bob wrote:
Graham, I know you don't want to accept this, but there will be no "proven innocent" on the fruit issue. The code _is_ in Rybka 1. This is not a judgement issue. Unless you believe in random chance and would not consider plagiarism if you find many paragraphs from book A written by author X, included verbatim in book B written by author Y. This just doesn't happen in programming. When I don't see identical programs where they are only 50 lines long, what is the probability of identical code in a program far more complex???
Hi Bob,
I'll be perfectly happy to accept the truth, whatever that might be. In my opinion, Vas needs to say more than what he has in order to help establish that truth. It's only because he's stayed quiet for so long that the situation has festered. I still think that you should try and make contact with Ryan in private, just to discuss your findings with him also.
Cheers,
Graham.
If Vas cloned that engine, he is not going to contest Zach’s evidence because doing so will act as a catalyst for more evidence to emerge. If he cloned that engine, he has not just committed a minor technical infringement he may have diverted into his own pockets money which would otherwise have gone into the pockets of the programmers of Shredder and Fritz, thereby making them poorer.
Highly specific statements of areas of overlap between Rybka 1 and Fruit have been published. You are not a programmer. You have been repeatedly told by Professor Hyatt that Rybka 1 is a clone. Bob Hyatt is one of the most experienced programmers of chess engines in the World. Bob Hyatt has also told you that in order to do his job properly, he has to be adept at spotting plagiarism. Hyatt’s claims are fully supported by experienced programmer Zach Wegner. In the absence of an admission from Vas, what has Professor Hyatt got to do in order to convince you that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code? If there is nothing that Professor Hyatt can do, what can anybody else do to convince you that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code?
Last edited by K I Hyams on Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bob wrote:
Graham, I know you don't want to accept this, but there will be no "proven innocent" on the fruit issue. The code _is_ in Rybka 1. This is not a judgement issue. Unless you believe in random chance and would not consider plagiarism if you find many paragraphs from book A written by author X, included verbatim in book B written by author Y. This just doesn't happen in programming. When I don't see identical programs where they are only 50 lines long, what is the probability of identical code in a program far more complex???
Hi Bob,
I'll be perfectly happy to accept the truth, whatever that might be. In my opinion, Vas needs to say more than what he has in order to help establish that truth. It's only because he's stayed quiet for so long that the situation has festered. I still think that you should try and make contact with Ryan in private, just to discuss your findings with him also.
Cheers,
Graham.
If Vas cloned that engine, he is not going to try to refute Zach’s evidence because doing so will act as a catalyst for more evidence to emerge. If he cloned that engine, he has not just committed a minor technical infringement he will have probably dishonestly diverted money away from the pockets of the programmers of Shredder and Fritz.
Highly specific statements of areas of overlap between Rybka and Fruit have been published. You are not a programmer. You have been repeatedly told that Rybka 1 is a clone. Bob Hyatt is one of the most experienced programmers of chess engines in the World. Bob Hyatt has also told you that in order to do his job properly, he has to be adept at spotting plagiarism. Hyatt’s claims are fully supported by experienced programmer Zach Wegner. In the absence of an admission from Vas, what has Professor Hyatt got to do in order to convince you that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code? If there is nothing that Professor Hyatt can do, what can anybody else do to convince you that Rybka contains Fruit code?
You ask questions! Am I the only one says that if this is so clear and proven by Prof Hyatt what stops Prof Hyatt to run to the GPL authorities and sue Vas? Why? - And what has that all to do with the question how Graham should be convinced or something?
Couldnt that what Ryan could tell Bob be for Bob the reason why he is so hesitating and sensitive not to go to courts? But the other way round, what if Vas goes to court and sues certain people for libel? I hope both wont happen, but you are streaming so much self-confidence.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Osipov Jury wrote:Remember, Vas wrote in Rybka 3 FAQ:
"Has Rybka been slowed down to prevent decompilation?
No. We have a much better way to deal with this issue - just wait a bit and you'll see"
And today we have Ippolit.
Juri, with all respect because I dont know you and your background, but do you really think that you are using ethical basics if you were pondering of publishing source of Strelka? And then this above. Are you sure you understood Vas? I doubt it. Look, I'm not a programmer and smart like you, but still I have a better explanation of the question above.
