Goodbye Talkchess

[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.

[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.

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.

Aye, agreed!

I think it almost time for the toaster to get dropped in the tub ?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Among the blind a one-eyed man is king.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Aber morgen schauen wir Fussball, gelle!

[bob]

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.

No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.

[lmader]

Aber morgen schauen wir Fussball, gelle!

Alles hat ein Ende, nur die Wurst hat zwei.

[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.

No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.

Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?

[Ralph Stoesser]

The clone detection test provide overwhelming evidence that OpenChess is a TalkChess clone. They use exactly the same board section names: General Topics, Programming and Technical Discussions, Tournaments and Matches. Coincidence? If you'd ask me, I'd say they are guilty.