ok, sorry for my misinterpretation of the word in english.
You should be, but you do not seem to be.
>Also, people keep using the word "excuse" in place of "apology"
The quick definitions from onelook.com give:
apology: a poor example, an expression of regret for having caused trouble for someone, a formal written defense of something you believe strongly
excuse: a note explaining an absence, a defense of some offensive behavior or some failure to keep a promise, etc., a poor example
The word-choice at hand concerns the 2nd definition in each. Maybe SMK expected LK to defend his behaviour rather than regret it. :-P
Turbo, some of us are not natice English speaking people. :), but yes, the word "excuse" in place of "apology" is something else. I have never heard it being used like that too. :)
> I would never think of deleting Stefan's post and I have great respect for him.
I think, this is to be affirmed and underlined heavily by each computerchess interested man and woman!
To delete Stefan posting would be so 'subterranian', that I can't imagine, that someone could have done it intentionally.
Please, Stefan, post again.
> I am not suggesting anything unethical here; all the programmers use all the publicly available info about other programs. I've just been told that Shredder made good use of it.
what concrete did you assume writing these sentences?
Has Stefan studied the Rybca code and boosted his Shredder by copying Vas ideas (or even code?)?
Or did you suppose something else?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill