A Question for Our Sponsor..IPPO Links OK or Not??

[Albert Silver]

The fact is we do not know the whole story yet, and Vas has done nothing to defend himself. So maybe you should wait before using words like hate, as they are words of a fanatical zeolot protecting his masters honour. And you are far to clever for that.

Vas doesn't give a shit about this crap. Vas is crying all the way to the bank.

I am not sure the point of your post ? I hope you didn't think I was coming to the defense of Vas. ( I think most know where I stand on that issue). I just wanted to address Rolf's overly garrulous response about hate, as I believe it had nothing to do with the issue. Nothing more!

I was just making a general remark. Vas really does not give one rat's ass about any of this ippo ... fruit crap that has so consumed ccc. All the best lack conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity. In any event, CODE BLUE GILL. COMMENCE OPERATION CLAMBAKE

Silly.

[Rolf]

I'll say this again, although I know it is a futile effort: I'm neither attacking Vas, nor defending the authors of IP*. Here is what is known.

Please try to understand the following that I am apparently repeating in vain for you.

In the very moment you spell the two sides as equally important in one sentence, then you have already shown a lack of ethics. a) you mention Vas who is a concrete and real person about whom you are insinuating a lot of assumptions and then b) you are talking about anons without identity because they certainly must hide because of legal consequences. Else they would appear in public. Is that so difficult to understand?

These anons are a real pain, not Vas. And ethically you should never conclude what Vas should better do now in one day, only because anons had published something illegal in over a year.

(1) Parts of fruit are in Rybka 1. Regardless of the protests, that is a simple statement of fact, it is old news. Yes, the Fruit code was modified in places. Some would say enough places to qualify this as a new and original program.

(2) parts of ip* _may_ have come from Rybka 3. Based on the detailed analysis by bb+, it is quite obvious that if parts were taken from Rybka 3, they were modified significantly. _very_ significantly. And some would say that this is enough to qualify this as a new and original program.

Funny that you dont get this. The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (2) you have no authors but anons. The moment we had authors the law could begin its work.

Both cases are similar. I believe most agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, which means let both of the suspected derivatives participate until a full and complete evaluation is done to determine what if anything was copied. This has been my position with respect to the ip* program. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests reverse-engineering. I've mentioned that many times. There is also (now) substantial evidence of significant differences between ip* and R3. We have something unclear. Vas could, in one day, post snippets of code from R3 that match code in ip* and put that claim to rest for all time, without revealing a single new idea he has come up with that is not in ip*. He's chosen to not do so. So we are left with an unclear understanding of what has happened. I am certain that every time a law enforcement officer arrests someone for murder, they are convinced that person is guilty. Fortunately, we first have a trial to prove guilt, not a trial to prove innocence. And only after that trial is some form of punishment administered. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach here, IMHO. No need to rush to judgement. We originally arrested the ip* program by disallowing links. We eventually were forced to let it out on bond. And so far, there is nowhere near enough evidence to either convict or declare innocence.

It seems unreasonable to accept every "that's a clone" claim made with no proof. It would completely stifle computer chess development.

I agree that you are in difficulties since R1beta because you (pluralis!) simply cant keep the pace with Vasik's inventions. So, instead of improving Crafty or Fritz or Junior, you must rely on anon jerks so that the progress of Rybka is a bit slowed down. Well, apparently that is making sense in computerchess circles but not in ethical nor legal regards.

We have the interesting picture that those who claimed that Vas suffered under a lack of ethics silently applaud the "crimes" of unethical anons. To reach what in the end? The destruction of the old known and beloved computerchess sports. Now, that is sound and kosher. Har har, yeah. Yeah.

For me it is interesting that some of those who left their jobs years ago, like CW and ES, openly appear in the new Open Forum where the bashing of the new number one is top number one.A vilain who would see connections between "them" and the anon family...

P.S. Since I forgot to answer that: you are wrong with the proposal that Vas could in 1 day make everything clear once and for all by publishing snips from original R3 code. Because if he did, the next series of anons would be launched and so on. Because since Theron opened the envy casket it's not about CC development but about disturbing the new number one with his creativity and moderate income! It's disgusting.

