Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / RRR - Rybka Reloaded / Revolutions
1 2 3 Previous Next  
- - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-10-02 20:02
For those (still) interested I have made available:

1. Rybka Reloaded, a technical refutation of the evidence used against Rajlich.

2. Rybka Revolutions, non-technical and containing various new informations. Following the growing list of dissenting (critical) chess programmers an independent appeal with nowadays knowledge and shifting views of experienced chess programmers the tide may easily change in favor of Rajlich.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-02 21:33 Edited 2012-10-02 21:56
You do realize that your point 3 in the "Rybka Revolutions" topic is pretty ridiculous?  The only "stolen property" was mine.  This was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just beyond reasonable doubt.  Vas copied great chunks of crafty to produce those pre-1.0beta versions.  Saying that the ICGA violated any copyright law there is simply ludicrous.  Ask a copyright attorney if it is permissible to prove someone copied my code by showing the copied code publicly.  Which, by the way, _I_ am the copyright holder for that code, NOT Vas...

This quote:

Since this is stated twice in the report it's hard to give the ICGA Secretariat (Hyatt, Williamson and Lefler) the benefit of the doubt. Firstly, the vast majority of the Panel did not vote and secondly Roberson's answer (see above) to the (pushing) question: d. If you answer is no or undecided to any of the above, what more evidence is needed for you to decide? leaves no doubt this statement is utterly misleading.

Means what, exactly?  I have access to the complete wiki, remember.  In the voting thread, charles did NOT vote.  he did not post in that thread at all, in fact.  NO issue was raised during the final thread that asked the questions:

a. Have you read all of the evidence linked to the Rybka-Fruit Controversy pages?

b. In your opinion, did Vasik Rajlich's chess program Rybka violate the ICGA Tournament Rules (http://icga.wikispaces.com/ICGA+Tournament+Rules), especially rule 2:


You seem to once again be implying that issues were raised, in an attempt to contradict the "no dissenting votes" note in the report.  There were no dissenting votes at all.  There were no negative comments.  No "I am not sure" votes.  People either voted "yes" to both questions, or they abstained.  There were a couple of non-voting posts where Mark clarified the Rybka 3 timeline as to when it became available.    Mark's "long-winded post" CLEARLY said that for question "B" he voted "yes".  I think for Mark's case, and mine (among others) question A was unnecessary.  Mark wrote a major piece of the evidence so obviously he had read what he wrote.  Ditto for Zach's report which we had all looked at repeatedly.

The ICGA statement was 100% factual and doesn't disagree with the voting thread on the wiki at all.  There was LOTS of dissenting early in the process.  Eventually every last point was addressed.  To the point that the original dissenter did not raise any further questions.

BTW, Marcel's vote was short and sweet.  And since you have published everyone's name that voted yes, he simply voted "A. yes and B. yes".  Seems pretty clear to me. One can't blame the ICGA if one votes one way, then wishes to change their mind after the fact.  That's a problem with the voter, not the ICGA or panel process...
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-02 21:56
:razz:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-02 21:57
I've been "over it" since the ICGA ruled.  You might consider "getting over it" yourself...
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-02 21:59

> I've been "over it" since the ICGA ruled. You might consider "getting over it" yourself...


Bobby Hyatt - 6146 posted- I hardly think so!:grin:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-02 22:03
Never a post that was not a response to someone here.  Go figure again...  And I didn't even respond to every post made.  What does that say?

BTW you have posted 2x more than I have.  Does that say anything?  Did ANY of your posts actually say anything?  Or are they mostly the useless drivel you like to post along with an occasional photoshopped image???
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-02 22:14 Edited 2012-10-02 22:19
Oh! Please! It took me 4  years to post what you repetitively  in so many words posted  in little over 8 months time-the gist of which is Vas is guilty and Bob Hyatt is the only one with a handle on the facts! :grin:

Addendum:
No further comment is necessary! :razz:
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-02 22:28
Bob wasn't the only one that clearly stated that Vas violated the rules, now was he?

You spout off without even LOOKING at the evidence, in fact.  No clue what is going on.  Just like a goose at the beginning of the day.
Parent - By RubiksChess (**) [us] Date 2012-11-05 21:16
What a childish response. Bob took the time to address some points that were raised. He didn't raise them. He refuted them.

