Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-28 06:32
Good one.
Did you notice how you completely sidestepped my original remark about measuring with two measures?
'Facts' that happened 14 yrs ago no longer relevant, 6-7 years ago very much so in your worldview.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-07-28 10:06
Some of us do notice.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-28 20:07
Some of you don't notice _anything_.

For example, for _this_ issue, we had a formal complaint.  Which YOU signed, for the record.  Spelling out a specific complaint about a specific program, citing credible evidence.

In 1997 are you aware of ANY evidence of any kind, credible or not, that suggests that DB did not play every move as happened in the games?  All of us have gone over the log files with a fine-toothed comb.  Found _nothing_ irregular.  Did find a program that was very "rough" in its user interface, but that is a different issue.  All of us went over the particular move Kasparov frothed over about.  Other programs found the same move, back in 1997.  You can find on r.g.c.c that Crafty found the move although it took somewhere around 24 hours.  Considering the 1000x speed difference then, that seems reasonable.

So it is _not_ about the elapsed time that is an issue, as you so idiotically infer, it is about "credible evidence."  Produce some for 1997 and I'll be more than willing to look at it...  For Rybka, we certainly had more than enough to look.  YOU asked us to look.

And now you want to feign "total innocence and outrage."

poor show of character, if you ask me.

Why did you sign?  Are you a sheep or lemming and just followed the other programmers over the cliff?  Or did you think something wrong had transpired?
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-07-28 23:44
I am not involved in your ongoing 14 old war with Rolf about DB-Kaspy 1997 :eek::eek::eek:

I think you misread and missed OudH fine point what is too old to talk about.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-29 02:03
Nothing is too old to talk about if there is something to actually talk about.  Got any specific points to discuss about the Kasparov - Deep Blue match?  Any questions on the log files?  Any question about any single move played by DB that looks like human interference rather than program choice?  Anything at all?  Because the nonsense about the DB guys "cheating" needs _something_ concrete to talk about...
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-26 18:50

> if someone does something wrong he doesnt automatically get a life sentence.


There are lots of examples start here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14262937.stm

Then try this:

http://guyism.com/sports/sports-stars-banned-from-their-sport.html

No court cases needed in any of these just the decision of the governing body.

from this site
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 19:48
Harvey, Dear!

These guys that you are sighting got banned in a timely fashion!

When that one guy got caught brawling did they wait 5-7 years to ban his ass? 

The others  failed drug tests-I used to administer those drug tests, Harvey old chap-they don't work 5-7 years later.

And, Joe Jackson for throwing the series. They sure as hell didn't wait 5-7 years to ban his sorry ass for life, ". It seems like nobody then or now truly knows what the hell Joe Jackson did or didn’t do in that World Series."

Harvey, stop pissing on everyone's back and telling them that it's raining out.
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-26 19:51
Nice to know that you at least conceed he is guilty and that you just don't like the timeline.

ps. the only one pissing in the wind is you. You and a few others here can make as many personal attacks as you like, however nothing will change.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 19:54

> Nice to know that you at least conceed he is guilty and that you just don't like the timeline.


Oh, Harvey, I just reviewed your pic and post - Now, there you go again pissing on my back and telling me that it is raining out. Shame on you!
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-25 14:25
Stop with the historical rewrites.

The UCI code argument plus longjmp bla bla was flattened three or four years ago when Kangaroo Court One collapsed and you were sent away to try again. Three years later you are back, at least this time with some material that looks at the chessic components and not some irrelevant stuff that proved nothing, badly, from the user interface.

Perhaps you can stick to chessic engine material rather than the rather pathetic KC1 fallback position of setjmp() UCI parser bla bla

Repeating the mantra "match perfectly" as per Geobbels advice, big lie and often, over six years doesn't cut it either. No blocks of code "match perfectly" let alone in the more usual Hyattian formulation "hundreds of lines of matching code" - have you dropped that one now, "hundreds" morphing into "some"?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 17:37
The arguments were _never_ "flattened."  That is your attempt to rewrite history, but it doesn't fly.  That code was copied, just as surely as Crafty 19.x was copied to make the early version of Rybka that was distributed and which played in a public tournament as well...

