tiger wrote:Zach has posted his own UCI parser, which is semantically completely different.
You say that two UCI parsers should necessarily be very close semantically, and the first example that has been posted shows that it is not the case.
You can go up in the level of abstraction and at one point two UCI parsers will be identical (at the highest abstraction level because they are both "UCI parsers"). What is suspect is when both program start to look identical as soon as you go up in the abstraction hierarchy a little bit. The sooner is the source code level (both source codes are identical). One level higher would be the algorithmic level (they are written in different languages but follow exactly the same algorithm), and so on.
Zach's and Fruit's do not look the same semantically until you reach the highest levels.
I would like to see other UCI parsers posted so we could compare a little bit and see how often it happens.
// Christophe
I just got an email. It says: "you two guys (CT and CW) are repeating the same thing again and again ... try finding something better to do ... perhaps go out and shop."
My sentiments also. I did post: no more from me until the antis further and better material is produced. I really should stick to that.
tiger wrote:
Unfortunately I'm not sure it is a good idea to rely of Mr Whittington's view to get an accurate picture of what is happening.
I would say that evidence has been provided, but it has been brushed away in such an absurd way that the source code of a program would never be recognized as such even if you are given the corresponding executable. So if you cannot tell that this executable comes from this source, don't even dream about finding about the similarity between this other source and this executable.
For example the process of finding the variables names in the binary code (which has no variable names because they have been replaced by numeric addresses) and trying to make them fit with the original source code we are comparing to is described by Mr Whittington as the work of a "creative artist", which is a way to discredit competely the process. He says that disassembling is making things up.
So we stand at a point where no evidence would ever convince Mr Whittington and we say that someone is trying to obstruct the debate.
// Christophe
Thanks Christophe
but if i am reading your post correctly
it is not Vas that is brushing aside the evidence already presented(the initial first question) but rather CW and others
in your view..of the current situation...is the following accurate?...
a)one question has been asked of Vas
b)Vas has chosen to not reply but will wait until a final list of questions is presented
c)we are waiting for this list now for several days
is that a fair synopsis ..in your opinion so far?
Steve
Vas has already answered that Rybka is 100% clean (I hope I'm not distorting).
We do not know which Rybka he is talking about.
We do not know what "clean" means.
There is plenty of room in his answer to step back at any time with "I was not talking about this Rybka" and "clean means that it will not be declared as a derivative work by a court".
I do not know if it is intentional or not.
I think it would be better if some fair basis for similarity analysis to be laid out before any further evidence is provided. So far the evidence has been treated with some absurd reasoning and little objectivity.
It would be good if Vas could also state for example that "There is no code taken from Fruit 2.1 in Rybka 1.0". That would clear all ambiguity in his previous statement.
// Christophe
I think you are distorting, especially if the origin of your quote came from what I posted some days ago.
Vas did not say "Rybkla is 100% clean", a statement that implies it might have been 5% dirty at one stage and has been through a washing machine. I hope that is not your intention.
What he said to me, and I reproduced it here was:
"Rybka is and always was completely original". A statement that implies it was written from scratch right from the start and continues to be so.
OK, sorry, I remembered your sentence and not his.
I read his statement the same way as you do. So if any parts of Fruit 2.1 can be found in Rybka 1.0, it can only be pure coincidence. That's what Vas says. Correct?
// Christophe
My assumption is "Rybka is and always was" applies to all versions with the name Rybka in them. 1,2,3, beta, whatever.
Steve B wrote:
how long has it been since the questioners have agreed to prepare their list of questions?
is this a matter of days now or only a matter of hours?
Final Question Regards
Steve
Days, but I'm not sure how many.
Chris will confirm.
Getting tired regards,
Graham.
It's a few days ago that they promised.
However, Christophe's antics in trying to get a discussion going again on the discredited UCI material rather than quietly beavering away producing some proper case indicates to me, at least, that the preparation of further and better material has hit the buffers. I suppose the proof will be in the pudding.
Perhaps one of the antis would like to provide readers with an indication of when their material will be complete and released?
This year, next year, sometime, never?
Perhaps when you will stop rejecting any disassembly as "hieroglyphs" and any reconstructed code as the work of a "creative artist" making thing up. And when you stop rejecting lines one by one instead of looking at them in blocks.
In short, when you start really looking at the evidence instead of trying to destroy with the lowest tactics you can think of.
You are the only one arguing against the evidence that has been presented
tiger wrote:, and you reject it so broadly that I believe we need some real expert here to have a reak look at it. Oh well... The people who have an expertise on this have already seen troubling similarities. But nothing is troubling in your opinion.
tiger wrote:
Unfortunately I'm not sure it is a good idea to rely of Mr Whittington's view to get an accurate picture of what is happening.
I would say that evidence has been provided, but it has been brushed away in such an absurd way that the source code of a program would never be recognized as such even if you are given the corresponding executable. So if you cannot tell that this executable comes from this source, don't even dream about finding about the similarity between this other source and this executable.
For example the process of finding the variables names in the binary code (which has no variable names because they have been replaced by numeric addresses) and trying to make them fit with the original source code we are comparing to is described by Mr Whittington as the work of a "creative artist", which is a way to discredit competely the process. He says that disassembling is making things up.
So we stand at a point where no evidence would ever convince Mr Whittington and we say that someone is trying to obstruct the debate.
// Christophe
Thanks Christophe
but if i am reading your post correctly
it is not Vas that is brushing aside the evidence already presented(the initial first question) but rather CW and others
in your view..of the current situation...is the following accurate?...
a)one question has been asked of Vas
b)Vas has chosen to not reply but will wait until a final list of questions is presented
c)we are waiting for this list now for several days
is that a fair synopsis ..in your opinion so far?
Steve
Vas has already answered that Rybka is 100% clean (I hope I'm not distorting).
We do not know which Rybka he is talking about.
We do not know what "clean" means.
There is plenty of room in his answer to step back at any time with "I was not talking about this Rybka" and "clean means that it will not be declared as a derivative work by a court".
I do not know if it is intentional or not.
I think it would be better if some fair basis for similarity analysis to be laid out before any further evidence is provided. So far the evidence has been treated with some absurd reasoning and little objectivity.
It would be good if Vas could also state for example that "There is no code taken from Fruit 2.1 in Rybka 1.0". That would clear all ambiguity in his previous statement.
// Christophe
I think you are distorting, especially if the origin of your quote came from what I posted some days ago.
Vas did not say "Rybkla is 100% clean", a statement that implies it might have been 5% dirty at one stage and has been through a washing machine. I hope that is not your intention.
What he said to me, and I reproduced it here was:
"Rybka is and always was completely original". A statement that implies it was written from scratch right from the start and continues to be so.
OK, sorry, I remembered your sentence and not his.
I read his statement the same way as you do. So if any parts of Fruit 2.1 can be found in Rybka 1.0, it can only be pure coincidence. That's what Vas says. Correct?
// Christophe
My assumption is "Rybka is and always was" applies to all versions with the name Rybka in them. 1,2,3, beta, whatever.
Yes, that is exactly how I interpret his sentence.
Thanks, Uri, you are right. So it is Chris, you, Ed and Miguel. Four programmers that don't swallow that whatever has been presented so far is "evidence". It makes all the more interesting this attempt to:
1. Single Chris out.
2. Pretend that irrefutable evidence is already out there.
