BB+ on the matter

[Graham Banks]

Perhaps it was all a cunning plan, designed to convince idiots like me that he does in fact have principles.

That's what I intended to suggest.

Well it is always a possibility, I suppose. In fact it seems like useful "evidence" with which to launch a further smear attack on him. Damned if he does seek Nalimov's permission, damned if he doesn't seek Nalimov's permission. I note that nobody else saw fit to make such a slur, perhaps they thought that it was too cheap. Either way, if you don't want to further exploit it yourself, point out the possibility to Graham, he may not have thought of it.

I seem to remember that Houdart made the resources that he used perfectly clear and at an early stage.

It seems like the only time you make appearances in CCC is when it's to take potshots at me.

[Milos]

I think the most telling thing here is that 90% of those vocal in their support of the so called "clones" happen to also be the most venomous attackers of Vas. That speaks volumes about what is really going on.

I think the most telling thing here is that 90% of those vocal in their support of Vas Rajlich happen to also be the most venomous attackers of so called "clones". That speaks volumes about what is really going on.

[mhull]

It seems like the only time you make appearances in CCC is when it's to take potshots at me.

There is such a thing as legitimate shots. People can legitimately wonder whether you're afraid to be wrong about some things, because you sometimes defend your positions with what look like weak excuses, such as "He's using a pseudonym, so I wont listen to him. La la la la la....".

Or, "You never post here but to criticize me...", without bothering to address points that might seem valid to others.

But hey, it's your reputation, not mine.

[Milos]

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics.

No it's not iligal and no it's not unethical.
Unethical is selling other ppl's ideas (and code). And not being able to see that is just sad.

[mhull]

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics.

No it's not iligal and no it's not unethical.
Unethical is selling other ppl's ideas (and code). And not being able to see that is just sad.

I agree this is a valid distinction that Don didn't address.

[Don]

I think the most telling thing here is that 90% of those vocal in their support of the so called "clones" happen to also be the most venomous attackers of Vas. That speaks volumes about what is really going on.

I think the most telling thing here is that 90% of those vocal in their support of Vas Rajlich happen to also be the most venomous attackers of so called "clones". That speaks volumes about what is really going on.

I don't see anything positive being said about Vas in any of these posts on either side other than what I have said - which is based on a simple acknowledgement that he has made an important contribution to computer chess.

I noticed that you and others have used a great deal of hyperbole in trying to make it appear that Vas is being worshipped as some kind of god or something, but that is coming from YOU, not them.

I am no special fan of his - I see him as my competitor and primary challenge in reaching the top, and I would like to "dethrone" him if I can. On the other he certainly deserves SOME respect and I don't think that is a radical point of view or unreasonable at all.

The other point of view is FAR more radical and is based on a great deal of negativity and pettiness. It's basically a vindictive mob mentality against someone primarily based on the fact that he wants to profit from his hard work fairly - he wants us to pay for something of value in exchange of something of value. And people apparently resent this - and the resentment seems based on the fact that they can now get something almost as good for free. And they are being intellectually dishonest by constructing this justification in order to feel good about themselves.

[Milos]

It's basically a vindictive mob mentality against someone primarily based on the fact that he wants to profit from his hard work fairly - he wants us to pay for something of value in exchange of something of value. And people apparently resent this - and the resentment seems based on the fact that they can now get something almost as good for free.

You are constantly distorting the facts.
Vas has not made a single contribution to computer chess. Only to his pockets. Period. Instead of constantly repeating it, give us some argument what is exactly Vas's contribution to computer chess? Being first for 5 years, sorry, but that's not contribution. Having constant bugs in programs, that's not contribution either. Where is his contribution?
Vas doesn't profit from his "hard" work (hard is really questionable, since we don't know, and will never know how much is really his work) fairly since fairly profiting doesn't mean profiting on other ppl's ideas (and code).
Almost as good, is just false. It is not almost as good it is much better. Stronger, better in analysis, not obfuscated, bugfree, constantly updated, users treated with respect.

[mhull]

... he has made an important contribution to computer chess.

What do you feel his contributions have been? Selling a strong product isn't most people's idea of a contribution (I mean if you have to pay for the thing). Contributions are what you give without thought or promise of a return.

[Graham Banks]

... he has made an important contribution to computer chess.

What do you feel his contributions have been? Selling a strong product isn't most people's idea of a contribution (I mean if you have to pay for the thing). Contributions are what you give without thought or promise of a return.

It's no wonder that none of the commercial engine authors seem to post here any more. A crying shame actually.

[Don]

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics.

No it's not iligal and no it's not unethical.
Unethical is selling other ppl's ideas (and code). And not being able to see that is just sad.

I agree this is a valid distinction that Don didn't address.

Please tell me which ideas Vas stole and marketed that made his program far stronger than any other program?