Previous World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

[Tom Barrister]

Secretariat was the best ever born racing horse in the history of this exciting sport btw
Anyone here remember this gorgeous animal winning the Triple Crown back in 1972
Dr.D

I not only remember him, I saw him in person at Arlington and saw at least six of his televised races. His time of 2:24 flat in the mile and a half (on a dirt track) Belmont Stakes is still a world record for the distance, and no other horse has broken 2:25.

[mhull]

Isn't, this letter, somewhat late? It looks like -to me-as if we were reading a letter written by Erasmo of Rotterdam about the sins of the papacy.
Besides, isn't Rybka 4 very far from rybka beta 1 and so very very far of Fruit?
If any familiarity is enough to talk of cloning or plagiarism, my God, there is scarce a thing in this Earth free of that.

I do not like the odour that exhales this letter...

fern

If Rybka 1 is heavily derivative of Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 4 is descended from Rybka 1, then Rybka 4 is still a descendant of a derivative work of Fruit 2.1.

Pretty simple, old man.

[geots]

I suppose the oddest thing is that none of the authors actually signed the evidence, but rather it is backed by the analysis and conclusions of an unknown: Mark Watkins (who never wrote an engine that I heard of - feel free to correct me). One would think that the basis of such a serious letter would at least be backed by the analysis and conclusions of a well-known authority.

I am not sure that I would not prefer the judgement of anybody, even the most ignorant, to that of some of those "unbiased" world champions.
Besides, is it clear that the BB+ reports clearly support the Rybka is guilty theory? As I am not interested in its technicalities I only read the conclusions and I must say I am not the least convinced.

(Not for you, Albert: When responing to this you can omit the idiot, dude, etc. parts.)

Gabor, the only thought that came to mind for me in this ridiculous slime pit, and I think you will agree, is: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift


Always the Best To You, My Friend

[Christopher Conkie]

Secretariat was the best ever born racing horse in the history of this exciting sport btw
Anyone here remember this gorgeous animal winning the Triple Crown back in 1972
Dr.D

Man O' War for what it's worth.

[fern]

Too much simple, young man.
The point is not so much where are and how are the roots, but how much of them have been improved, changed, mutated, etc.
Your way of formal reasonning is OK for a novel of Sherlok Holmes, but not anymore...

Fern

[mhull]

Too much simple, young man.
The point is not so much where are and how are the roots, but how much of them have been improved, changed, mutated, etc.
Your way of formal reasonning is OK for a novel of Sherlok Holmes, but not anymore...

No matter how much it morphed from version 1, it still stands upon the shoulders of Fruit 2.1. Without the Fruit fundamentals it would not be where it is.

[CRoberson]

Isn't, this letter, somewhat late? It looks like -to me-as if we were reading a letter written by Erasmo of Rotterdam about the sins of the papacy.
Besides, isn't Rybka 4 very far from rybka beta 1 and so very very far of Fruit?
If any familiarity is enough to talk of cloning or plagiarism, my God, there is scarce a thing in this Earth free of that.

I do not like the odour that exhales this letter...

fern

If Rybka 1 is heavily derivative of Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 4 is descended from Rybka 1, then Rybka 4 is still a descendant of a derivative work of Fruit 2.1.

Pretty simple, old man.

Fern is correct. It is possible for C to be derivative of B and B of A, but C is not a derivative of A.

Example
Lets say a program has 5 parts for simplicity of argument. So, A = a1+a2+a3+a4+a5. Now, B = b1+a2+a3+a4+b5, thus B is based on A or parts of A. Now, C = b1 + c2+c3+c4 + b5 and c2!=a2, c3!=a3, c4!=a4, thus C is based on B but has nothing in common with A.

Note: != means not equal

[fern]

Of course....but then, without ANY kind of fundamental non engine woud exist, any about nothing. You always make use of some previous ground to do anything, isnt it?

F

[Terry McCracken]

I suppose the oddest thing is that none of the authors actually signed the evidence, but rather it is backed by the analysis and conclusions of an unknown: Mark Watkins (who never wrote an engine that I heard of - feel free to correct me). One would think that the basis of such a serious letter would at least be backed by the analysis and conclusions of a well-known authority.

I am not sure that I would not prefer the judgement of anybody, even the most ignorant, to that of some of those "unbiased" world champions.
Besides, is it clear that the BB+ reports clearly support the Rybka is guilty theory? As I am not interested in its technicalities I only read the conclusions and I must say I am not the least convinced.

(Not for you, Albert: When responing to this you can omit the idiot, dude, etc. parts.)

Gabor, the only thought that came to mind for me in this ridiculous slime pit, and I think you will agree, is: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift


Always the Best To You, My Friend

Some of those dunces are geniuses and deserve a hell of a lot of respect!

I try to get this across to others including Graham but to no avail.

I'll just say it. Vas is in fact guilty as charged. Sue Me!

[yanquis1972]

Of course....but then, without ANY kind of fundamental non engine woud exist, any about nothing. You always make use of some previous ground to do anything, isnt it?

F

did u just diss sherlock holmes son??