As a moderator I have to ask you have to refrain from such inflammatory claims. What make you think your claim has any root in reality?
Several years ago i changed the contempt setting for the last game of an online tournament as it was a game we had to win. I discovered later this was not allowed and admitted I had done it. If I had not nobody would ever have known. The TD decided to take no action.
You bring up such a stupid example citing Harvey over and over that it is plain for all to
see you are trolling "as usual".
So let me play along for a moment since apparently you are too stupid to know what cheating
is... It's DECEPTION... It's FRAUD... It's MISLEADING...
So what part about what Harvey actions (Notifying the Tournament Director of a Rule Violation)
is Deceptive? What kind of Fraud did he perpetrate? Who did he Mislead? WELL???
You are so well-known for citing Kasparov as someone who was supposedly cheated... then
let me bring up an example of your hero.
Linares 1994... 5th round... Judit Polgar vs Kasparov. Kasparov plays 36...Nc5
momentarily removes his hand and the takes it again moving it back to d7.
He says his hand never left the piece. Spanish TV video tape of the game showed otherwise.
> Several years ago i changed the contempt setting for the last game of an online tournament as it was a game we had to win.
It would have been better if you had started with,
"Once upon a time..."
>I discovered later this was not allowed and admitted I had done it.
Because you were new to chess, and...?
> If I had not nobody would ever have known. The TD decided to take no action.
And, what a good boy you are!
If there is more can you wait-I want to make some popcorn - you are such a good spinner of tales.
Your beside yourself!
c'est la vie :)
> Just realising that some people I thought were decent, like you, are actually some of the biggest a____s I have ever met
Oh, my! Harvey you do like casting those aspersions when it gets hot in the kitchen, and still insisting on pissing on my back and telling me its raining out.
Poor guy- you couldn't even get that one right! You're a hoot!
Reminds of the kid who was so happy to play in a room full of manure.
Psychologists couldn’t figure out why… when asked the boy says, “well with all this horse manure in here I figure there has to be a horse somewhere!”
"lack of respect" is not "cheating"
cheating present participle of cheat (Verb)
1. Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards".
2. Deceive or trick.
Neither of those describe what happened in the Kasparov / Deep Blue match.
Kasparov was out-played where he did not expect it, that caused him to completely fall apart, and he lost. His fault and that of his advisors that poorly prepared him for the reality of Deep Blue.
Lack of respect is not cheating.
It's strange to get from you first sentence above because you told me that even if one tried one couldnt find out nor prevent a cheating with the output. So there you go with your idol Ken Thompson. He was staging against Kasparov.I dont say that they made up the output, but f they did in the aftermath nobody could have found out.
The second phrase is just showing that you again didnt get what this is all about. Cheating your object of the research that was intended to be the check for their own machine, is whatever you prefer for calling it, just preventing that you get a valid result. Look, you know something about chess. If you want to know how the machine could play against the best human, you must let him play his best chess. Ok, I told you that a human player cannot play without his psychology. But if you then cause him to psych out, THEN you get the result what he could do under these circumstances but not the one that were relevant. Is that too complicated for you? Nt for me, it's so basic in human science and its research.You can do many things but if you want to have a result how your machine plays chess against the chess of the best human, you should not embarrass the human player. However if you want to win by all means, this is what this was all about, typical for Americans, then you might get your result, but it doesnt say much about the real strength of your machine. As a last example. Say you put Kasparov underdrugs, would you then get a result about the true strength of Deep Blue. I dont think so. Ok, I have understood that you are arguing that Kasparov psyched himself out. But that doesnt fly. Simply because no matter who did it, it made further relevant results impossible. If we could agree on that at least, then you had understood what I was talking about. So, to sum this up. I the interest of sound research the IBM scientists should have told their sponsors that if they played dirty that then even if they won, the result would always be considered as rigged and cheated. And this is where we are. And you defended their cheating. And this is what I am telling you all the time. like Harvey who cheated only once, you are already the second member of the ICGA secretariat who isnt quite kosher because he once defended the cheating of his friends against Kasparov.
Please note, that what your claque is now trying to do, namely proving that Kasparov is a cheat in other places, is uninteresting. I never pretended that Kasparov were holy. He's just a human being and probably he is also socialized to win in chess by all means. So he even lost his temper against a woman, namely Judit Polgar. Ok, but that doesnt excuse the cheating that you have defended against Kasparov.
But what does this only say? That even you are a human being, Bob. You have also certain cheating intentions if it's about your friends. So, morally you might not be so far away from Vas, if all that is true what you have claimed all these years.