My view is: today we have this and tomorrow we even have Rybka 4. Understand? Perhaps Vas is just that bit happier than you because he understood reality. He sure wont spend his time with nonsense activities for losers. Just read what he wrote.
Before releasing of Strelka 2.0 B I send e-mail to Vas (it was in 06.12.2007):
Hi, Vas!
I still consider you as the most gifted chess programmer in spite of your negative attitude to me and to Strelka.
I'd like to write you about my planning to do in the nearest future, if you don't mind.
1. In any case I'll continue to work with Strelka. No matter how it will be regarded.
2.Approx in January 2008 I'm going release the new version of Strelka. The differences are:
- It will be stronger the existing one more then 100 points.
- It will be noticeably decrease in size (to 160 KB) owing to excluding of all tables.
- The programm will remain free of charge.
- All the sources of the programm will be applied to and can be used unlimited.
Best regards, Jury.
E-mail from Vas:
Hi Jury,
what can I say - you have to do what you think is right…
bob wrote:
Graham, I know you don't want to accept this, but there will be no "proven innocent" on the fruit issue. The code _is_ in Rybka 1. This is not a judgement issue. Unless you believe in random chance and would not consider plagiarism if you find many paragraphs from book A written by author X, included verbatim in book B written by author Y. This just doesn't happen in programming. When I don't see identical programs where they are only 50 lines long, what is the probability of identical code in a program far more complex???
Hi Bob,
I'll be perfectly happy to accept the truth, whatever that might be. In my opinion, Vas needs to say more than what he has in order to help establish that truth. It's only because he's stayed quiet for so long that the situation has festered. I still think that you should try and make contact with Ryan in private, just to discuss your findings with him also.
Cheers,
Graham.
If Vas cloned that engine, he is not going to try to refute Zach’s evidence because doing so will act as a catalyst for more evidence to emerge. If he cloned that engine, he has not just committed a minor technical infringement he will have probably dishonestly diverted money away from the pockets of the programmers of Shredder and Fritz.
Highly specific statements of areas of overlap between Rybka and Fruit have been published. You are not a programmer. You have been repeatedly told that Rybka 1 is a clone. Bob Hyatt is one of the most experienced programmers of chess engines in the World. Bob Hyatt has also told you that in order to do his job properly, he has to be adept at spotting plagiarism. Hyatt’s claims are fully supported by experienced programmer Zach Wegner. In the absence of an admission from Vas, what has Professor Hyatt got to do in order to convince you that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code? If there is nothing that Professor Hyatt can do, what can anybody else do to convince you that Rybka contains Fruit code?
You ask questions!Am I the only one says that if this is so clear and proven by Prof Hyatt what stops Prof Hyatt to run to the GPL authorities and sue Vas? Why? - And what has that all to do with the question how Graham should be convinced or something?
.
Don’t be ridiculous, in order to do that, Professor Hyatt would have to, amongst other things, interrupt his career and thereby suffer financial loss, pay for legal representation out of his own pocket, disrupt his family life and sacrifice his hobby time. If he proves the case, he gains nothing because he has suffered no direct loss because of the behaviour of Vas Rajlich.
That question was directed specifically at Graham Banks. You do not know the answer to that question because you are not Graham Banks. Why then did you feel the need to speak for him?
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
You're starting to sound like someone I knew for a long time now....the us and we things....Hmmm,my memory is failing me right now but I am sure that I'll dig it out....
Dr.D
Gollum...
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
bob wrote:
Graham, I know you don't want to accept this, but there will be no "proven innocent" on the fruit issue. The code _is_ in Rybka 1. This is not a judgement issue. Unless you believe in random chance and would not consider plagiarism if you find many paragraphs from book A written by author X, included verbatim in book B written by author Y. This just doesn't happen in programming. When I don't see identical programs where they are only 50 lines long, what is the probability of identical code in a program far more complex???
Hi Bob,
I'll be perfectly happy to accept the truth, whatever that might be. In my opinion, Vas needs to say more than what he has in order to help establish that truth. It's only because he's stayed quiet for so long that the situation has festered. I still think that you should try and make contact with Ryan in private, just to discuss your findings with him also.
Cheers,
Graham.
If Vas cloned that engine, he is not going to try to refute Zach’s evidence because doing so will act as a catalyst for more evidence to emerge. If he cloned that engine, he has not just committed a minor technical infringement he will have probably dishonestly diverted money away from the pockets of the programmers of Shredder and Fritz.
Highly specific statements of areas of overlap between Rybka and Fruit have been published. You are not a programmer. You have been repeatedly told that Rybka 1 is a clone. Bob Hyatt is one of the most experienced programmers of chess engines in the World. Bob Hyatt has also told you that in order to do his job properly, he has to be adept at spotting plagiarism. Hyatt’s claims are fully supported by experienced programmer Zach Wegner. In the absence of an admission from Vas, what has Professor Hyatt got to do in order to convince you that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code? If there is nothing that Professor Hyatt can do, what can anybody else do to convince you that Rybka contains Fruit code?
You ask questions!Am I the only one says that if this is so clear and proven by Prof Hyatt what stops Prof Hyatt to run to the GPL authorities and sue Vas? Why? - And what has that all to do with the question how Graham should be convinced or something?
.
Don’t be ridiculous, in order to do that, Professor Hyatt would have to, amongst other things, interrupt his career and thereby suffer financial loss, pay for legal representation out of his own pocket, disrupt his family life and sacrifice his hobby time. If he proves the case, he gains nothing because he has suffered no direct loss because of the behaviour of Vas Rajlich.
That question was directed specifically at Graham Banks. You do not know the answer to that question because you are not Graham Banks. Why then did you feel the need to speak for him?
Because Graham has spoken already. That Ryan should be consulted. He could tell if there is something fishy. I thought you had missed that. Sorry if that was redundent for you.
Another aspect. I didnt know that if Bob is so certain why this couldnt be handled formally without to step out of office. The GPL exams the case without Bob's daily support, no? Or is Bob the GPL himself, sorry if I miss something.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
K I Hyams wrote:
If Vas cloned that engine, he is not going to contest Zach’s evidence because doing so will act as a catalyst for more evidence to emerge. If he cloned that engine, he has not just committed a minor technical infringement he may have diverted into his own pockets money which would otherwise have gone into the pockets of the programmers of Shredder and Fritz, thereby making them poorer.
Highly specific statements of areas of overlap between Rybka 1 and Fruit have been published. You are not a programmer. You have been repeatedly told by Professor Hyatt that Rybka 1 is a clone. Bob Hyatt is one of the most experienced programmers of chess engines in the World. Bob Hyatt has also told you that in order to do his job properly, he has to be adept at spotting plagiarism. Hyatt’s claims are fully supported by experienced programmer Zach Wegner. In the absence of an admission from Vas, what has Professor Hyatt got to do in order to convince you that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code? If there is nothing that Professor Hyatt can do, what can anybody else do to convince you that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code?
Sounds like you've already convicted Vas, so what point is there me saying anything more than what I have? It would be the right thing for the accusers to talk to Ryan in detail. They seem reluctant to do so. Vas should also say more.
Graham Banks wrote:It would be the right thing for the accusers to talk to Ryan. They seem reluctant to do so.
Your perspective is wrong. Let me illustrate it with the hypothetical court example, so it'll be easier to understand.
There are prosecutors (some people on this forum, I dare also to say clear majority), and there is the accused (Vas). Ryan is according to you the witness for the defendant. And Rolf and you, and maybe few more ppl are his "lawyers". So, it is completely illogical for the prosecutor to call the witness of the defendant to testify. That should be your job.
Last edited by Milos on Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Graham Banks wrote:It would be the right thing for the accusers to talk to Ryan. They seem reluctant to do so.
Your perspective is wrong. Let me illustrate it with the hypothetical court example, so it'll be easier to understand.
There are prosecutors (some people on this forum, I dare also to say clear majority), and there is the accused (Vas). Ryan is according to you the witness for the defendant. And Rolf and you, and maybe few more ppl are his "lawyers". So, it is completely illogical for the prosecutor to call the witness of the defendant to testify. That should be your job.
I see some interesting posts from you in rgcc. Did you join here specifically to add to the voice of the cloners/hackers by promoting "Robber" and putting down Vas? Actually a search of your posts here answers that.
Graham Banks wrote:I see some interesting posts from you in rgcc. Did you join here specifically to add to the voice of the cloners/hackers by promoting "Robber" and putting down Vas? Actually a search of your posts here answers that.
Let's see:
Computer-Chess Club Charter:
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
How does your question not include personal? Or this is only valid for old member like Rolf, but not for new ones?
