To Jeroen and interested minds, re. Tiger node count

[bob]

I'll state my view one more time. The node count obfuscation has _no_ justification, other than the simple fact that it is used to hide internal details. I don't have a problem with the "hiding". I do have a problem with knowingly producing bogus values. If you want to hide something, hide it. Don't disguise it. That's simple enough.

As far as the "clone issue" my only point was that by claiming strelka, those that use the argument to others of "you haven't seen the source for Rybka so you can't possibly conclude anything about it" are simply wrong. Because since Vas claimed Strelka as _his_ code, a clone of Rybka 1, then he has inadvertantly put "his" source code in a public light, where inspection is possible...

I have not drawn any conclusion about whether Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, gnuchess, or sasquatch. I only commented on the fact that strelka is there for anyone to look at, analyze, and draw conclusions that apply to Rybka 1 as well. I've implied nothing more, nothing less. The node counts are bogus, and intentionally so. As far as the clone issue, I have not looked at any of this and don't intend to.

Is Dann Corbit for you a nobody? He and two others have analysed the dirty copy. Result, read Corbit for yourself, nothing. That was almost 2 years ago. And now it's kosher if a Theron, who has practically left computerchess Tiger, he is reserved a stage here for such a smear campaign. You say he never insulted with bad wording or such. I say the whole campaign is it. Last time all was discussed, now the same procedure as every year. Not kosher IMO. Ok, I think my position has become clear enough. Technically I cant tell anything for obvious reasons.

What do you mean "nobody"? Did I say or imply he was a "nobody"? However, I do not know Dan's specific chess-programming skills. I have looked at several engine sources in the past and have enough experience to recognize "similar but not identical" quite easily. I have to do this in programming assignments here all the time to catch platiarism. It isn't easy, it it an experience-based ability one develops over time. Once you have actually written, and then rewritten a chess engine, you can begin to pick up on similarities, even though the variable names are different, the indentation is different, even the structure can be changed. Students try this pretty regularly. Or at least they used to until "word got around" after 17 failed a course under me one Summer where all copied the same assignment and tried to hack them up enough to disguise what they had done. When I laid it out for our chair and the chair of another department where the students came from, there was absolutely no argument, not even from the students. So this can be done. Whether Dan can do that or not I have no idea. I know I can. I'd bet CT can. As can most other engine programmers with any significant (> 5 years) of experience.

It looks as if the sales for Rybka 3 should be damaged. Therefore I see the court case coming. Not this forum involved but Europeans because of the EU law. Let's see what CT has to offer.

What if there _are_ no court cases brought? Would that say anything?

[quote\

Bob, this redhanded from you is a problem for me. Say, Vas did it for fun, then it's still correct how you positioned your critic? It's allowed to insinuate someone did something evil, if he didnt do anything at all? If he just wanted to reveil how people get emotionally aroused? In other words, are you 100% sure that you have a case against Vas? And if not you are allowed to make such strong statements? Or is it allowed because Vas obfuscated for no matter what reasons?[/quote]

You are trying to put words in my mouth but it isn't going to fly. There is nothing "evil" going on here. And if someone doesn't want to reveal certain details of their program, that is their decision. And if they are afraid that showing certain statistical data gathered during the search might reveal too much, they an certainly feel free to not reveal that data. But to obfuscate it so that the numbers are _way_ out of whack with others, and then claim that "Rybka is very knowledge-based" when Strelka is anything but that, is, IMHO, over the line. And then to try to justify this after getting caught and called onto the carpet about it, by giving lame (and to most technical types complete nonsensical) explanations is _way_ over the line.

There's a huge difference between "evil" and "just wrong".

I am 100% certain about the reasons for obfuscating the numbers that are misrepresented. yes. If a car runs into my truck and smashes the rear end, then I would be 100% certain that that vehicle was what had damaged my truck. The conspiracy theorists might say "but you can't be sure, suppose someone _else_ ran into your truck first, then left, and now this guy just parked up against your truck?" To which I'd reply, the evidence is clear. He has paint from my truck on his front end. My truck has paint from his front end on the back end. The dents and damage match.. The two vehicles are still "stuck" together and will need a wrecker to separate them. And again, the conspiracy folks say "but you can't be sure another truck didn't hit you first, and this guy had hit another vehicle just like yours earlier, and when he parked up against your truck things just matches up perfectly by luck."