To you, anything falls under "pathetic" if it differs with your view on copying...

not my problem...
Parent - - By SR (****) Date 2011-07-25 17:44
That code was copied

No I think you mean that Fruit code were converted. I though we already had agreed on the correct terminology.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 17:51
I believe the proper term is "translated".  Which means copied using a new language for the output.
Parent - By SR (****) Date 2011-07-25 17:52
Ok fine with me. Lets stick to this then...
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-25 19:12

> I believe the proper term is "translated".


So there goes your copy claim out of the window.
What is left??
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 19:59
You _really_ don't get the concept, eh?  You can't copy a book and translate it to another language and claim it as your original work.

How hard is it to grasp that???

And of course, for Rybka 1.6.1 it is a massive _and_ identical copy, no translation of any kind.  So that one flew right back in the window and landed with a giant THUD at your feet...  What to do now???
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-25 20:36
"So that one flew right back in the window and landed with a giant THUD at your feet...  What to do now???"

well, remind you, yet again, for the umpteenth time, what you now call Rybka 1.6.1 was an entirely legal version of Crafty, doing all the things Hyatt wants, eg learning about chess programming and playing around and testing Crafty source code which is freely downloadable, changing it, recompiling it, testing the chessic results.

he never distributed the program to the public for money nor gave it away to the public. his mistake was to enter it in a tournament which is counter to the Hyatt license. This is not "copying" or "plagiarism", this is entering the program into a tournament in breach of the licence, some might say trivial or technical breach, but nevertheless a breach.  In the tournament, btw, it played weakly and without effect.

The sin is not so great but the Hyatt response is psychopathically disproportionate. Slight offense leading to massive, six year long continuous pursuit with max insulting.

And, the continuous use of the term and accusation "copying Crafty", "massive _and_ identical copy" bla bla is utterly misleading.

Stop with the dissembling.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 20:50

> The sin is not so great but the Hyatt response is psychopathically disproportionate.


Hurrah for this statement. 

Even if we consider the indisputably true and essential ("disproportionate") from the intuitively evident but not proven ("psychopathically"), both words, separate or together, ring true.
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-25 23:24
Imagine how any normal judge would slap that case around Bob's nose! At the beginning I said evil hate campaign, then sadomaso and now Chris W has made the verdict from the human standpoint. 

  Dailey and Hyatt both have judged that I would "adore" Vas, but this is false. I am on his side with my ethical decision because I am against unfairness and lynch justice. What is happening here that is a crime of hypocrits who suffer of a psychopathological disorder. Envie and hatered come to mind as probable causes.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 22:49
Wrong.  It was used in a public tournament, explicitly against the license/copyright.  It was distributed to testers and included on computer rating lists, again explicitly against the license/copyright.

How hard is that to understand?

And then, multiple times, in public, he has stated that _all_ versions of Rybka, even the early ones, were 100% original.  How do you square that statement with existing evidence?  Simple, the statement was false. 

How is any of the acceptable to someone with any sense of ethical behavior???
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-07-25 23:32
For he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow
For he's a jolly good fellow (pause), and so say all of us
And so say all of us, and so say all of us
For he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow
For he's a jolly good fellow (pause), and so say all of us!

+++ Chris
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-28 21:59
Chris... with your take on events...

Team Obama could really use someone like you....

Or possibly you could get a job on MSNBC....
Parent - - By SR (****) Date 2011-07-25 20:52 Edited 2011-07-25 20:58
You can't copy a book and translate it to another language and claim it as your original work.

Again lets at least be accurate: In the 2005 interview Vas said:

I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.

This is not exactly claiming that Fruit 2.1 source code was his own. More correct description of what you really seems to say is that:

"Vas translated parts for Fruit but omitted to put this on the tournament entry form" 

I am not entirely sure about the chronology and whether Vas was aware of the clarification of rule 2 in conjunction with the big lion case?   If we assume  that Vas is a man of integrity (this might of course seem absurd to some, but is plausibility to me) maybe Vas did modify that code by making sure it was mainly ideas he took and that there were no actual copying of Fruit code in the end.

In the big lion case "close derivative" is defined as 80% or more. So lets at least establish that Rybka 1.6.1 cannot be close derivatives of both Fruit and Crafty (assuming Fruit and Crafty are less than 60% similar).
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-25 21:38
Fruit did not exist when Rybka 1.6.1 participated in CCT.

Even if Vas had been honest on his entry form in any tournament that Fruit competed in he would not have been allowed to enter as you can only have 1 program from a 'family' competing. Also the 2x Cluster Toga competed(with Fabien's agreement) Rybka would not have been allowed. I asked the Cluster Toga guy in Beijing if they would ever release their engine. I remember him telling me no because then to comply with GPL they would have to release the source code.
Parent - By SR (****) Date 2011-07-27 12:37
I somehow got confused as Rybka 1.6.1 was before Rybka 1.0 beta. My claim was based purely on logic and thus is correct by definition. But the claim is obviously not relevant since its clear Rybka 1.6.1 contains 0% Fruit.  Do you mind posting a link to the wiki for the Rybka investigation you refer to in another post?
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-25 21:55

>I am not entirely sure about the chronology and whether Vas was aware of the clarification of rule 2 in conjunction with the big lion case?


"How many years you spend pissing on the toilet seat before someone told you to put it up?"

>In the big lion case "close derivative" is defined as 80% or more.


No... it did not (say that) Søren.

Don't make it say what you want it to say... go back and re-read it again.
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-27 06:12

>So lets at least establish that Rybka 1.6.1 cannot be close derivatives of both Fruit and Crafty (assuming Fruit and Crafty are less than 60% similar).


For all that has been written on this topic...

You see a statement like this and you have to wonder what in the world is going thru the mind of someone to make such an ignorant statement!

And this person is supposedly a Reader at QM?

Even if one were to totally ignore every single post about R1.6.1 and totally ignore the ICGA Wiki regarding Rybka / Crafty

....

Just an hour before the above quote, Bob wrote (just a few posts above):

And of course, for Rybka 1.6.1 it is a massive _and_ identical copy, no translation of any kind.

The only reasonable explanation I have come up with...

Søren must have a teenage son who is making these posts.  Or maybe Felix is making these posts?

If my son was coming back with replies like:

>So lets at least establish that Rybka 1.6.1 cannot be close derivatives of both Fruit and Crafty


He'd lose his internet access. Period. No way would I allow any more embarrassing posts like this.  Not while he lives in my house.
Parent - - By SR (****) Date 2011-07-27 12:17 Edited 2011-07-27 12:31
I thought Harveys reply to the same post were more polite and informative. This remind me that policemen rarely make good teachers :wink: On the other hand some policemen (luckily not all) have through a life long practice developed an quite amazing skill of bullying and insulting.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-27 16:39
You want "polite and informative"?

Then don't insult me with ignorant remarks like the one above (>So lets at least establish that Rybka 1.6.1 cannot be close derivatives of both Fruit and Crafty).

Harvey shouldn't have had to tell you that.  You with your supposed ability to do your own research that kind of post isn't worthy of your time, Harvey's time or my time.  But if you wish to be lazy...

I'm not going to be like all your Rybka friends (e.g. Nelson) and blow sunshine up your rearend Søren just because you supposedly have a math PhD.

Have you never read:

"Open rebuke is better,
Than love carefully concealed"

And

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

>This remind me that policemen rarely make good teachers


What do you know about "policemen" other than what you watch on tv? Or you some kind of behavioral expert on "them" too?

Please stop with the lame insults. bullying :roll: insulting :roll: rarely make good teachers :roll::roll::roll::roll:
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-25 21:29
Your 'case' gets weaker and weaker.
Anyway, good fun seeing you dig yourself deeper and deeper.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 22:20
case has not changed one iota since the ICGA announced the verdict...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 23:32
You're right, the verdict has been given and I do not expect the ICGA to reconsider.  However something has changed.  Not so much the case, though Trotsky is doing an excellent job undermining it.  What has changed is the general perception of the proceedings that led to the verdict, thanks to the great insights you have provided into your personality and social behaviors.  Now it is possible to see that justice could not have been served precisely because someone as deranged as yourself was sitting on the panel.

I would argue, on appeal, for a mistrial.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 23:51
You have a strange definition of "deranged."

adjective, as in "deranged person."  A person that does not agree with me or my friends.

Can't find that one anywhere...
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-07-26 08:41
Not so much the case, though Trotsky is doing an excellent job undermining it.

What a convinience the IGCA found a stick not to allow him to enter the panel.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-25 21:34
It's like talking to a room full of monkeys

:fat:
Parent - - By Mec (*) Date 2011-07-25 19:05 Edited 2011-07-25 19:28
Trotsky, I'm curious whether you're a chess programmer, too?

Well, you see, I certainly am a programmer, and that's the point why I also feel personally offended by Hyatt's & ICGA's claims that

- Rybka is a 'cheap' copy,

- VR (being a graduated software engineer) has spent virtually 'no' time (8 years!) with developping and improving it,

- over and over denying VR's talent/qualification of programming a strong chess engine

- anyone could easily have programmed Rybka within only a few months (Hyatt's very own words when he mentioned how he used Cray's sources for Crafty)

- ...

Exposing a programmer's hard work of 8 years (remember that Rybka development began in winter 2002/03, several years before Fruit 2.1 ever came along btw.) to ridicule in such a misanthropic manner like the ICGA inquisitors did and still do, certainly reflects worse on them than on the obviously superior programmer VR.

Whoever else is a hard-working programmer like VR certainly woulnd't want to have his hard work talked down like that, either.

By doing so the ICGA inquisitors not only expose VR's achievements to ridicule, but also the work of every other hardworking and highly productive programmer
(8 years of hard brain work is just like ... nothing, right? Totally worthless?

Hyatt could have done it within a few months, right?
For sure the question remains: Then - Why didn't Hyatt program Rybka?
If he were really such a superior programmer to VR (as he often says), it should've been a breeze for him to write an equally strong chess program as Rybka, right? --> I'll come back with an answer later.

After seeing VR's latest interview (with N. Hernandez) everyone could clearly remember how VR said he hardly followed this whole, unworthy investagions about his person.

He's just too concerned with being as productive as he can, only worrying about his work (he didn't even know about F. Letouzy's letter), ... to cut the matter short: He's simply lost himself in his work.

This shouldn't be confused with disrespect for the ICGA inquisitors, it's just this typical 'absentmindedness' which I've encountered so often amongst (good) programmers.
Programming a 3000 Elo Engine like Rybka is just so hard of a brain work for the developper, it's only human and very understandable that he needs his times, when he won't tolerate being distracted by some background noise (e.g. envious ICGA-competitors), because in the first place it's his work which requires his full concentration, and certainly not cc politics.

It's clearly his right to dedicate his lifetime to the improvement of his lifework (as opposed to wasting it with envious & frustratred competitors who wouldn't believe him - ever - anyways)

After all, it's only the high expectations of his customers he wants to live up in the first place.

After the ICGA's decision I've finally learnt to distinguish between guys who are productive to computer chess (VR) and those who are destructive (Hyatt, Wegner & their ICGA inquisitors).

While VR spent the last 8 years of his life with nothing else but highly productive programming and improving one of the strongest chess programs that ever existed,

his ICGA- competitors had nothing else to do but RE his (free of any charge) R1, analyzing the disassembly for many years, posting hundreds if not thousands of posts at talkchess for the only purpose of damaging VR's good reputation, and finally declaring their own

(without a doubt) inferior programs to be the World Champions of 2006-2010.

Had they spent their energy on improving their respective own chess engines in a similar hard-working manner as VR did (instead of analyzing R1's disassembly for 6 years), perhaps they could've won vs. Rybka someday in a sportingly manner, and every single chess enthusiast (including Rybka Fans) could have congratulated them.

But as it looks for now the ICGA rewarded the destructive powers of the computer chess community (inferior, lazy & envious programmers, who are only good at disassembling and posting thousands of libelous comments about VR at talkchess)

And the productive programmer VR was punished & banned for lifetime.
VR was so busy with his work he didn't even find the time to defend himself against the ICGA-inquisitors' reproaches.

Well, he certainly had better things to do in the meantime:

He did what he could do best: Programming Rybka.
That's certainly a more honorable and fertile activity for computerchess enthusiats and programmers alike, than analyzing the disassambled binary of a competitor for many years for the sole purpose of getting rid of him.

Well, from my point of view it is absolutely clear, who is really guilty of having damaged computerchess.

It's the destructive guys around Hyatt & Wegner.

And certainly not VR who worked so hard on Rybka that he didn't even find time to defend his good reputation.

And to some extent computerchess itself (both sides) is the real loser of this whole ICGA's inquisition.

For me, having been a programmer for 20 years, I've always had my idols, well, I guess it's easy to see that it's VR.

His example of coolness together with my impression, how he, as a single programmer, could create such an amazing Artificial Intelligence like Rybka (it has a soul, hasn't it? :red:) often psyched me up when I was close to throwing over a major project (out of frustration.)
His example always reminds me to never give up, especially if you've finished the major bulk of a program and some minor, hard-to-find bugs seem to ruin your work. But then, it's always work.

Just like I don't want to have my work and my tremendous amount of time I've spent with it to be found worthless, cheap, riduclous, a matter of only a few months (although I, as the original programmer, know that it took me several years) -
I don't want this to happen to some other programmer's hard work.

Only if you're a programmer yourself, you learn to respect the work of other programmers and especially the hard work they must've put into it (including thousands of little frustrations due to bugs).

The ICGA-accusers fail completely in the latter department, they've got no respect whatsoever of VR's 8 years (!) of hard work.

By talking down VR's achievements over and over they're not only insulting VR, but every other programmer who has not yet lost his very last grain of morals and doesn't want his own work to be talked down like that, either.

Well, I think it's really best for VR not to take legal steps against his gravediggers.

Most likely he's even better off now, because this whole ICGA-nonsense is (finally!) over and can't distract him from programming Rybka 5 any longer.

What better thing could have happened to him than having (finally!) total peace of mind and being able to dedicate his whole energy to the development of Rybka 5 without getting distracted by nasty ICGA-inquisitors.

May VR and his Rybka have a lucky future from now on!
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 21:03
I hold Rajlich in high regard as well, but I would say my admiration falls well short of idolatry.  We must recognize that he is a flawed human being like all the rest of us, he makes mistakes, he does things he shouldn't, he approaches situations and problems very idiosyncratically.

But I think there is a key point to be made here.  Vas is likeable and admirable, sure.  But the pro-ICGA crowd is losing this argument steadily in the court of public opinion because their advocates, led particularly by Bob Hyatt, are so manifestly obnoxious and full of hatred.  Mankind naturally recoils from haters.  And here's the irony: the ICGA may have a reasonable case, and I feel sure their principals did not act out of malice.  However, day by day, their case slips away because of the people who speak for them being such deranged, self-righteous cads.
Parent - - By tano-urayoan (****) Date 2011-07-25 21:11

> But the pro-ICGA crowd is losing this argument steadily in the court of public opinion


Which court this site? Obviously.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 22:13
I think Bob is clearly losing his thread in this forum.  Try as he might, "Trotsky" is pushing him back steadily, exposing the weakness of their argument and the hence the gross unjustness of what took place.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-25 22:28

>I think Bob is clearly losing his thread in this forum.


:roll::roll::roll::roll:

>Try as he might, "Trotsky" is pushing him back steadily


:roll::roll::roll::roll:

>exposing the weakness of their argument and the hence the gross unjustness of what took place.


:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 22:36
Trotsky is showing absolutely nothing new.  If you want to _believe_ what he is writing, that is a decision only you can make.  He has, to date, not refuted one scintilla of the ICGA report.  Not a bit.  He just keeps imagining how this might have happened, or that might have happened, had the stars been properly aligned, the garlic hung on the door at night, etc.  But zero technical information.

And the simplest to understand example is the Rybka 1.6.1 that everyone wants to just totally ignore and pretend it never happened because it didn't participate in an ICGA event.  Never mind that it participated in an online event that used the ICGA rules, violating both the rules and the source code license/copyright, never mind that it was sent to rating list testers, again violating the license/copyright.  Just pretend none of that happened, because it was an old version.

Nevermind Rybka 1.0 beta, it is too old.  And by now he _must_ have gotten rid of most or all of the Fruit code.  Always excuses, or reasons to ignore what can't be excused.

nevermind...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 23:22
Rybka 1.6.1: there was exactly one copy distributed seven years ago.  Rajlich never made a cent selling it.  He won nothing entering it in a tournament and it performed poorly.  He stopped using it on his own accord.  Nobody here even heard of this edition until this whole business started up.  Rajlich was a rookie programmer learning his craft at the time. 

Add up these circumstances with a measure of objectivity and perspective, add human judgment and human forgiveness for real or imagined transgressions, and you just might achieve a measure of grace. 

However, you completely lack those human ingredients, and consequently you have exposed your true character in this forum.  You cannot imagine what a detestable, self-righteous ass you have made of yourself, Dr. Hyatt.  There is no fictional villain in all of literature to match your level of obsession and malevolence.  You are undone by your own actions, sir.  All good gentlemen have taken your measure and found you wanting.

I honestly believe that if David Levy were to take several hours out of his busy schedule to read the entire corpus of your writings in this forum over the last month he would be appalled.  A wise and worldly man, he would surely realize that you are deranged, however right or wrong your cause.  And if he read your entire ouevre over the past several years, during which you have persistently maligned Rajlich, Dr. Levy would realize what a terrible mistake he made to appoint you to his panel.  Your odious presence by itself subverts and defeats the cause of justice.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 23:34
I have exposed my true character?  I _hope_ so.  I am intolerant of cheating.  Of failing to meet basic ethical standards.

Deranged?  Am I the one that is excusing behavior that can't be excused?  Am I the one that is trying to divert the discussions away from the evidence, and into the twilight zone?

However, it seems that those that can get it, have gotten it.  And nothing new is being discussed, just the same old merry-go-round.  So I'm done unless something _new_ is introduced, which given the tiny cult that is arguing that the ICGA decision was baseless, seems highly unlikely to happen.  So carry on making excuses, overlooking the obvious, and blaming everyone _but_ the person that is responsible for this mess in the first place...
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-25 23:44
I am intolerant of cheating. 

That is provenly an outright lie sice you had supported the cheating of the IBM crooks who psyched out Kasparov with their sudden lack of respect and you called Kasparov an asshole which speaks against you. So, you defend cheaters and their cheats. That is a historical truth, Bob. Sorry, but you simply cannot deny that.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 23:50
IBM did not cheat in the Kasparov match.  As I have asked you to do _many_ times.  Please cite one rule for the match that IBM broke.  And IBM and Kasparov agreed to the rules in their entirety before the first game started.  So if IBM cheated, please point out the specific rule and how they broke it.  No made up rules.  No rules you think should have been in force, but were not.  Just _real_ rules.

Until then...
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-26 01:41
Bob, I pity you, because there is nothing like the ethical rules of science that should be respected. And they did not. To the contrary they violated rule number one, also under the aspect that without their special guest they wouldnt have had a match at all. They wanted the best, but then they insulted him. Well, outside the USA this is much more important than just winning. This is true, we dont need to debate about it. So it's all kosher, you could simply believe me. (Apart from that, when I saw your many answers tonight, I felt I had to thank you again for that sort of friendliness, which is the best I always admired in you Americans.)
Parent - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 03:05

> Well, outside the USA this is much more important than just winning.


Do I read this is yet another slur against the dreaded Amis?  That we don't just beat our opponents, we then insult and bludgeon them?

Well, OK.  Maybe just a little.  :lol:
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 03:13
What is "rule number 1"?  I can post the entire set of rules they agreed to if I look hard enough... 

"They insulted him?"  He accused them of cheating on a public stage.  Once that happened, I wouldn't have cooperated with them at all, myself...

It instantly becomes adversarial when that bag is opened.
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-07-25 23:46
One of your problems is (always has been) that you don't know when to stop. And that in the hollow of the lion.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 23:49

> excusing behavior that can't be excused


This is where you are mistaken, assuming you sincerely believe you are right.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill