Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:16 am
Golly gee willikers, whatever happened to Google's motto "Don't be evil"?
Golly gee willikers, whatever happened to Google's motto "Don't be evil"?
mhull wrote:But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums). People don't like unfair standards, especially from people who put themselves in a position of objectivity, such as running a rating list or being a moderator.Graham Banks wrote:To me, an FSF decision would be good enough to give finality, which I was really hoping was what we all wanted.
People are wrapping their heads in duct tape trying to keep it from exploding every time you say something like this.
Let me enter another aspect into the debate, Matt.mhull wrote: But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums).
Let me enter another aspect into the debate, Matt.mhull wrote: But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums).
Ok, an IQ/objectivity test for you:michiguel wrote:The claim I saw once (indirectly from another person, not from the horse's mouth) was that he lost version 3.00.
Accidents happened and it is possible to lose one "specific" version. Particularly if only one guy works on the code.
Graham's opinion would only be important if he was a forum moderator just like rating lists are only useful when they include all engines.mhull wrote:But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums). People don't like unfair standards, especially from people who put themselves in a position of objectivity, such as running a rating list or being a moderator.Graham Banks wrote:To me, an FSF decision would be good enough to give finality, which I was really hoping was what we all wanted.
People are wrapping their heads in duct tape trying to keep it from exploding every time you say something like this.
Code: Select all
U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP;
while (U)
{
b = BSF (U);
MobValue -= PawnAntiMobility;
BitClear (b, U);
}
Code: Select all
U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP;
MobValue -= popcnt(U) * PawnAntiMobility;
I don't know if it's plagiarism but it gives almost 1% speed increase .Osipov Jury wrote:About copying, rewriting of code and so on.
In eval-function of Ivanhoe we can find:
Robert Houdart replace this at:Code: Select all
U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP; while (U) { b = BSF (U); MobValue -= PawnAntiMobility; BitClear (b, U); }
Is it plagiarism?Code: Select all
U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP; MobValue -= popcnt(U) * PawnAntiMobility;
It's perfectly trustable and valid if the person in question has a track record of honesty and giving freely to the community without rancor or selfishness; And never making implications without supporting evidence (like some people we know). Supporting evidence, Rolf -- not bald accusations. Openness, kindness, giving freely, never accusing without evidence. Heck, he's even reticent to accuse, even when the evidence is bigger than Dallas. That's how trustable.Rolf wrote:Let me enter another aspect into the debate, Matt.mhull wrote: But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums).
How trustable and how valid is it for you as a mature man, if someone like Fabien Letouzey needs almost 5 years to realise that his own program should have been copied?