I am not going to respond to all your insults here at CCC. Having to face that on Rybka forum is already more than enough.
So, say anything you want about me and I won't reply.
However I will respond to those respecting the normal social way of speech.
Truth hurts? You are making statements that are clearly false. So false, you can not possibly be so inexperienced that you make them in good faith. The PST vs semantic equivalence post is a prime example. Nothing but deception. Intentional deception... hoping "someone" will overlook the obvious problem with your statements...
Don't care whether you respond or not. Last I heard you were "through" (was that the second or third time for that?) and were going to go off and write up your "amazing tale"/ Be interesting to see who you send it to and what they reply... Probably most technically competent people will just hit the "delete" button thinking they are dealing with a kook...
Sorry Robert, but these are only a lot of personal attacks towards Ed, as far as I can see. Ed really has nothing to gain with making false statements, he is not in any way involved in the Rybka project and just like you, I would assume, he is only interested in a fair review of the case. The same holds for you. I understand that emotions run high on both sides and I have not read all those threads but I don't recall Ed accusing you of making deliberate lies to obfuscate the issues. Even if he has, I am sure that neither of you really thinks that is how this debate should be held.
Regards, Eelco
You should go to the Rybka forum and read for a while. Your impression might change. As far as his accusing me of making deliberate lies, I could copy a half-dozen posts from the RF to dispel that opinion, but it would be easier for you to just drop in and read. What has happened really defies belief. Examples:
He claimed that Ken Thompson and other well-known panel members didn't read or look at anything, they just voted "Vas copied code" and move on. He claimed that nobody had checked the RE efforts of Mark and Zach. I replied that I had spot-checked quite a few. PST tables. Several pieces of asm to C. He then claimed I could not RE from Rybka binary to the source Zach posted. He challenged me to give him "the starting offset (ONLY)" for a block of code he posted. I did so. And I even showed exactly which asm statements matched with which C statements. He countered by saying "lucky guess". This has gone on and on and on. He quit the panel to pout when Chris didn't get in. He rejoined the debate when it flared up on the RF. He then announced "I am done with this...". He then rejoined again. And this week announced (again) "I am done, I am going to write up this 'historic event.'". He has claimed that the panel didn't discuss anything, it just rubber-stamped the report and left. He completely overlooked the fact that this investigation started informally 5 years ago, then HE along with 15 other programmers, signed the formal letter of complaint to the ICGA stating that they had looked at Zach's and Mark's reports and the evidence was "overwhelming" (word used in the letter). Then he says "I did not look at the evidence" which was quite obvious based on many of the comments he made on RF.
What more can be said? Hard to believe until you go read RF.
Eelco de Groot wrote:
Sorry Robert, but these are only a lot of personal attacks towards Ed, as far as I can see. Ed really has nothing to gain with making false statements, he is not in any way involved in the Rybka project and just like you, I would assume, he is only interested in a fair review of the case. The same holds for you. I understand that emotions run high on both sides and I have not read all those threads but I don't recall Ed accusing you of making deliberate lies to obfuscate the issues. Even if he has, I am sure that neither of you really thinks that is how this debate should be held.
Regards, Eelco
I actually don't agree with this. I don't know what motivates Ed, but I see a consistent pattern of saying things that he has to know are false. Accusing Bob of plagiarizing code from Robo, casting aspersions on his programming skill, these are just the obvious examples of someone who is fighting dirty and knows it.
Perhaps what you say is true, that "he is only interested in a fair review of the case", but his behavior is baldly deceitful. He has turned into a pathological liar. I don't know why that is. It's sad.
"The foundation of morality is to have done, once for all, with lying; to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." - T. H. Huxley
bhlangonijr wrote: So by following your reasoning it would be completely legal if I reverse engineer Rybka 4.0, make some adaptions in the code, change some textual occurrences, generate the new binary and then claim it as my own work.
It would be a 100% semantics matching, but that's okay in your view since I haven't used the original Rybka source code to produce the binaries....
"LOL" all you want, never said that, never implied that.
When it's about "semantics" check the current debate between an unknown guy to me who calls himself "Alkelele" and Bob.
Hyatt - One MUST use semantic equivalence. There is no other way to compare a binary to a source.
Hyatt - Who said the PST values had anything to do with semantic equivalence in the first place?
How does this rhyme ?
WIth "numbers" you don't have "semantic equivalence". With numbers, you simply show "outright copying". How hard is that to understand?
Very easy to understand. The problems is, the numbers are different, VERY different. In the case of the PSTs, that is all you have. All the relationships are broken, inter and intra PSTs. In 4/11, the PST are radically different. So, in this case, what is in common is a possible mechanism to derive them. Same code? who knows (you words), it is not there. So what you have in common is an algorithm of adding vectors to build a matrix (at best), which should not be used to hold anybody guilty of violating rule #2, IMO.
The precedent that it is set with this decision is extremely dangerous.
We went through this in detail. It is not my intention to discuss this all over again, but some people here in this forum are not aware of this discussions. They are in R forum and they are threads initiated by me (michiguel).
Miguel
Since dealing with your deception for a while, never mind. It might be impossible for you to understand. But not for most others. Semantic equivalence is what is used to compare a C source to an assembly language source (or any other source if you wish, such as what we do when students copy each other, but change the program significantly with respect to variable names, comments, loop structure, even data structures. But that doesn't change the semantics at all. If you don't get that, it is most likely because you don't WANT to get it...
Eelco de Groot wrote:
Sorry Robert, but these are only a lot of personal attacks towards Ed, as far as I can see. Ed really has nothing to gain with making false statements, he is not in any way involved in the Rybka project and just like you, I would assume, he is only interested in a fair review of the case. The same holds for you. I understand that emotions run high on both sides and I have not read all those threads but I don't recall Ed accusing you of making deliberate lies to obfuscate the issues. Even if he has, I am sure that neither of you really thinks that is how this debate should be held.
Regards, Eelco
I actually don't agree with this. I don't know what motivates Ed, but I see a consistent pattern of saying things that he has to know are false. Accusing Bob of plagiarizing code from Robo, casting aspersions on his programming skill, these are just the obvious examples of someone who is fighting dirty and knows it.
Perhaps what you say is true, that "he is only interested in a fair review of the case", but his behavior is baldly deceitful. He has turned into a pathological liar. I don't know why that is. It's sad.
I'll put it bluntly, if this went to court Ed would lose his shirt!
There's one behind the scenes who's pulling Ed's strings/chains and that is Chris Whittington!
He's manipulating several people this way. I hope Chris faces a court case as he would be made to pay for his defamation campaign!
bhlangonijr wrote: So by following your reasoning it would be completely legal if I reverse engineer Rybka 4.0, make some adaptions in the code, change some textual occurrences, generate the new binary and then claim it as my own work.
It would be a 100% semantics matching, but that's okay in your view since I haven't used the original Rybka source code to produce the binaries....
"LOL" all you want, never said that, never implied that.
When it's about "semantics" check the current debate between an unknown guy to me who calls himself "Alkelele" and Bob.
Hyatt - One MUST use semantic equivalence. There is no other way to compare a binary to a source.
Hyatt - Who said the PST values had anything to do with semantic equivalence in the first place?
How does this rhyme ?
WIth "numbers" you don't have "semantic equivalence". With numbers, you simply show "outright copying". How hard is that to understand?
Very easy to understand. The problems is, the numbers are different, VERY different. In the case of the PSTs, that is all you have. All the relationships are broken, inter and intra PSTs. In 4/11, the PST are radically different. So, in this case, what is in common is a possible mechanism to derive them. Same code? who knows (you words), it is not there. So what you have in common is an algorithm of adding vectors to build a matrix (at best), which should not be used to hold anybody guilty of violating rule #2, IMO.
The precedent that it is set with this decision is extremely dangerous.
We went through this in detail. It is not my intention to discuss this all over again, but some people here in this forum are not aware of this discussions. They are in R forum and they are threads initiated by me (michiguel).
Miguel
Since dealing with your deception for a while, never mind. It might be impossible for you to understand. But not for most others. Semantic equivalence is what is used to compare a C source to an assembly language source (or any other source if you wish, such as what we do when students copy each other, but change the program significantly with respect to variable names, comments, loop structure, even data structures. But that doesn't change the semantics at all. If you don't get that, it is most likely because you don't WANT to get it...
Simple concept. If I can take the fruit PST initialization code, and change 2-3-4 constants per table, and produce the same numbers (ignoring special-case center square bonus for pawns, as just one example) it is not very likely that the numbers were produced by original code. Each table, by itself, you have argued, is pretty simple in terms of information content. But all the tables, taken as a whole, are not. And when you look at the exact match between C and asm for a bunch of scoring terms, it is completely reasonable to believe that the PST values were copied at the same time the eval was copied. To believe otherwise stretches the laws of probability beyond reason.
I will remind you, NO ONE says "the PST data, by itself, shows Vas copied code." We have ALL said "the PST data, when taken along with all the other evidence of copying where asm was compared to fruit C, does show that copying was done. And the PST data DOES add to the weight. It doesn't "stand alone" however, and NOBODY has said that it does...
Eelco de Groot wrote:
Sorry Robert, but these are only a lot of personal attacks towards Ed, as far as I can see. Ed really has nothing to gain with making false statements, he is not in any way involved in the Rybka project and just like you, I would assume, he is only interested in a fair review of the case. The same holds for you. I understand that emotions run high on both sides and I have not read all those threads but I don't recall Ed accusing you of making deliberate lies to obfuscate the issues. Even if he has, I am sure that neither of you really thinks that is how this debate should be held.
Regards, Eelco
I actually don't agree with this. I don't know what motivates Ed, but I see a consistent pattern of saying things that he has to know are false. Accusing Bob of plagiarizing code from Robo, casting aspersions on his programming skill, these are just the obvious examples of someone who is fighting dirty and knows it.
Perhaps what you say is true, that "he is only interested in a fair review of the case", but his behavior is baldly deceitful. He has turned into a pathological liar. I don't know why that is. It's sad.
I'll put it bluntly, if this went to court Ed would lose his shirt!
There's one behind the scenes who's pulling Ed's strings/chains and that is Chris Whittington!
He's manipulating several people this way. I hope Chris faces a court case as he would be made to pay for his defamation campaign!
I doubt it, for one reason. The first question a judge would ask is "could this person actually damage someone's reputation?" To do that, they would need credibility. He is lacking there. He wants to ban Rolf. He doesn't want to ban Rolf, he wants to ban Ed, he doesn't want to ban Ed. Seems like we always stand where the eye of the storm will pass over, and their wind first blows one way, and then the other... Sooner or later you have to pick a position and stick with it. To say "I chose because I had not looked carefully, and then later changed my mind." shows a _lot_ to me. I'm not a lemming, myself. I'm not going to accuse someone of copying until I am reasonably sure and have some evidence to support this. So that I don't have to "back-track" later, if it is avoidable.
Eelco de Groot wrote:
Sorry Robert, but these are only a lot of personal attacks towards Ed, as far as I can see. Ed really has nothing to gain with making false statements, he is not in any way involved in the Rybka project and just like you, I would assume, he is only interested in a fair review of the case. The same holds for you. I understand that emotions run high on both sides and I have not read all those threads but I don't recall Ed accusing you of making deliberate lies to obfuscate the issues. Even if he has, I am sure that neither of you really thinks that is how this debate should be held.
Regards, Eelco
I actually don't agree with this. I don't know what motivates Ed, but I see a consistent pattern of saying things that he has to know are false. Accusing Bob of plagiarizing code from Robo, casting aspersions on his programming skill, these are just the obvious examples of someone who is fighting dirty and knows it.
Perhaps what you say is true, that "he is only interested in a fair review of the case", but his behavior is baldly deceitful. He has turned into a pathological liar. I don't know why that is. It's sad.
I'll put it bluntly, if this went to court Ed would lose his shirt!
There's one behind the scenes who's pulling Ed's strings/chains and that is Chris Whittington!
He's manipulating several people this way. I hope Chris faces a court case as he would be made to pay for his defamation campaign!
I doubt it, for one reason. The first question a judge would ask is "could this person actually damage someone's reputation?" To do that, they would need credibility.
Eelco de Groot wrote:
Sorry Robert, but these are only a lot of personal attacks towards Ed, as far as I can see. Ed really has nothing to gain with making false statements, he is not in any way involved in the Rybka project and just like you, I would assume, he is only interested in a fair review of the case. The same holds for you. I understand that emotions run high on both sides and I have not read all those threads but I don't recall Ed accusing you of making deliberate lies to obfuscate the issues. Even if he has, I am sure that neither of you really thinks that is how this debate should be held.
Regards, Eelco
I actually don't agree with this. I don't know what motivates Ed, but I see a consistent pattern of saying things that he has to know are false. Accusing Bob of plagiarizing code from Robo, casting aspersions on his programming skill, these are just the obvious examples of someone who is fighting dirty and knows it.
Perhaps what you say is true, that "he is only interested in a fair review of the case", but his behavior is baldly deceitful. He has turned into a pathological liar. I don't know why that is. It's sad.