[bob]

I'll say this again, although I know it is a futile effort: I'm neither attacking Vas, nor defending the authors of IP*. Here is what is known.

Please try to understand the following that I am apparently repeating in vain for you.

In the very moment you spell the two sides as equally important in one sentence, then you have already shown a lack of ethics.

We have a dilemma. We have a program that some claim was derived from another program. We have nothing substantive to go on except (a) the author (Vas) made the claim but offered no evidence of any kind to support the claim; (b) Larry said a couple of pc/sq tables in ip* are very close to values he produced for Rybka 3. On the other hand, others have claimed this new program is not a derivative. They have offered detailed analysis of the disassembled binary (Rybak) vs source (ips) showing some similarities and more differences. Others have shown significantly different output between the two engines given the same starting positions.

There is simply not enough evidence to say with near-certainty that ip* is or is not a clone. And given that, one should err on the conservative side, which is what most are doing. This is not about ethics at all, because ethics are almost always involved with self-interests. My only interest is in doing the same thing I have been doing for years, namely improving my program, identifying clones of my program, and enjoying this hobby. Ethics don't fit into that at all, as I have never cheated, I have never copied or stolen code (except for small pieces that many use, such as egtb code, or magic move generation stuff) and I plan to continue that approach until I get tired of chess or become unable to continue for health reasons.

a) you mention Vas who is a concrete and real person about whom you are insinuating a lot of assumptions and then b) you are talking about anons without identity because they certainly must hide because of legal consequences. Else they would appear in public. Is that so difficult to understand?

These anons are a real pain, not Vas. And ethically you should never conclude what Vas should better do now in one day, only because anons had published something illegal in over a year.

(1) Parts of fruit are in Rybka 1. Regardless of the protests, that is a simple statement of fact, it is old news. Yes, the Fruit code was modified in places. Some would say enough places to qualify this as a new and original program.

(2) parts of ip* _may_ have come from Rybka 3. Based on the detailed analysis by bb+, it is quite obvious that if parts were taken from Rybka 3, they were modified significantly. _very_ significantly. And some would say that this is enough to qualify this as a new and original program.

Funny that you dont get this. The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (2) you have no authors but anons. The moment we had authors the law could begin its work.

The law can't work without some sort of proof.

Both cases are similar. I believe most agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, which means let both of the suspected derivatives participate until a full and complete evaluation is done to determine what if anything was copied. This has been my position with respect to the ip* program. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests reverse-engineering. I've mentioned that many times. There is also (now) substantial evidence of significant differences between ip* and R3. We have something unclear. Vas could, in one day, post snippets of code from R3 that match code in ip* and put that claim to rest for all time, without revealing a single new idea he has come up with that is not in ip*. He's chosen to not do so. So we are left with an unclear understanding of what has happened. I am certain that every time a law enforcement officer arrests someone for murder, they are convinced that person is guilty. Fortunately, we first have a trial to prove guilt, not a trial to prove innocence. And only after that trial is some form of punishment administered. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach here, IMHO. No need to rush to judgement. We originally arrested the ip* program by disallowing links. We eventually were forced to let it out on bond. And so far, there is nowhere near enough evidence to either convict or declare innocence.

It seems unreasonable to accept every "that's a clone" claim made with no proof. It would completely stifle computer chess development.

I agree that you are in difficulties since R1beta because you (pluralis!) simply cant keep the pace with Vasik's inventions. So, instead of improving Crafty or Fritz or Junior, you must rely on anon jerks so that the progress of Rybka is a bit slowed down. Well, apparently that is making sense in computerchess circles but not in ethical nor legal regards. [/quote]

Makes no sense to me at all. How does this "slow Vas down?" It certainly isn't helping me in any way. So I don't get that line of reasoning at all.

We have the interesting picture that those who claimed that Vas suffered under a lack of ethics silently applaud the "crimes" of unethical anons. To reach what in the end? The destruction of the old known and beloved computerchess sports. Now, that is sound and kosher. Har har, yeah. Yeah.

Computer chess is alive and well. There will always be shady characters. Always have been.

For me it is interesting that some of those who left their jobs years ago, like CW and ES, openly appear in the new Open Forum where the bashing of the new number one is top number one.A vilain who would see connections between "them" and the anon family...

Don't know what you are talking about here. Most discussions on OpenChess are _not_ about Vas. In fact, hardly any are. There are too many posts about CCC, to be sure, but then CCC has too many posts about OpenChess as well.

P.S. Since I forgot to answer that: you are wrong with the proposal that Vas could in 1 day make everything clear once and for all by publishing snips from original R3 code. Because if he did, the next series of anons would be launched and so on. Because since Theron opened the envy casket it's not about CC development but about disturbing the new number one with his creativity and moderate income! It's disgusting.

Again, that makes no sense. If he posts "Here is a block of code from ip*, file XXX, lines yyy-zzz, and here is the identical code from Rybka 3, that gives away _nothing_ that is a secret, and would offer significant proof about the derivative issue. But that is not going to happen. There will almost certainly never be a court case about any of this. Every crime excepting murder has a fairly short statute of limitations, the time limit between discovering a crime and prosecuting for it.

[benstoker]

I'll say this again, although I know it is a futile effort: I'm neither attacking Vas, nor defending the authors of IP*. Here is what is known.

Please try to understand the following that I am apparently repeating in vain for you.

In the very moment you spell the two sides as equally important in one sentence, then you have already shown a lack of ethics. a) you mention Vas who is a concrete and real person about whom you are insinuating a lot of assumptions and then b) you are talking about anons without identity because they certainly must hide because of legal consequences. Else they would appear in public. Is that so difficult to understand?

These anons are a real pain, not Vas. And ethically you should never conclude what Vas should better do now in one day, only because anons had published something illegal in over a year.

(1) Parts of fruit are in Rybka 1. Regardless of the protests, that is a simple statement of fact, it is old news. Yes, the Fruit code was modified in places. Some would say enough places to qualify this as a new and original program.

(2) parts of ip* _may_ have come from Rybka 3. Based on the detailed analysis by bb+, it is quite obvious that if parts were taken from Rybka 3, they were modified significantly. _very_ significantly. And some would say that this is enough to qualify this as a new and original program.

Funny that you dont get this. The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (2) you have no authors but anons. The moment we had authors the law could begin its work.

Both cases are similar. I believe most agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, which means let both of the suspected derivatives participate until a full and complete evaluation is done to determine what if anything was copied. This has been my position with respect to the ip* program. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests reverse-engineering. I've mentioned that many times. There is also (now) substantial evidence of significant differences between ip* and R3. We have something unclear. Vas could, in one day, post snippets of code from R3 that match code in ip* and put that claim to rest for all time, without revealing a single new idea he has come up with that is not in ip*. He's chosen to not do so. So we are left with an unclear understanding of what has happened. I am certain that every time a law enforcement officer arrests someone for murder, they are convinced that person is guilty. Fortunately, we first have a trial to prove guilt, not a trial to prove innocence. And only after that trial is some form of punishment administered. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach here, IMHO. No need to rush to judgement. We originally arrested the ip* program by disallowing links. We eventually were forced to let it out on bond. And so far, there is nowhere near enough evidence to either convict or declare innocence.

It seems unreasonable to accept every "that's a clone" claim made with no proof. It would completely stifle computer chess development.

I agree that you are in difficulties since R1beta because you (pluralis!) simply cant keep the pace with Vasik's inventions. So, instead of improving Crafty or Fritz or Junior, you must rely on anon jerks so that the progress of Rybka is a bit slowed down. Well, apparently that is making sense in computerchess circles but not in ethical nor legal regards.

We have the interesting picture that those who claimed that Vas suffered under a lack of ethics silently applaud the "crimes" of unethical anons. To reach what in the end? The destruction of the old known and beloved computerchess sports. Now, that is sound and kosher. Har har, yeah. Yeah.

For me it is interesting that some of those who left their jobs years ago, like CW and ES, openly appear in the new Open Forum where the bashing of the new number one is top number one.A vilain who would see connections between "them" and the anon family...

P.S. Since I forgot to answer that: you are wrong with the proposal that Vas could in 1 day make everything clear once and for all by publishing snips from original R3 code. Because if he did, the next series of anons would be launched and so on. Because since Theron opened the envy casket it's not about CC development but about disturbing the new number one with his creativity and moderate income! It's disgusting.

Vas doesn't give a shit. Why do you?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I'll say this again, although I know it is a futile effort: I'm neither attacking Vas, nor defending the authors of IP*. Here is what is known.

Please try to understand the following that I am apparently repeating in vain for you.

In the very moment you spell the two sides as equally important in one sentence, then you have already shown a lack of ethics. a) you mention Vas who is a concrete and real person about whom you are insinuating a lot of assumptions and then b) you are talking about anons without identity because they certainly must hide because of legal consequences. Else they would appear in public. Is that so difficult to understand?

These anons are a real pain, not Vas. And ethically you should never conclude what Vas should better do now in one day, only because anons had published something illegal in over a year.

(1) Parts of fruit are in Rybka 1. Regardless of the protests, that is a simple statement of fact, it is old news. Yes, the Fruit code was modified in places. Some would say enough places to qualify this as a new and original program.

(2) parts of ip* _may_ have come from Rybka 3. Based on the detailed analysis by bb+, it is quite obvious that if parts were taken from Rybka 3, they were modified significantly. _very_ significantly. And some would say that this is enough to qualify this as a new and original program.

Funny that you dont get this. The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (2) you have no authors but anons. The moment we had authors the law could begin its work.

Both cases are similar. I believe most agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, which means let both of the suspected derivatives participate until a full and complete evaluation is done to determine what if anything was copied. This has been my position with respect to the ip* program. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests reverse-engineering. I've mentioned that many times. There is also (now) substantial evidence of significant differences between ip* and R3. We have something unclear. Vas could, in one day, post snippets of code from R3 that match code in ip* and put that claim to rest for all time, without revealing a single new idea he has come up with that is not in ip*. He's chosen to not do so. So we are left with an unclear understanding of what has happened. I am certain that every time a law enforcement officer arrests someone for murder, they are convinced that person is guilty. Fortunately, we first have a trial to prove guilt, not a trial to prove innocence. And only after that trial is some form of punishment administered. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach here, IMHO. No need to rush to judgement. We originally arrested the ip* program by disallowing links. We eventually were forced to let it out on bond. And so far, there is nowhere near enough evidence to either convict or declare innocence.

It seems unreasonable to accept every "that's a clone" claim made with no proof. It would completely stifle computer chess development.

I agree that you are in difficulties since R1beta because you (pluralis!) simply cant keep the pace with Vasik's inventions. So, instead of improving Crafty or Fritz or Junior, you must rely on anon jerks so that the progress of Rybka is a bit slowed down. Well, apparently that is making sense in computerchess circles but not in ethical nor legal regards.

We have the interesting picture that those who claimed that Vas suffered under a lack of ethics silently applaud the "crimes" of unethical anons. To reach what in the end? The destruction of the old known and beloved computerchess sports. Now, that is sound and kosher. Har har, yeah. Yeah.

For me it is interesting that some of those who left their jobs years ago, like CW and ES, openly appear in the new Open Forum where the bashing of the new number one is top number one.A vilain who would see connections between "them" and the anon family...

P.S. Since I forgot to answer that: you are wrong with the proposal that Vas could in 1 day make everything clear once and for all by publishing snips from original R3 code. Because if he did, the next series of anons would be launched and so on. Because since Theron opened the envy casket it's not about CC development but about disturbing the new number one with his creativity and moderate income! It's disgusting.

Vas doesn't give a shit. Why do you?

Because he,Rolf,self-proclaimed himself as Vasik official spoken man

[benstoker]

I'll say this again, although I know it is a futile effort: I'm neither attacking Vas, nor defending the authors of IP*. Here is what is known.

Please try to understand the following that I am apparently repeating in vain for you.

In the very moment you spell the two sides as equally important in one sentence, then you have already shown a lack of ethics. a) you mention Vas who is a concrete and real person about whom you are insinuating a lot of assumptions and then b) you are talking about anons without identity because they certainly must hide because of legal consequences. Else they would appear in public. Is that so difficult to understand?

