You seem to be a smart guy. At least you claim to be. And you can't find the posts from Zach, Norm and CT where code was discussed? What day is it today? Tuesday? Certainly not my day to hold everyone's hand and lead them blindly around...
bob wrote:You seem to be a smart guy. At least you claim to be. And you can't find the posts from Zach, Norm and CT where code was discussed? What day is it today? Tuesday? Certainly not my day to hold everyone's hand and lead them blindly around...
If nobody bothers to give your post a serious response, please don't misinterpret that.
It is, as you say in your language, "bullshit".
Tell me Zach - what will you do if you're proven to be wrong?
You guys have caused such a stink over this issue, that your names would likely be tarnished in the computer chess scene forever. It would be difficult for anybody to take any of you seriously ever again.
He is doing what he believes to be the right thing. Some agree, some disagree. However threats of tarnished image do not help and its an empty threat anyway.
I think Zach is doing fine. He is not making personal attacks, on the one occasion he got something wrong he said so straight away and he is assembling data and putting an argument together in a reasonable and rational way. I'm also very confident that if he gets to the point where he finds the evidence does not support the theory he'll say so.
Even though I don't take sides, I must say that I completely agree! Zach is being reasonable and rational in providing arguments and challenging the code. I haven't seen him getting very personal so far, he doesn't engage in flame wars either.
swami wrote:Even though I don't take sides, I must say that I completely agree! Zach is being reasonable and rational in providing arguments and challenging the code. I haven't seen him getting very personal so far, he doesn't engage in flame wars either. He iis ready to admit any mistakes he made.
Thank you Swami (and Chris too!).
You are a good guy and a real friend. No matter what anyone says, the moderators are handling this commotion perfectly IMO.
swami wrote:Even though I don't take sides, I must say that I completely agree! Zach is being reasonable and rational in providing arguments and challenging the code. I haven't seen him getting very personal so far, he doesn't engage in flame wars either. He iis ready to admit any mistakes he made.
Thank you Swami (and Chris too!).
You are a good guy and a real friend. No matter what anyone says, the moderators are handling this commotion perfectly IMO.
Thanks, Zach. There have been storm of complaints in the past few days about everything on both the sides, even with 10 hours job in real life, I managed to handle all of the CCC complaints and am quite proud of it especially finishing the work in time , ofcourse Chris and Thorsten did extremely very well too.
bob wrote:You seem to be a smart guy. At least you claim to be. And you can't find the posts from Zach, Norm and CT where code was discussed? What day is it today? Tuesday? Certainly not my day to hold everyone's hand and lead them blindly around...
Then give Zach a break and turn his aloose
??
I'm not the one giving him any grief about taking too long...
It doesn't say a thing that is not new. We are not talking about copying arrays of numbers that teach a program how to count the squares in some order. Or a set of masks used to extract a particular rank or file contents.
We are talking about _executable_ code. Constants would come into play for subjective things like evaluation weights, but at the moment the comparison has been on comparing executable lines of code.
I have made this offer previously. Crafty is a bitboard program. Choose any bitboard program you want, and lets compare the classic example that everyone here is harping on, that being move ordering, since we all use pretty much the same ordering ideas. I claim you will find no blocks of code that are common with another bitboard program. I doubt you will find any single lines of code that are in common, except for things like for (i=0;i<64;i++) or perhaps an occasional i++ and all of that is extremely rare in my program anyway.
Nobody has taken me up on this, but they keep repeating over and over, if you use similar approaches, you will have similar code. That is incorrect. It would be just as probable to ask two different authors to write a one-page explanation of some well-known idea (reductions for example) and then get an explanation that has many word-for-word commonalities. It won't happen.
But nobody wants to try the test because that will offer real insight into the discussion and that is not what many want.
bob wrote:It doesn't say a thing that is not new. We are not talking about copying arrays of numbers that teach a program how to count the squares in some order. Or a set of masks used to extract a particular rank or file contents.
We are talking about _executable_ code. Constants would come into play for subjective things like evaluation weights, but at the moment the comparison has been on comparing executable lines of code.
I have made this offer previously. Crafty is a bitboard program. Choose any bitboard program you want, and lets compare the classic example that everyone here is harping on, that being move ordering, since we all use pretty much the same ordering ideas. I claim you will find no blocks of code that are common with another bitboard program. I doubt you will find any single lines of code that are in common, except for things like for (i=0;i<64;i++) or perhaps an occasional i++ and all of that is extremely rare in my program anyway.
Nobody has taken me up on this, but they keep repeating over and over, if you use similar approaches, you will have similar code. That is incorrect. It would be just as probable to ask two different authors to write a one-page explanation of some well-known idea (reductions for example) and then get an explanation that has many word-for-word commonalities. It won't happen.
But nobody wants to try the test because that will offer real insight into the discussion and that is not what many want.
It is absolutely not up to those who believe in good motive and process rather than evil before proven otherwise, or in innocence before guilt before it is proven otherwise to be doing experiments for you.
Come up with some convincing evidence and it will be tested and questioned as you would expect.
, ofcourse Chris and Thorsten did extremely very well too.