TalkChess.com

Kick someones butt here and there includes Rolf. Am I right ?

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
I'll read what interests me,ignore what doesn't,

That's what i've always done.

Damir wrote:Kick someones butt here and there includes Rolf. Am I right ?

Exclusively

David Dahlem wrote:

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
I'll read what interests me,ignore what doesn't,

That's what i've always done.

Pure wisdom in action

Rolf wrote:

bob wrote: As far as this "personal attack against Vas" you keep mentioning, my only comment deals with his ethics (or lack thereof) with regard to copying code from Fruit and then denying that this happened, completely. He'd have fared much better in "the court of public opinion" had he simply said "I started with the fruit source, but have modified it heavily and today little if any of that code remains." We didn't get that kind of honesty however. We got "silence".

Let's not pretend that you or we all or you and C.Theron had the authorization for a public court. In my books someone who wasnt convicted by a judge - is innocent. Never heard that you were a judge or anything near to that. For me Vas is a pure gentleman. And I recall that Vas and Fabien were together in Reykjavik. So, gentleman, plus the talks on Island is sufficient for me that everything was kosher between these two strong programmers. The strongest of the new century.

The rest is envie and character defamation. What you see as proof against Vas - that he doesnt speak - is for me just a typical style of a real gentleman. We should call him back!

I'm not a judge. But I am certainly "technically competent" in computer science and computer chess. And the evidence is convincing to those that are competent.

Albert Silver wrote:

bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

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..."

And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?

bob wrote:

Rolf wrote:

bob wrote: As far as this "personal attack against Vas" you keep mentioning, my only comment deals with his ethics (or lack thereof) with regard to copying code from Fruit and then denying that this happened, completely. He'd have fared much better in "the court of public opinion" had he simply said "I started with the fruit source, but have modified it heavily and today little if any of that code remains." We didn't get that kind of honesty however. We got "silence".

Let's not pretend that you or we all or you and C.Theron had the authorization for a public court. In my books someone who wasnt convicted by a judge - is innocent. Never heard that you were a judge or anything near to that. For me Vas is a pure gentleman. And I recall that Vas and Fabien were together in Reykjavik. So, gentleman, plus the talks on Island is sufficient for me that everything was kosher between these two strong programmers. The strongest of the new century.

The rest is envie and character defamation. What you see as proof against Vas - that he doesnt speak - is for me just a typical style of a real gentleman. We should call him back!

I'm not a judge. But I am certainly "technically competent" in computer science and computer chess. And the evidence is convincing to those that are competent.

No one doubts this simple fact Bob and if he does,he's either a liar or a moron or a combination of both....
Cheers,
Dr.D

bob wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

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..."

And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?

Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.

bob wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

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..."

And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?

If you declared it a fair way to even the playing field, that is supportive of it.

fair 1 (fâr)
adj. fair·er, fair·est

Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics.

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-

Point 1 (of 1): Have you seen _any_ proof that Ippo* is an illegal copy of anything? I have not. Clearly there are copies of Ippo* running amok, but ippo* is an open-source program.

So, what is the point of moving _all_ discussions about the Ippo* family to a non-public forum, when there is no proof of any kind that the program is illegal? Vas offered proof for the Strelka case when that first broke. And it was treated as a clear clone, end of story. We have _nothing_ to support any such claim for Ippo*, yet Graham has been on a one-man crusade since he became a mod, moving posts with any reference to Ippo*, Robo*, etc into the non-public forum, almost instantly. Then you apparently gave him a statement that was a bit ambiguous, and which he would _obviously_ take as justification for going on an even larger "hide 'em" crusade.

If ICD chess is going to try to limit, in any way, what is discussed here, it is a conflict of interest that is completely unacceptable. In the past, when Steve was the owner, there _were_ links posted to clones. Le Petite. Voyager. Bionic Impakt. Etc. And we outed them and they disappeared naturally, without any need to bury references in a non-public place. That has obviously changed. For the worse, I might add.

Removing links is stupid. It doesn't change a thing. Links to Ippo* and such are all over the internet. The right idea is to expose things that are wrong, not hide them. Seems to be a lost point here, however... Particularly when we don't even _know_ if anything is wrong with Ippo* and family or not...