I'm not going to respond to all the nonsense, other than to say I have not been a party to _any_ illegal acts. There is no law on the planet that prevents someone from buying a copy of Rybka and then using a disassembler to see what is inside the thing.Rolf wrote:Uri, thanks for your stand. Isnt it strange that in Wch where at least as famous and experienced guys like Bob are prresent, one a veritable IM in chess, see no reason to defamate Rybka while Bob, the scientist, coughs up something of moral values. Why doesnt he show up with scientific proof, what Zach indeed had announced. Nothing came. But now from a scientist the legendary moral warning as if the closed commercials had ever been morally challenged.Uri Blass wrote:There was no proof that most people accepted as a proof.bob wrote:There was _more_ than enough "proof" offered. But one has to look at the proof with an unbiased eye, otherwise there is no proof good enough. This _really_ did happen. Does it mean anything on the cosmic scale? nope. Just shows that some have slightly different moral standards than others. One has to live with himself, first, and with others, second.Graham Banks wrote:Despite Zach posting that he'd provide absolute proof that Vas had taken code from Fruit for Rybka 1.0, nothing has been shown after more than a year.Alexander Schmidt wrote:
Remember how the engines inproved in the last years. After years of stagnation Fruit (and later Glaurung) appeared. Are you sure no one copied some code? Did you ever blame a commercial author for the improvement in his engine because he maybe took some code?
You did not, and that is fine.
You did not when Rybka 1 appeared, allthough it was 600 ELO points stronger than it's predecessor.
You did it not even when I showed similaries between Rybka and Fruit. This is also fine to me as long as you apply the same standart for all engines.
Despite this, some here are still making accusations without proof.
Is there a link to where we can all view the absolute proof?
Cheers,
Graham.
Rybka continue to play in tournaments and is considered by most people as an original engine that has nothing to do with fruit.
It seems that your evidence is not convincing for the people who organize chess championships(otherwise they are not going to allow rybka to play in the world computer championship and in other tournaments).
Uri
A. Schmidt has interesting arguments, mainly that nobody in the cloner party should be convicted without a fair trial and evidence. But then the same Schmidt naively makes a biased verdicht against Rybka,
The alleged moral of Dr. Hyatt is also very splitted. When I challenged him and asked why he wouldnt condemn someone like N. Schmidt, a guilty cloner deviant, he used the weak argument that someone with such experience would be highly suiting the attack against Rybka. Nothing od in dubio pro reo and for all after mean attacks by a convicted multiple cloner.
So, Uri, Dr. Hyatt is trusting people who announce evidence but then dont show it at the confirmed date, he trusts cheaters who SOLD clones, he trusts whining former stars who insinuate evil doing because they cannot imagine how else someone could profit from, he trusts guys like A. Schmidt who dont even master a minimum of sober logic, when they ask for respect which they deny to the Wch, but Dr. Hyatt then distrusts experts and academics like Dr. Levy and Prof. Dr. J.d.Herigh and IM Rajlich and the whole community who supports Rybka.
I ask everybody to grant Bob some trust because he might well be in a double bind as scientist and honest expert. Perhaps he might have clear evidence already for his opinions but he cant publish it as academic if it then came out that the information could only be attained by illegal acts. And also before the background that other closed progs were never likewise "researched" or violated.
For me personally as interdisciplinary observer there is no reason to distrust Vas when he admitted that he learned a lot from Crafty and Fruit. But that he didnt simply copied code. On the other hand the actual clones were stolen from Rybka nafter what Vas said.
In summing up the conflict, I must accept that all positions are understandable as such.But I would expect that CC experts and programmers would know a minimum of logic and lawyer debating style. Did nobody learn that my theories could never be proven by as many collected evidence as possible if I could destroy the beautiful picture with a single contradiction? It' not a proof if a 30 man big group agrees on a topic if the truth cant be positively proven as such because someone might find the opposite? Therefore we in Europe have a different court system. Before we condemn someone juridical experts have their say and NOT a majority of people who are lays. And for all we mostly follow the guide in dubio pro reo. Which means we would prefer to let someone go who is guilty before we condemn someone who is innocent.
And above all the leading commercial engines dont sell drogues or poison but software chess masters to our aid in chess.
I think it is absolutely amazing that you want to say "we rushed to judgement, offered no proof that Rybka 1 was derived from fruit." yet you are perfectly happy to let Vas say that Robo* is a clone, with absolutely no evidence of any kind being offered. Can you spell/say "double-standard"? This is a prime example.
