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".