You just don't like his camp because his camp proved that your camp's leader was a fraud.
Parent - By bnc (***) Date 2012-10-02 22:20
Megalomania

: a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-10-03 07:45
You do realize that your point 3 in the "Rybka Revolutions" topic is pretty ridiculous?  The only "stolen property" was mine.  This was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just beyond reasonable doubt.  Vas copied great chunks of crafty to produce those pre-1.0beta versions.  Saying that the ICGA violated any copyright law there is simply ludicrous.  Ask a copyright attorney if it is permissible to prove someone copied my code by showing the copied code publicly.  Which, by the way, _I_ am the copyright holder for that code, NOT Vas...

It's like with Strelka, Vas and Fabien both can claim copyright on their stuff, not the things Osipov wrote himself. The same applies for the pre-Rybka's, the stuff Vas wrote is stolen and instead of declining the ICGA broke the law again, possession of stolen goods is a punishable crime in most countries, if not all.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 14:12
NOTHING vas wrote was exposed in the pre-rybka evidence.  We could not find ANY code he modified.  read the evidence first....
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-10-03 15:26
Then not only you have (or had) illegal private Rajlich material on your harddisk which makes you a thief, you are a blind thief as well. Lots of Vas code in the pre-Rybka's.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 15:34
I have NO "illegal private Rajlich material" on my hard drive.  I can prove ownership of ALL the code we examined in pre-1.0beta rybkas.  Keep trying.  You can't copy my code, then call it private, and complain when I get a copy and discover it was originally mine.  "A thief of a thief is a thief?"  Don't think so.

Where is this "lots of vas code" BTW?  We didn't look at everything.  But we looked at a lot.  Certainly nothing in the eval.  Or the search.  Or the search control (iterate.c).  He even copied well-known "bugs" that were in those versions, verbatim.

This whining won't make it go away.

Apparently anything that can not be refuted is going to be labelled "illegal" or "dishonest"?

Pretty easy to see through that subterfuge.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-04 13:57 Edited 2012-10-04 17:39
Your thing for Rajlich is pathological!

Recommendation-

Houliang Massage
680 Montgomery Hwy.
Birmingham, AL 35216
(205) 383-4894

Hall, James
Affiliated Mental Health Svs
100 Century Park S Ste 206
Birmingham, AL 35226

Khan, Farah
Alabama Psychiatric Services
956 Montclair Rd Ste 101
Birmingham, AL 35226
Parent - By RubiksChess (**) [us] Date 2012-11-05 21:18
How can you even make statements like this when his statements are true?

Are you really that irrational in your defense of a criminal?
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-10-07 00:47

> Where is this "lots of vas code" BTW?  We didn't look at everything.  But we looked at a lot.  Certainly nothing in the eval.  Or the search.


As said before you did not look well.

Positions  5270   19.10 19.39  R141  R151  R161
{Crafty 19.0    } ----- 71.18 46.60 49.75 49.75
{Crafty 19.13   } 71.18 ----- 48.03 51.65 51.61
{Rybka 1.4.1x   } 46.60 48.03 ----- 67.59 66.87
{Rybka 1.5.1x   } 49.75 51.65 67.59 ----- 96.74
{Rybka 1.6.1x   } 49.75 51.61 66.87 96.74 -----


No changes in eval and search would cause a similarity of 95+ as shown between R151 and R161 which as a bug-fix version as you can see from the Oliver emails. And yet the pre-Rybka's have only a 49-51% similarity, meaning lots of orginal Vas code. This means that either 1) haven't looked well 2) you haven't looked at all and you are lying. In any case you have stolen Rybka code on your harddisk.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-07 05:10
Read the rybka/crafty evidence.  Report back if you STILL think I am lying.  Particularly, pay attention to the "quirks" in the evaluation of Crafty, which were there well prior to ANY rybka version at all.  And magically, they appear in Rybka as well.  Look at the edwards egtb fix in crafty's iterate.c that avoids egtb probes if the current position can possibly have an enpassant capture, because Steven's files did not include enpassant at all.  Those tables were not available by the time Rybka came along, everyone was using Nalimov (including the early Rybka's) which did not need such a work-around.  Then look at the EvaluateWinner() code that matches perfectly.  Etc.  You REALLY want to say he didn't copy my eval?  Or iterate.c?  Or the basic search (including my unique NextMove() approach to selecting and ordering moves and such?

Bullshit, and you KNOW it is bullshit.