Occam's razor applies here. The simplest solution is the _correct_ solution.

[Rolf]

Bob, it's getting late here. Therefore only a couple of headline questions:

I just ask you, because you cant speak for CT.

In a case like this with commercial programs and suspicions.

Do you always consider how you verbalize so that also the necessay considering of your own failures are integrated or is it actually already a case where you are absolutely certain that what Vas has done is wrong and forbidden and must be "brandmarked" socially?

And guess we have court cases, how would it look if you rely on Str___ and CT would be asked what he has done with his progs? Or do you push forward absolute innocents, say 10 y. old kids who couldnt be held responsible?

In other words, in case you make a mistake actually, what is your risk that you are running or is this all a bully for you because you could practically say what you want. I ask for your validity? I mean if you are expert, then you cant be judge and hangman at the same time, no?

How could you imagine a situation when Vas is finally clean and you had made this campaign. Or is this allowed and normal that each year a new activity is started?

You see, this isnt about the tech details, it's just about responsible behavior of experts.

I still believe in you but likewise I have a strong motif to defend a potentially unjustified attacked victim. Until proven guilty Vas is innocent for me and I am surprised about this dirty, patronizing speech of a Theron. Why cant he just activate energy for his own Tiger? why must he appear as hunter of Vas? And what is with his own program? What if now people in Georgia come with a reverse engineered Tiger? Just kidding.

Let's always keep it friendly, Bob! Thanks for all what you have already explained for us.

[bob]

Bob, it's getting late here. Therefore only a couple of headline questions:

I just ask you, because you cant speak for CT.

In a case like this with commercial programs and suspicions.

Do you always consider how you verbalize so that also the necessay considering of your own failures are integrated or is it actually already a case where you are absolutely certain that what Vas has done is wrong and forbidden and must be "brandmarked" socially?

What do you mean by "vas has done wrong?" If you are talking about the node obfuscation, yes it is wrong. Displaying _nothing_ would be fine. But displaying something wrong, when it is well-defined (and not just in computer chess, pick up any good AI book and you will find the terms "tree search" and then "node" well-defined using diagrams as well as words to avoid any misunderstanding.

If you mean the cloning issue, I haven't looked and have no knowledge-based conclusions. Some that have looked are technically savvy enough to make that determination, but it is not something I have looked at at all.

And guess we have court cases, how would it look if you rely on Str___ and CT would be asked what he has done with his progs? Or do you push forward absolute innocents, say 10 y. old kids who couldnt be held responsible?

Don't know how to interpret that

In other words, in case you make a mistake actually, what is your risk that you are running or is this all a bully for you because you could practically say what you want. I ask for your validity? I mean if you are expert, then you cant be judge and hangman at the same time, no?

Again, I do not understand what your point is. Node obfuscation is misleading and wrong. Cloning is wrong. We know he did the former, I have no direct knowledge about the latter. So I suppose I can "judge" the former. But as for the "hangman" part I don't get, because there is no punishment being handed out anywhere I have seen. Just questions about "why?"

How could you imagine a situation when Vas is finally clean and you had made this campaign. Or is this allowed and normal that each year a new activity is started?

I have made no "campaign". Someone asked "why would someone do this (obfuscation)?" I gave a direct and accurate answer. That is hardly a "campaign".

You see, this isnt about the tech details, it's just about responsible behavior of experts.

There we agree. I take it as my responsibility to answer questions when I can, as accurately as possible. That's what I did here.

I still believe in you but likewise I have a strong motif to defend a potentially unjustified attacked victim. Until proven guilty Vas is innocent for me and I am surprised about this dirty, patronizing speech of a Theron. Why cant he just activate energy for his own Tiger? why must he appear as hunter of Vas? And what is with his own program? What if now people in Georgia come with a reverse engineered Tiger? Just kidding.

Let's always keep it friendly, Bob! Thanks for all what you have already explained for us.

[kranium]

(2) the rybka/fruit/strelka issue is an interesting question because of GPL issues. He pointed out something I had not considered previously, namely that strelka/fruit have lots of similarities, and then Vas claimed that strelka was so much like rybka 1 that he was claiming it as his own code. Once you digest both of those points, there could be an issue one might have to deal with at some point down the road. The GPL is a legal document that can't be waved away.
.

