gerold wrote:Its my understanding that R3 and R4 has not been proven to be clones or illegal in anyway. Until they can be proven to be illegal no one has any case against Rybka. Any claim or action that could harm the sells of Rybka at this point could be taken to court and ask for damages.
Yea right. And the rapist should sue the newspapers reporting about his crimes because it could harm his future marriage prospects...
Ever heard of a phrase "registered sexual offender"? Well, your worshiped Vas is exactly that in the computer chess world.
What kind of twisted logic you have is beyond comprehension.
gerold wrote:Its my understanding that R3 and R4 has not been proven to be clones or illegal in anyway. Until they can be proven to be illegal no one has any case against Rybka. Any claim or action that could harm the sells of Rybka at this point could be taken to court and ask for damages.
Yea right. And the rapist should sue the newspapers reporting about his crimes because it could harm his future marriage prospects...
Ever heard of a phrase "registered sexual offender"? Well, your worshiped Vas is exactly that in the computer chess world.
What kind of twisted logic you have is beyond comprehension.
You are talking to yourself. Looks like you got nice things in your head. hahahha. Show me some copy code in R3 or R4 or shut up.
Roger Brown wrote:Would you be questioning the neutrality or thoroughness or presumption of the panel?
Would anyone question the decision? The process? The members?
I will make a small wager what the honest answer would be. I will also make a small wager that I will not get one.
The ICGA is free to exclude from their competitions any engines that it deems breaks their rules.
I don't have a personal problem with any members on the panel. However, I do believe that business competitors and non-programmers had no business being on the panel because it automatically leads to claims that it was not a neutral process.
The few claiming it wasn't neutral simply don't want to believe the facts. That's their problem. The only relevant person who might object to any perceived non-neutrality, is free to object and provide evidence that would lead to restoration. None of the process would have been necessary, neutral or otherwise, had he done that to begin with.
My interest is purely on things seen to be being done in a manner that is not open to question.
Yeah, right. Maybe you actually believe that. I don't.
As for the actual findings, that's up to programmers to debate.
There is no debate, the facts speak for themselves. If you can't understand them, then do yourself a favor and stop pretending you do.
Terry McCracken wrote:Vas could lose in court and many would still support him. Reason is out the window. I never thought I'd say it but these people are afflicted much like cult followers and Vas is the Leader-They not only follow him like groupies but Worship the man!
Branch Davidians Regards,
It has nothing to do with hero worship. That's just plain childish.
It has to do with wanting any investigation to be neutral, thorough and not cut short based on making assumptions.
As for legal action, anybody disagreeing with a verdict there would really be showing their bias one way or the other. In fact FSF action is what many of us would like to see happen.
Just my opinion of course.
Expecting the usual attack dogs to bite any minute!
So now it was "cut short?" And you (and others) have previously been complaining "this has taken _way_ too long?"
Roger Brown wrote:Had the recent investigation cleared Vas of any wrong doing whatsoever, had the panel decided that Rybka was pure as [fill in cliche of choice here] would you really be claiming that the legal case go on?
Or would Rybka's doubtful status be immediately lifted on your site?
Would you be questioning the neutrality or thoroughness or presumption of the panel?
Would anyone question the decision? The process? The members?
I will make a small wager what the honest answer would be. I will also make a small wager that I will not get one.
Later.
As far as I understand it, the whole case was based on the claim that Rybka 1.0 and possibly later versions were Fruity beyond what was considered acceptable.
If Rybkas 1.0 through 2.32a had been found clean by the panel, I'm picking that they wouldn't have seen the need to investigate further.
The difference the other way round is that the onus should always be on proving guilt rather than assuming it, even if that requires much additional effort.
Cheers,
Graham.
Unless there is a rule that you agree to when you participate, that says you must provide source code in answer to a protest.
