Again my question: show the people here your undisputable proof of a copied code bit. I called it a short sentence without just only some numbers. Sho me the code in Rybka and then on the other side show the version you saw in Fruit. Just a single example will do for me. But I never saw a single example until now. That at least would be something beyond your endless answering. The shorter the relevant example could be the better you could then also explain the vaslidity to me as a lay. Just do me the faor and stop talking nonsense about my ignorance which is nothing new since I am in a different field. But what is a proof isnt unknown even for me. Give such an example that could prove your verdict. Others can then examine your example. What do you want other than such an easy question?
If you have not seen a single example until now, you have been running around with your eyes closed for _several_ years...
You can mention Mark or Zach, why not Alan Turing himself. But until this day nobody showed relevant code, including Bob Hyatt. All I can see is the known hate campaign. It's lynching justice.
It is relevant if it is in Rybka and in another program. That violates ICGA rule 2 instantly. As it violates copyright. And ethical standards. Etc.
There is not one stitch of code in Crafty or Fruit that is "public domain." It is all copyrighted by someone...
As far as your "all I can see." You will be able to see a _lot_ more, and a _lot_ more clearly, if you just open your eyes. Quit running around with your eyes tightly closed, shouting "I can't see a thing..."
> If the FSF does not pursue this, it won't mean a thing to those of us that have looked at the code. They might conclude, at least for the eval, that the change from mailbox to bitboard was significant enough to not warrant an infringement case for that code. Doesn't mean it is acceptable to the ICGA, however. Everyone knows what the rules mean. They have known since the first CC event.
No, your right Bob it won't matter that you and ICGA by implication have become totally irrelevant. Are you a bigot Bob- prejudiced and intolerant of any opinions that may conflict with your own?
Vas may very well have cut some corners in the beginning of his career by copying ideas then expanding on them and evolving them into what became in short order Rybka. There seems to be enough speculation as to how much of a base he used of Fruit code if any-I don't know and I don't give a crap. That is entirely academic -and only of interest to bean counters like yourself and a bunch of amateur and commercial chess engine programmers who saw a window of opportunity to remove one of the most advanced chess engine programmers from dominating the field. So, you and your buddies got him. But there will be no glory for any of you-no glory!
You're jealousy toward Vas for his programming skills and abilities, when placed up against your hobby and it's comparative lackluster given all your years of academic study has left you livid with a myopic vision that can only see hate and vengeance. You don't even know how to give closure to this issue without having a panic attack. It must really dumbfound you that Vas is somehow coming out of this smelling like a rose, and you have taken the plunge into the toilet and are coming out full of shit.
> Ken Thompson? I don't care what Ken Thompson thinks!
You should! He was a guest of Fred friedel's at the London Clasic last year. It was really nice to meet him.
A credible witness/panel member?
You just dont possess the conditions for being an independant functioneer in such an examination. But you were welcomed as a biased voice for the Hiarcs competitor of Rybka.
>You did cheat as an operator of Hiarcs in a chess game and all could see that.
When was this?
Nice character witness for the secretariat...
Harvey cheated during your tournament with twiddling on his clock, the one of Hiarcs of course. Now I read he's a sysop on Playchess?? Pardon?
Lots of people have made that mistake. Whether he knew and understood that it was wrong at the time is unknown. It's not a big deal to me unless it is a repeated happening, which it has not been. Something that is wrong might well not be known by everybody. Everybody that runs a computer on ICC against humans (and against other computers) fiddle with the search time on a move-by-move basis at times. The rules of ICC don't say a word about that being wrong. Yet if you do that in an ACCA or CCT event, it is against the rules. So I'm willing to overlook isolated events. "
For me it's still interesting how Bob excused Harvey although he cheated in a running tournament, what Vas as operator of course has never done. It's just a double standard of Bob. And an interesting character fallacy in Harvey.
If I had not admitted that I had done it nobody would ever have known but I did admit it and the TD, not Bob, decided that no action was needed.
However I am guilty as charged and cooperated with the TD.
So what is your point?
As for Vas he just turned up with Crafty in the same tournament played on ICC.
Bob just has not thought this through till the end. Even if he should be deceived by Vas ignorance, a senior like Bob should show some wisdom and find an outbalanced judgement and should not enter into that mode we all know him so well for.
Both of you, Bob or you, are not that interesting because I see a required support for Vas. He just hasnt deserved the humiliation by the known figures. Harvey, Bob, David, you name them.
And a direct crime is in my eyes that Bob tolerated these anonymous figures of the Hippocrits and in special with Norm the King of Fraud in computerchess. That is just dirty for anyone with a good name.