The Strelka source and the Fruit source has been made public, right? I was just wondering ... Has anyone done detailed comparison, and posted the results? What percentage of Strelka and Fruit are identical, or very similar.

Regards
Dave

Hi Dave,

yes, i have spent considerable time on it, but i'm loathe to post anything.

...i believe the subject is just too controversial, sensitive, and risky for all concerned at this point.

don't forget, Rybka, Vas, etc., are enormously popular and strongly supported, an icon of the community. anything negative may be construed as blasphemy. (look what just happened to CT). it's clear that there are extremely powerful business interests concerned. one must be very careful when it comes to powerful players, money, profits, prestige, etc. for ex: the vast majority of 'corporate' whistleblowers are ostracized from society, harassed, made to suffer, and fired. it seems that challenging these powerful entities is akin to suicide.

in addition, unfortunately..., i think at this moment it may be far to easy for anyone concerned to simply avow or disavow any specific piece of code. (and if it's Juri's word against Vas and his legal team??)

Please Rolf! go easy with your response!!

[Tony]

I'll state my view one more time. The node count obfuscation has _no_ justification, other than the simple fact that it is used to hide internal details. I don't have a problem with the "hiding". I do have a problem with knowingly producing bogus values. If you want to hide something, hide it. Don't disguise it. That's simple enough.

As far as the "clone issue" my only point was that by claiming strelka, those that use the argument to others of "you haven't seen the source for Rybka so you can't possibly conclude anything about it" are simply wrong. Because since Vas claimed Strelka as _his_ code, a clone of Rybka 1, then he has inadvertantly put "his" source code in a public light, where inspection is possible...

I have not drawn any conclusion about whether Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, gnuchess, or sasquatch. I only commented on the fact that strelka is there for anyone to look at, analyze, and draw conclusions that apply to Rybka 1 as well. I've implied nothing more, nothing less. The node counts are bogus, and intentionally so. As far as the clone issue, I have not looked at any of this and don't intend to.

Is Dann Corbit for you a nobody? He and two others have analysed the dirty copy. Result, read Corbit for yourself, nothing. That was almost 2 years ago. And now it's kosher if a Theron, who has practically left computerchess Tiger, he is reserved a stage here for such a smear campaign. You say he never insulted with bad wording or such. I say the whole campaign is it. Last time all was discussed, now the same procedure as every year. Not kosher IMO. Ok, I think my position has become clear enough. Technically I cant tell anything for obvious reasons.

And I disagreed back then. And most (almost all) programmers I have met during tournements agreed with me. But no comercial did so openly. And because they didn't, I was overshouted by all the "what do you care", "it plays well, so Vas is holy" and "you must be jalous" posters.

Now a commercial speaks up. And I remembered people about Vas claiming the Strelka code. ( The fact that Bob thinks Christophe wrote that, proves how the human brain works)

I was right back then, and I am now.

The only chessprogrammers I met, that diagree with me stated "I actually don't care about chess tournements"

Tony

[Rolf]

Bob, it's getting late here. Therefore only a couple of headline questions:

I just ask you, because you cant speak for CT.

In a case like this with commercial programs and suspicions.

Do you always consider how you verbalize so that also the necessay considering of your own failures are integrated or is it actually already a case where you are absolutely certain that what Vas has done is wrong and forbidden and must be "brandmarked" socially?

What do you mean by "vas has done wrong?" If you are talking about the node obfuscation, yes it is wrong. Displaying _nothing_ would be fine. But displaying something wrong, when it is well-defined (and not just in computer chess, pick up any good AI book and you will find the terms "tree search" and then "node" well-defined using diagrams as well as words to avoid any misunderstanding.

