To Jeroen and interested minds, re. Tiger node count

[Rolf]

This is true but for your judgement you are wrong because CT knew well the tender Dutch point and he pushed the button intentiously. Years ago I took CT himself for Dutch because he was always with Ed and the Dutch. So this is why we must also consider the psychology of the underlying insult. In French one would also take completely different words for working together. But not the collaborer which is also in France a sort of bad reminding of a bad past under the Nazis. So, it's 100% sure that CT didnt use the term unintentionally in a neutral manner. The word is basically meaning the ugly thing called traitor of his own people's honor perhapsw even to get rich by that strategy. That is why it's also so ugly for the Dutch even today. And that was intentional. Believe me.

It was Chris Wittington that said it!!

Well, I used the term in a neutral manner to mean the past cooperation between Jeroen and Christophe, it seems the correct term to describe what I assume in the lack of any other information was a close, unpaid voluntary arrangement of each providing expertise to make a product, maybe royalty based - who knows. What other word would do for people working together in a cooperative manner? Collaboration is the correct english expression.

It is, but Jeroen's first reaction is logical (though incorrect) for dutch speakers.

He reacted on his feelings, then found out it wasn't the only meaning. Most dutch would have made this mistake.

Remember, although it seems different, dutch are not native english speakers.

Tony

Tony, dont forget that the two knew each other. And what if CT learned that JN always avoided to use the word wouldnt you then begin to consider a relevant psychology between the two? Her we cant exclude psyche and pretend that we in a pure machine logic mean something this or that way.

Rolk,Chris Whittington has said it,not CT
I also think that Chris didn't mean to insulte Jeroen....

I think I'm getting close to insulting someone, anyone, at random shortly, so will go do something else useful for the rest of the day instead

I dont want to, but he has called me Rolk, Chris, that was krass. All the best. Good moderator the Brit Chris.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

This is true but for your judgement you are wrong because CT knew well the tender Dutch point and he pushed the button intentiously. Years ago I took CT himself for Dutch because he was always with Ed and the Dutch. So this is why we must also consider the psychology of the underlying insult. In French one would also take completely different words for working together. But not the collaborer which is also in France a sort of bad reminding of a bad past under the Nazis. So, it's 100% sure that CT didnt use the term unintentionally in a neutral manner. The word is basically meaning the ugly thing called traitor of his own people's honor perhapsw even to get rich by that strategy. That is why it's also so ugly for the Dutch even today. And that was intentional. Believe me.

It was Chris Wittington that said it!!

Well, I used the term in a neutral manner to mean the past cooperation between Jeroen and Christophe, it seems the correct term to describe what I assume in the lack of any other information was a close, unpaid voluntary arrangement of each providing expertise to make a product, maybe royalty based - who knows. What other word would do for people working together in a cooperative manner? Collaboration is the correct english expression.

It is, but Jeroen's first reaction is logical (though incorrect) for dutch speakers.

He reacted on his feelings, then found out it wasn't the only meaning. Most dutch would have made this mistake.

Remember, although it seems different, dutch are not native english speakers.

Tony

Tony, dont forget that the two knew each other. And what if CT learned that JN always avoided to use the word wouldnt you then begin to consider a relevant psychology between the two? Her we cant exclude psyche and pretend that we in a pure machine logic mean something this or that way.

Rolk,Chris Whittington has said it,not CT
I also think that Chris didn't mean to insulte Jeroen....

I think I'm getting close to insulting someone, anyone, at random shortly, so will go do something else useful for the rest of the day instead

I dont want to, but he has called me Rolk, Chris, that was krass. All the best. Good moderator the Brit Chris.

Don't get offended Rolf,but it sounds good

[Tony]

This is true but for your judgement you are wrong because CT knew well the tender Dutch point and he pushed the button intentiously. Years ago I took CT himself for Dutch because he was always with Ed and the Dutch. So this is why we must also consider the psychology of the underlying insult. In French one would also take completely different words for working together. But not the collaborer which is also in France a sort of bad reminding of a bad past under the Nazis. So, it's 100% sure that CT didnt use the term unintentionally in a neutral manner. The word is basically meaning the ugly thing called traitor of his own people's honor perhapsw even to get rich by that strategy. That is why it's also so ugly for the Dutch even today. And that was intentional. Believe me.

It was Chris Wittington that said it!!

Well, I used the term in a neutral manner to mean the past cooperation between Jeroen and Christophe, it seems the correct term to describe what I assume in the lack of any other information was a close, unpaid voluntary arrangement of each providing expertise to make a product, maybe royalty based - who knows. What other word would do for people working together in a cooperative manner? Collaboration is the correct english expression.

It is, but Jeroen's first reaction is logical (though incorrect) for dutch speakers.

He reacted on his feelings, then found out it wasn't the only meaning. Most dutch would have made this mistake.

Remember, although it seems different, dutch are not native english speakers.

Tony

Language is not so easy on these international forums because we don't necessarily know what offends people in other cultures. It probably behoves those that are aware of particular offences to attentuate their usual language, but it probably also behoves those who are offended by other culture's normal usage to attentuate their degree of offence.

Yes, I know.

I have some international customers and every time I tell them they're stupid, they get offended.

While I only meant to explain to them they're incompetent.

Seriously ( but a different discussion) this happens most with words that resemble, but have different meanings.

Euthenasia (mentioned earlier) is also one of them. In most countries considered an evil law, while in the Netherlands considered a legal right.

Tony

[Tony]

Jeroen Noomen in another thread asked me about the node count displayed by Chess Tiger versions 12 to 15.

The thread in question has been partially deleted by the moderators before I had enough time to answer Jeroen's question, so I just start over here.

Historically, Jeroen has been Chess Tiger's book author for the aforementionned version of Chess Tiger, which is the chess engine I have written.

Jeroen is now working for the Rybka team. I have asked him if he could write another opening book for Chess Tiger some time ago, but as I understand he cannot do so anymore because of his exclusive links with the Rybka team.

Jeroen is a fine person and unlike (unfortunately) most people with whom I have been involved in computer chess, including many people posting here, I have meet him in person several times.

OK, I hope you don't mind all these boring historical details, but in view of the recent events here at CCC I thought it would be good to remind that we are real humans and that there are various kind of links between us. Also it is possible that some people participating in the recent discussions did not know much about Jeroen or about me.

So, I was about to write a very precise explanation about the node count in these versions of Chess Tiger, which include some revelations about an algorithm used in Chess Tiger that I have never seen described anywhere else. Describing this algorithm is absolutely necessary in order to answer Jeroen's question.

However now Jeroen is working for the Rybka team. So I was going to answer a question from the Rybka team, but on the other hand this team has never answered this very same question, which has been repeatedly asked since several months, even years.

I do not want to turn this into a childish game of "I asked you first so you answer first and then I answer".

So here is my proposition: I immediately answer Jeroen's question as precisely as possible (which involves revealing a proprietary algorithm used in Chess Tiger) if Vas answers as honestly and as precisely as possible the very same question, which is about Rybka 1.0 (no need to reveal anything about the more recent versions). As we have most of the source code of Rybka 1.0 already, his explanations can refer to this code, so they can be undiscutable.

I hope this can be considered as acceptable.

// Christophe

Just wondering...

is this your nodecode "obfuscation" related to the paper I sent you a couple of years ago ? Or is it supersoma related ?

Cheers,

Tony

[Jeroen]

Well, I am a book expert, so the only thing I hide is strong opening lines.

So, good luck with your personal warfare, backed up by the mods here!

[bob]

Huh? You must be kidding. Calling me a 'collaborator' (which is a very negative word in the Dutch language) is pretty offensive, so I am filing an official complaint here. I don't accept such language, especially not from a moderator.

So basically other programmers can question anything about Rybka and not vice versa. OK, you made that perfectly clear.

In that case I wish you a lot of success with the 'impartial CCC where everybody can ask what he wants'. Maybe you should change its name into 'The Anti Rybka Forum'.

While I didn't read the post in question, "collaborator" is hardly an insulting word. It is what I call someone that works on something with me. IE we "collaborate" to improve something... hardly an insult, just based on the word... More like "friend helping me" or something similar. For example, in the thread on thesting on the programming forum, I would call Karl a collaborator and hope he would not be insulted...

Bob, allow me please if I disagree.

Here, I simply don't give a rat's ass whether you agree or not. Every time I submit a grant proposal to the NSF here, I have to include a sheet that lists "recent collaborators". This is used so that they will not review my proposals since it is assumed that we have a "friendly" relationship since we have worked together (AKA collaboration) on other projects.

There is no mistake here, because this is an English forum, and the English dictionary bears the weight of determining the meaning for each word we write here. Occasionally there might be confusion, as in the case of Jeroen. But it is a _mistake_ on his part, not an insult on Chris's part, and it should be quickly resolved and we should move on.

Disagree all you want, but there is no room for different views here. It is black/white, not grey...

JN and CT once were partners in Tiger buisiness and competition. Believe me Bob, CT had well learned this specific Dutch historical problem connected with the Nazi occupation. How ugly the term is for Dutch, all could see when I used it a bit careless in a debate with Ed longtime ago. He went almost mad at me imediately.

We have here a typical hypocrisy problem. Someone does something intentionally to push the buttons of another one whose national weaknesses here and NOT at all personal ones he well knows and the many experts here, also two mods, also CW, and now you explain Jeroen that this wasnt insultive at all, as if they wanted to humiliate him another time! It's really ugly.

It's utmost impolite if you intentionally leave out all psychology of such a topic and then inform a perfectly innocent here Dutch that he has made his own problem now because he simply didnt get the absolute innocence of an expression!

In real it's completely different. CT made an intentional insult. After he made it against Vas he now made it against Jeroen and out of his view all this is justified and this is the "crime".

In truth his whole campaign against Vas was already the "crime". And because JN now dared to show CT his own practice, CT is now running out of control. Bob, he already announced it, "It's not over yet" he told Jeroen. But you and others still think that this is a misunderstanding?

After targeting Vas and Jeroen, the next big topic will be ChessBase for sure. It will start a campaign against the true kingdom of evil and the bloodsucking, when in truth there is nothing but a repetition of a well known trend, namely thatr all best engines once in a while had a date with CB and appeared under the Fritz GUI or their own. In the meantime you can download and buy some dozen programs on the CB webpage, among those are Junior, Comet and Crafty. And now also Rybka. And formerly Tiger and also Sjeng. You name it. But there will be a defamatory campaign against CB and Rybka, because their connection. And it all started this summer with CT's campaign against Vas and his KN count.

What I want to say to you in special is this, Bob. You are the guard for state of the art in computerchess at least who is still active on the net. You care for real KN count. Fine. But then if you are so active, then please give your clear commentary, that CB or Vas with Rybka are no criminals who have violated the old charme of good old ACM laws. We have 2008 and some people want to make a living out of the pretty small business niche that computercxhess has to offer. It were you who should explain and not me, that some plays are still allowed and that this here is not university. I mean when it comes to the idiotic Elo numbers and other stats you also show tolerance for such games although you know that science wise it's nonsense.

Therefore I would like that you as our number one top reference wouldnt tell Jeroen to shut up with his being hurt, and that you would tell CT that he should better stop his comedy smear act against Vas. That he should focus on Tiger as Theron, because what has Theron to do with Rybka suddenly??? I wished you would make such clarifications.

Tip to hat regards, Bob. Nice weekend for you.

I repeat what you are trying to avoid to read and comment: the psychology and the context is decisive. You are right with your papers but here in this forum we have a flame war and a campaign by CT against Vas and now JN. And it's clear that CT is out of control IMO because a secret of his own Tiger has been mentioned with a rhetoric question. Again, THeron belongs to Tiger and if he wants to stop work on Tiger he shouldnt defamate Rybka. Because Rybka is Rajlich & Kaufman.
All such effort to make a smear act from commercial to commercial is against the charter, see above the first commandment of CCC.

I have only seen two points CT has made.

(1) node counts were obfuscated in Rybka, and of that I (and many others) are absolutely certain. The inane explanations that have been written are simply attempts to get out of a situation one would rather have not gotten into in the first place. The explanations/excuses make no sense, particularly in light of the data that has been presented in the past where the total node count after iteration N+1 is _smaller_ than the node count for iteration N. How can you "unsearch" some nodes? So that is all a crock, and I agree with the conclusions I posted.

(2) the rybka/fruit/strelka issue is an interesting question because of GPL issues. He pointed out something I had not considered previously, namely that strelka/fruit have lots of similarities, and then Vas claimed that strelka was so much like rybka 1 that he was claiming it as his own code. Once you digest both of those points, there could be an issue one might have to deal with at some point down the road. The GPL is a legal document that can't be waved away.

I haven't seen any attempt to 'defame' anyone, nor any personal attacks tossed around. He has asked legitimate questions, and part of the answers are garbage (answers regarding node count / depth / PV obfuscation) and part are simply not provided.

This is most likely an issue that is not going away, until the questions are answered. Which means it is an issue that is just not going away.

[Rolf]

I have only seen two points CT has made.

(1) node counts were obfuscated in Rybka, and of that I (and many others) are absolutely certain. The inane explanations that have been written are simply attempts to get out of a situation one would rather have not gotten into in the first place. The explanations/excuses make no sense, particularly in light of the data that has been presented in the past where the total node count after iteration N+1 is _smaller_ than the node count for iteration N. How can you "unsearch" some nodes? So that is all a crock, and I agree with the conclusions I posted.

(2) the rybka/fruit/strelka issue is an interesting question because of GPL issues. He pointed out something I had not considered previously, namely that strelka/fruit have lots of similarities, and then Vas claimed that strelka was so much like rybka 1 that he was claiming it as his own code. Once you digest both of those points, there could be an issue one might have to deal with at some point down the road. The GPL is a legal document that can't be waved away.

I haven't seen any attempt to 'defame' anyone, nor any personal attacks tossed around. He has asked legitimate questions, and part of the answers are garbage (answers regarding node count / depth / PV obfuscation) and part are simply not provided.

This is most likely an issue that is not going away, until the questions are answered. Which means it is an issue that is just not going away.

Bob, I hope you will agree. If there are people who have watertight proof for evidence then these should begin a court trial. But if you dont do that, if you are not absolutely sure, then you must stop this here in CCC. It cannot be that one CT has here a sort of character assassination for free every Mondays. grolich on Rybka Forum has given enough arguments addressing all arguments also GLP and also George has made nice analyses on the Rybkaforum. Fact is what is going on is sort of bashing with the hope that Vas appeared and clarified. But this wont happen this way. I already made clear what I expect. And it's after EU law, not American to be decided. If the origine of Rybka is doubted then all commercial engines should be doubted. Your science view is clear, but you cant enforce it, in special in case of commercial programs. The presentation of CT is not sound IMO, your conclusion that Vas was caught red-handed isnt conclusive IMO. The campaign should be stopped now. I hope that in Peking/Beijing the events of Graz wont be repeated but I wouldnt trust that organisation with JvdH etc. Also for science reasons. I cant believe that someone gets a PhD title with a report about making love to a computer. If all would come back on ethical norms in computerchess such campaigns here shouldnt be possible in future.

In a different context I discussed the policy in such fora, when someone suddenly surprised me with the statementg that debates with chessplayers are somehow always vicious and never-ending. He said, chessplayers like to quarrel. Blood left my face and I knew at the instant that I was one of that kind myself. I was shockeda that I saw this only at that late stage of my life. But then it was my hobby amd the only possible sport I could have chosen.

[mclane]

The campaign should be stopped now.

this is what we tell you since 1996.

[chrisw]

Well, I am a book expert, so the only thing I hide is strong opening lines.

So, good luck with your personal warfare, backed up by the mods here!

You must be joking. Mods are not backing any personal warfare.

[David Dahlem]

(2) the rybka/fruit/strelka issue is an interesting question because of GPL issues. He pointed out something I had not considered previously, namely that strelka/fruit have lots of similarities, and then Vas claimed that strelka was so much like rybka 1 that he was claiming it as his own code. Once you digest both of those points, there could be an issue one might have to deal with at some point down the road. The GPL is a legal document that can't be waved away.
.

The Strelka source and the Fruit source has been made public, right? I was just wondering ... Has anyone done detailed comparison, and posted the results? What percentage of Strelka and Fruit are identical, or very similar.

Regards
Dave