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

[Christopher Conkie]

I agree anonymity is a big red flag but the authors of some derivatives are not anonymous (Fire, Houdini).

Irrelevant, the root author is anonymous.

I also agree with the pride factor when your work is valuable and you claim it as your own, but this also applies to the author of Rybka, why does not he bother to provide a detailed response if he is proud of his work?.

There are many reasons. The most likely is that he does not care to respond. However, there may be another important reason which is that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Let's be honest. All the squealing is not conducive to a debate or even a statement as such.

The more you whine, the more the answers you require elude you.

It looks like people on both camps do things just because they can. Not very responsible.

Not really. The people who understand the structure of computer chess, its history and how it polices itself decide.

That does not mean you, me, or anyone in here.

If you think the target is the CCC you are wrong. The target, the real target, is those that decide at their respective tournaments. Those in here are but the first line of defence.

Chris

[Rolf]

I agree anonymity is a big red flag but the authors of some derivatives are not anonymous (Fire, Houdini).
I also agree with the pride factor when your work is valuable and you claim it as your own, but this also applies to the author of Rybka, why does not he bother to provide a detailed response if he is proud of his work?.

Perhaps he's extremely clever and has understood that on the net it's about psycho delusions which cost you the time of your project, especially if you are in business.

BTW this aöso proves again that these anons are not clever. They hurt CC as such.

Didnt you know that many many huge experts in CC even dont write here or anywhere because it eats you up. Bob as a teacher knows how to handle stupidity which is a common desease as you know.

But Vas is also very communicative and helpful. I for one had already some email exchange with him. Not about tech of course.

[Christopher Conkie]

I agree anonymity is a big red flag but the authors of some derivatives are not anonymous (Fire, Houdini).
I also agree with the pride factor when your work is valuable and you claim it as your own, but this also applies to the author of Rybka, why does not he bother to provide a detailed response if he is proud of his work?.

Perhaps he's extremely clever and has understood that on the net it's about psycho delusions which cost you the time of your project, especially if you are in business.

BTW this aöso proves again that these anons are not clever. They hurt CC as such.

Didnt you know that many many huge experts in CC even dont write here or anywhere because it eats you up. Bob as a teacher knows how to handle stupidity which is a common desease as you know.

But Vas is also very communicative and helpful. I for one had already some email exchange with him. Not about tech of course.

Perhaps.....but you exist only here, which must make you a dummy by your own logic.

[Gino Figlio]

Chris,

Authors that present themselves by name are not irrelevant.
You can question the root but that sounds like due process comes first before banning based on presumption.

I don't find those excuses to remain silent as valid, I'm surprised you do since you appear to be way more strict than me.

By the way, I'm not a whiner you were probably referring to someone else.

Gino

[Christopher Conkie]

Chris,

Authors that present themselves by name are not irrelevant.

They are 100% irrelevant in terms of officialdom.

You can question the root but that sounds like due process comes first before banning based on presumption.

No, when is the last time you heard a court convict an anonymous person that was traceable. Most important, if it were real, and they wanted it to be, why hide?

I don't find those excuses to remain silent as valid, I'm surprised you do since you appear to be way more strict than me.

I do. Husbands get deprived of what they worked toward all the time because they vanished for some reason. I am not strict. I only seek truth.

By the way, I'm not a whiner you were probably referring to someone else.

Gino

Yes, to be fair I probably was but I hope the point is not lost on you. I see a lot of whining but no real attempt to resolve problems.

Music....

I will probably get told it is meaningless.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSBYfc46rhk

http://www.john-lennon.com/songlyrics/s ... Wheels.htm

And that is the point......

There are no problems, only solutions.

Chris

[bob]

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.

Two or three years ago you wrote that you had NOT looked up the code in detail, alone because of the time that would have cost. Like Sven I ask you now if you claim having looked at what Zach had shown to you? If yes, then I can skip this too because it's just not correct science.

Also just as addition, Bob, you are so busy with nice metaphors, the pigs in duck's suit, so you need the personification of what you are talking about. But these anon jerks are totally ok for you although you dont even know their nature. Perhaps they are a herd of monkeys or kangoroos under LSD!

We looked at specific code as a group. All it takes is _one_ example of copied code to settle the issue, and there are several examples. Doesn't matter how trivial you think they are, how unimportant you think they are. When someone says "I copied _no_ code" and you can show they copied _some_ code, that is enough. Yes, a group could go thru the entire binary, convert it back to C and compare to fruiit. But does it matter _how_ guilty one is? I've never seen that in a court. Just "guilty" or "innocent". That was the intent here. Nobody would want to expend the effort to compare the entire binary, when examples of copied code have already been discovered. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Yes, I dont accept your theory. Vas never said what you claimed here. Because he openly admitted that he took some public domain stuff. Dont remember that? So that we have the question what you have seen. What sort of code. Science is a bit mor differentiated than what you are presenting here. So, if I would be bob Hyatt or Theron I could now state that you have a lack of ethics because you tell the untruth about the examined code. But my best argument is still that you relied on what other had found and then presented to you.

Yes, _after_ he was caught "red-handed" however. And what he took was not what he claimed. He mentioned "bit scanning" which is not in Fruit. He did _not_ mention the other obviously copied code. There is no "untruth" being told. Anyone can verify it, if they _want_ to expend the time and effort, and if they have the necessary technical skills. Which you lack. And which means your arguments are simply vacuous. You can't argue on technical issues, yet this is only about technical issues. Which leaves your arguments as not very useful.

In all psychological studies it's well known that it's always a fallacy putting three big experts into a box where they talk about their convictions in a certain problem. They will fool each other but personally they are sure that they had found the truth. This is called folie a trois. LOL

Incomprehensible ramblings are not going to change anything at all.

Jens and I are in a better position. We dont know each other but independantly we came to the same conclusions, well, me without all the tech details, so that our agreement is the proof that we are right.

QED

P.S. Still, Bob your honest description of how you buddied together is worth our whole debate. I knew it all the time that you have been caught by delusional convictions without the scientifically necessary scepticism. Well, IMO I am in principle in such situations immune against such effects because I would only rely on myself. But I know exactly that I have no tech expertise in CC. Still, although you are totally above me I knew for sure that you three were wrong. I knew it. All three of you are too much depending on prejudices.

I've not been caught in any delusional behaviour of any kind. This is a simple technical skill used to compare two programs. The evidence is there for anyone that is interested. No amount of evidence will convince someone that doesn't want to see, however. That's been made painfully obvious by now. But your denials are not going to change the _truth_ here.

All you can argue is that (a) Vas is a current champion; (b) authors of ip* are anonymous; (c) you don't believe the fruit/rybka debate simply because you won't believe it, details are irrelevant.

Sounds good to me.

[Christopher Conkie]

Sounds good to me.

John Lennon has always been a good leveller.

Answering Rolf is a bad idea but you will insist.

He is probably about to go in the bucket for making racist statement (as per the wonderful charter). No one to make endless threads about nothing with after that (or do you have others?)....

How about some computer chess for a little change instead Bob?

I heard Crafty was making great strides recently (all open source of course).

Just a request from lil ol' me.



Chris

[bob]

Chris,

Authors that present themselves by name are not irrelevant.

They are 100% irrelevant in terms of officialdom.

You can question the root but that sounds like due process comes first before banning based on presumption.

No, when is the last time you heard a court convict an anonymous person that was traceable. Most important, if it were real, and they wanted it to be, why hide?

Courts handle cases against "John Doe", "Jane Doe" and "Unknown associates" all the time here. The cases are filed, then one has the power of the subpoena to unravel the identities thru the various ISP's they use.

I don't find those excuses to remain silent as valid, I'm surprised you do since you appear to be way more strict than me.

I do. Husbands get deprived of what they worked toward all the time because they vanished for some reason. I am not strict. I only seek truth.

By the way, I'm not a whiner you were probably referring to someone else.

Gino

Yes, to be fair I probably was but I hope the point is not lost on you. I see a lot of whining but no real attempt to resolve problems.

Music....

I will probably get told it is meaningless.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSBYfc46rhk

http://www.john-lennon.com/songlyrics/s ... Wheels.htm

And that is the point......

There are no problems, only solutions.

Chris

[Christopher Conkie]

Courts handle cases against "John Doe", "Jane Doe" and "Unknown associates" all the time here. The cases are filed, then one has the power of the subpoena to unravel the identities thru the various ISP's they use.

Do they? And the case is watertight?

When are you going to file the case then?

[bob]

Sounds good to me.

John Lennon has always been a good leveller.

Answering Rolf is a bad idea but you will insist.

He is probably about to go in the bucket for making racist statement (as per the wonderful charter). No one to make endless threads about nothing with after that (or do you have others?)....

How about some computer chess for a little change instead Bob?

I heard Crafty was making great strides recently (all open source of course).

Just a request from lil ol' me.



Chris

"Those" topics are always discussed here in the programmer's forum. Or on OpenChess. I've never been secretive about ideas, except perhaps just prior to a tournament (such as upcoming ACCA event). But I have given examples of things I have found that helped Elo, in recent weeks, and the source will be available once the July event is finished.