I've told you REPEATEDLY that the similarity test is only an indication.  It proves absolutely nothing.  Adam told you the SAME THING on ICC.  If you recall, I asked that question over there and NOBODY thought that test was an acceptable PROOF of copying or not copying anything...  But of course, you want to use whatever you can, whether it is relevant or not.  If you REALLY think that the Crafty eval is not in those early rybka versions, you are REALLY an idiot.  It is obvious.  IF you read the crafty/rybka evidence.  There is absolutely ZERO doubt.  And I most certainly looked at that code.  And found lots of other parts that were copied.  Hashing.  Even things like the "bench.c" benchmark command built in to Crafty...

Lying indeed...  BTW Vas has stolen Crafty code on his hard disk.  quid pro quo?
Parent - - By Adam Hair (**) [us] Date 2012-10-10 15:34
Hi Ed,

If there is a large Elo difference between Crafty 19.xx and Rybka 1.x.1, then comparing the move selections after 100 ms searches is not the most accurate method. After all, the difference in strength (which has some correlation with move selections) can be mostly due to differences in search. It is better to adjust the time in accordance to the difference in strength, or (and possibly better) do fixed depth searches, such as 'depth 2'. I have no idea what the outcome would be, but it would remove a source of noise (differences in search) when measuring the similarity in move selection due to evaluation similarities.

Adam

PS:  

This is for Bob and Ed. Could two programs have very similar eval functions but choose many different moves due to bugs in one of the engines? I have not thought it would have a large affect. Of course, bugs affects move selections. But, from my limited experience it seems that a bug affects move selection for certain positions (different bugs affect different positions). It seems to me that it would take many bugs to cause over 1000 moves to be chosen differently. But I have no idea if I am right or not.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-10 21:45
Bugs could certainly produce a significant difference.  As could identical evals but different searches, unless the search is tuned out by (perhaps) fixed depth searches since very shallow searches are dominated by evaluation...

I'm not sure what the point would be, however, unless it is intended to be a verification of the similarity detection concept, since there is no doubt about the code that was copied.  I don't think anyone disassembled everything in the eval and search of Rybka 1.x to see how much was (or wasn't copied).  But there were large chunks of code that were copied for certain...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-10-11 08:12
Hi Adam,

Realize what's this issue is about, Bob responding to point 3 of the chapter: The lawlessness of the ICGA that states:

Another ICGA copyright breach was committed with Rajlich's private experimental versions (known as the pre-Rybka's) before he publicly released his first work Rybka 1.0 BETA. These pre-Rybka's never were released nor distributed by Rajlich and only were trusted to one single person who gave them to the ICGA for research. Instead of declining the iCGA broke the law again, possession of stolen goods is a punishable crime in most countries, if not all.

Then Bob to neutralize the accusation states there no Vas code in eval and search and that what he has on his HD is legal, what the ICGA has done is legal.

Bob - Where is this "lots of vas code" BTW?  We didn't look at everything.  But we looked at a lot.  Certainly nothing in the eval.  Or the search.

Now instead of quoting Vas code here ending in 100+ postings (only a few can follow anyway) to proof him wrong I preferred to mention something everyone is able to understand, the similarities result. A simple second observation is what you already mentioned yourself, the elo gap between the pre-Rybka's and Crafty 19.xx
Parent - - By Ray (****) Date 2012-10-11 12:28

> Another ICGA copyright breach was committed with Rajlich's private experimental versions (known as the pre-Rybka's) before he publicly released his first work Rybka 1.0 BETA. These pre-Rybka's never were released nor distributed by Rajlich and only were trusted to one single person who gave them to the ICGA for research. Instead of declining the iCGA broke the law again, possession of stolen goods is a punishable crime in most countries, if not all.
>


Private engine given to the ICGA without permission of the author, blatant breach of trust. Disgraceful behaviour in my opinion.

And it was also out of scope of the ICGA investigation because early versions of Rybka did not compete in ICGA tournaments. Bob can shout "pattern of behaviour" as much as he likes, fact is it was a one-off goofing around experiment by Vas, and he realised his mistake after that. There was no pattern becuase later versions did not include any trace of Crafty. It should neither have been investigated nor even requested by the ICGA. After that he took ideas from Fruit. But nevertheless, it was interesting to see what Vas was playing around with in the early days.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-11 13:36
+1

Absolutely! In a "LEGAL" court of law - if someone garnered evidence without appropriate consent it would be found inadmissible, regardless of the plaintive's emotive feelings to the contrary (Bobby Hyatt).

A court order would have to be submitted after hearing evidence substantiating the need to sequester further evidence in support of the  plaintive's case. 