Thanks for the many different answers and clarifications, Bob. It's clear that you are a university teacher and researcher and from that aspect you are so to speak a man out of 'clean lab' interest and perspective. However there are more aspects that exist, but must not stand in your primary focus. Take for example the old debate about commercial programs. Bob, you dont hide, you dont obfuscate, because why should you do that? You are doing it all for science reasons, except some tricky tunings you try for Crafty on ICC in your defining who is allowed to play you etc pp. But we are here, if it's about Vas and CT, talking about commercial programs. That changes the whole topic from science to business. Now the whole campaign (by CT, Bob, not you of course) looks like hypocrisy, because in that moment, when you go commercial, you shut down the usual doors and you dont show what you are doing. And yes, you have always pitied that practice from science angle, but you never have spoken of a wrong. And now suddenly you claim that a commercial prog that displays something, well better it displayed nothing at all, you add, but if it does, it MUST give authentic and researchable numbers. And that in a World of cheaters and robbers. Not enough, in a World without FBI and police, so that crimes would have no consequences at all, I speak of crimes of robbery against such commercial programs. Bob, if you enter such debates, you should always consider the overall situaqtion and not just a part, some aspects, but which were differently to judge if one would consider the rest of the many aspects.

If you mean the cloning issue, I haven't looked and have no knowledge-based conclusions. Some that have looked are technically savvy enough to make that determination, but it is not something I have looked at at all.

I will directly announce that now I will ask you a coupüle of intriguing questions about this topic, also something like 'what are savys allowed to research and with what tools - I ask in a moment, if you also would accept the use of illegally and robbed information or prograamming, something like Str__? Because that is then taken to prove or to make certain allegations. And you condone such a practice? Like you would have absoltely have no problem do reverse engineer anything, just to find out what a certain software in commercial interest is doing?' All that are legitimate questions IMO. But I will come back later on these aspects.

And guess we have court cases, how would it look if you rely on Str___ and CT would be asked what he has done with his progs? Or do you push forward absolute innocents, say 10 y. old kids who couldnt be held responsible?

Don't know how to interpret that

Then let me put it this way: say, you had found out a wrong, as you say all the time, but this wrong could only be seen by itself wrong methods of research, say by reverse engineering a XYZ into XYZ' which then is openly discussed and world-wide. Or another aspect, you accuse in court Rybka of something wrong which has been similarily done by yourself in your own program, also a commercial one. Wouldnt that look strange to a judge?? And to avoid such idioties I asked you who should finally appear in court and IMO this must be someone who has never even touched commercial programming because this is always done behind closed doors so that also university professor Hyatt cant imagine what they are doing. Since it's all about hypocrisy against a singular competitor in a World of commercial computerchesws where the innocence of the others has never been proven, am I correct? To cover-up such a shame you must normally appear in court with a newborn who never in his life has ever begun commercial chess software programming because all others must be like hypocrits if they point with their fingers at a singular, especially chosen and chased participant, isnt it this?

In other words, in case you make a mistake actually, what is your risk that you are running or is this all a bully for you because you could practically say what you want. I ask for your validity? I mean if you are expert, then you cant be judge and hangman at the same time, no?

Again, I do not understand what your point is. Node obfuscation is misleading and wrong. Cloning is wrong. We know he did the former, I have no direct knowledge about the latter. So I suppose I can "judge" the former. But as for the "hangman" part I don't get, because there is no punishment being handed out anywhere I have seen. Just questions about "why?"

Of course, and all questions reserved exclusively for Rybka but NOT Junior or Shredder, I just want to have absolute clarity for our actual definitions of the problem we are trying to analyse. Sorry, if I am trying to disturb your absolutely allowed and clean lab answering just sober questions, which were posed without any single thinkable viciousness. To make this clear, in my eyes an academic and I said it before must pay attention that he's not engaged in questions that are already itself in a way the violation of all truths in universe. Then a professor IMO had the duty to at least make some reservations in his answers. But to simply speak of as wrong that has been proven, is itself wrong if all other do tghe same wrong, of course I havent researched this, I'm just guessing from a serious interdisciplinary angle.

How could you imagine a situation when Vas is finally clean and you had made this campaign. Or is this allowed and normal that each year a new activity is started?

I have made no "campaign". Someone asked "why would someone do this (obfuscation)?" I gave a direct and accurate answer. That is hardly a "campaign".

This is called collaboration as I've learned now. You answer just questions and others make the campaigns. And still others are reverse engineering illegally and still others are analysing the illegal results and then you make the apparent conclusions based on illegally doctored data achieved with forbidden methods and tricks. And then in court a total innocent, preferably a newbie, e.g. a Marsman, presents all the data and precious conclusions. Of course the judge is idiot enough to buy all that... Looks like a fairy tale to me.

You see, this isnt about the tech details, it's just about responsible behavior of experts.

