Goodbye Talkchess

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

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Locked
Sven
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Full name: Sven Schüle
Contact:

Re: Talkchess

Post by Sven » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:00 pm

bob wrote:
Robert Flesher wrote:
Sean Evans wrote:
Rolf wrote: And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue. Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys don't interest you at all? Couldn't you add some clear statements for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computer chess for me...
My first question is:

1) Can Bob support that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit? If so, I would be interested in seeing it.

2) If Bob provides the evidence, then why is the WCCC allowing Rybka to participate? My understanding is only original works can play at WCCC.

Cordially,

Sean :)

The evidence has been provided! Yet it is swept under the mat.
This is just like the movie "Groundhog Day". Someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, then someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, repeat until you get tired and give up seems to be the point here.
What you call "evidence" has indeed been presented and discussed, but *not* been widely accepted. You know that but ignore it, and continue giving the false impression as if everything were settled. Your repeated statement that "Rybka is a Fruit derivative" is highly exaggerated. Just as you refer to that movie above, I could say that "the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, doubts are raised, doubts are not discussed but simply called 'wrong', silence, someone asks for evidence again, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, doubts are raised, ..." until the doubt-raisers get tired and give up. See the point? How is your view different from that?

Without seeing the Rybka 1.0 beta source code, or a version that is close to it, it will *never* be possible to *prove* whether Vas has copied source code or only reused ideas from Fruit 2.1. You know that, and therefore speak of "evidence" only instead of "proof", which indeed makes a difference in my understanding of English.

In the last discussion of that topic where I participated I presented a long list of statements related to each of the points that made up the "evidence" presented by Zach on his page. There was not much discussion about that, most of my points have simply been ignored. I could say, when using your style, that the counter-evidence is there and essentially nobody complained except you and Zach, so it were valid. I don't do that, however. Instead I say: these points are still open, conclusion still missing.

If ever these points that I raised against Zach's analysis were resolved, and the accepted conclusion were that the presented evidence is correct, then the most you might say would be that "small parts of Fruit 2.1 code have been reused in Rybka 1.0 beta", which would still be a statement very different from your "Rybka is a Fruit derivative" because:

- the amount of Fruit code that is said to be involved in "reuse" is so small compared to the overall program size, and so relatively unimportant, that it can never be viewed as being a substantial part of Fruit, so even according to the GPL it would not be sufficient to call Rybka 1.0 beta a "derived work" - all under the assumption that the presented evidence were fully correct, which I still doubt in many parts;

- in recent Rybka versions >= R3, the evaluation (main target of "copying" accusation) has definitely been rewritten, which we know from Larry Kaufman, and

- the Fruit author has not taken any action on that area for years, although he definitely knows the facts.

Bob, you may repeat your words thousands of times, or even a million of times, but that still does not create more truth than before.

Sven

John_F
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Talkchess

Post by John_F » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:35 pm

As a Christ you should know that pretending being sober and consistent, and nevertheless working with proven cloners, taking ideas from donating helpers for "open source crafty", on the bases of 80-90% of the code of forefathers in computerchess, is pure hypocrisy. As Albert showed you are well involved for a hate campaign but being asked you pretend indifference and lack of time and juristication, but why being in all the hate at all? Isnt it true if I concluded that you are only interested to grind an axe with Vas for reasons that remain in the clouds and could be assumed to be very personally motivated?

How come that you are so deeply obsessed by Vas and his business when you can well rely on money from university? As I said before, if you were consistent you would ask for the secrets of other business engines too, but you dont. Question is answered, why you are only focussed on Rybka and Vas. He knows something that you cant cope with despite hundreds of public hrelpers for open source Crafty. Again, as a Christ envy should never be the option. If you see something aggreeable in Norman, you should seek it in Vas too, if you have a minimally consistent ethical mind frame.
A clarification. I speak a variant of German, and even though the words we use seem to be pretty much cognates of their English equivalents, the word for "Christ" has two syllables, but the word for "Christian" has only one syllable. (Just the opposite of English)

Although Rolf does not exactly come across as trying his best to be kind, I would guess he meant to say "a Christian" -- not imply that Bob views himself as "a Christ." :-)

rlsuth
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:37 pm

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by rlsuth » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:02 pm

Sam Hull wrote: The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it.

-Sam-

So then, any links to Rybka are prohibited as well, since there is as much "evidence" that Rybka is as illegally based on Fruit, as these, so-called, derivatives are based on Rybka?

Also, I refer to your use of "illegally" , in respect to the derivatives", quite loosely, since the Rybka team wont take legal action against them. Surely, the legal system is the only arbiter of what is legal or illegal?

