Uri Blass wrote:In this case I believe himSergei Markoff wrote:I have sent messages to Bryan Hoffmann and Dann Corbit offering them to be the experts. Yury Osipov give me a permission to do with his sources everything what I want. He is really depressed with this story. I hope he will not stop his work after such a "greeting" from the community.
Tell him that he should understand that the suspect was based on history of new strong programs that were discovered as clones and it is not something personal against him.
The choice of the name also gave the impression that it may be a joke about rybka.
Uri, BTW thanks for your in general decent contributions in this witch-hunt. But still I want to state that here with this description I must strongly disagree. Before I explain my standpoint I want to say that technically I still dont know what is going on in the debate. But the aspect of decency is my interest.
You can speak for yourself when you say that it wasnt against the author, personally, but because of earlier cases with clones in the end.
Uri, with all respect I must insist that even such a history of bad experience does not justify that exorcists with their provoking speech mistreat Sergei who figurated as sort of replacement for the real author. (personal attack deleted)
It's not trivial for me to define what is the true scandal because I live also under that cloud of habits and routines but if one dares to make one's own thoughts then it's easier.
Instead of viewing the many authors, their engines and the different strengths, as an art, we assure that we are caring for a climate that appeals to low instincts of misbelief, treason and malicious gossip. And then comes a real icon of computerchess and claims that this is because we were not living in Heaven but in the full dirtyness of our World. Fool of me who always believed that computerchess was a branch of computer sciences; now I'm taught that it's allegedly a section of Scotland Yard.
I urge the community to be friendly towards their new members and to finally convict someone only AFTER all possible doubts have been refutated, normally trivial things in a democratic society.