I should have written "irresponsible" behavior, perhaps then you would have seen the questionn how I meant it.

There we agree. I take it as my responsibility to answer questions when I can, as accurately as possible. That's what I did here.

Yes, 100% clear. But your answers are misused against singular and chosen and outlooked scapegoats in a World of all others as innocents, which in itself must be called for what it is, a shame and hypocrisy. This is a sad consequence of a hypostated lab science that could live outside the real world and that could therefore ignore very real aspects as simple artefacts. It's a failure of all positivistic science but that's really a new topic.

I still believe in you but likewise I have a strong motif to defend a potentially unjustified attacked victim. Until proven guilty Vas is innocent for me and I am surprised about this dirty, patronizing speech of a Theron. Why cant he just activate energy for his own Tiger? why must he appear as hunter of Vas? And what is with his own program? What if now people in Georgia come with a reverse engineered Tiger? Just kidding.

Let's always keep it friendly, Bob! Thanks for all what you have already explained for us.

[mclane]

you should plan a second career as kabberettist.

[David Dahlem]

(2) the rybka/fruit/strelka issue is an interesting question because of GPL issues. He pointed out something I had not considered previously, namely that strelka/fruit have lots of similarities, and then Vas claimed that strelka was so much like rybka 1 that he was claiming it as his own code. Once you digest both of those points, there could be an issue one might have to deal with at some point down the road. The GPL is a legal document that can't be waved away.
.

The Strelka source and the Fruit source has been made public, right? I was just wondering ... Has anyone done detailed comparison, and posted the results? What percentage of Strelka and Fruit are identical, or very similar.

Regards
Dave

Hi Dave,

yes, i have spent considerable time on it, but i'm loathe to post anything.

...i believe the subject is just too controversial, sensitive, and risky for all concerned at this point.

don't forget, Rybka, Vas, etc., are enormously popular and strongly supported, an icon of the community. anything negative may be construed as blasphemy. (look what just happened to CT). it's clear that there are extremely powerful business interests concerned. one must be very careful when it comes to powerful players, money, profits, prestige, etc. for ex: the vast majority of 'corporate' whistleblowers are ostracized from society, harassed, made to suffer, and fired. it seems that challenging these powerful entities is akin to suicide.

in addition, unfortunately..., i think at this moment it may be far to easy for anyone concerned to simply avow or disavow any specific piece of code. (and if it's Juri's word against Vas and his legal team??)

Please Rolf! go easy with your response!!

Hi Norman

My question was about the public sources of Strelka and Fruit. I didn't mention Rybka or Vas at all. And how can anyone disavow code that has been made public?

Regards
Dave

[bob]

Bob, it's getting late here. Therefore only a couple of headline questions:

I just ask you, because you cant speak for CT.

In a case like this with commercial programs and suspicions.

Do you always consider how you verbalize so that also the necessay considering of your own failures are integrated or is it actually already a case where you are absolutely certain that what Vas has done is wrong and forbidden and must be "brandmarked" socially?

What do you mean by "vas has done wrong?" If you are talking about the node obfuscation, yes it is wrong. Displaying _nothing_ would be fine. But displaying something wrong, when it is well-defined (and not just in computer chess, pick up any good AI book and you will find the terms "tree search" and then "node" well-defined using diagrams as well as words to avoid any misunderstanding.

Thanks for the many different answers and clarifications, Bob. It's clear that you are a university teacher and researcher and from that aspect you are so to speak a man out of 'clean lab' interest and perspective. However there are more aspects that exist, but must not stand in your primary focus. Take for example the old debate about commercial programs. Bob, you dont hide, you dont obfuscate, because why should you do that? You are doing it all for science reasons, except some tricky tunings you try for Crafty on ICC in your defining who is allowed to play you etc pp. But we are here, if it's about Vas and CT, talking about commercial programs. That changes the whole topic from science to business. Now the whole campaign (by CT, Bob, not you of course) looks like hypocrisy, because in that moment, when you go commercial, you shut down the usual doors and you dont show what you are doing. And yes, you have always pitied that practice from science angle, but you never have spoken of a wrong. And now suddenly you claim that a commercial prog that displays something, well better it displayed nothing at all, you add, but if it does, it MUST give authentic and researchable numbers. And that in a World of cheaters and robbers. Not enough, in a World without FBI and police, so that crimes would have no consequences at all, I speak of crimes of robbery against such commercial programs. Bob, if you enter such debates, you should always consider the overall situaqtion and not just a part, some aspects, but which were differently to judge if one would consider the rest of the many aspects.