These anons are a real pain, not Vas. And ethically you should never conclude what Vas should better do now in one day, only because anons had published something illegal in over a year.

(1) Parts of fruit are in Rybka 1. Regardless of the protests, that is a simple statement of fact, it is old news. Yes, the Fruit code was modified in places. Some would say enough places to qualify this as a new and original program.

(2) parts of ip* _may_ have come from Rybka 3. Based on the detailed analysis by bb+, it is quite obvious that if parts were taken from Rybka 3, they were modified significantly. _very_ significantly. And some would say that this is enough to qualify this as a new and original program.

Funny that you dont get this. The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (2) you have no authors but anons. The moment we had authors the law could begin its work.

Both cases are similar. I believe most agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, which means let both of the suspected derivatives participate until a full and complete evaluation is done to determine what if anything was copied. This has been my position with respect to the ip* program. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests reverse-engineering. I've mentioned that many times. There is also (now) substantial evidence of significant differences between ip* and R3. We have something unclear. Vas could, in one day, post snippets of code from R3 that match code in ip* and put that claim to rest for all time, without revealing a single new idea he has come up with that is not in ip*. He's chosen to not do so. So we are left with an unclear understanding of what has happened. I am certain that every time a law enforcement officer arrests someone for murder, they are convinced that person is guilty. Fortunately, we first have a trial to prove guilt, not a trial to prove innocence. And only after that trial is some form of punishment administered. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach here, IMHO. No need to rush to judgement. We originally arrested the ip* program by disallowing links. We eventually were forced to let it out on bond. And so far, there is nowhere near enough evidence to either convict or declare innocence.

It seems unreasonable to accept every "that's a clone" claim made with no proof. It would completely stifle computer chess development.

I agree that you are in difficulties since R1beta because you (pluralis!) simply cant keep the pace with Vasik's inventions. So, instead of improving Crafty or Fritz or Junior, you must rely on anon jerks so that the progress of Rybka is a bit slowed down. Well, apparently that is making sense in computerchess circles but not in ethical nor legal regards.

We have the interesting picture that those who claimed that Vas suffered under a lack of ethics silently applaud the "crimes" of unethical anons. To reach what in the end? The destruction of the old known and beloved computerchess sports. Now, that is sound and kosher. Har har, yeah. Yeah.

For me it is interesting that some of those who left their jobs years ago, like CW and ES, openly appear in the new Open Forum where the bashing of the new number one is top number one.A vilain who would see connections between "them" and the anon family...

P.S. Since I forgot to answer that: you are wrong with the proposal that Vas could in 1 day make everything clear once and for all by publishing snips from original R3 code. Because if he did, the next series of anons would be launched and so on. Because since Theron opened the envy casket it's not about CC development but about disturbing the new number one with his creativity and moderate income! It's disgusting.

Vas doesn't give a shit. Why do you?

Because he,Rolf,self-proclaimed himself as Vasik official spoken man

Vas' doppelgänger run amok!

[Rolf]

We have a dilemma.

How? We dont have a dilemma at all but many people and experts who are pretending being incapable of understanding the easiest things. You claaim we had no evidence but what Vas told us IS the evidence, Bob, please get real! You just cant trust anons over Vasik! That is what I mean with ethics. But Vas is NOT obliged to give his code to prove anything for you. Look, Bob, if you think, Vas isnt trustable, why he should show you something as not-trustable for Bob Hyatt? You are caught ina a double bind. Either your claim is sound, that you nee code from Vas or you claim that Vas couldnt be trusted. But then you dont need his code because then you couldnt trust his code examples either. It is just not right to insult someone and then expecting him to show you something so thast you could continue your mistrusting campaign. In short, you wont trust him anyways. And this is sad to see.

Perhaps we have a dilemma of or for Bob in this question, because you cant make a logically sound case.

Psychologicallyy your standing in this topic is even worse because you just cant imagine how you would feel in Vasik's shoes. What does he feel after being insulted this way? I can tell you. He has a very rational and practical perception. He just ignores what he couldnt change even if he tried. But instead of accepting his stand you want to get something else.

His strategy is as follows. If you (on CCC) go too far and cooperate with evil anons and their evil activities and sometimes they show up, then you could with them be caught in a legal case. Not that I would wish that.

