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

[bob]

Only one obvious question. "Who did Fabien 'take it from'?" However, the UCI stuff is not the main problem being discussed, it is just an attempt at diverting the discussion from things that are more troubling.

[Rolf]

Only one obvious question. "Who did Fabien 'take it from'?" However, the UCI stuff is not the main problem being discussed, it is just an attempt at diverting the discussion from things that are more troubling.

I guess he took a lot (90%) from you and the other forefathers like you did it with Crafty.

Let me just explain something that BB+ has declared. He said something along the line that if somebody would accuse someone this someone had the obligation to explain the point. It would be strange if the accused were silent and a community would expect that the accusers would make a case around all kind of imaginable defenses. No, BB thinks, that then the accused must show his defense.

I disagree for always the same killing reason. As soon as somebody insults in such a mean way like CTh did it, we no longer have a cooperative situation but that is a war with character assassination. From that moment on Vas had all the rights to abstain from such a dirty campaign.

It's telling that this basic and main key argument is always forgotten. If I were Vas I wouldnt even take you all for serious. I wouldnt address any point of critics at all.

[bob]

Only one obvious question. "Who did Fabien 'take it from'?" However, the UCI stuff is not the main problem being discussed, it is just an attempt at diverting the discussion from things that are more troubling.

I guess he took a lot (90%) from you and the other forefathers like you did it with Crafty.

Small problem. There is _NO_ UCI support in Crafty. So it didn't come from there. My point in asking the question was that it is a near-certainty that Fabien wrote the UCI code himself since the only protocol prior to UCI was xboard/winboard.

Let me just explain something that BB+ has declared. He said something along the line that if somebody would accuse someone this someone had the obligation to explain the point. It would be strange if the accused were silent and a community would expect that the accusers would make a case around all kind of imaginable defenses. No, BB thinks, that then the accused must show his defense.

I disagree for always the same killing reason. As soon as somebody insults in such a mean way like CTh did it, we no longer have a cooperative situation but that is a war with character assassination. From that moment on Vas had all the rights to abstain from such a dirty campaign.

OK, then let's accept Rybka 1 as OK since vas offers no defence. And, by the same token, we must accept the ip*/robo* as OK as well since there has been no evidence _or_ defence offered.

Nice to have this discussion come to an end.

It's telling that this basic and main key argument is always forgotten. If I were Vas I wouldnt even take you all for serious. I wouldnt address any point of critics at all.

[/quote]

"IF" a frog had pockets, it would carry a gun and not worry about snakes in the pond.

[Rolf]

My point in asking the question was that it is a near-certainty that Fabien wrote the UCI code himself since the only protocol prior to UCI was xboard/winboard.

OK, then let's accept Rybka 1 as OK since vas offers no defence. And, by the same token, we must accept the ip*/robo* as OK as well since there has been no evidence _or_ defence offered.

Nice to have this discussion come to an end.

"IF" a frog had pockets, it would carry a gun and not worry about snakes in the pond.

All wrong.

1. UCI code was programmed by SMK. And for years your Crafty is offered as UCI by ChessBase with your consent.

2. Excuse me for not believing you in total blindness. The hipo authors are totally unknown, they are anons, that is why they cant compete, they are unethical crooks.

3.Then the R1beta problem, Bob. Also here I dont believe you and your buddies. Nothing is proven. If so, then sue Vas for whatever. But because this isnt your goal, it shows that it all was only a campaign to diffamate Vasik, the new Wch since 2005. If Vas were just a cloned Rybka from Fruit he couldnt be 300 Elo stronger.

[Christopher Conkie]

My point in asking the question was that it is a near-certainty that Fabien wrote the UCI code himself since the only protocol prior to UCI was xboard/winboard.

OK, then let's accept Rybka 1 as OK since vas offers no defence. And, by the same token, we must accept the ip*/robo* as OK as well since there has been no evidence _or_ defence offered.

Nice to have this discussion come to an end.

"IF" a frog had pockets, it would carry a gun and not worry about snakes in the pond.

All wrong.

1. UCI code was programmed by SMK. And for years your Crafty is offered as UCI by ChessBase with your consent.

2. Excuse me for not believing you in total blindness. The hipo authors are totally unknown, they are anons, that is why they cant compete, they are unethical crooks.

3.Then the R1beta problem, Bob. Also here I dont believe you and your buddies. Nothing is proven. If so, then sue Vas for whatever. But because this isnt your goal, it shows that it all was only a campaign to diffamate Vasik, the new Wch since 2005. If Vas were just a cloned Rybka from Fruit he couldnt be 300 Elo stronger.

Are you finished yet?

I'm serious Rolf. Are you done?

Are you going to continue spamming the forum?