If you mean the cloning issue, I haven't looked and have no knowledge-based conclusions. Some that have looked are technically savvy enough to make that determination, but it is not something I have looked at at all.

I will directly announce that now I will ask you a coupüle of intriguing questions about this topic, also something like 'what are savys allowed to research and with what tools - I ask in a moment, if you also would accept the use of illegally and robbed information or prograamming, something like Str__? Because that is then taken to prove or to make certain allegations. And you condone such a practice? Like you would have absoltely have no problem do reverse engineer anything, just to find out what a certain software in commercial interest is doing?' All that are legitimate questions IMO. But I will come back later on these aspects.

I don't follow the thread that leads from "reverse engineering" to "wrong". If you don't want someone to reverse engineer your idea, you patent the idea, then there is no issue. But often, in any discipline, simply knowing that something is possible leads to how it was done. If you don't know that something is possible, then you might not be willing to expend the resources to figure out how. That happens all the time and I am mystified as to how this is "wrong".

And guess we have court cases, how would it look if you rely on Str___ and CT would be asked what he has done with his progs? Or do you push forward absolute innocents, say 10 y. old kids who couldnt be held responsible?

Don't know how to interpret that

Then let me put it this way: say, you had found out a wrong, as you say all the time, but this wrong could only be seen by itself wrong methods of research, say by reverse engineering a XYZ into XYZ' which then is openly discussed and world-wide. Or another aspect, you accuse in court Rybka of something wrong which has been similarily done by yourself in your own program, also a commercial one. Wouldnt that look strange to a judge??

I think the only point of law would be "Sir, did you patent this idea? If not, then the case is dismissed as there is no legal standing to claim someone stole an idea that is not protected by law."

And to avoid such idioties I asked you who should finally appear in court and IMO this must be someone who has never even touched commercial programming because this is always done behind closed doors so that also university professor Hyatt cant imagine what they are doing. Since it's all about hypocrisy against a singular competitor in a World of commercial computerchesws where the innocence of the others has never been proven,

Actually I would hope it is the opposite. At least in US courts, Innocence does not have to be proven. Guilt does.

am I correct? To cover-up such a shame you must normally appear in court with a newborn who never in his life has ever begun commercial chess software programming because all others must be like hypocrits if they point with their fingers at a singular, especially chosen and chased participant, isnt it this?

Again, I do not see why. If you take a slice out of computer chess time, say any year out of the past 30, what other commercial program has been the subject of such discussions? Genius was clearly as far ahead of the micros when Lang was working on it as Rybka is today. What about Fritz? Same story. Then along came Shredder, at the top for several years. So we have had programs advancing to the top, by a significant margin, without any of the "issues" that we are seeing today. No node count obfuscation to hide things. No suspicious origins. Etc. Why do you suppose that is?

In other words, in case you make a mistake actually, what is your risk that you are running or is this all a bully for you because you could practically say what you want. I ask for your validity? I mean if you are expert, then you cant be judge and hangman at the same time, no?

Again, I do not understand what your point is. Node obfuscation is misleading and wrong. Cloning is wrong. We know he did the former, I have no direct knowledge about the latter. So I suppose I can "judge" the former. But as for the "hangman" part I don't get, because there is no punishment being handed out anywhere I have seen. Just questions about "why?"

Of course, and all questions reserved exclusively for Rybka but NOT Junior or Shredder, I just want to have absolute clarity for our actual definitions of the problem we are trying to analyse. Sorry, if I am trying to disturb your absolutely allowed and clean lab answering just sober questions, which were posed without any single thinkable viciousness. To make this clear, in my eyes an academic and I said it before must pay attention that he's not engaged in questions that are already itself in a way the violation of all truths in universe. Then a professor IMO had the duty to at least make some reservations in his answers. But to simply speak of as wrong that has been proven, is itself wrong if all other do tghe same wrong, of course I havent researched this, I'm just guessing from a serious interdisciplinary angle.