We have a program that some claim was derived from another program. We have nothing substantive to go on except (a) the author (Vas) made the claim but offered no evidence of any kind to support the claim;

But he knows the evidence. Just trust him. Why wasting your time with conspiracy theories?

Help Vas with your expertise against these anons who want nothing else than destruction of our CC hobby. Cooperate with Vas like Larry. Vas isnt autistic. He cooperated too. Just ask Larry. Vas also did never insult you. He's a nice guy.

(b) Larry said a couple of pc/sq tables in ip* are very close to values he produced for Rybka 3. On the other hand, others have claimed this new program is not a derivative. They have offered detailed analysis of the disassembled binary (Rybak) vs source (ips) showing some similarities and more differences. Others have shown significantly different output between the two engines given the same starting positions.

There is simply not enough evidence to say with near-certainty that ip* is or is not a clone. And given that, one should err on the conservative side, which is what most are doing. This is not about ethics at all, because ethics are almost always involved with self-interests. My only interest is in doing the same thing I have been doing for years, namely improving my program, identifying clones of my program, and enjoying this hobby. Ethics don't fit into that at all, as I have never cheated, I have never copied or stolen code (except for small pieces that many use, such as egtb code, or magic move generation stuff) and I plan to continue that approach until I get tired of chess or become unable to continue for health reasons.

With best wishes from all here in CCC. You will hopefully last longer than me myself. Therefore I still dream of operating out this cancer bulb about Vasik being not trustable. Bob, you wont let the CCC be destructed by undemocratic elements, please. And finally get real about anons who havent earned the rights to get too much respect from experts like yourself. Dont mess around with such anon jerks.

[Terry McCracken]

I'll say this again, although I know it is a futile effort: I'm neither attacking Vas, nor defending the authors of IP*. Here is what is known.

Please try to understand the following that I am apparently repeating in vain for you.

In the very moment you spell the two sides as equally important in one sentence, then you have already shown a lack of ethics. a) you mention Vas who is a concrete and real person about whom you are insinuating a lot of assumptions and then b) you are talking about anons without identity because they certainly must hide because of legal consequences. Else they would appear in public. Is that so difficult to understand?

These anons are a real pain, not Vas. And ethically you should never conclude what Vas should better do now in one day, only because anons had published something illegal in over a year.

(1) Parts of fruit are in Rybka 1. Regardless of the protests, that is a simple statement of fact, it is old news. Yes, the Fruit code was modified in places. Some would say enough places to qualify this as a new and original program.

(2) parts of ip* _may_ have come from Rybka 3. Based on the detailed analysis by bb+, it is quite obvious that if parts were taken from Rybka 3, they were modified significantly. _very_ significantly. And some would say that this is enough to qualify this as a new and original program.

Funny that you dont get this. The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (2) you have no authors but anons. The moment we had authors the law could begin its work.

Both cases are similar. I believe most agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, which means let both of the suspected derivatives participate until a full and complete evaluation is done to determine what if anything was copied. This has been my position with respect to the ip* program. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests reverse-engineering. I've mentioned that many times. There is also (now) substantial evidence of significant differences between ip* and R3. We have something unclear. Vas could, in one day, post snippets of code from R3 that match code in ip* and put that claim to rest for all time, without revealing a single new idea he has come up with that is not in ip*. He's chosen to not do so. So we are left with an unclear understanding of what has happened. I am certain that every time a law enforcement officer arrests someone for murder, they are convinced that person is guilty. Fortunately, we first have a trial to prove guilt, not a trial to prove innocence. And only after that trial is some form of punishment administered. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach here, IMHO. No need to rush to judgement. We originally arrested the ip* program by disallowing links. We eventually were forced to let it out on bond. And so far, there is nowhere near enough evidence to either convict or declare innocence.

It seems unreasonable to accept every "that's a clone" claim made with no proof. It would completely stifle computer chess development.

I agree that you are in difficulties since R1beta because you (pluralis!) simply cant keep the pace with Vasik's inventions. So, instead of improving Crafty or Fritz or Junior, you must rely on anon jerks so that the progress of Rybka is a bit slowed down. Well, apparently that is making sense in computerchess circles but not in ethical nor legal regards.

