Turn Out the Lights, the Party's Over

[Tony Thomas]

Full Disclosure Regards
Steve

They are sidserious and turbojuice (or was it crunkjuice)

Thats it Tony

im...

OTTA HERE Regards

See, now everyone is shaking in their boots..I shouldnt have revealed the secret..

Time to play Rybka on a quad against Rybka on a single core..

Vasectomy regards
Tony

[gerold]

Full Disclosure Regards
Steve

They are sidserious and turbojuice (or was it crunkjuice)

Thats it Tony

im...

OTTA HERE Regards

All knew they were spies from the other forum.hahahahah.


See, now everyone is shaking in their boots..I shouldnt have revealed the secret..

Time to play Rybka on a quad against Rybka on a single core..

Vasectomy regards
Tony

[GenoM]

Full Disclosure Regards
Steve

They are sidserious and turbojuice (or was it crunkjuice)

oh my...
sidserious and turbojuice!
no way

[RegicideX]

As far as "have no idea who they are".

This is ridiculous.

An argument should stand on its own regardless of who says it. Otherwise experts get away with bullshit and good points made by non-experts are ignored.

Furthermore, the discussion so far has not been very technical -- some general knowledge of compilers and general knowledge of probability is all that was required.

As far as who I am -- Robert Hyatt knows more than me about computer science and I probably know more than him about probability and statistics. But just as my knowledge of stochastic calculus was not relevant here, deep technical expertise about the internal optimization techniques of particular compilers was not relevant so far. General knowledge of how compilers work and general knowledge of probability was sufficient.

I heard about this debate on the Rybka forum. As a chess enthusiast, I visited that forum from time to time, but I'm not a "regular" there.

But all this is irrelevant, and with all due respect for the original poster, the entire thread is pretty silly.

[bob]

As far as "have no idea who they are".

This is ridiculous.

An argument should stand on its own regardless of who says it. Otherwise experts get away with bullshit and good points made by non-experts are ignored.

And your point would be? I happen to agree with you. Concise, accurately stated arguments are absolutely welcome. George seems to be making some sort of "thinly veiled threat" concerning "we don't know who we are dealing with." That is (to me) irrelevant. And that is what I was responding to.

As far as "identity" goes, I'm hardly a fan of anonymous posters, but that is a different subject. If someone is not willing to stand publicly behind what they say, then there is a question about why.

Furthermore, the discussion so far has not been very technical -- some general knowledge of compilers and general knowledge of probability is all that was required.

Again, I agree completely. Although some here somehow do not follow the discussion with any level of comprehension. This is not a complex process to go from machine to C. And it doesn't require someone with 40 years of experience, as the "Strelka" episode _clearly_ shows. This is not ground-breaking research, it is just hard work.

As far as who I am -- Robert Hyatt knows more than me about computer science and I probably know more than him about probability and statistics. But just as my knowledge of stochastic calculus was not relevant here, deep technical expertise about the internal optimization techniques of particular compilers was not relevant so far. General knowledge of how compilers work and general knowledge of probability was sufficient.

We could argue that point. If _you_ understand the issues, and you understand the direct mapping from C to asm and asm back to C, then you have the background needed. But some do not, and for them, the appropriate technical background _is_ needed. I would expect a graduate from most any Computer Science program to be able to do exactly what others have done in this process. I would not expect non-CS students to have any hope unless they picked up the requisite experience in some other way I know a few engineers that turned into pseudo-computer-scientists by following computers more closely than transits and calculators.

I heard about this debate on the Rybka forum. As a chess enthusiast, I visited that forum from time to time, but I'm not a "regular" there.

But all this is irrelevant, and with all due respect for the original poster, the entire thread is pretty silly.

I would agree. This investigation may turn up nothing more than a coincidental match between two programs. That's why time is needed. It is somewhat akin to actually building a "ship in a bottle". It is a slow and tedious process, but it is not that hard to do in terms of effort/skill.

[bob]

One last time: You havent a clue who you are dealing with.

why all the mystery here George?
why dont these guys simply announce who they are?
Hyatt is well known,so is CT,CW ,Vas..etcetc
you certainly dont hide who you are..neither does Graham ..neither do i

let them announce themselves in the light of day and describe their qualifications.. rather then lurk under the cover of darkness

Full Disclosure Regards
Steve

Wouldn't surprise me if one was Vas' dad, as he has done some work that is somewhat related. And it wouldn't change one thing with respect to the qualifications of the people doing the investigation here already.

People can remain anonymous if they choose. It will always be a problem when discussing things via the internet.

[Steve B]

One last time: You havent a clue who you are dealing with.

why all the mystery here George?
why dont these guys simply announce who they are?
Hyatt is well known,so is CT,CW ,Vas..etcetc
you certainly dont hide who you are..neither does Graham ..neither do i

let them announce themselves in the light of day and describe their qualifications.. rather then lurk under the cover of darkness

Full Disclosure Regards
Steve

Wouldn't surprise me if one was Vas' dad, as he has done some work that is somewhat related. And it wouldn't change one thing with respect to the qualifications of the people doing the investigation here already.

People can remain anonymous if they choose. It will always be a problem when discussing things via the internet.

of course and as pointed out.."who" is posting is irrelevant ..
"what" is being posted is all that matters
still,George seems to know the true identities of these two masked men who enter the debate and at a relatively late hour
George seems interested in flaunting the idea that he knows and others dont(perhaps its all meant a bit tongue in cheek anyway)
even though their true identities dont advance the discussion in question..it does raise the question as to who they just might be


Regards
Steve X

[bob]

One last time: You havent a clue who you are dealing with.

why all the mystery here George?
why dont these guys simply announce who they are?
Hyatt is well known,so is CT,CW ,Vas..etcetc
you certainly dont hide who you are..neither does Graham ..neither do i

let them announce themselves in the light of day and describe their qualifications.. rather then lurk under the cover of darkness

Full Disclosure Regards
Steve

Wouldn't surprise me if one was Vas' dad, as he has done some work that is somewhat related. And it wouldn't change one thing with respect to the qualifications of the people doing the investigation here already.

People can remain anonymous if they choose. It will always be a problem when discussing things via the internet.

of course and as pointed out.."who" is posting is irrelevant ..
"what" is being posted is all that matters
still,George seems to know the true identities of these two masked men who enter the debate and at a relatively late hour
George seems interested in flaunting the idea that he knows and others dont(perhaps its all meant a bit tongue in cheek anyway)
even though their true identities dont advance the discussion in question..it does raise the question as to who they just might be


Regards
Steve X

Here is the important point. one could be Donald Knuth and it wouldn't change my statements on this topic at all. They are grounded in something more solid than someone's name... The approach being discussed is not based on speculation, it is based on simple fact... What the approach will prove is another question altogether.

[Eelco de Groot]

Steve X

I think you are getting close there Steve. And at one time I think at least one of them was in your neighbourhood too. Well disguised it's tru but maybe this is a clue:



Men in Black Regards,

Eelco X3D

[Steve B]

Steve X

I think you are getting close there Steve. And at one time I think at least one of them was in your neighbourhood too. Well disguised it's tru but maybe this is a clue:



Men in Black Regards,

Eelco X3D

ok let me guess
Kasparov
Frans Morch
Frederic Friedel and
Wolverine Regards
Steve