BTW I'm not pretending that I were holy myself. I just had no chance to make certain mistakes. At least this is how I am thinking. Because I dont want to be a hypocrit. But in your obsession against Vas you show a lot of that vice, Bob. Couldnt we come back to normal? Perhaps then Vas could also reconsider. Why not doing a first step from our side here in this debate? Would you lose anything of value? Nope. You would win a whole lot back of honesty.
The DB team played the games fairly. Kasparov got psyched out because of poor preparation, because he listened to people that didn't know what they were talking about. He chose his "team". He followed their recommendations. It didn't work out. ALL of that is independent of the DB guys...
The flick is composed of a great deal of hype but it does have some interesting content.
Kind of hard to insult someone, then come right back and ask them for something that the rules did not specify that they had to supply on demand.
Ken Thompson looked at the log file immediately and said that everything looked perfectly normal at that point in the game... And Ken was one of the "neutral observers" both sides agreed on at the time.
I certainly don't.
> It is now 14 years old and well beyond its intended lifetime.
That's a good one. Interesting to note what your concept of actuality is; 14 years too long ago, 6-7 years still very current.
I'll be upfront with you: I am not going to enter into any serious discussion with you. We disagree on all points. Imo you're a vindictive guy who never made it to the top. But I can't deny your ramblings here amuse me :-)
The lack of information here is really quite amazing, when the knowledge gaps can be filled in so easily with just a small amount of web investigation.
And then there is the continual attempts at mind-reading, as if you can somehow discern my motives. Is our court system "vindictive"? The police? The prosecutors? The witnesses? Or do we have a new definition of vindictive.
"vindictive. adjective. describes anyone that doesn't agree with me, regardless of whether the evidence supports me or not."
You are the best!
Only cheaters could (temporarily) claim your throne!
Ever considered becoming a wikipedia contributor?
You are so full of.... facts!
Bob is in fact logical and uses facts in these discussions. Can't disagree with you on that.
The attacks on Bob and those upholding factual truth results when the Rybka proponents (those supporting the 'unethical' Rybka origins) twists the origin of Rybka in relation to Fruit-Crafty facts. When that doesn't work, they divert on to the "he increased ELO in Rybka" tactic. When this isn't viable, they demand facts that are actually already published and easily obtained. When the facts stare them hard in their faces, they want Bob or those who did read these facts to show them similarities. When this excuse fails to fly off, they then get personal. When 'getting personal' doesn't dissuade the truth, the name-calling & insults starts. If the name-calling fails to mute the truth, then their unbridled anger manifests. When anger-flaring and puffing doesn't change the facts surrounding Rybka, they resort to excommunicate that stubborn, unyielding but truthful person via their ignore lists.
I know this for a fact because 2 people actually tried such childish approaches on me. Such emotions. Laughable though.
Wikipedia more or less confirms ...
Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. It is related to other means of social control that arise in communities, such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering. Lynchings have been more frequent in times of social and economic tension, and have often been means used by the politically dominant population to oppress social challengers.
> lynching generally refers to torture and murder of innocent blacks by racist whites.
Why do you think Lynchings were relegated strictly as southern justice- I got news for you. It was mob rule justice performed regularly in the old west as a matter of routine- if you need pictures - I'll provide them for you. If they didn't hang them they shot them so full of holes they didn't know where to bleed first. Then asked questions later.
August 3rd, 2009 in American History by Tom Goodrich
I was on the cell a few days ago with a friend who was driving to Kansas from Denver. Not long after she had cleared Ft. Wallace in far western Kansas, I asked her to keep an eye out on the left for the Twin Mounds. She did soon note this rather small but distinctive geological feature and asked what had happened there. I mentioned that in 1868 Mexican bullwhackers were killed on the site by a Cheyenne war party. The event was depicted in one of the illustrated journals of the time. I added that near the Twin Mounds once situated the tent city of Sheridan.
For several months Sheridan served as the end-of-the-line for the Kansas Pacific Railroad. Dodge? Deadwood? Tombstone? Abilene? For wildest, wickedest town in the West, my money is on Sheridan. Now, every “Hell-On-Wheels” town (a sordid collection of canvass saloons and bordellos that packed it in when the rails moved west) was wild and wicked but Sheridan was way over the top. The place was the worst of the worst. Some have calculated that there were as many as two murders a day. Not bad for a mote on the map that boasted maybe a thousand drunken, riotous souls. But that stat takes into account only those poor chaps who were gunned down on Sheridan’s muddy streets or stabbed to death in the filthy “Hog Ranches” (brothels). With no law west of Hays City, vigilantes added to the daily death toll. As ever, hemp was the preferred method.
If your intention is to turn this into a racial flame war- that is on you! [Edit] The clan went after anything that was perceived to upset their apple cart. You didn't need to African American to end up buried in the woods.
> The suffering of African Americans during the 1800's was enormous and they don't appreciate the word lynching being thrown around any time unfairness is implied. Thank u again for your posts. Regards.
