Is any competent one here?? Correct the RYBKA libels!

[wgarvin]

I am being extra gentle to Mr Hyatt out of respect, like Mr Kasparov responded to Mr Fischer.

Hmm, I think maybe my sarcasm detector is broken. Or maybe my respect detector..

All modern optimizing compilers are quite "sophisticated" (although the ones used to compile Rybka back in 2005-6 were not as good as they are today)

I wrote that, and I was mostly thinking of compilers for x86 and other commodity chips. I have never seen a mainframe compiler, but its true that all of the ideas used by modern compilers have been around for a good long time. If Bob says a 15-year old Cray compiler was just as good as the x86 compilers we have today, I'd just take his word for it. He's been practicing computer science for longer than some of us have been alive.

So by repeated invite to me to leave, Mr Hyatt by implication invite IGNORANCE to join. Is that the ICGA standart?

I ask again:

Is any competent one here?

You keep singing this same song. What are you trying to accomplish here? You seem to have an axe to grind with the ICGA, or with Dr. Hyatt?

Do you really think you can sway anyone's opinions using these tactics?

[Romy]

Bob did _not_ write that.

Thereby, but proving only how unreliable is a process akins to decompilation, for determining uniquity. I can apologise to you. Will you to your victim?

I clearly said I would use a semantic comparison tool. NOT a compiler.

And you will hand-run the sct, without a computer? What else does visual ("look") comparison to imply? Even I could not do so reliably in timeframe specified.
The challenge test would be fail, so demonstrating if you cannot even reliably work forwards to show commanilty, you cannot surely work backwards to show same commonality/cloning, especially where the reverse process is one-many

facts are _all_ we are providing. No speculation. No guesses. Just pure facts...

Facts, like the integral of 2x dx is x^2, or that the differential of x^2 is 2xdx....? It is sad.

Since I included differentiating x^2, it was obvious (to me) that C = 0...

I can remember someperson giving advice to other, for not digging their hole deeper
May I to suggest you consult your Mathematic department, even of typical Alabaman quality, and ask them if that advice about digging has application to your last commentary?

[wgarvin]

It is sad.

Excellent summary of this entire thread.

[Romy]

I think maybe my sarcasm detector is broken.

Or you are broken.

If Bob says a 15-year old Cray compiler was just as good as the x86 compilers we have today, I'd just take his word for it.

Very telling. Is there something you would not take Mr Hyatt's word for? He be an honourable man, he believes what he writes when he writes it. But sometime he is absurdly wrong.

If he can be wrong with small child's mathematic statement (two or three mistake in one short sentence, and then attempt to justify), he can be wrong about a little bigger also.. like RYBKA-Fruit.

But nature of a Papio Papio Confederation is when the alphamale attack perceived outsider, rest of pack howl to follow and join attack.

This is not academic sound environment for making big decision, even outside hot Southern weathers. It is error-inducing environment. In baboon howls and biting threat, even the refined can get sucked in and not exercise balance.

You seem to have an axe to grind with the ICGA, or with Dr. Hyatt?

Respectively. Yes. None.
ICGA is mastur*ation society, ripe for abolitioning. Mr Levy has valuables, he has understanding, he can need to use this in properly.

[bob]

Bob did _not_ write that.

Thereby, but proving only how unreliable is a process akins to decompilation, for determining uniquity. I can apologise to you. Will you to your victim?

_I_ have not made a mistake to apologize for, unfortunately. So "no" is the answer, unless something changes...

I clearly said I would use a semantic comparison tool. NOT a compiler.

And you will hand-run the sct, without a computer? What else does visual ("look") comparison to imply? Even I could not do so reliably in timeframe specified.
The challenge test would be fail, so demonstrating if you cannot even reliably work forwards to show commanilty, you cannot surely work backwards to show same commonality/cloning, especially where the reverse process is one-many

facts are _all_ we are providing. No speculation. No guesses. Just pure facts...

Facts, like the integral of 2x dx is x^2, or that the differential of x^2 is 2xdx....? It is sad.

You do realize I did not say "integrate f(x) = 2xdx" correct? There is no "function" given. I gave a single term, "x^2". Feel free to prove to me that the first derivative of x^2 is anything but 2x. Same for the integral of the term "2x" which is x^2. Very simple mathematics. Taught just like that in calculus class. But it was apparently a bit over your head, like everything else discussed here. I could just have well used "2 + 2 = 4". Same deal. Yes, with a function, the integral includes a C. I gave a very simple single term example. Which I would bet most figured out since there was no "F(x) =" to suggest that the X^2 was the entire function body. Assuming is a bad idea at times...

Since I included differentiating x^2, it was obvious (to me) that C = 0...

I can remember someperson giving advice to other, for not digging their hole deeper
May I to suggest you consult your Mathematic department, even of typical Alabaman quality, and ask them if that advice about digging has application to your last commentary?

Might I suggest you get rid of this old "Rolf-personna" crap of intentionally using mangled/broken English to disguise your identity? Personally, I've had enough of the discussion. Feel free to continue until we get a complaint, and then we will shut it off completely. Your choice.

Discussing things is pointless when you don't want to actually "discuss" and instead just want to offer up this pidgin-English crap to produce a lot of noise with no information...

[geots]

It is sad.

Excellent summary of this entire thread.

Not sad for this thread. People are basing everything they think about the Rybka issue on the thoughts of someone who has stated that even if found completely innocent, Vas is still guilty. I have zero respect for someone who feels that way. If he ever had any credibility, it's shot to shit. He has caused the whole chess community to suffer. I challenge him, if he has any character left, to remove himself COMPLETELY from ANY position in ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT CONCERN VAS AND RYBKA.