When a great genius appears, dunces can be relied upon also.

[bob]

The quality of
Vas skills are not being questioned here.

If such skills are fully acknowledged, as they should be because topmost objective evidence exists (top of world for 4-5 years), can you explain then why such an easily exposed alleged copying happens?

Answer is, it did not.

Or, another answer, "arrogance and stupidity". Arrogance in believing it will never be discovered, stupidity for not at least attempting to hide the copying. Both in equal parts, here.

[bob]

Hi Rolf, nice to see that you got a new alias!

In advance, forgive me my failures in English for my first post and all permitted successors.

I was attracted here by the controversy of early versions of RYBKA and any alleged small idea or even code/method borrowings or inspirations by its author Mr Rajlich.

You may not know that this matter even has escaped into the realworld media. Der Spiegel!!

I studied the whole thing, read a PDF from Mr Wegner and a PDF from another who did not directly sign his name to it, but who is known. And I read hundreds of post here and in open chess and hiarcs, and a hit-letter to ICGA with list of confederated signers.

I think by this standard applied against Mr Rajlich, even Mr Shakespeare should be banned. Shakespeare borrowed plots, methods, ideas even big groups of words. Plays are not chessprograms but the principle is similar.

Point is, Shakespeare's improvements were of great supergenius, not (relatively) mediocre like his so-called inspiration sources

More I studied this matter, more I was reminded of this wise quotation --

"This evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the management of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes, that need not be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain writer observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift, "Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", 1728

I do not call all the signatories to the anti-Rajlich as "dunces" but I do classify them as dunces by relativity - means by comparison to Mr Rajlich. In my opinion. And in opinion of Chess. Everything is relative. In their own circles I am sure they are all great wiseguys. Maybe, 20 or 30 years ago they too were genius not (relative) dunce.

Reason for my thinking is this. Their creations were not only beaten thoroughly by RYBKA, but were beaten with a maximum of humiliation! They could not even understand the chess method, how they were beaten! Most of the time they and their vast-inferior creations thought they were drawing, even winning, then as if my magic RYBKA prevailed. No magic. Just a higher chess.

So the 10 signatures to the anti-Rajlich letter, to me are all a nonsense and a confederacy. Of no appreciable value. No probative value. No evidential value. No big technical value. Only grapes value. Sour, even?

So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius.

In all so-called evidence I see patch of code here and of source there. Nowhere I see understanding of how the alleged son is so much stronger (at Chess! not programming!) than the father.

If Mr Houdart (author of the HOUDINI) were to sign such a hit-letter as produced against Mr Rajlich, then I would pay some attention to the letter. At least HOUDINI is a suitable calibre opponent to RYBKA, its author's opinion deserve respect. All I can see is result of RYBKA-CRAFTY or other lacklustres. How many game I have to play from neutral openingbook before Crafty win single game against RYBKA? 300? 3000? More? JUNIOR same.

I am waiting to be sent testcopy of Dr Wael Deeb's chessprogram. His most gentle, most refined language is a good attracter for me.

History will record this attack event much the same as my analysis, of this I am confident.

ICGA better disband before Mr Levy gets into trouble, I would advise. It has no legal role and should watch carefully unwise statement.

My advice to Mr Rajlich, ignore the mob, I mean confederacy. Let them make sanctions. History is to your side. Tournament without RYBKA is like human chess world without KASPAROV. Do not even soil your hand with lawsuit. It is in the inherent(?) nature of dog to bark when it sees a frightening power, and of dunces to confederate, so there is no question of blame.

Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation. Mozart had but once to hear other's music, he internally recorded and processed then improved greatly. There are many examples.

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

Excuse me, I have no intention of providing offense to any person, even Salieri. Only for perspective. So, confederacy of (relative) dunces, please excuse my statements, they all were given with the maximum of due, earned respect to you.

Romy

[/quote

Not Rolf. Chris Whittington. Typical.

[Romy]

Since I don't believe you are stupid, you are therefore more than a bit dishonest. No other explanation for such ridiculous statements.
I am easy to find. Sue me.

Mr Hyatt, you are one of the grandfathers of this field, you are respected methuselah, so please cut this legal extremist posturing! No one tries sues you, if they try to do same, I personally would follow King Carol and chop them to byte-size chunks and feed to HiTech.

Can we move this to the technical section so the vandals, monkeys and incompetents are exclude? Here I did it for you:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=399303
now in the Technical Programming section.

Apparently I know a whole lot more about compiling, assembly language programming, and assembly language optimization than you do

Someone wrote that, I lost who. But probably the conclusion is no, for a reason in the Technical Programming section.

Please this time give consideration before articulation. Thanks.

[Romy]

The quality of
Vas skills are not being questioned here.

If such skills are fully acknowledged, as they should be because topmost objective evidence exists (top of world for 4-5 years), can you explain then why such an easily exposed alleged copying happens?
Answer is, it did not.

Or, another answer, "arrogance and stupidity". Arrogance in believing it will never be discovered, stupidity for not at least attempting to hide the copying. Both in equal parts, here.

You are correct, it is an alternative answer. I award you fule marks!

Exact same way, from one single object code produced even by one single and known ubercompiler, there could have been multiplicity - even confederacy - of alternative sources that would compile to the same objective.

So - you have the source Mr Rajlich used, distinct from Mr Osipov's fictation and speculation? Answer: No.

Thank you for provision of such a fine example to destroy the anti-Rajlich "case".

Inverse function of many-to-one is one-to-many. Discussion redundant but if needed:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=399303

[bob]

The quality of
Vas skills are not being questioned here.

If such skills are fully acknowledged, as they should be because topmost objective evidence exists (top of world for 4-5 years), can you explain then why such an easily exposed alleged copying happens?
Answer is, it did not.

Or, another answer, "arrogance and stupidity". Arrogance in believing it will never be discovered, stupidity for not at least attempting to hide the copying. Both in equal parts, here.

You are correct, it is an alternative answer. I award you fule marks!

Exact same way, from one single object code produced even by one single and known ubercompiler, there could have been multiplicity - even confederacy - of alternative sources that would compile to the same objective.

So - you have the source Mr Rajlich used, distinct from Mr Osipov's fictation and speculation? Answer: No.

Thank you for provision of such a fine example to destroy the anti-Rajlich "case".

Inverse function of many-to-one is one-to-many. Discussion redundant but if needed:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=399303

We are not trying to produce Vas' original source from the asm. The asm gives us the semantics. We can then examine _my_ original source to see if the two are equivalent. They are. The code was copied. Any other explanation is pure fiction, aka bullshit. Trying to paint it as anything else makes you look foolish at best...

[Romy]

What is the probability that two different programmers will produce the same C source? Near zero.

Correct, but irrelevance personified.

Same source is not the issue. Different source, but same or nearly same compilation output is issue!

Please to concentrate on issue. Not two different programmers. Twenty-eight. Including all or any whose ideas even you borrowed. All mixed together.

And irreversible operation (non-function) has an attempted solution, upon which reputation-destroying implications are hinged? Is this safe? Is this worthy of you? Leave aside other.

Your other conclusion express few posts ago is also not correct but if it please you to think otherwise I will not dispute repeatingly, you can think as you please who it is you dispute. You drew wrong answer from the dataset. Ironical, because it can be the same cause in the RYBKA matter.

Mr Rajlich may have make small mistake of judging where is a line, undefined or illdefined in legals, and you also were young once. Justice and mercy are both conjoin, also common-sense.

Respectfully.

[Christopher Conkie]

The quality of
Vas skills are not being questioned here.

If such skills are fully acknowledged, as they should be because topmost objective evidence exists (top of world for 4-5 years), can you explain then why such an easily exposed alleged copying happens?
Answer is, it did not.

Or, another answer, "arrogance and stupidity". Arrogance in believing it will never be discovered, stupidity for not at least attempting to hide the copying. Both in equal parts, here.

You are correct, it is an alternative answer. I award you fule marks!

Exact same way, from one single object code produced even by one single and known ubercompiler, there could have been multiplicity - even confederacy - of alternative sources that would compile to the same objective.

So - you have the source Mr Rajlich used, distinct from Mr Osipov's fictation and speculation? Answer: No.

Thank you for provision of such a fine example to destroy the anti-Rajlich "case".

Inverse function of many-to-one is one-to-many. Discussion redundant but if needed:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=399303

We are not trying to produce Vas' original source from the asm. The asm gives us the semantics. We can then examine _my_ original source to see if the two are equivalent. They are. The code was copied. Any other explanation is pure fiction, aka bullshit. Trying to paint it as anything else makes you look foolish at best...

Has he always been that warped Bob? It is like he has OCD or something like that. I'm being serious. There is something mentally bust in there. Psychotic illness?

[Romy]

bullshit
foolish

he has OCD or something like that.
There is something mentally bust in there. Psychotic illness?

Is there any moderator here?
Or is libel the day-order after the argument has lost?

Mr Conkie, at least Mr Hyatt has understood the technical quicksand. I am less sure for you.

I think of two numbers and keep secret. I to multiply together them. Answer is 1. You tell me what are my numbers.

When you can do that reliably, you can also decompile to get original source.

This explains irreversible.

[Christopher Conkie]

bullshit
foolish

he has OCD or something like that.
There is something mentally bust in there. Psychotic illness?

Is there any moderator here?
Or is libel the day-order after the argument has lost?

Mr Conkie, at least Mr Hyatt has understood the technical quicksand. I am less sure for you.

I think of two numbers and keep secret. I to multiply together them. Answer is 1. You tell me what are my numbers.

When you can do that reliably, you can also decompile to get original source.

This explains irreversible.

I don't think you are sure of anything. You just like the sound of your own supercilious voice. You are in no position to pontificate to anyone at all. Mostly you are a bore.

[Romy]

Mostly

Mostly, you are unable to tell me what are the two numbers I thought of, which has the product of 1.

Same way, your teamboys had no knowledge of RYBKA (any) source. Only of what can be compiled with compiler X to give same executable fragment as does RYBKA source (maybe with a different, unspecified compiler or even compilers).

So, speculation. No more. Some guesswork as to improbabilities, also without foundation. Every coincidence become into a conspiracy. In RL coincidence is normal.

Please preserve decency and standards. This is not a playground of Terence Crack.