TalkChess.com

slobo wrote:

Damir wrote:Well, I have changed my mind after seeing that many of the so called open source engine are made money on, and there is no objections, and Rybka is the only one targeted. Houdini to mention, Rick48 as other... based on Robbo.

Rybka is "targeted" in what sense? It is still sold around there, isn´t it?
The problem of Houdini is well known. But its author is silent: he avoids answering some questions. He does not state his program is original.
So, what is your problem? The truth about Rybka´s origin?

No it is not about Rybka's origin that bothers me, and which made me change my mind. It is after reading Prof. Hyatt gibberish on Rybka forum, also the endless discussions provided by Ed, Chris and countless of others regarding the faulty and errenous ICGA report. Those were the first steps, the final step however was when ICGA decided, not just to go after Vas personally, but his family as well, rubbing it in his face, accusing him to be a cheater, in a countless of newspapers, but they decided not to leave it at just that, they also brought a picture of his wife, accusing her of the same thing. Bottom line is they crossed the line, and should be ashamed of themselves, which shows what a bunch of wankers they really are.

I think it is a disgusting thing to do, no matter what grudge ICGA has against Vas, one thing is to go after the man himself, but to involve his family, and accuse them of the same thing is another and completely unacceptable in my opinion.

http://e-edition.metro.co.uk/2011/07/01/29.htm

In order to see the article, you must enter your mail.

You can however read more about it here:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7791

Slobo, In case you have missed some recent events, including to Vas responding, and answering the questions about the whole issue. Here is the link.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... 23957;pg=1

Regarding the source of Rybka 1.0 Beta 1.0, it too has been provided by Vas, and can be found on Ed Schröder website.

http://www.top-5000.nl/sourcecode.htm

Damir wrote: they also brought a picture of his wife, accusing her of the same thing.

Absolute rubbish. The release to the press was exactly as published on Chessvibes. If the tabloid press decided to use Google to adapt the article to their style that was their choice.

bob wrote:

michiguel wrote:

bob wrote:

Rebel wrote:

bob wrote: Bullshit. You have a known tendency to misspell a couple of words in a very unnatural way. And then the question about "Where is the ICGA located?" Right from the Rybka Forum?

Can you solve this made up riddle yourself ?

And then your "wait for part 2?" How would you know what is in there, hmmm?

Those famous little birds.

You are not very good at deception...

You are correct.

Little birds, my ass. You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

Miguel

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???

Just disingenuous...

Yes, you, right now, are saying that is disingenuous. That is ridiculous.

Miguel

Apparently your ignorance shares something with the "universe". It is unbounded.

The ICGA did NOT send any photographs with the press release at the conclusion of the rybka investigation. That was simply "tabloid quality" journalism exercised by a "tabloid". No one went after anyone personally or anything else. We investigated an accusation about a rule violation. It was found to be true. The ICGA ruled. End of story.

Your nonsense does absolutely nothing. If you explanation of how you reached your "conclusion" is accurate, then that would seem to be your problem with analyzing things critically for yourself, rather than a fault with the process we followed...

michiguel wrote:

bob wrote:

michiguel wrote:

bob wrote:

Rebel wrote:

bob wrote: Bullshit. You have a known tendency to misspell a couple of words in a very unnatural way. And then the question about "Where is the ICGA located?" Right from the Rybka Forum?

Can you solve this made up riddle yourself ?

And then your "wait for part 2?" How would you know what is in there, hmmm?

Those famous little birds.

You are not very good at deception...

You are correct.

Little birds, my ass. You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

Miguel

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???

Just disingenuous...

Yes, you, right now, are saying that is disingenuous. That is ridiculous.

Miguel

First, the "word"

disengenuous

Adjective:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Seems to fit PERFECTLY. I didn't just choose a "big word" out of thin air. ChessBase claimed the questions came only from ChessBase staff. Ed stated he had nothing to do with it.

rebel wrote: You gimme and Chris too much credit Laughing

The CB people have a mind of their own, in fact came up with the 0. or .0 explanation.

rebel wrote: Involved is the wrong word. As already said that would be too much credit Wink

But here is the story.

Word seems PERFECTLY appropriate to me. Apparently you don't have a dictionary handy? Or you missed Ed's prior statements feigning (hope you understand THAT word) no knowledge?

Your statement certainly was "ridiculous".

