Rolf wrote:bob wrote:Rolf wrote:bob wrote:Rolf wrote:bob wrote:
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.
Please help me out on the public domain statement. Vas did never tell us he didnt take something but, he said, this were public domain. Could you answer that without too much not understandable stuff for a lay?
We have adhered to the basic idea that if a piece of code is of the form one input -> one output, then using that code is OK. The magic move generation stuff from Pradu is an example. Ditto for the various EGTB code (Edwards, Nalimov, etc). Not search, not evaluation, not anything related to playing the game that is not one input produces identical output. Once you do that, you then cite the inclusion, you do not say "Rybka has 0% of Fruit code in it." And that statement _has_ been made.
The ethical norm was violated by your groubt anyway because
a) why dont you examine the other professionals who might all have taken something and
I explained this several times. Strelka opened pandora's box, because Vas claimed it was a reverse-engineered version of Rybka 1, and some noticed how similar it was to fruit. That provided the initial fruit->rybka path. But some complained about comparing strelka to fruit, so the disassembly process was done on Rybka to get rid of the "middle-man".
I've never heard a judge say "OK, you helped us catch this guy, but I am finding him innocent until you help us catch _all_ the drug dealers." Or even "and it is now your responsibility to continue working to catch all the others."
b) but here I'm unsure, is this for you just trivially allowed to crack something to find out something?? I already mentioned that at the beginning, when Donninger made the RE os something and he told the public as ifhe were a sort of judge. The same you often do. Who brought you into the position to be allowed to crack other people's code to then making allegations of some wrongdoing?
The good Lord did, when he granted me the intelligence to grasp computer science, eyes to read code, and persistence in chasing the truth in spite of more obfuscation that the volcano that has played havoc with European air travel. I am allowed to look at _anything_ I can legally get my hands on, whether it be microsoft word (which I own) or something else. There is no "you can touch but you can't look law" that I am aware of, with regard to computer programs.
Would be thankful if you answered this in the end. I agree with you as you know that basically I cant judge the whole affair because I lack the tinyest details in tech. But therefore I tried to follow the unethical side aspects.
Also the last point that you never commented. IF all chess progs rely to 80 or 90 % on forefathers, how is that what Vas had done in your conviction - how that is then something horrendously wrong? I just dont understand this, Bob. Please be kind and give me the rest of the answers. Thanks.
If you want to take GNUchess and then modify it as you see fit, do so. And when it comes time to enter a tournament, programmers are going to have to look at it to see if it has been modified enough to be considered a new program, or is it just a few small modifications and therefore a derivative. But you do _tell_ people what you have done.
That was not done in the case of Rybka, and that -is- a problem in anybody's book.
And please excuse my many typos as per usual. Nice that you never made anything out of it.
I don't care about typos so long as they don't make reading impossible.
