TalkChess.com

Milos wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

What amazes me when reading your posts is the correlation between the amount of Vas defending/worshiping and the amount of Rybkas received as a gift...

It doesn't stop there, not even by a small margin. Since I have worked with many chess developers, I have also received every single Convekta program, many Chessbase programs, more than one copy of Rebel, Chess Tiger, as well as some unreleased engines such as Ferret.

bob wrote:If not, then the end is near.

This is somewhat different now. CCC still can count on you.

Let me ask a question and apologies if this was already answered.

What could be taken out of the whole clone debates in the past for the better of computerchess programming???

And this, how could you remain so tolerant, if you didnt support the invisible vilains, if you have never met them nor talked to them? Isnt this already enough to be judged as an impossible and totally wrong approach. And again why didnt you condemn them and their stuff? Isnt it allowed to conclude that you tolerated this because it caused problems for Vas?? Couldnt you confirm that just for me? Shouldnt we get out of this mess in favor of the future of computerchess?

bob wrote:If the owners of ICD want to dictate what is allowable and what is not, that represents a huge problem because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Steve _never_ made any such attempts.

There are flaws in your assumptions. The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it. This has been standard policy since the days when Steve owned the shop. The recent guidance did no more than reaffirm that stance and ask for more aggressive enforcement of it.

-Sam-

Albert Silver wrote:

zamar wrote:I hate cloning and have been personally convinced so far that Ippolit is a clone of Rybka, but as a writer of open source program and supporter of the right to free speech

No offense, but I think your arguments are odd. The announcement I read asked to be less lenient about posting announcements in the General Topics subforum, essentially promoting the clones, and to move them to the CEO.

If you think they are clones of Rybka, and thus that a professional colleague's work is being distributed via these forums, how do you reconcile allowing them? If you had stated you were not convinced they were clones, I might have understood, but instead you are professing that his work should be stolen and disseminated here in the name of free speech??

I just love the logic of book banners.

Sam Hull wrote:

bob wrote:If the owners of ICD want to dictate what is allowable and what is not, that represents a huge problem because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Steve _never_ made any such attempts.

There are flaws in your assumptions. The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it. This has been standard policy since the days when Steve owned the shop. The recent guidance did no more than reaffirm that stance and ask for more aggressive enforcement of it.

-Sam-

Ye ol' walk back. Why is it that walk-backs always get bogged down in the mincing of words?

Graham Banks wrote:

K I Hyams wrote:Unfortunately the edit that I put into my last post seems to have crossed with your reply. The edit was not made as a consequence of your reply and I would ask you, in the circumstances, to restore the unedited post.

Does it look okay now?

Dear Graham!

So let it be as it is (my posts).

e.g. my posting about R4 is never that what I have wrote. Let it so now.

Although in some respects I'm not Your opinion, personally I wish You the Best.

God bless You!

ED.

Sam Hull wrote:

bob wrote:If the owners of ICD want to dictate what is allowable and what is not, that represents a huge problem because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Steve _never_ made any such attempts.

There are flaws in your assumptions. The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it. This has been standard policy since the days when Steve owned the shop. The recent guidance did no more than reaffirm that stance and ask for more aggressive enforcement of it.

-Sam-

What are illegal software links , are there any decisions of the court in that matter?
Questionable origin, that are suspicions or slanders or phantasies....
We can question everything even that Earth is flat

Rolf wrote:

bob wrote:If not, then the end is near.

This is somewhat different now. CCC still can count on you.

Let me ask a question and apologies if this was already answered.

What could be taken out of the whole clone debates in the past for the better of computerchess programming???

And this, how could you remain so tolerant, if you didnt support the invisible vilains, if you have never met them nor talked to them? Isnt this already enough to be judged as an impossible and totally wrong approach. And again why didnt you condemn them and their stuff?

Isnt it allowed to conclude that you tolerated this because it caused problems for Vas?? Couldnt you confirm that just for me? Shouldnt we get out of this mess in favor of the future of computerchess?

Hmmm yet you say this ? " What you see as proof against Vas - that he doesnt speak - is for me just a typical style of a real gentleman. " dont be a hypocrite .....same would go for the IPPO's then ...just because they dont speak .....they are just being gentlemen. Your talking out both sides of your mouth. You have no evidence about IPPO like nobody else so to call them villains base on ZERO is a hypocrite to your own very statement about Vas get real.

BT

solis wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Milos wrote:

Rolf wrote:I am sure that Steven Schwartz would have stopped the noise for the illegal engines, Sam and Grah are two very thoughtful and mature persons...

Oh noooo, Rolf is back. Now CCC is really doomed...

A real tragedy indeed....I thought that he had quit computer chess and went farming or something,but....
The annoying thing is back regards,
Dr.D

Hi Dr. D,
I hope to see you in the new forum.
Best wishes and good luck to those who are staying on this dying forum

Hi Miodrag,
Just got home from work and I'll register for sure in the upcoming couple of hours....
Dr.D

Rolf wrote:
In my books someone who wasnt convicted by a judge - is innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty, right?