I think that is an interesting issue. Why Rybka, and not genius, fritz, shredder, or going back earlier, why not chess 4.x, or then Belle, or then Cray Blitz, or then Deep Thought, etc? For the latter group, we were too open so everybody knew what everyone else was doing. But the former group is an interesting issue. Why were there no claims and counter-claims about any of those?

How could you imagine a situation when Vas is finally clean and you had made this campaign. Or is this allowed and normal that each year a new activity is started?

I have made no "campaign". Someone asked "why would someone do this (obfuscation)?" I gave a direct and accurate answer. That is hardly a "campaign".

This is called collaboration as I've learned now. You answer just questions and others make the campaigns. And still others are reverse engineering illegally and still others are analysing the illegal results and then you make the apparent conclusions based on illegally doctored data achieved with forbidden methods and tricks. And then in court a total innocent, preferably a newbie, e.g. a Marsman, presents all the data and precious conclusions. Of course the judge is idiot enough to buy all that... Looks like a fairy tale to me.

Collaboration refers to working together on some kind of project. In this context it does not apply. First, I am not working with anyboty else on this topic. Second this is not a "project" of any kind. I simply answered a question posed by someone which seemed legitimate as I read it.

You see, this isnt about the tech details, it's just about responsible behavior of experts.

I should have written "irresponsible" behavior, perhaps then you would have seen the questionn how I meant it.

There we agree. I take it as my responsibility to answer questions when I can, as accurately as possible. That's what I did here.

Yes, 100% clear. But your answers are misused against singular and chosen and outlooked scapegoats in a World of all others as innocents, which in itself must be called for what it is, a shame and hypocrisy. This is a sad consequence of a hypostated lab science that could live outside the real world and that could therefore ignore very real aspects as simple artefacts. It's a failure of all positivistic science but that's really a new topic.

I still believe in you but likewise I have a strong motif to defend a potentially unjustified attacked victim. Until proven guilty Vas is innocent for me and I am surprised about this dirty, patronizing speech of a Theron. Why cant he just activate energy for his own Tiger? why must he appear as hunter of Vas? And what is with his own program? What if now people in Georgia come with a reverse engineered Tiger? Just kidding.

Let's always keep it friendly, Bob! Thanks for all what you have already explained for us.

[bob]

I'll state my view one more time. The node count obfuscation has _no_ justification, other than the simple fact that it is used to hide internal details. I don't have a problem with the "hiding". I do have a problem with knowingly producing bogus values. If you want to hide something, hide it. Don't disguise it. That's simple enough.

As far as the "clone issue" my only point was that by claiming strelka, those that use the argument to others of "you haven't seen the source for Rybka so you can't possibly conclude anything about it" are simply wrong. Because since Vas claimed Strelka as _his_ code, a clone of Rybka 1, then he has inadvertantly put "his" source code in a public light, where inspection is possible...

I have not drawn any conclusion about whether Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, gnuchess, or sasquatch. I only commented on the fact that strelka is there for anyone to look at, analyze, and draw conclusions that apply to Rybka 1 as well. I've implied nothing more, nothing less. The node counts are bogus, and intentionally so. As far as the clone issue, I have not looked at any of this and don't intend to.

Is Dann Corbit for you a nobody? He and two others have analysed the dirty copy. Result, read Corbit for yourself, nothing. That was almost 2 years ago. And now it's kosher if a Theron, who has practically left computerchess Tiger, he is reserved a stage here for such a smear campaign. You say he never insulted with bad wording or such. I say the whole campaign is it. Last time all was discussed, now the same procedure as every year. Not kosher IMO. Ok, I think my position has become clear enough. Technically I cant tell anything for obvious reasons.

And I disagreed back then. And most (almost all) programmers I have met during tournements agreed with me. But no comercial did so openly. And because they didn't, I was overshouted by all the "what do you care", "it plays well, so Vas is holy" and "you must be jalous" posters.

Now a commercial speaks up. And I remembered people about Vas claiming the Strelka code. ( The fact that Bob thinks Christophe wrote that, proves how the human brain works)

I was right back then, and I am now.

The only chessprogrammers I met, that diagree with me stated "I actually don't care about chess tournements"

Tony

I didn't specifically say that CT wrote that. I said that when he wrote it, it was the first time I had "made that connection" since I have not followed these discussions in the past. If you were the first to notice that, it was a good observation on your part.