We have the interesting picture that those who claimed that Vas suffered under a lack of ethics silently applaud the "crimes" of unethical anons. To reach what in the end? The destruction of the old known and beloved computerchess sports. Now, that is sound and kosher. Har har, yeah. Yeah.

For me it is interesting that some of those who left their jobs years ago, like CW and ES, openly appear in the new Open Forum where the bashing of the new number one is top number one.A vilain who would see connections between "them" and the anon family...

P.S. Since I forgot to answer that: you are wrong with the proposal that Vas could in 1 day make everything clear once and for all by publishing snips from original R3 code. Because if he did, the next series of anons would be launched and so on. Because since Theron opened the envy casket it's not about CC development but about disturbing the new number one with his creativity and moderate income! It's disgusting.

Vas doesn't give a shit. Why do you?

Because he,Rolf,self-proclaimed himself as Vasik official spoken man

Vas' doppelgänger run amok!

Vas doesn't deserve that.

[Terry McCracken]

I'll say this again, although I know it is a futile effort: I'm neither attacking Vas, nor defending the authors of IP*. Here is what is known.

Please try to understand the following that I am apparently repeating in vain for you.

In the very moment you spell the two sides as equally important in one sentence, then you have already shown a lack of ethics. a) you mention Vas who is a concrete and real person about whom you are insinuating a lot of assumptions and then b) you are talking about anons without identity because they certainly must hide because of legal consequences. Else they would appear in public. Is that so difficult to understand?

These anons are a real pain, not Vas. And ethically you should never conclude what Vas should better do now in one day, only because anons had published something illegal in over a year.

(1) Parts of fruit are in Rybka 1. Regardless of the protests, that is a simple statement of fact, it is old news. Yes, the Fruit code was modified in places. Some would say enough places to qualify this as a new and original program.

(2) parts of ip* _may_ have come from Rybka 3. Based on the detailed analysis by bb+, it is quite obvious that if parts were taken from Rybka 3, they were modified significantly. _very_ significantly. And some would say that this is enough to qualify this as a new and original program.

Funny that you dont get this. The difference between (1) and (2) is that in (2) you have no authors but anons. The moment we had authors the law could begin its work.

Both cases are similar. I believe most agree that it is better to err on the side of caution, which means let both of the suspected derivatives participate until a full and complete evaluation is done to determine what if anything was copied. This has been my position with respect to the ip* program. There is some circumstantial evidence that suggests reverse-engineering. I've mentioned that many times. There is also (now) substantial evidence of significant differences between ip* and R3. We have something unclear. Vas could, in one day, post snippets of code from R3 that match code in ip* and put that claim to rest for all time, without revealing a single new idea he has come up with that is not in ip*. He's chosen to not do so. So we are left with an unclear understanding of what has happened. I am certain that every time a law enforcement officer arrests someone for murder, they are convinced that person is guilty. Fortunately, we first have a trial to prove guilt, not a trial to prove innocence. And only after that trial is some form of punishment administered. That seems like a perfectly reasonable approach here, IMHO. No need to rush to judgement. We originally arrested the ip* program by disallowing links. We eventually were forced to let it out on bond. And so far, there is nowhere near enough evidence to either convict or declare innocence.

It seems unreasonable to accept every "that's a clone" claim made with no proof. It would completely stifle computer chess development.

I agree that you are in difficulties since R1beta because you (pluralis!) simply cant keep the pace with Vasik's inventions. So, instead of improving Crafty or Fritz or Junior, you must rely on anon jerks so that the progress of Rybka is a bit slowed down. Well, apparently that is making sense in computerchess circles but not in ethical nor legal regards.

We have the interesting picture that those who claimed that Vas suffered under a lack of ethics silently applaud the "crimes" of unethical anons. To reach what in the end? The destruction of the old known and beloved computerchess sports. Now, that is sound and kosher. Har har, yeah. Yeah.

For me it is interesting that some of those who left their jobs years ago, like CW and ES, openly appear in the new Open Forum where the bashing of the new number one is top number one.A vilain who would see connections between "them" and the anon family...

P.S. Since I forgot to answer that: you are wrong with the proposal that Vas could in 1 day make everything clear once and for all by publishing snips from original R3 code. Because if he did, the next series of anons would be launched and so on. Because since Theron opened the envy casket it's not about CC development but about disturbing the new number one with his creativity and moderate income! It's disgusting.

Vas doesn't give a shit. Why do you?

Because he,Rolf,self-proclaimed himself as Vasik official spoken man

Spokesman

[bob]

We have a dilemma.

How? We dont have a dilemma at all but many people and experts who are pretending being incapable of understanding the easiest things. You claaim we had no evidence but what Vas told us IS the evidence, Bob, please get real! You just cant trust anons over Vasik! That is what I mean with ethics. But Vas is NOT obliged to give his code to prove anything for you. Look, Bob, if you think, Vas isnt trustable, why he should show you something as not-trustable for Bob Hyatt? You are caught ina a double bind. Either your claim is sound, that you nee code from Vas or you claim that Vas couldnt be trusted. But then you dont need his code because then you couldnt trust his code examples either. It is just not right to insult someone and then expecting him to show you something so thast you could continue your mistrusting campaign. In short, you wont trust him anyways. And this is sad to see.

Please go look up the definition of "evidence". "Vas says so" is _not_ evidence.

Perhaps we have a dilemma of or for Bob in this question, because you cant make a logically sound case.

Psychologicallyy your standing in this topic is even worse because you just cant imagine how you would feel in Vasik's shoes. What does he feel after being insulted this way? I can tell you. He has a very rational and practical perception. He just ignores what he couldnt change even if he tried. But instead of accepting his stand you want to get something else.

What does he feel bad about? Copying Fruit? Can't help him there, that was a personal decision. Claiming he had not copied Fruit? Can't help him there either, he makes his own statements and then has to live with them. Not happy about ip*? He could solve that with a few hours work and put that issue to rest, if it is _really_ an issue.

We are each responsible for our own actions (or lack of actions).

His strategy is as follows. If you (on CCC) go too far and cooperate with evil anons and their evil activities and sometimes they show up, then you could with them be caught in a legal case. Not that I would wish that.

Not possible. Someone robs a bank. You don't know about. You take them out to eat. Guilty of any crime? Only if you assisted them in robbing the bank.

We have a program that some claim was derived from another program. We have nothing substantive to go on except (a) the author (Vas) made the claim but offered no evidence of any kind to support the claim;

But he knows the evidence. Just trust him. Why wasting your time with conspiracy theories?

Every car salesman I have ever talked to said the same thing. "Trust me." I trust something I can hold in my hands and look at.

Help Vas with your expertise against these anons who want nothing else than destruction of our CC hobby. Cooperate with Vas like Larry. Vas isnt autistic. He cooperated too. Just ask Larry. Vas also did never insult you. He's a nice guy.

(b) Larry said a couple of pc/sq tables in ip* are very close to values he produced for Rybka 3. On the other hand, others have claimed this new program is not a derivative. They have offered detailed analysis of the disassembled binary (Rybak) vs source (ips) showing some similarities and more differences. Others have shown significantly different output between the two engines given the same starting positions.

There is simply not enough evidence to say with near-certainty that ip* is or is not a clone. And given that, one should err on the conservative side, which is what most are doing. This is not about ethics at all, because ethics are almost always involved with self-interests. My only interest is in doing the same thing I have been doing for years, namely improving my program, identifying clones of my program, and enjoying this hobby. Ethics don't fit into that at all, as I have never cheated, I have never copied or stolen code (except for small pieces that many use, such as egtb code, or magic move generation stuff) and I plan to continue that approach until I get tired of chess or become unable to continue for health reasons.

With best wishes from all here in CCC. You will hopefully last longer than me myself. Therefore I still dream of operating out this cancer bulb about Vasik being not trustable. Bob, you wont let the CCC be destructed by undemocratic elements, please. And finally get real about anons who havent earned the rights to get too much respect from experts like yourself. Dont mess around with such anon jerks.

How have I "messed around with such anon jerks"? Never met 'em. Never corresponded with 'em. Never talked to them.