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

[Rolf]

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

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.

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

a) Vas has nothing in obligation to show something to those who prejudiced him for years. That train has left the station.

b) It makes no sense if you seek examples with real people because the anons are not real. Still you want to treat them the way you treat Vas and Rybka. But that is insultive as such.

c) How could you meet anons or phone them? Let's stop this. It's nonsense. With messing around I wanted to say stop arguing with "them" and about "their " stuff. You are from science. Talk with those who are there.

[bob]

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

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.

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

a) Vas has nothing in obligation to show something to those who prejudiced him for years. That train has left the station.

b) It makes no sense if you seek examples with real people because the anons are not real. Still you want to treat them the way you treat Vas and Rybka. But that is insultive as such.

c) How could you meet anons or phone them? Let's stop this. It's nonsense. With messing around I wanted to say stop arguing with "them" and about "their " stuff. You are from science. Talk with those who are there.

The problem is, ip*, robo*, houdini, fire, et. al. are _there_. They have to be dealt with. One can't simply bury his head in the sand and repeat over and over "there is no ippo*, etc."

So they _must_ be dealt with. We won't allow them to compete in our tournaments until an author comes forward. But I'm not willing to brand them as derivatives without hard evidence.

[Rolf]

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

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.

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

a) Vas has nothing in obligation to show something to those who prejudiced him for years. That train has left the station.

b) It makes no sense if you seek examples with real people because the anons are not real. Still you want to treat them the way you treat Vas and Rybka. But that is insultive as such.

c) How could you meet anons or phone them? Let's stop this. It's nonsense. With messing around I wanted to say stop arguing with "them" and about "their " stuff. You are from science. Talk with those who are there.

The problem is, ip*, robo*, houdini, fire, et. al. are _there_. They have to be dealt with. One can't simply bury his head in the sand and repeat over and over "there is no ippo*, etc."

So they _must_ be dealt with. We won't allow them to compete in our tournaments until an author comes forward. But I'm not willing to brand them as derivatives without hard evidence.

If you just describe it (partially) this way then I could agree, but no more with the addition of what Vas then stated. He just stated that such and such is based on stolen material. At that moment the whole possibility to treat "them" with respect is gone UNLESS you begin along your former campaign that Vas isnt trustable. At that moment we have the absurdity that you trust anon jerks more than the real Wch who is in the open. Then you are forced to construct nonsense along the line, no, he's not trustable unless he doesnt give at least some examples of his code. And the whole affair becomes being disgusting.

Again, this is an ethical problem, not one of CC coding.

The ugliest aspect is that you are not at all the only one with that ethical deficiency. Look, on Rybka forum Ed S. told me that at least one must see that these anons created the best piece of code. Wait a minute I said, and what does it mean for Vas? Ahem, he replied, of course, that's no doubt, Vas is the victim. - So, here you see the same twist of split perception. Like you, Ed doesnt get angry towards anon jerks, if they show us what Vas called stolen from his code. Apparently the stealing is no problem for you both. Now Bob wants more. He wants the certification from Vas that the code is really original Vas code.

Again, I wished that you all would create own products with only half of the smartness you input into this dramolette of anti-Vas campaign. Bob, Ed, and also CW who cant stop laughing while rolling all over the place in the new forum. I hear several bells ringing here. Unethical I say, but you will explain that ethics doesnt exist... How interesting.

[bob]

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

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.

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

a) Vas has nothing in obligation to show something to those who prejudiced him for years. That train has left the station.

b) It makes no sense if you seek examples with real people because the anons are not real. Still you want to treat them the way you treat Vas and Rybka. But that is insultive as such.

c) How could you meet anons or phone them? Let's stop this. It's nonsense. With messing around I wanted to say stop arguing with "them" and about "their " stuff. You are from science. Talk with those who are there.

The problem is, ip*, robo*, houdini, fire, et. al. are _there_. They have to be dealt with. One can't simply bury his head in the sand and repeat over and over "there is no ippo*, etc."