Of course,  this was not a legal action that the  ICGA undertook-  it acted more like a bunch of cowboys coming into town after a long cattle drive. It was more like a mob action.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-11 23:18
Keep spouting nonsense.  There are SEVERAL cases on public record where someone RE'ed a product and discovered their stuff inside, and successfully brought a copyright/patent infringement case against the company.

So sorry, but your "pronouncement" is simply wrong.  As is quite commonly the case, of course.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-12 00:37 Edited 2012-10-12 00:39
A commercial product that was being sold! Right Bobby!. Not Rybka 1.6.1! eh! Apples and oranges Bobby! Apples and oranges.

Mitt Hyatt!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-12 03:22
Apples and apples.  Copyright applies equally to things sold, and things distributed for free.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-12 15:20 Edited 2012-10-12 16:28
Another bullshit statement -

Rybka 1.6.1 was never sold -released to the public in 2004. 

To my knowledge or anyone else -in 2004  Bobby Hyatt didn't RE Rybka 1.6.1 because it wasn't  commercial - no copyright infringement. One copy!!!! PRIVATE. You didn't even know about the damned thing! How many times did you see the engine used  in competition For Christ Sake- once! 53rd place?!!! 

A lawyer would tell you "if the guy  continues to use the engine -then do something -otherwise get a prescription for prozac!" And, by the way that would have been if you found out he used the engine 7 years ago. If you went to court today they'd lock you up as nuts.

P.S.

You keep citing the same crap over and over and it doesn't apply to this issue.
Parent - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-10-12 21:31

>no copyright infringement


if im right,the rules of Dr. Hyatt forbiddes enter his engine at any tournament (or something similar),and vas CLONED Crafty and entered to a tournament...

that is a very clear copyright infringement

and apart from that,a guy who makes things like that,clone engines and enter in a tournament knowing that that is forbidden,CANT tell later that other arent being honest against him;the first thing to claim something is not to do you a dishonest/illegal behaviour

so Bob,'him' made 'x' things that break copyrights,others made things that made copyrights against 'him',and in the future others will do things against the others who did the things against 'him'...

that is what happens when ''all is allowed''
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-10-03 07:59
This quote:

Please quote properly and don't leave out the misleading part of the final report itself.

From the ICGA Secretariat report

Not a single panel member believed him innocent.

Is utterly misleading for the reasons I stated.

In reverse I could say: the vast majority of the panel did not vote him guilty.

See now ?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 14:09
Nope.  There was no requirement for a panel member to vote.  We will change this for the next instantiation of the panel, but for this one, we did not have such a requirement.

However, if you think about it, I would expect ANYONE that actually read the wiki to vote, if they believed he did not copy too much of Fruit.  It might be hard to vote guilty, but it ought to be trivial to vote not guilty, if you don't believe he is guilty.  Presumption of innocence and all that.  Since NOBODY voted innocent, that is telling.  That 14+ voted guilty is also telling. 

From serving on multiple juries, I find the above to be the common behavior.  It is much harder for people to find someone guilty than innocent...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-10-03 15:55
You know Bob when I arrived here July last year when this forum exploded and became the center of the discussion I still believed Vas had copied Fruit. It was this kind of flat out denial (or bad logic) I started to doubt the evidence I once trusted. All these ramblings of yours, never admitting anything fed my growing suspicion and slowly I began to see the errors of the whole (technical) process, this aside from the bad procedures. As such you became my guide to VII land. Did I already thank you for that?

ICGA - Not a single panel member believed him innocent.

OR - The vast majority of the panel did not vote him guilty.

Both are deceptive.

The fact you possibly can't admit that is troubling.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 17:16
I am capable of reasoning.

My thought process is simple here.  We formed a panel, with no requirement that every member actively participate or vote in the final tally.  If ANYONE had any doubts, they were certainly free to vote "NO" to question B, and give reasons if they wanted to (or not, there was no requirement to explain your vote unless there was something that could be addressed to resolve the issue you were unsure about).  NOBODY voted "not guilty".  Not a single person.  If you want to carp about the process, go carp at the panel members that did not vote.  Ask them "why didn't you vote not-guilty rather than abstaining?"  See if you get any OTHER answer than "I simply did not participate" or "I simply did not understand the asm evidence."  or something else equally frank and honest.  Instead, YOU want to impugn the character of ALL the panel members that did not vote, by suggesting that they did not believe Vas was guilty, but were also not willing to stand up and be counted."  You build every argument on these "might haves" or "must have happened" speculations, without one shred of evidence to support your point of view.  "It just had to be that way..."  Not convincing.  Not convincing at all.

