Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:41 pm
Pure wisdom in actionDavid Dahlem wrote:That's what i've always done.Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
I'll read what interests me,ignore what doesn't,
Pure wisdom in actionDavid Dahlem wrote:That's what i've always done.Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
I'll read what interests me,ignore what doesn't,
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.Rolf wrote: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.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".
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!
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?Albert Silver wrote:It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as: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.
"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..."
No one doubts this simple fact Bob and if he does,he's either a liar or a moron or a combination of both....bob wrote: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.Rolf wrote: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.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".
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!
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.bob wrote:And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?Albert Silver wrote:It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as: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.
"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..."
If you declared it a fair way to even the playing field, that is supportive of it.bob wrote:And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?Albert Silver wrote:It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as: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.
"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..."
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.Sam Hull wrote: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.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.
-Sam-
In a manner of speaking. He certainly never offered to show his code around to anyone as you demand. Instead the author of the clone came clean and admitted to what he had done. His posts here say that he regrets what he did, for what it's worth.bob wrote:Vas offered proof for the Strelka case when that first broke. And it was treated as a clear clone, end of story.Sam Hull wrote: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.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.
-Sam-
I do not follow your first question. I see no "villains" at present, because there is no proof that anyone is a villain. I've proven every clone statement I have made in the past, by offering tons of data to show where a program is identical to my code. We can't seem to get any of that "data" for the Ippo* case, hence there is nothing to deal with at the present, until some data is provided. All we have now is simple anecdotal evidence such as "XYZ says this is reverse-engineered from something" or "ABC says this table is _almost_ identical in both programs" and so forth. That's not evidence, that is hearsay. Perhaps one day real evidence will be presented, one way or the other, and we can move past this kind of vitriolic discussion.Rolf wrote:This is somewhat different now. CCC still can count on you.bob wrote:If not, then the end is near.
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?
Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.tomgdrums wrote:Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.bob wrote:And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?Albert Silver wrote:It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as: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.
"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..."