Goodbye Talkchess

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 41415
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Goodbye Talkchess

Post by Graham Banks »

mariaclara wrote:you turned to Sam and the management.
I had no contact with either ICD or Quentin. Quentin hasn't even responded to my email asking for further clarification as to what he exactly expected.
I wasn't one of the many from both sides who bombarded them with email complaints either.

You can accuse me all you like of power tripping, but my interest in moderating has always been to keep CCC a place where discussion is kept respectful.

My silent protest (posting only, not moderating) was over the allowing of links to the questionable engines in the general subforum by my fellow mods. I felt that they had broken an agreement that had been reached by doing so.
When the directive came from above to no longer allow those links, I no longer had the need to be a non-poster.

Cheers,
Graham.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
User avatar
mariaclara
Posts: 4186
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:31 pm
Location: Sulu Sea

Re: Goodbye Talkchess

Post by mariaclara »

:!: I believe you , Sam.

and Jeremy, please reconsider.

take Sam's advice.

Don't leave.


Sam Hull wrote:
(a) Sorry for weighing in late. Our downtown Dallas office building has lost power and shut down my entire network two business days in a row, and I couldn't get back to the board after posting the guidance from Quentin for the CCC mods until now.

(b) There has been a rather large misunderstanding, and Jeremy has slightly misquoted what I passed along from ICD/Your Move. The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance - I have clarified it in detail for him this evening via IM. Where the issue of clones is concerned, and for the board in general, the goal of fair and balanced moderation has not changed, and there is no desire for favoritism in ANY direction.

(c) I hope Jeremy will reconsider his decision. I have not had a chance to converse with him directly and have received no PMs from him. I posted responses in the moderator forum as soon as I regained internet access, but I am still locked out of e-mail and will be until tomorrow morning. I think Jeremy has been an outstanding moderator and I fully support his philosophy of moderation - always have.

(d) I don't set moderation policy. I passed along a request to the CCC mods that I received from Quentin, which came as the result of certain members haranguing ICD about real, suspected, and imagined clones. Graham misunderstood the message, performed some moderation on that basis, and Jeremy decided to post a grand exit without waiting to get any clarification about the guidance.

(e) Personally I am surprised that two CCC mods who share an opinion cannot simply outvote and override one mod on those occasions when he has a different view. I got regularly overridden for two whole terms in CTF. I haven't complained, and nobody died. It's a discussion board, folks.

(f) If a member runs for moderator and is elected, I think it is fair to expect him to honor his commitment and serve out the term.

-Sam-
:!:
.
.

................. Mu Shin ..........................
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by bob »

tomgdrums wrote:
bob wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
bob wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.

I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.

Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).

So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.
Are you sure you aren't cloudy? (there I go with the one liners again..)

I am positive. I can see clearly, for miles and miles. Although for the issue at hand, anyone should be able to see clearly enough to understand.
rainhaus
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:26 pm
Location: Germany
Full name: Rainer Neuhäusler

Re: Goodbye Talkchess

Post by rainhaus »

Sam Hull:
"The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance -"

Graham Banks
In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy
This was the part of the message that I misinterpreted. My understanding was that any post praising the strength or qualities of the engines in question was actually encouraging members to acquire them.
------------------

Good evening Sam,
I don't know if Graham's italic mode should mean a literal citation of the mentioned guidance. If so, I probably would have interpreted it like he did. A link is only a link and nothing else, but "any other encouragement" means not only a link, isn't it. In addition, "encouragement" is a fuzzy term which opens all kind of interpretation. An "acquirement" is already done by a simple free download. "Questionable legitimacy" is a very diffuse instruction which everybody will interpret suiting best to individual intentions.
In a nutshell, this kind of guidance is a prime example how not to do by a responsible leadership, management or ownership . If there must be instructions from top at all than I would recommend a very concrete verbalisation. In particular, when a dutiful bustling executive guy like Graham has to be instructed what can and what cannot be done.
Ok, the quoted guidance was transformed now into a diplomatic misunderstanding. However, its contents are still floating around. Therefore I would like to ask you a personal question.
To be allowed is another thing than only to be tolerated. Who knows it, some wonderful New Zealand morning I'll find myself deleted or banished because Graham wasn't well instructed!
Since a few months I'm presenting in this forum my Great Gambit Tournament with the participation of FireBird, -now Fire-, one of the Ippolit/Igorrit adaptions. In your eyes and considering the owners intentions of this site: is my tournament an encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy which should be aggressively removed ?

Rainer
Albert Silver
Posts: 3019
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by Albert Silver »

bob wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
bob wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it.

(...)

When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it.
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
bob
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by bob »

Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
bob wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it.

(...)

When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it.
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
So, again, the "thought police" strikes? If Vas were to offer proof that Ip* was a clone, I'd take that at face value. I am not sure what course one should take _after_ that point. For example, "Is a clone of a clone" any worse than just "a clone"? If you want to shut down the "clone of a clone", what do you do with the original "clone"?

The "clone of a clone" is an issue I have not given a lot of thought to. 5 years ago I would have thought that anyone suggesting this might happen needed medication, and lots of it. Yet here we are.

So if proof is offered, my position will instantly be "OK, IP* is a clone of Rybka 3." Btyond that, I don't know. Clearly, Rybka1 contains big chunks of fruit code, even though parts are converted to bitboards. Copied code is copied code, still. Clearly Rybka3 is better than fruit, so it has been changed a lot. Should it be legal for competition? I've never said otherwise. Ferret started out as a big piece of gnuchess according to Bruce. But it was so much stronger there was lots of obvious work done. Legal?: Now we have new versions of IP* almost daily. Stronger each version. Are they OK in light of past cases? Not?

This is about as clear as mud. One big conclusion can be reached however, plagiarism should be avoided, then all the questions disappear. I have not come to any conclusion about "life beyond proving ip* is a clone". At least we could put that issue to rest and know that ip* and friends don't belong in any competitions. But there is still a "Rybka issue" as well, that almost everyone has ignored. Which is a bit strange since the fruit->rybka issue is just as important as the rybka->ip* issue, IMHO. Yet everyone ignores the former and focuses exclusively on the latter. Why do you suppose that is, logically??? I can't come up with anything other than "unnatural bias".
Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by Roger Brown »

Albert Silver wrote:
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.



Hello Albert Silver,

Forget about Dr. Hyatt.

What about the rest of us?

I certainly do not want Vas to reveal anything detrimental to his program's dominant position. Is that the only alternative? Why not show some of the parts that are non-detrimental that were already exposed in Ippo (given that his interpretation of the facts is correct) for the rest of us to see?

However you make it sound as if the rest of us could not be convinced.

I can.

Show us, please.

Zero dishonesty or hypocrisy from my side.

Later.
lmader
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:20 am
Location: Sonora, Mexico

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by lmader »

Albert Silver wrote:The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.

I think that generally speaking you are pretty reasonable fellow. Regardless of your position on the status of some of the controversial engines, I think you have very high ethical standards, which is commendable. But I also think that you are straying into the unreasonable with characterizing Dr. Hyatt in this way. He is also an extremely reasonable and professional fellow (as far as I can tell), and the issues here can become subtle; not always amenable to a realistic understanding based on one liners like that.

My standard disclaimer - I don't really have a vested interest in arguing, I'm just trying to advocate for keeping things reasonable and forthright.
"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
User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

BREAKING NEWS Bob was just check-mated by Al

Post by Rolf »

Albert Silver wrote: The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
Thanks Albert. Your English is better than mine, but in the details I share your arguments. I was 100% certain all the time, now for almost 4 years, that the whole presentation that started with the team Bob & Theron, later Zach and above all clone-King Norm Schmidt, is scientifically and ethically unsound and pure envie and hate. Still, they couldnt and will never succeed, to do to Vas what you now have reached with Bob, I mean, you just check-mated Bob. Tip to hat and thanks for your cooperation.

CCC will live on and prosper, because the truth will always win in the end!

P.S. If Vas made R4 only 20 points stronger than R3, and R4 after 2 years is still winner in all classes, what does that mean, that Vas is stronger than everybody else here around!
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
benstoker
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:05 am

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by benstoker »

Albert Silver wrote: The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
You seem quite satisfied with accepting and advocating an unproven accusation. The accuser is relieved of any obligation to prove his claims because such proof would expose a secret. Do you have any standard of proof at all? Or is mere accusation enough, by you, to prove a claim?