Goodbye Talkchess

[Albert Silver]

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.

Hello Albert Silver,

Forget about Dr. Hyatt.

What about the rest of us?

I certainly do not want Vas to reveal anything detrimental to his program's dominant position. Is that the only alternative? Why not show some of the parts that are non-detrimental that were already exposed in Ippo (given that his interpretation of the facts is correct) for the rest of us to see?

However you make it sound as if the rest of us could not be convinced.

I can.

Show us, please.

Zero dishonesty or hypocrisy from my side.

Later.

I don't have access to his code, nor any sway in this matter. In my talks with Vas, he has come across as a very down-to-earth guy, who knows that it is a losing battle to try and stamp out every cloner or pirate. It would be an endless fight, and let us face it: hopeless. Would proving anything stop it from happening again? It is the price of being the best IMHO. One sure doesn't see a long list of top engines being cloned. I'm sure that the day some other engine starts dominating the field, we'll find a whole new breed of non-Rybka clones.

The last I spoke, he had come to terms that these things were pretty much unavoidable, so best to just continue his work and live his life. Frankly, I wish I had some of his equanimity.

[Rolf]

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.

I have thousands of question to prove that your position isnt working. Look e.g.:

- when you claim zeitnot is it really true? Then why do you invest so much time to be present against Vas whenever the debate begins?

- when you claim neutralism how then could you deal with people like Norman who is a proven cloner?

- you claim honesty but how can you tolerate "invisible" people (Hippo...)

- you claim that you had always proven with data when you accused a cloner, then why do you ignore the difference between the dsata of open source and business?

Is that all sound in your eyes? Not in mine.

But excuse me, Bob, the most striking argument against you is what I mentioned often enough. You are paid by university and in your spare time, you do things for Crafty, which is a great thing! But as a married man why dont you respect the different problems for a talented programmer, a World Champ BTW, just for reasons of respect? How could you dare to set equal you living standards with his? In short why do you pretend a position that is sober when you neglect Vasik's different stances?

And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue. Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys dont interest you at all? Couldnt you add some clear statementsa for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computerchess for me...

[Sean Evans]

And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue. Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys don't interest you at all? Couldn't you add some clear statements for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computer chess for me...

My first question is:

1) Can Bob support that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit? If so, I would be interested in seeing it.

2) If Bob provides the evidence, then why is the WCCC allowing Rybka to participate? My understanding is only original works can play at WCCC.

Cordially,

Sean

[Rolf]

I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.

How do you know? Ok if you take sides for Bob and want to be against Vas then ok, but wouldnt your own statement be speaking for Vas too?? The main attack vs Bob is IMO that he worked with a split and inconsitant ethical basement. That was the biggest deception I ever saw in him. It's a psychological problem. Or is this also unallowed to use here in the debate? So, what did you mean that you knew and Al should know too that Bob isnt supporting what?

I asked him the crucial question: if the talks about these invisible vilains who are vilains because they are invisible, would serve to a good purpose then Bob would be right, but if not then Bob's position is unsound. For what Bob is standing for in our scene.

[Robert Flesher]

And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue. Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys don't interest you at all? Couldn't you add some clear statements for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computer chess for me...

My first question is:

1) Can Bob support that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit? If so, I would be interested in seeing it.

2) If Bob provides the evidence, then why is the WCCC allowing Rybka to participate? My understanding is only original works can play at WCCC.

Cordially,

Sean

The evidence has been provided! Yet it is swept under the mat.

[Robert Flesher]

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.

Some very good points Bob! Yet they will not address the truth ?!

From an objective point of view, one "could "make the conclusion that Vas with the evidence provided is also a cloner and a liar. From this one could also infer that those who know this and still support him are also liars or fools lost in the their own hypocrisy. But, there are many ways to look at all issues and objectivity rarely shows its face around here lately.

[bob]

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.

I have thousands of question to prove that your position isnt working. Look e.g.:

- when you claim zeitnot is it really true? Then why do you invest so much time to be present against Vas whenever the debate begins?

- when you claim neutralism how then could you deal with people like Norman who is a proven cloner?

I do not "deal" with anyone here, really. Norm has done some things I don't agree with, some that I did agree with. So what?

- you claim honesty but how can you tolerate "invisible" people (Hippo...)

How can I "tolerate" them when I have never met them??? Whether they are real or fictitious I have no idea. For all I know Vas is the same as I have never met him either. There are lots of others that fit this same box. And some that don't, for example, Thompson, Hsu, Campbell, Don D, Larry K, etc. I've met every one of 'em many times.

- you claim that you had always proven with data when you accused a cloner, then why do you ignore the difference between the dsata of open source and business?

I have no idea what that means. Copying an open source program, closing it and calling it your own is not exactly ethical is it? you get the point...

Is that all sound in your eyes? Not in mine.

But excuse me, Bob, the most striking argument against you is what I mentioned often enough. You are paid by university and in your spare time, you do things for Crafty, which is a great thing! But as a married man why dont you respect the different problems for a talented programmer, a World Champ BTW, just for reasons of respect? How could you dare to set equal you living standards with his? In short why do you pretend a position that is sober when you neglect Vasik's different stances?

You will have to run that one by me again in a more understandable expression of your question. What does being a university professor, or being married, or being a former world champ have to do with anything???

And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue.

I only know what happened and have participated in discussions proving/discussing/disclosing the particulars. I have no standing to file a court case, and would not be interested in doing so since it is not my program, my problem, or my lack of ethics that led to this mess in the first place. Remember, _I_ did not copy anyone's source. I am just the messenger in this little fracus.

Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys dont interest you at all? Couldnt you add some clear statementsa for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computerchess for me...

The "guilty proof" is, unfortunately, visible for all to see. We are beyond the point of "innocent until proven guilty" because he has been proven guilty. So let's move on to something else...

[bob]

And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue. Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys don't interest you at all? Couldn't you add some clear statements for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computer chess for me...

My first question is:

1) Can Bob support that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit? If so, I would be interested in seeing it.

2) If Bob provides the evidence, then why is the WCCC allowing Rybka to participate? My understanding is only original works can play at WCCC.

Cordially,

Sean

The evidence has been provided! Yet it is swept under the mat.

This is just like the movie "Groundhog Day". Someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, then someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, repeat until you get tired and give up seems to be the point here.

[bob]

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*?

If you declared it a fair way to even the playing field, that is supportive of it.

fair 1 (fâr)
adj. fair·er, fair·est

Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics.

I believe I have been consistent. BTW, you say "never-ending" which is, of course, more than a "mild exaggeration". You might post the rest of that thread to provide the context, which will change the meaning of that statement just a bit. But then that would not help your agenda, would it?

[Graham Banks]

2) If Bob provides the evidence, then why is the WCCC allowing Rybka to participate? My understanding is only original works can play at WCCC.

This is just like the movie "Groundhog Day". Someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, then someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, repeat until you get tired and give up seems to be the point here.

I thought that WCCC were very stringent about such matters. Has anybody complained to them?

Cheers,
Graham.