I believe we had two types of members on the panel. 

(1) those that were active (or at least read everything) and understood the evidence and were convinced Vas violated ICGA rule 2 by the evidence presented.

(2) those that were not active, or had not read everything, or had not understood the evidence, and did not believe they could competently cast a vote, period.

You want to imply (2) was made up of some that believed him innocent but refused to vote their conviction.  I believe that is nonsense.

You DO realize that we took more than one vote?  That after the first vote, very early in the process, we took all the questions/concerns/etc and spent additional time to address the points being raised.  At least two points that were raised, included "did we look at a version that actually competed in an ICGA event"?  This led to the paper by Mark W on 2.3.2a.  "Vas said ALL versions were original, did we look at anything prior to 1.0 beta (where the investigation started, obviously, since Zach started with 1.0 beta)?"  So Zach took a quick look at 1.6.1 and emailed me and asked me to look as well since it was obviously based on Crafty with known Crafty "signature bugs" included.

The process was not biased, as you want to imply.  And I believe those that did not vote simply did not vote because they didn't look at the evidence or didn't understand it.  There was ZERO bullying to make people vote "guilty" or else "get out".  And you know that since you probably still have all the posts.

The ICGA statement was not misleading at all.  Not one person believed Vas to be innocent.  Unless you REALLY believe someone did but chose to not vote.  I don't believe that, because there were obvious early dissenting views until enough evidence was presented.

Neither is deceptive, they are objective.  That you want to characterize it as something IS most definitely troubling.

Why don't you go chastise Silver or Friedel since both were on the panel and neither voted.  Shouldn't they have exercised their right to vote there if the believed him to be innocent?  Your argument is bogus.  And has been.  You just want to jump directly to hyperbole without considering "Occam's razor".  They didn't vote because they didn't feel they knew enough to do so.
Parent - By siam (**) [nl] Date 2012-10-03 19:04
Please Godt! Not again........
Parent - - By Graham Banks (*****) [nz] Date 2012-10-03 19:16

> Why don't you go chastise Silver or Friedel since both were on the panel and neither voted.  Shouldn't they have exercised their right to vote there if the believed him to be innocent?  Your argument is bogus.  And has been.  You just want to jump directly to hyperbole without considering "Occam's razor".  They didn't vote because they didn't feel they knew enough to do so.


From talking to Albert, both believed that by joining, they were being granted access to view the discussions that would be taking part. Nothing more than that. They were certainly not expecting to be part of a jury.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 21:33
IF they had read the discussions, and studied the evidence, AND they were convinced Vas was innocent, would they not speak up?  Saying "no they wouldn't" defies any sort of logic...
Parent - - By Albert Silver (***) [br] Date 2012-10-04 12:23 Edited 2012-10-04 12:51
Kind of slippery ground you are on to now start making presumptions on what we would do in a hypothetical situation. Graham has it right though, we were type no. 3:

3) Had no idea they were members of any kind nor desired to be one.

As to had I known I was a member, here is what would I have done: NOT VOTED.

Since I believe the process was skewed, and have already stated this, your presumption that I would actively participate in what I view as just short of a kangaroo court is deeply mistaken. Even today, knowing all that I know, I would neither vote in his defense, nor in his condemnation, as I would not want to be involved in a process I view as biased.
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2012-10-04 12:57

> Even today, knowing all that I know, I would neither vote in his defense, nor in his condemnation, as I would not want to be involved in a process I view as biased.


Exactly. I'm not in the VII (Vas is innocent) camp, I'm in the VWS (Vas was shafted) club.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-04 16:48
Did you read what I wrote?  Namely...

IF they had read the discussions, and studied the evidence, AND they were convinced Vas was innocent, would they not speak up?  Saying "no they wouldn't" defies any sort of logic...

So, simple questions...

(1) Did you read all of the discussions?

(2) Did you study all of the evidence?

If not, the rest of my statement OBVIOUSLY would not apply.  Ed wants to imply that any vote other than "guilty" was the same as "not guilty".  I do not agree.  You did not (apparently) read or study any of the discussions or evidence.  Not voting was EXACTLY the right path since you did not know what was going on.  If you DID read / study everything presented, and felt this did not convince you he was guilty, then not voting was a "dereliction of responsibility".  I didn't try to read your mind and categorize you.  You can do that for yourself.  But not voting is NOT the same as either innocent or guilty, IMHO.  It is "not voting" for reasons unknown.  I STILL believe that if someone felt strongly that the evidence was not sufficient, but they STILL did not vote, they need some self-examination to figure out where they are "lacking"...
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) [us] Date 2012-10-04 16:54
Bob,

it's amazing that 3 lines from Albert Silver has said more than a combined ten thousand posts between you and Harvery and your document.
Parent - By Christian Packi (****) [de] Date 2012-10-04 18:12
Confirmed.
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2012-10-04 18:54
+1
Parent - Date 2012-10-10 08:50
Parent - By M ANSARI (*****) [kw] Date 2012-10-08 05:07
Well said!  I think it is incredible how so many people were used unknowingly to push a pre-decided agenda.  That is morally wrong on so many levels!  The fact that a university professor was involved makes it all the more alarming!
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-06 19:03
Truthfully, if this issue should die -so would you. This issue is what brought you to the fore and quite honestly, I don't think anyone should pander to you anymore than is necessary.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-06 19:25
No idea what you mean by "brought me to the fore"...  I've been active in computer chess longer than any other person.  Shows that I have enjoyed it for a LONG time.  My first program played its first move in October 1968.  That was 44 years ago.  There are none remaining that competed in the 70's, today.  There are several that are still living, but are no longer involved in CC.

So what exactly is your point???
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2012-10-03 12:05
I don't understand why you're so upset over the Pre-1.0b versions.

They were weak, and Vas later went on to make some of the strongest engines ever. I'd be honored if someone like Vas had been inspired by my programs.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 14:11
Answer:  they violated tournament rules.  Vas continued to lie about copying the work of others (me in this case, Fabien for 1.0 beta and beyond).  Rules are made to be followed, not broken.  I trust what other programmers tell me until they are proven wrong.  Then I don't trust them again.  Vas fits in this category perfectly.

cheating is cheating.  It is inexcusable.  Being inspired by is one thing.  Copying directly is something else entirely.
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-03 14:32 Edited 2012-10-03 15:10
This is a religion!!!!

Rules are your Gods.

Anyone going against these Gods must be punished (by the God's "helpers.")

What would you call a creator of the Gods (rules)? A "Super God"?

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 15:20
Funny.  Do you believe those that break doping rules should be banned, or allowed to continue?  Do you believe those that use equipment that is outside the rule specifications should be banned or allowed to continue (there's dozens of ways to alter tennis racquets, golf clubs, golf balls, etc, to get a competitive advantage.)

So do we follow rules or not?  Sounds like you are advocating "Down with rules.  they get in the way of creative competition"???

I enjoy drag racing.  I don't even think about top fuel, or the pro stock classes.  Too expensive.  My son and I run in a pure stock class that has limited flexibility on changes.  Pick your rear end ratio, spring rates, but rear tires are limited in width.  Engine must be basically stock, no stroking, no big over-bore, heads have flexibility, within bounds.  No nitrous or forced induction (blowers).  Etc.  If someone doesn't follow the rules, the competition is not fair for those of us that do.  Let him run in one of the "anything goes, no matter what it costs" classes.  We chose the stock class for a reason.  The ICGA rules are EXACTLY the same.  The participants over the years defined the qualifications they wanted everyone to meet.

I think your "point" is non-existent.  Do you REALLY want a "no rules" society?  Or is this into the petty area of "I just want MY rules, regardless of what the other participants actually want?"  That is REALLY the mantra of the cheaters, of course...
Parent - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2012-10-03 15:34
Ground control to Dr. Hyatt
Ground control to Dr. Hyatt
Take your protein pills and put your helmet on
(Ten) Ground control (Nine) to Dr. Hyatt (Eight)
(Seven, six) Commencing countdown (Five), engines on (Four)
(Three, two) Check ignition (One) and may gods (Blastoff) love be with you

This is ground control to Dr. Hyatt , you've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear
Now it's time to leave the capsule if you dare

This is Dr. Hyatt to ground control, I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way
And the stars look very different today
Here am I sitting in a tin can far above the world
Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do

Though I'm past one hundred thousand miles, I'm feeling very still
And I think my spaceship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I love her very much, she knows
Ground control to Dr. Hyatt, your circuits dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Dr. Hyatt?
Can you hear me, Dr.Hyatt?
Can you hear me, Dr.Hyatt ?
Can you...
Here am I sitting in my tin can far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / RRR - Rybka Reloaded / Revolutions
1 2 3 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill