I prefer to call it "non-naive"...tomgdrums wrote: Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
I prefer to call it "non-naive"...tomgdrums wrote: Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.
Congratulations to the both of you : just by try and fail method you gave an acceptable definition of cynicism.hgm wrote:I prefer to call it "non-naive"...tomgdrums wrote: Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.![]()
![]()
Gabor asked for something new.Laskos wrote:1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.
Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...
Kai
Common sense....the crook must cover his crime signs....slobo wrote:The newest one is that Rybka´s codes suddenly became lost ( or deleted), and cannot be examined by experts anymore.SzG wrote:I told you I was confused.slobo wrote:You are confused. Mr Rybka and Fabien are disputing Strelka´s code.SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
I repeat: what new is there as an evidence for many posters here that Rybka is a stolen work.
Well, you are allowed to call it as you like but, it seems, you know the truth.hgm wrote:I prefer to call it "non-naive"...tomgdrums wrote: Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.![]()
![]()
The problem disputed wasSzG wrote:It seems to me these have been known facts for years. I am sure of the first two, and the 3rd one has been discussed not very long ago also with the conclusion that it is true. Or?Laskos wrote:1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.
Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...
Kai
If I'm not mistaken, the absolute record in terms of posts is the thread entitled "BB+ on the matter", with 253 posts, and the most poplar one in term of view count is the one entitled "On Robots", with 69043 views.Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Damn,this thread is taking over mine related to the match against Excalibur Ivan II in terms of popularity![]()