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by Robert Flesher » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:37 pm

rlsuth wrote:
Sam Hull wrote: The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it.

-Sam-

So then, any links to Rybka are prohibited as well, since there is as much "evidence" that Rybka is as illegally based on Fruit, as these, so-called, derivatives are based on Rybka?

Also, I refer to your use of "illegally" , in respect to the derivatives", quite loosely, since the Rybka team wont take legal action against them. Surely, the legal system is the only arbiter of what is legal or illegal?
Yahtzee !
I agree completely!

Now wait for the obviously biased responses you will receive that without doubt will defy the simple logic you put forth. As I said before, fools lost in the thrall of hypocrisy. Full, frank, and fair, is that too much to ask ?

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Talkchess

Post by Rolf » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:09 pm

Sven Schüle wrote: - the amount of Fruit code that is said to be involved in "reuse" is so small compared to the overall program size, and so relatively unimportant, that it can never be viewed as being a substantial part of Fruit, so even according to the GPL it would not be sufficient to call Rybka 1.0 beta a "derived work" - all under the assumption that the presented evidence were fully correct, which I still doubt in many parts;

- the Fruit author has not taken any action on that area for years, although he definitely knows the facts.

Sven
On the basis now I would never more respect Bob as a neutral scientist who has only interest in the truth, Zach neither. The last mentioned is insofar a joke because he didnt adopt a small parts of Zappa but he works now with the whole program but that doesnt stink, if something stinks in the eyes/nose of the two overasked persons, it's only Vas with his Rybka. And therefore they think it's ethically sober to cooperate with invisible jerks who are stealing codes, in other words cloners. If computerchess has a chance to survive in honesty it's because honest people like you exist. Thanks from my more or less observer position. All the best to you.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9635
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: Talkchess

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:20 pm

Rolf wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote: - the amount of Fruit code that is said to be involved in "reuse" is so small compared to the overall program size, and so relatively unimportant, that it can never be viewed as being a substantial part of Fruit, so even according to the GPL it would not be sufficient to call Rybka 1.0 beta a "derived work" - all under the assumption that the presented evidence were fully correct, which I still doubt in many parts;

- the Fruit author has not taken any action on that area for years, although he definitely knows the facts.

Sven
On the basis now I would never more respect Bob as a neutral scientist who has only interest in the truth, Zach neither. The last mentioned is insofar a joke because he didnt adopt a small parts of Zappa but he works now with the whole program but that doesnt stink, if something stinks in the eyes/nose of the two overasked persons, it's only Vas with his Rybka. And therefore they think it's ethically sober to cooperate with invisible jerks who are stealing codes, in other words cloners. If computerchess has a chance to survive in honesty it's because honest people like you exist. Thanks from my more or less observer position. All the best to you.
Are you accusing Zach of cooperating with the cloners to improve Zappa :!: :?:
So anyone who may surpass Vasik in the race track of the computer chess world is a cloner,cheater :?:
You're pathetic and legal actions should be taken upon you in my opinion....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Talkchess

Post by Rolf » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:28 pm

John_F wrote: I would guess he meant to say "a Christian" -- not imply that Bob views himself as "a Christ." :-)
Thanks for giving correction. The latter wouldnt make sense at all.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9635
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: Talkchess

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:31 pm

Rolf wrote:
John_F wrote: I would guess he meant to say "a Christian" -- not imply that Bob views himself as "a Christ." :-)
Thanks for giving correction. The latter wouldnt make sense at all.
Don't worry,we're used to your senseless statements anyway....
Your latest creation was to accuse Zach of suspecious relationships with the so called ippo cloners to improve Zappa....that was brilliant I have to admit....
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Talkchess

Post by Rolf » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:44 pm

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote: So anyone who may surpass Vasik in the race track of the computer chess world is a cloner,cheater :?:
You're pathetic and legal actions should be taken upon you in my opinion....
Let's stay in the real non-criminal world because here nobody could and will ever "surpass" Vas, because Vas is simply the best. Even the invisible hippo jerks were never better, they looked like that for shortest TC. Yes, "Norman S." is a cloner, insofar illegal and criminal.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

benstoker
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:05 am

Re: Talkchess

Post by benstoker » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:15 pm

Rolf wrote:
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote: So anyone who may surpass Vasik in the race track of the computer chess world is a cloner,cheater :?:
You're pathetic and legal actions should be taken upon you in my opinion....
Let's stay in the real non-criminal world because here nobody could and will ever "surpass" Vas, because Vas is simply the best. Even the invisible hippo jerks were never better, they looked like that for shortest TC. Yes, "Norman S." is a cloner, insofar illegal and criminal.
Intoxicated on the vapors issuing from the Vas personality cult ...

Locked