"The Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,446 lynchings of blacks and 1,297 lynchings of whites between 1882 and 1968. Southern states created new constitutions between 1890 and 1910, with provisions that effectively disfranchised most blacks, as well as many poor whites. People who did not vote were excluded from serving on juries, and most blacks were shut out of the official political system."
You need to re-examine your time line racial motivated lynchings didn't get started until after the war between the states.
refer you to this article that covers the entire concept of mob lynch mentality.
Let me continue with a brief example. Let's say that you come to me with this statement, "Garry Kasparov is a great chess champion". I then go and research the database and find hundreds of games where he lost and come back to you and say, "Garry Kasparov was no great chess champion!" Then I go and research some more, I come up with several games that he lost in simuls, maybe to a 1900 rated guy, maybe I find a few friendly blitz games that he lost, etc, and I show you those and I say, "not only Kasparov wasn't a great chess champion, he wasn't even a very good chess player!" Later I bring you a youtube recording of a Kasparov political speech and say "look, he wasn't even a chess player, he was a politician". On the surface it would seem that I am right because I have shown you hundreds, if not thousands, of games where Kasparov lost, but in reality I have only shown you the EXCEPTIONS and demonstrated how little I know about chess.
My original argument was that even if Vas is totally innocent (of copying code verbatim), that comparing the ICGA staff to a murderous racist lynch mob is offensive. Does "Tuskegee Institute" have anything to do with that? You are saying that my time line is wrong - I said that the "suffering of African Americans during the 1800's was enormous"- where is the error in that statement? I repeat, where is the error here? You are denying that they suffered in the 1800's? Are you kidding me?
I said that lynching in United States is generally (and I put the word "generally" in both prior posts) considered a racist white on an innocent black crime. That statement is of course still correct. Are you going into all this trouble and research to show me that lynching was generally NOT a white against black crime? You can't be serious about that, can you?
Finally, you also mixed KKK in your arguments, saying that they were hateful not only of blacks but also of some other groups- which of course is correct but again showing that you are digging for EXCEPTIONS. Again, KKK was generally (please note I said "generally") a white against black group and you can not seriously state otherwise.
My friend, thank you for your research and your posts. Let me tell you in the absolute gentlest and kindest and respectful fashion that you have missed the forest for the trees. In your zeal to find EXCEPTIONS and to prove me wrong, you have actually shown that your knowledge on this subject is limited to what you read and you have no human understanding of it. Garry Kasparov was indeed a great chess champion!
Hey, this is the weekend and I am thankful for that. At least the ICGA board can be thankful as well that so far no one has likened them to Nazi Germans killing jews in gas chambers.
I'll get some tennis in this weekend and (hopefully) clean the house little. Have a great one.
What we have in the scene, is a strange logic of expected honesty and cooperation, but could you tell me how one could feel at ease if right from the start 6 years ago other notable programmers publicly distribute the death verdict that if one would forget about moral that then all would become as strong as Vas? Isnt it madness pure? That was when there were no proofs at all that Fruit were all in Rybka. And Rybka was hundreds of points better than Fruit. So, in other words, this sort of charcter assassination even denied the indisputable effects of Vasik's programming. But dont forget these critics are all competitors in the tournaments. The critics preach honesty but they are hypocrits enough to argue alone with arguments of copying something that had no impact on the strength of the prog that Vas has created. So here is the lynching again in place. It is a form of racism, well metaphorically speaking. It's as if a certain cap must be worn by definition and then you have a champion who disagrees and he wears a woolen thing he got from his wife. Now these experts prove that a woolen thing could by no means be accepted as a cap. And therefore they are ready to vote for a life ban. But racism in the USA never was different. The Afro American slaves were not been hated for their characters. At least I dont think so. They had just the wrong color. Bear in mind, the Nazis killed Jews who formerly had been in the Prussian Army and who got there even medals of honor. That is it about ridiculous racism.
It's complete madness to argue that a newcomer should write from scratch if you have a genius who knows what he's doing and then is following the advice of Bob Hyatt and then takes his Crafty as a model before he then slowly is improving his own thing. Trotsky, who is a famous programmer himself who always was proud to do his own thing, even Trotsky saw the smartness in Vasik taking Crafty model as a start. Man, this isnt cheating, this is living like a genius. And the professor himself told his students to do so. Ahem, what a shit, then someone entered the thing into a tournament that was standing under the cappy rules of the ICGA. You know that is a crime? Sorry but such a programmewr must be ripped apart. He then must be banned for life. He's scum. If you know what I mean. He didnt ask daddy properly. Know what I mean? Because in a way we enjoy a genius but he must act like psychiatric patients under haloperidol.
Thank you for your willingness to contribute.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill