This is somewhat different now. CCC still can count on you.
Let me ask a question and apologies if this was already answered.
What could be taken out of the whole clone debates in the past for the better of computerchess programming???
And this, how could you remain so tolerant, if you didnt support the invisible vilains, if you have never met them nor talked to them? Isnt this already enough to be judged as an impossible and totally wrong approach. And again why didnt you condemn them and their stuff? Isnt it allowed to conclude that you tolerated this because it caused problems for Vas?? Couldnt you confirm that just for me? Shouldnt we get out of this mess in favor of the future of computerchess?
I do not follow your first question. I see no "villains" at present, because there is no proof that anyone is a villain. I've proven every clone statement I have made in the past, by offering tons of data to show where a program is identical to my code. We can't seem to get any of that "data" for the Ippo* case, hence there is nothing to deal with at the present, until some data is provided. All we have now is simple anecdotal evidence such as "XYZ says this is reverse-engineered from something" or "ABC says this table is _almost_ identical in both programs" and so forth. That's not evidence, that is hearsay. Perhaps one day real evidence will be presented, one way or the other, and we can move past this kind of vitriolic discussion.
Personally, I am busy enough and have enough to do working on my program and am not willing to waste time trying to resolve the issue. not my job, as the saying goes.
Your logic about "not meeting them" fails. I've never met Vas either. Nor most of the other "new group" of programmers. There is far more copying going on that most realize. This is sort of the tip of the iceberg, actually. There are cheaters in _every_ sport. And it is nearly impossible to catch them all. Same here.
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:
"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.
I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.
Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).
So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:
"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.
I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.
Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).
So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.
Are you sure you aren't cloudy? (there I go with the one liners again..)
My perception is It's about "control/power-tripping" .
We all noticed you made a "silent protest".
but when you saw after a month or so,
there weren't any outpouring of support for you
( like what happened when you "resigned"),
you turned to Sam and the management.
Feels good to be back on top, right?
Am I wrong
Graham Banks wrote:
sockmonkey wrote:Graham, who's done zero moderation of talkchess in the last month
Incorrect. I continued moderating, but stopped posting.
I emailed Quentin to ask him whether or not he wanted the tournament subforum "cleaned out" as well. I've not had a reply yet, so it's not been touched.
I wish you well with the new forum and with life in general.
Cheers,
Graham.
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
mariaclara wrote:you turned to Sam and the management.
I had no contact with either ICD or Quentin. Quentin hasn't even responded to my email asking for further clarification as to what he exactly expected.
I wasn't one of the many from both sides who bombarded them with email complaints either.
You can accuse me all you like of power tripping, but my interest in moderating has always been to keep CCC a place where discussion is kept respectful.
My silent protest (posting only, not moderating) was over the allowing of links to the questionable engines in the general subforum by my fellow mods. I felt that they had broken an agreement that had been reached by doing so.
When the directive came from above to no longer allow those links, I no longer had the need to be a non-poster.
Sam Hull wrote:
(a) Sorry for weighing in late. Our downtown Dallas office building has lost power and shut down my entire network two business days in a row, and I couldn't get back to the board after posting the guidance from Quentin for the CCC mods until now.
(b) There has been a rather large misunderstanding, and Jeremy has slightly misquoted what I passed along from ICD/Your Move. The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance - I have clarified it in detail for him this evening via IM. Where the issue of clones is concerned, and for the board in general, the goal of fair and balanced moderation has not changed, and there is no desire for favoritism in ANY direction.
(c) I hope Jeremy will reconsider his decision. I have not had a chance to converse with him directly and have received no PMs from him. I posted responses in the moderator forum as soon as I regained internet access, but I am still locked out of e-mail and will be until tomorrow morning. I think Jeremy has been an outstanding moderator and I fully support his philosophy of moderation - always have.
(d) I don't set moderation policy. I passed along a request to the CCC mods that I received from Quentin, which came as the result of certain members haranguing ICD about real, suspected, and imagined clones. Graham misunderstood the message, performed some moderation on that basis, and Jeremy decided to post a grand exit without waiting to get any clarification about the guidance.
(e) Personally I am surprised that two CCC mods who share an opinion cannot simply outvote and override one mod on those occasions when he has a different view. I got regularly overridden for two whole terms in CTF. I haven't complained, and nobody died. It's a discussion board, folks.
(f) If a member runs for moderator and is elected, I think it is fair to expect him to honor his commitment and serve out the term.
-Sam-
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:
"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.
I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.
Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).
So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.
Are you sure you aren't cloudy? (there I go with the one liners again..)
I am positive. I can see clearly, for miles and miles. Although for the issue at hand, anyone should be able to see clearly enough to understand.
Sam Hull:
"The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance -"
Graham Banks In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy
This was the part of the message that I misinterpreted. My understanding was that any post praising the strength or qualities of the engines in question was actually encouraging members to acquire them.
------------------
Good evening Sam,
I don't know if Graham's italic mode should mean a literal citation of the mentioned guidance. If so, I probably would have interpreted it like he did. A link is only a link and nothing else, but "any other encouragement" means not only a link, isn't it. In addition, "encouragement" is a fuzzy term which opens all kind of interpretation. An "acquirement" is already done by a simple free download. "Questionable legitimacy" is a very diffuse instruction which everybody will interpret suiting best to individual intentions.
In a nutshell, this kind of guidance is a prime example how not to do by a responsible leadership, management or ownership . If there must be instructions from top at all than I would recommend a very concrete verbalisation. In particular, when a dutiful bustling executive guy like Graham has to be instructed what can and what cannot be done.
Ok, the quoted guidance was transformed now into a diplomatic misunderstanding. However, its contents are still floating around. Therefore I would like to ask you a personal question.
To be allowed is another thing than only to be tolerated. Who knows it, some wonderful New Zealand morning I'll find myself deleted or banished because Graham wasn't well instructed!
Since a few months I'm presenting in this forum my Great Gambit Tournament with the participation of FireBird, -now Fire-, one of the Ippolit/Igorrit adaptions. In your eyes and considering the owners intentions of this site: is my tournament an encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy which should be aggressively removed ?
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:
"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it.
(...)
When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it.
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
you know Graham, 
I believe you , Sam.