TalkChess.com

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-

bob wrote:

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-

Vas offered proof for the Strelka case when that first broke. And it was treated as a clear clone, end of story.

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?

tomgdrums wrote:

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:

tomgdrums wrote:

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.

Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.

I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.

Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).

So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.

Graham Banks wrote:

sockmonkey wrote:Graham, who's done zero moderation of talkchess in the last month

Incorrect. I continued moderating, but stopped posting.

I emailed Quentin to ask him whether or not he wanted the tournament subforum "cleaned out" as well. I've not had a reply yet, so it's not been touched.

I wish you well with the new forum and with life in general.

Cheers,
Graham.

mariaclara wrote:you turned to Sam and the management.

Sam Hull wrote:
(a) Sorry for weighing in late. Our downtown Dallas office building has lost power and shut down my entire network two business days in a row, and I couldn't get back to the board after posting the guidance from Quentin for the CCC mods until now.

(b) There has been a rather large misunderstanding, and Jeremy has slightly misquoted what I passed along from ICD/Your Move. The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance - I have clarified it in detail for him this evening via IM. Where the issue of clones is concerned, and for the board in general, the goal of fair and balanced moderation has not changed, and there is no desire for favoritism in ANY direction.

(c) I hope Jeremy will reconsider his decision. I have not had a chance to converse with him directly and have received no PMs from him. I posted responses in the moderator forum as soon as I regained internet access, but I am still locked out of e-mail and will be until tomorrow morning. I think Jeremy has been an outstanding moderator and I fully support his philosophy of moderation - always have.

(d) I don't set moderation policy. I passed along a request to the CCC mods that I received from Quentin, which came as the result of certain members haranguing ICD about real, suspected, and imagined clones. Graham misunderstood the message, performed some moderation on that basis, and Jeremy decided to post a grand exit without waiting to get any clarification about the guidance.

(e) Personally I am surprised that two CCC mods who share an opinion cannot simply outvote and override one mod on those occasions when he has a different view. I got regularly overridden for two whole terms in CTF. I haven't complained, and nobody died. It's a discussion board, folks.

(f) If a member runs for moderator and is elected, I think it is fair to expect him to honor his commitment and serve out the term.

-Sam-

tomgdrums wrote:

bob wrote:

tomgdrums wrote:

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.

Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.

I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.

Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).

So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.

Are you sure you aren't cloudy? (there I go with the one liners again..)