So what is the "difference"? One was obviously a "mistake". One was a deliberate action that knowingly violated ICGA rules of participation.
Why do you even mention those two things in the same conversation???
As far as knowing Harvey, we have never met to the best of my knowledge. Mark Lefler and I have met at ACM events. Ken and I certainly met at a bunch of them. I have never met or talked with Vas. So how are they any different in that respect? This is just a case of "let's find an excuse, any excuse, even completely implausible excuses, even completely irrelevant excuses, just find _something_ to argue against the ICGA process here...
Looks like things are getting quite desperate based on how "out there" these excuses are getting...
> For me it's still interesting how Bob excused Harvey although he cheated in a running tournament, what Vas as operator of course has never done. It's just a double standard of Bob. And an interesting character fallacy in Harvey.
You caught Hyatt's bigoted partiality at work protecting one of his own against someone he perceives as an outsider -you!
The IBM scientists, all friends of Bob, had invited Kasparov as a chosen client to get the informations about the strength of Deep Blue II. The design had to be a friendliness overall so that Kasparov could have his way as the highly impoertant representative of mankind. That was his own selfperception. Know by several interviews. If a science team wants to know the strength of the machine in chess, it's clear that you dont get what you want if you psych the human player so that he is frustrated and feels being treated with a lack of respect. Yes, that is typical for human chessplayers. The point is a methodological one that forbids to press on the client if you later want to publish your results because as it went there, they psyched out Kasparov who did not play his normal chess, who even lost interest. Reason was that after the second game he just got into suspicion mode and in special so after they just didnt show him some output he had asked for. But to save the event they must have shown something. Otherwise they cheated their scientifical duties.
Point now in the debate with Hyatt was, that he called Kasparov an a.s.hole and was supporting his friends with the classical fallacy: sure as scientists they should heve done better, but here they had the IBM people dominating and ordering them what to do. Well, this is an interesting case that shows what standards mean to Bob, even the ones in science. If it's for his friends and the money the standards are irrelevant. But Bob didnt understand that this way the Hsu team had vilated the ethical standards of science. Their acting could well be called cheating. So yes, this why I always claimed that they had cheated Kasparov. Bob went into a similar hate mode than right now against Vas.
Also against Kasparov he didnt stop telling us that it was Kasparov's own fault that he had accepted the contract details as bad they were against him. That is pure cynism because a scientist is not allowed to enjoyystupidities of his client, he should more so be concerned that the client has the best possible conditions, because only then you get the best results for your design. Here the goal was not how the operators could possible cheat Kaspatov with the help of a machine, that was already known about Kasparov, he was a big superstitious case. But they had pretended that it all was about the capcities of Deep Blue in chess.
I want to excuse this excurse but it shows a lot about experts like Bob and their bias.
Let me just add something about Ken (Thompson) who was the official supervisor of the machine code. After he realised the mess with the machine code that was not offered to Kasparov inspite his doubts, Ken pitied that he ever accepted the job. I can only conclude or assume that he understood the bad influence all this had on Kasparov. But they had forbidden that he could show some code. - In extensions Bob explained to my questions, that the would simply exist no safe controls mechanisms to prevent cheating with a machine output. In a typical double standard Bob still continued to claim during the aftermath, that in the end IBM had published the output. Although formerly he himself had explained that authenticity couldnt be proven.
I see in Ken a similar bias than in Bob, here they are typical Americans (sorry but that is no racism or such some, it's just from a European perspective) that are only interested in winning and only but winning with all means. Ken could have saved his honor if he would have criticised the proceduring by IBM but that is asking for too much if money is involved. Well, now he got another half a million through the Japan Prize. Sorry If I violated the feelings of other people but I cant help, I must support the side of Kasparov because the scientists made clearly classical mistakes. And it happened that neither Bob nor Ken clarified it.
>I don't see Vas in any of these photo opts.
Maybe the reason for that Beavis... Vas was a zit popping teen when those were taken... you meathead.
You and your friend Butthead (rofl) embarrass yourselves more and more with every post.
It would be easy for these guys to communicate with each other without much debate over selectively limiting the criteria that would narrow the entry rule to be defined as only having to isolate differences in lines of code -rather than prove that an entire body of work was not unique and owned by the programmer. They knew they were rewriting the rules as they went along, and they didn't give it a second thought because they believed themselves beyond reproach.
>Nice to see you loose your temper
it's "lose" not "loose" you hypercritical hypocrite.
“my real face” hahahahahahahaha… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for making me laugh.
What else is in Rybka is 100% irrelevant. Just as surely as if you are caught with $1000 you stole from a store, and the money is identified through matching serial numbers. Even if you have $10,000 of your own money in your pocket as well, money that you earned legitimately. That _still_ does not excuse you for stealing, in any court anywhere.
The only experts you will accept are those that disagree with the ICGA report. Only problem is, that is "the empty set."
> ken wasn't asked to judge "a body of work". He was asked to answer the question, "based on the evidence shown through disassembly of early Rybka versions provided in this report, do you believe that Rybka is a derived work from Fruit?"
He should have been asked to judge the body of work up against what you numb sculls isolated for examination. That would have been a relevant determination. You chose to artificially separate from a working body fragments that alone only prove that at one time in the development lots of ideas were considered before the functioning body of work came into being. Maybe Vas should have re-invented the wheel for you idiots and then everything would have been gleefully okay- He saw what Fabien saw and said "that's good, I can do wonders with that that he never dreamed of. " This has happened down through the ages of mankind. You wouldn't be where you are now if it didn't. Fabien's is an insight -not necessarily original thought- first of its kind. There is no such thing unless you are GOD! The only thing you did with all this was feed directly into the ippolit cause and promote indirectly their philosophy. I hope not their values. Given time you'll probably be pirating software too. You disassembled the guys work!!!!
If you and your buddies decide to re-write the rules-then you had better be explicit in stating that you are not only looking to ensure that each program is unique and is owned by the representing programmer - but, that every line of code is uniquely original and cannot be found in any other existing chess engine ever created on the planet earth and/or beyond.
But I wouldn't expect you to make that kind of distinction-your intentions are divisive and convoluted. But you won't admit to that- you are so practiced in selective thinking that it is easy for you to only focus on what confirms your biases. I am willing to bet that you have a documented history that notes your proclivity for being opinionated. I would also imagine it may have gotten you in cold water not just once, but a number of times, particularly with students. I would also bet that students have learned either by word of mouth or documentation of your penchant for being quite full of your self; and have become quite good at manipulating you -probably, much better than you could possibly imagine or would be willing to admit.
Doesn't matter what the rest of the world wants/thinks/etc. This was a rule written by programs, for programmers. And nothing else.
There is no "distinction" to be made. If you copy code from another program, your program is now allowed to compete. With one clear exception. If you and the original author you copied agree, either one or the other of you can enter, but both can not. Precedent? Toga is a fruit derivative. Cluster Toga participated a few years back, with Fabien's permission, and without Fabien wanting to enter Fruit.
The rules are clear to those that count...
As far as your last rambling nonsense, it is just that. Nonsense. Nothing more needs to be said about that kind of garbage.
Have fun down there...
This seems to be the signature of the likes when unsuccessful in substantiating 'their stories'. Can't say I'm surprised with their resort to personal attacks....
> This seems to be the signature of the likes when unsuccessful in substantiating 'their stories'. Can't say I'm surprised with their resort to personal attacks....
I seem to recall being the target of quite a few from you in the past?
Have you turned over a new leaf?
Have you turned over a new leaf?
I don't mind good, reasonable debates. The 'logic' and the 'double standard' used by you et.al, apropos Rybka vs. IppoLit, is the target.
Unless asking questions that demand facts is considered hostile, I guess I'm still on the old leaf.
> I seem to recall being the target of quite a few from you in the past?
> Have you turned over a new leaf?
> I don't mind good, reasonable debates. The 'logic' and the 'double standard' used by you et.al, apropos Rybka vs. IppoLit, is the target.
> Unless asking questions that demand facts is considered hostile, I guess I'm still on the old leaf.
Robust debate is good, but it's disappointing when they turn into mudslinging. I guess we've all been guilty of that at different times, myself included.
It's not my place to judge you or anyone. It would seem part of the lesson from all these is to avoid naive acceptance of a clone-accusation towards another engine without proof. Non-bias and fair objectivity (till everything settles) goes a long way....
Ever heard of a dissenting opinion? Seems quite an accepted practice at the supreme court.
>Ever heard of a dissenting opinion?
Oh you mean like, "You're full of BS."?
That kind of "enlightened" or "astute" dissenting opinion?
1) Bob is the smartest guy in the world and everyone else is an idiot. If you don't agree with Bob, you are too stupid to understand the issue.
2) Chess engines represent the most complicated and difficult problem ever addressed by mankind. Chess engine are also the most efficiently coded of any application. Only chess engine developers know anything about high speed applications.
3) Bob has done it all. If Bob hasn't done it, it isn't worth doing.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill