There is no point trying to reason with people about this. People very often make an emotional decision, then make whatever irrational arguments they need to in order support their decision. For example in the Kennedy rape case, the OJ Siimpson trial and a million other cases, for most people it's about who you like or relate to, or how good looking or charismatic they are or they are not. It's like that with voting for presidents too - only a fraction of the people are making their very best efforts to be objective - the rest just believe they are being objective.
In this case it does not matter that Vas copied code verbatim that was buggy - that issue does not resonate with them. I think that was true with OJ too, I think a non-trivial percentage who supported him did not care if he actually committed the crime, they were going to be behind him regardless. It's probably also true that a percentage that wanted to hang him also did not care about the evidence, they had already decided. Most made up their minds very quickly and then went with that.
I think the real issue to most people here, even though nobody is saying it, is that they don't believe there should be any restrictions at all on copying. I think some are in the closet so to speak on this issue so they have to talk around the real issue. Probably another group of people believe the evidence (which is really quite clear) but think that the ICCA was too heavy handed - and there are few who actually believe every program author is doing the same thing but just didn't get caught. I know that is ridiculous, but it's difficult to convince someone who is burdened with trying to rationalize irrational feelings.
Peter Skinner wrote:You could take the top 15 programs in the World and I _guarantee_ that they will not have have the verbatim code copying that Rybka was found to have. If any. Why you ask? Because none of the top programs have went through a complete rewrite in the past 8 years to my knowledge. They had code bases that went back _years_ and no one throws it all away when they can look at something better, take an idea, and tailor it to their program. I will go as far to state they _have_ looked at the Fruit source and probably the Ippolit code to see where they maybe lacking, taken ideas from it, then implemented those ideas in their own code. Why not? Isn't that what open source is all about? Can't anyone look at TSCP, Crafty, Stockfish and literally hundreds of other open source programs and build a program based on the ideas from one or all of them?geots wrote:For The Last Time: either reverse the decision against Vas, or force every commercial programmer in the "Top 12" or maybe "Top 15" to have their code go thru the same scrutiny that Vas' did. Which will create huge problems for ICGA and WCCC, and it does not bother me in the least if anyone agrees with me or not. There is not a commercial programmer out there who did not take AT LEAST as much from Fruit as Vas admitted taking. And very likely more than 50% took substantially more than Vas did. If any say they did not, it is simple- They are lying thru their teeth. If you wonder, it can easily be proven. If you yourself want to know if a particular commercial programmer is lying about this, it's a dead giveaway: Just watch and see if his lips are moving.
Taking ideas isn't the issue. Copying code verbatim is.
Here is something you don't quite understand. There was code from Crafty is Rybka 1.6.1. Code that had errors, copied verbatim. That is a real issue.geots wrote:Now I am throwing out a couple things. 1. Anything at all found in Vas' version 1.6.1- If it sat there for 6 to 8 years and most people either never heard of it or don't give a shit about it, the hell with it. It is so far removed from any Rybka version that means anything, I don't even want to hear anymore silly bullshit about it. 2. Also disregarding, short of some bombshell discovery that might rear its ugly head, which I am not betting on, any of this back and forth between Ed and Bob. At its very best, it's big-time headache material. Not interested.
Once again, you can't throw out the verdict. The proof is in the pudding as they say.geots wrote:So throw out the verdict against Vas and give him a written public apology. Based on what everyone else has done, Vas is innocent. Get used to it. Or, leave as is, and give all the other commercial programmers the same "going-over" you gave Vas. Problem is, when you get thru and line all the rest of the crooks up, who plays in WCCC tourneys? Or junk the WCCC tourneys. All you will be junking is junk anyway. . And remember when it is all said and done, Vas will only be guilty of taking what he thought it was ok to take. And it probably was ok based on the fact no one really knows where ok stops- and bullshit starts.
If you want to give the top programs the same going over, that's fine. Suggest it to the ICGA. A complaint was brought forward based on _evidence_ that yielded results of an infraction. It can't be ignored.
I know where "ok" stops and "bullshit" starts. Vas far exceeded that line. If he didn't, why not take part in the investigation and provide proof of no wrong doing? Why be silent and offer nothing?
Quite frankly I don't understand this level of loyalty towards Vas from you George. He cheated, got caught, and offers no excuse or apology. That isn't something I would go out of my way to defend or support.
Confused regards,
Peter