So they _must_ be dealt with. We won't allow them to compete in our tournaments until an author comes forward. But I'm not willing to brand them as derivatives without hard evidence.

If you just describe it (partially) this way then I could agree, but no more with the addition of what Vas then stated. He just stated that such and such is based on stolen material. At that moment the whole possibility to treat "them" with respect is gone UNLESS you begin along your former campaign that Vas isnt trustable. At that moment we have the absurdity that you trust anon jerks more than the real Wch who is in the open. Then you are forced to construct nonsense along the line, no, he's not trustable unless he doesnt give at least some examples of his code. And the whole affair becomes being disgusting.

Again, this is an ethical problem, not one of CC coding.

The ugliest aspect is that you are not at all the only one with that ethical deficiency. Look, on Rybka forum Ed S. told me that at least one must see that these anons created the best piece of code. Wait a minute I said, and what does it mean for Vas? Ahem, he replied, of course, that's no doubt, Vas is the victim. - So, here you see the same twist of split perception. Like you, Ed doesnt get angry towards anon jerks, if they show us what Vas called stolen from his code. Apparently the stealing is no problem for you both. Now Bob wants more. He wants the certification from Vas that the code is really original Vas code.

Again, I wished that you all would create own products with only half of the smartness you input into this dramolette of anti-Vas campaign. Bob, Ed, and also CW who cant stop laughing while rolling all over the place in the new forum. I hear several bells ringing here. Unethical I say, but you will explain that ethics doesnt exist... How interesting.

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, Vas says "There is zero Fruit code in Rybka." That has absolutely been proven false. Then he says "IP* is a derivative of Rybka" and we should take that at face value with no questions at all?

sounds reasonable to me. Unless you believe the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" concept.

[Rolf]

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

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.

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

a) Vas has nothing in obligation to show something to those who prejudiced him for years. That train has left the station.

b) It makes no sense if you seek examples with real people because the anons are not real. Still you want to treat them the way you treat Vas and Rybka. But that is insultive as such.

c) How could you meet anons or phone them? Let's stop this. It's nonsense. With messing around I wanted to say stop arguing with "them" and about "their " stuff. You are from science. Talk with those who are there.

The problem is, ip*, robo*, houdini, fire, et. al. are _there_. They have to be dealt with. One can't simply bury his head in the sand and repeat over and over "there is no ippo*, etc."

So they _must_ be dealt with. We won't allow them to compete in our tournaments until an author comes forward. But I'm not willing to brand them as derivatives without hard evidence.

If you just describe it (partially) this way then I could agree, but no more with the addition of what Vas then stated. He just stated that such and such is based on stolen material. At that moment the whole possibility to treat "them" with respect is gone UNLESS you begin along your former campaign that Vas isnt trustable. At that moment we have the absurdity that you trust anon jerks more than the real Wch who is in the open. Then you are forced to construct nonsense along the line, no, he's not trustable unless he doesnt give at least some examples of his code. And the whole affair becomes being disgusting.

Again, this is an ethical problem, not one of CC coding.

The ugliest aspect is that you are not at all the only one with that ethical deficiency. Look, on Rybka forum Ed S. told me that at least one must see that these anons created the best piece of code. Wait a minute I said, and what does it mean for Vas? Ahem, he replied, of course, that's no doubt, Vas is the victim. - So, here you see the same twist of split perception. Like you, Ed doesnt get angry towards anon jerks, if they show us what Vas called stolen from his code. Apparently the stealing is no problem for you both. Now Bob wants more. He wants the certification from Vas that the code is really original Vas code.

Again, I wished that you all would create own products with only half of the smartness you input into this dramolette of anti-Vas campaign. Bob, Ed, and also CW who cant stop laughing while rolling all over the place in the new forum. I hear several bells ringing here. Unethical I say, but you will explain that ethics doesnt exist... How interesting.

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, Vas says "There is zero Fruit code in Rybka." That has absolutely been proven false. Then he says "IP* is a derivative of Rybka" and we should take that at face value with no questions at all?

sounds reasonable to me. Unless you believe the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" concept.

Hi Bob,

let's get this straight - YOU ARE LOST!

I am a lay in computerchess programming and I never denied it. But I knew 100% sure that Zach Wegner is no trustable scientist or something similar who could master logical problems. He cant. Of course I couldnt prove it on a tech level until today I got notice of the following text which proves for sure that you and some others against Vas are busted.

Please read the following text quote - I took it from my old friend who is a CC programmer himself and who knows all the nechnology just like you but who also is educated and who knows something about logic just like me.

Please have fun while reading this revolutionary text quote:


***************************************
***************************************

QUOTE from my old friend Chris Whittington

***************************************
***************************************





http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=301



The expert witness [meant is ZW, input by Rolf]

(read in https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html)

had already found the defendant guilty. All that remained was the writing of a suitable report. The language is biased, the reader is told what to think, where there are dissimilarities the reader is assured, for example, 'this is done for optimisation reasons only' and is left to assume the dissimilarity doesn't really exist. Where Rybka uses tables, the expert witness 'recreates' the code he imagines was used to build the table data (although he never saw the code in binary form!) and unsurprisingly it matches directly with Fruit code - well,
if you want to find/prove something and are sufficiently biased and committed to the result ...... Please read that last bit carefully, again: the expert witness took a lookup table of data, imagined up the code required to recreate that data (this without access to the program that created the data which he has never seen), wrote the code as identical to some Fruit source, and says "it's the same, but optimised". Ridiculous, but it gets worse in this same code section

..... for the sub-function called in the above that looks at pawn defence in front of the king returns completely different values for each program, the sub-functions are given the same name by the witness, but they do different things. And, lastly on this section, what program doesn't look in some way at open files in front of the king? Just not good enough.

In king_safety as another example both Fruit and Rybka look at piece attacks on the eight squares around the king. Er, who doesn't do this? But it is treated as a similarity proof. The expert witness skips over the fact that Rybka does it all very fast with btiboards (who wouldn't with a bb program?), while Fruit code is longer and slower, done without bb's (well it would be wouldn't it?). We're told that the 'sum of weights' for the attacks are different for each program, but the fact that pawns are treated as zero (what a surprise!!) is yet more
'proof' of similarity, while all differences (massive I would imagine) are just the result of 'optimisation' (again). Hahahaha!!!

Just for starters.

In a court the witness document would be torn apart and rapidly discredited. I am shocked that elements of comp chess community have placed so much weight on it.

End of the quote
#####################################

Perhaps I should just say thanks to ChrisW!

Please Bob, turn the wheel around and move into the opposite direction. Forget your negative thoughts about Vasik and come back to normal. We all love you and will continue to do so, but undertake a revision of you false option about Vas.

I wish you a Good Night.

BTW since the CCC for me is still state of the art, I see no reason why such a revolutionary text should only be printed in other groups and not the CCC.

Our members should be informed at the best possible level.



GENS UNA SUMUS

[bob]

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

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.

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

a) Vas has nothing in obligation to show something to those who prejudiced him for years. That train has left the station.

b) It makes no sense if you seek examples with real people because the anons are not real. Still you want to treat them the way you treat Vas and Rybka. But that is insultive as such.

c) How could you meet anons or phone them? Let's stop this. It's nonsense. With messing around I wanted to say stop arguing with "them" and about "their " stuff. You are from science. Talk with those who are there.

The problem is, ip*, robo*, houdini, fire, et. al. are _there_. They have to be dealt with. One can't simply bury his head in the sand and repeat over and over "there is no ippo*, etc."

So they _must_ be dealt with. We won't allow them to compete in our tournaments until an author comes forward. But I'm not willing to brand them as derivatives without hard evidence.

If you just describe it (partially) this way then I could agree, but no more with the addition of what Vas then stated. He just stated that such and such is based on stolen material. At that moment the whole possibility to treat "them" with respect is gone UNLESS you begin along your former campaign that Vas isnt trustable. At that moment we have the absurdity that you trust anon jerks more than the real Wch who is in the open. Then you are forced to construct nonsense along the line, no, he's not trustable unless he doesnt give at least some examples of his code. And the whole affair becomes being disgusting.

Again, this is an ethical problem, not one of CC coding.

The ugliest aspect is that you are not at all the only one with that ethical deficiency. Look, on Rybka forum Ed S. told me that at least one must see that these anons created the best piece of code. Wait a minute I said, and what does it mean for Vas? Ahem, he replied, of course, that's no doubt, Vas is the victim. - So, here you see the same twist of split perception. Like you, Ed doesnt get angry towards anon jerks, if they show us what Vas called stolen from his code. Apparently the stealing is no problem for you both. Now Bob wants more. He wants the certification from Vas that the code is really original Vas code.

Again, I wished that you all would create own products with only half of the smartness you input into this dramolette of anti-Vas campaign. Bob, Ed, and also CW who cant stop laughing while rolling all over the place in the new forum. I hear several bells ringing here. Unethical I say, but you will explain that ethics doesnt exist... How interesting.

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, Vas says "There is zero Fruit code in Rybka." That has absolutely been proven false. Then he says "IP* is a derivative of Rybka" and we should take that at face value with no questions at all?

sounds reasonable to me. Unless you believe the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" concept.

Hi Bob,

let's get this straight - YOU ARE LOST!

I am a lay in computerchess programming and I never denied it. But I knew 100% sure that Zach Wegner is no trustable scientist or something similar who could master logical problems. He cant. Of course I couldnt prove it on a tech level until today I got notice of the following text which proves for sure that you and some others against Vas are busted.

Please read the following text quote - I took it from my old friend who is a CC programmer himself and who knows all the nechnology just like you but who also is educated and who knows something about logic just like me.

Please have fun while reading this revolutionary text quote:

CW has an _opinion_. Which everybody is entitled to have. However, I trust _my_ eyes I currently see a duck. It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It swims like a duck. It acts like a duck. It feels like a duck. It smells like a duck. No matter what you or others say, you are _not_ going to convince me that this is a pig in a duck suit.

This is not "revolutionary text". If you look at the code, you are not biased when you reach a conclusion by your own observations. If you _don't_ look at the code, and CW has not, then you are, by definition, biased if you reach a conclusion with zero data to support you.

***************************************
***************************************

QUOTE from my old friend Chris Whittington

***************************************
***************************************





http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=301



The expert witness [meant is ZW, input by Rolf]

(read in https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html)

had already found the defendant guilty. All that remained was the writing of a suitable report. The language is biased, the reader is told what to think, where there are dissimilarities the reader is assured, for example, 'this is done for optimisation reasons only' and is left to assume the dissimilarity doesn't really exist. Where Rybka uses tables, the expert witness 'recreates' the code he imagines was used to build the table data (although he never saw the code in binary form!) and unsurprisingly it matches directly with Fruit code - well,
if you want to find/prove something and are sufficiently biased and committed to the result ...... Please read that last bit carefully, again: the expert witness took a lookup table of data, imagined up the code required to recreate that data (this without access to the program that created the data which he has never seen), wrote the code as identical to some Fruit source, and says "it's the same, but optimised". Ridiculous, but it gets worse in this same code section

..... for the sub-function called in the above that looks at pawn defence in front of the king returns completely different values for each program, the sub-functions are given the same name by the witness, but they do different things. And, lastly on this section, what program doesn't look in some way at open files in front of the king? Just not good enough.

In king_safety as another example both Fruit and Rybka look at piece attacks on the eight squares around the king. Er, who doesn't do this? But it is treated as a similarity proof. The expert witness skips over the fact that Rybka does it all very fast with btiboards (who wouldn't with a bb program?), while Fruit code is longer and slower, done without bb's (well it would be wouldn't it?). We're told that the 'sum of weights' for the attacks are different for each program, but the fact that pawns are treated as zero (what a surprise!!) is yet more
'proof' of similarity, while all differences (massive I would imagine) are just the result of 'optimisation' (again). Hahahaha!!!

Just for starters.

In a court the witness document would be torn apart and rapidly discredited. I am shocked that elements of comp chess community have placed so much weight on it.

End of the quote
#####################################

Perhaps I should just say thanks to ChrisW!

Please Bob, turn the wheel around and move into the opposite direction. Forget your negative thoughts about Vasik and come back to normal. We all love you and will continue to do so, but undertake a revision of you false option about Vas.

I wish you a Good Night.

BTW since the CCC for me is still state of the art, I see no reason why such a revolutionary text should only be printed in other groups and not the CCC.

Our members should be informed at the best possible level.



GENS UNA SUMUS

Perhaps because some of his statements were so badly incorrect (here) in the past, that moderators banned him? I don't really know what his motives are and do not care. The rybka/fruit issue is, to me, convincing. If one doesn't want to believe something, then they won't believe it. If one is truly unbiased and looks at the data, they will get a different sense of things.

[Rolf]

Perhaps because some of his statements were so badly incorrect (here) in the past, that moderators banned him? I don't really know what his motives are and do not care. The rybka/fruit issue is, to me, convincing. If one doesn't want to believe something, then they won't believe it. If one is truly unbiased and looks at the data, they will get a different sense of things.

Bob please, I beg you to differentiate.

Remember when you taught me to tolerate Norman S. althought he has been caught etc pp?

I dont want to violate any mod actions and I am not a tech knowie either. But could we please agree in so far that if ssomeone who possibly misbehaved once and time ago, that he might still have not lost all his expertise in computerchess?

What do you lose, if he might be correct? You said more than once that the truth is what interested you. But not who spoke it out. So please dont discriminste him over the necessary limits.

[Michael Sherwin]

Hey Rolf,

I have not read you in a long time. I must say that your English is incredibly better. And the logic that you employ is superb relative to what it was before. I actually feel like it might be worthwhile to start reading you again. Congratulations, it's like you are a completely different person now!

[bob]

Perhaps because some of his statements were so badly incorrect (here) in the past, that moderators banned him? I don't really know what his motives are and do not care. The rybka/fruit issue is, to me, convincing. If one doesn't want to believe something, then they won't believe it. If one is truly unbiased and looks at the data, they will get a different sense of things.

Bob please, I beg you to differentiate.

Remember when you taught me to tolerate Norman S. althought he has been caught etc pp?

I dont want to violate any mod actions and I am not a tech knowie either. But could we please agree in so far that if ssomeone who possibly misbehaved once and time ago, that he might still have not lost all his expertise in computerchess?

What do you lose, if he might be correct? You said more than once that the truth is what interested you. But not who spoke it out. So please dont discriminste him over the necessary limits.

I simply answered the question you posed about why he doesn't post here.

BTW since the CCC for me is still state of the art, I see no reason why such a revolutionary text should only be printed in other groups and not the CCC.

Don't read things into a post that are not there.

As far as "If he might be correct" I have looked at the code. I've already verified that this is a duck. No point in trying to waste any time to attempt to convince me it is a pig in a duck's suit.

[Sven]

As far as "If he might be correct" I have looked at the code. I've already verified that this is a duck. No point in trying to waste any time to attempt to convince me it is a pig in a duck's suit.

Just to confirm: does that mean you have looked in detail into the disassembled R1 binary?

In case you have, what have you seen when comparing that to the Fruit 2.1 source? Which parts of R1 did you look at: only those listed by Zach, or more (which)?

In case you haven't, and I misunderstood your remark, what else did you mean by "I have looked at the code"?

Sven