Damir wrote:

slobo wrote:

Damir wrote:Well, I have changed my mind after seeing that many of the so called open source engine are made money on, and there is no objections, and Rybka is the only one targeted. Houdini to mention, Rick48 as other... based on Robbo.

Rybka is "targeted" in what sense? It is still sold around there, isn´t it?
The problem of Houdini is well known. But its author is silent: he avoids answering some questions. He does not state his program is original.
So, what is your problem? The truth about Rybka´s origin?

No it is not about Rybka's origin that bothers me, and which made me change my mind. It is after reading Prof. Hyatt gibberish on Rybka forum, also the endless discussions provided by Ed, Chris and countless of others regarding the faulty and errenous ICGA report. Those were the first steps, the final step however was when ICGA decided, not just to go after Vas personally, but his family as well, rubbing it in his face, accusing him to be a cheater, in a countless of newspapers, but they decided not to leave it at just that, they also brought a picture of his wife, accusing her of the same thing. Bottom line is they crossed the line, and should be ashamed of themselves, which shows what a bunch of wankers they really are.

I think it is a disgusting thing to do, no matter what grudge ICGA has against Vas, one thing is to go after the man himself, but to involve his family, and accuse them of the same thing is another and completely unacceptable in my opinion.

http://e-edition.metro.co.uk/2011/07/01/29.htm

In order to see the article, you must enter your mail.

You can however read more about it here:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7791

Slobo, In case you have missed some recent events, including to Vas responding, and answering the questions about the whole issue. Here is the link.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... 23957;pg=1

Regarding the source of Rybka 1.0 Beta 1.0, it too has been provided by Vas, and can be found on Ed Schröder website.

http://www.top-5000.nl/sourcecode.htm

I have no time to waste with you, Damir, because neither of these links answer direct questions about Rybka´s origine. The only thing that I can tell you is: it was infamous and nasty involving his family. Who did it should be sued. But V.R also should be sued for unauthorizied use of Fabiens codes, after which he gained 4 world campionships and gained good money.

Whether or not Vasik used Fruit codes is unsolved. There are debates for, and there are debates against, so what's to believe.

I think it is too easy to say he used Fruit codes and leave it at that, because it is the easiest, more logical thing to do, and hereby condemn him beforehand.

Should we rely on ICGA's version who consists of Vas competitors who btw are commercial, or on Ed, Chris and others version who are studying the code and are trying to compare the differences and similarities between the two programs ?

bob wrote:

michiguel wrote:

bob wrote:

michiguel wrote:

bob wrote:

Rebel wrote:

bob wrote: Bullshit. You have a known tendency to misspell a couple of words in a very unnatural way. And then the question about "Where is the ICGA located?" Right from the Rybka Forum?

Can you solve this made up riddle yourself ?

And then your "wait for part 2?" How would you know what is in there, hmmm?

Those famous little birds.

You are not very good at deception...

You are correct.

Little birds, my ass. You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

Miguel

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???

Just disingenuous...

Yes, you, right now, are saying that is disingenuous. That is ridiculous.

Miguel

First, the "word"

disengenuous

If you are going to throw the dictionary at me, make sure you spell correctly. It makes you look silly. It is not a big word...

The important thing is the Q and A, not who wrote the question. Who cares?

Miguel

Adjective:
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Seems to fit PERFECTLY. I didn't just choose a "big word" out of thin air. ChessBase claimed the questions came only from ChessBase staff. Ed stated he had nothing to do with it.

rebel wrote: You gimme and Chris too much credit Laughing

The CB people have a mind of their own, in fact came up with the 0. or .0 explanation.

rebel wrote: Involved is the wrong word. As already said that would be too much credit Wink

But here is the story.

Word seems PERFECTLY appropriate to me. Apparently you don't have a dictionary handy? Or you missed Ed's prior statements feigning (hope you understand THAT word) no knowledge?

Your statement certainly was "ridiculous".

bob wrote:Just disingenuous...

That's a nice english word to remember.

Let's recap, you made an accusation, in response you were given a look into a private discussion and now you bombard that as feigned?

That's pretty confusing.

Rebel wrote:

bob wrote:Just disingenuous...

That's a nice english word to remember.

Let's recap, you made an accusation, in response you were given a look into a private discussion and now you bombard that as feigned?

That's pretty confusing.

During the questioning David asked Fred who was setting the questions as we spotted 'your english' he assured us you were not involved.