Turn Out the Lights, the Party's Over

[swami]

P.S. Remember its not over till its over.

I like this quote: "It ain't over till it's over" by Yogi Berra

[Sean Evans]

I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact.

It shouldn't matter your education or experience, if it did then you would read:

"I don't care what you say, I have a Ph.D., so shutup!"

The discussion should be based on the neutrality of people posting, posting verifiable facts, with citations from reliable sources.

With regard to making a legal threat, rather than immediately threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using the CCC administrators or through offline emails.

If you must take legal action, CCC cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it should be a CCC policy requirement that you do not post at CCC until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. If your issue involves CCC itself, you should contact the administrators or chessusa.com. The CCC policy should be:

Do not issue legal threats on or through the CCC message board.

Cordially,

Sean

[GenoM]

I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact.

It shouldn't matter your education or experience, if it did then you would read:

"I don't care what you say, I have a Ph.D., so shutup!"

The discussion should be based on the neutrality of people posting, posting verifiable facts, with citations from reliable sources.

With regard to making a legal threat, rather than immediately threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using the CCC administrators or through offline emails.

If you must take legal action, CCC cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it should be a CCC policy requirement that you do not post at CCC until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. If your issue involves CCC itself, you should contact the administrators or chessusa.com. The CCC policy should be:

Do not issue legal threats on or through the CCC message board.

Cordially,

Sean

What a righteous post! Do you suggest that nobody here could talk about clones or derivatives till they are proved as such in court?
It make sense.
But unfortunately it would not restore damages made to "clone"-authors in the past.

[Sean Evans]

I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact.

It shouldn't matter your education or experience, if it did then you would read:

"I don't care what you say, I have a Ph.D., so shutup!"

The discussion should be based on the neutrality of people posting, posting verifiable facts, with citations from reliable sources.

With regard to making a legal threat, rather than immediately threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using the CCC administrators or through offline emails.

If you must take legal action, CCC cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it should be a CCC policy requirement that you do not post at CCC until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. If your issue involves CCC itself, you should contact the administrators or chessusa.com. The CCC policy should be:

Do not issue legal threats on or through the CCC message board.

Cordially,

Sean

What a righteous post! Do you suggest that nobody here could talk about clones or derivatives till they are proved as such in court?
It make sense.
But unfortunately it would not restore damages made to "clone"-authors in the past.

That is not what I said and you know it!

[Rolf]

I have to agree with Bob on this ... not even our cat fears me.

I have followed this newsgroup for many years ... enjoying it, but posting very seldom.

I only started posting on this one topic, because the departure from traditional scientific norms was (IMHO) so marked, that it risked harming a community that I value.

I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact. I look at more C to assembly translations in a week than most of the contributors to this thread have seen in their lifetime, because I want to continually find the most efficient way to write C code to produce the fastest possible assembly language. I teach an assembly language course every semester, where we often write programs in C in class, and then translate them to assembly language. It is not a "creative art". It is a simple, well-defined process.

The problem here is that there are several complex processes to deal with that take time. Going from raw machine language back to C is a pain. Because you have to understand what the machine language is doing, something made more difficult without variable and procedure names. But it can be done given some time. And then there is the semantical equivalence analysis. Again, well-understood, but time-consuming.

If simple order issues were all that one needed to break semantic equivalence, students would have free rein to plagiarize code and then change variable names, convert a few lines here into a function, re-order some lines over here than have no data/name/control dependences that prevent such, and voila', a new program is born. Except that we have to catch these, and do, regularly. It is less frequent today, because for me, "the word has gotten out."

So, it is a dead-accurate process, but also a dead-slow process. Can't help the latter.

Bob, who has ever doubted that? But I for one could see that Ed for example had a clear perception of what this here all meant to harm Vas no matter if you plus your teamsters were right or wrong, and this is something you seem to have difficulties to understand. You would surely see it differently if you were the one who were defamed. No, you'll reply we defame nobody, but Bob, Ed has exactly shown why Vas is already damaged right now. I wished an academic like you would also have a minimal understanding of such facts. Because you havent, I cant completely call you innocent in that whole campaign. Of course questions of war are much more important actually but with the same negative result for the USA... What is only going on over there? Excuse me in case I've missed your apologies somewhere.

[bob]

Please point out whatever it was you think I missed.

For instance, that we --me and John Sidles-- are the one that are "warned," not you.

But it was a passing remark in response to your sniping -- in what looks to be a completely content-free thread.

Eh? Please provide a quote. I quoted the entire post I responded to. It was the first post in this thread. So I am now somehow supposed to "read between the lines" or "read the minds" of posters?

As far as "sniping" goes, perhaps "pot" and "kettle" might be considered.

[bob]

P.S. Remember its not over till its over.

I like this quote: "It ain't over till it's over" by Yogi Berra

I like the one by "the Rock"...

"it isn't over until _I_ say it is over..."

[RegicideX]

Eh? Please provide a quote. I quoted the entire post I responded to. It was the first post in this thread. So I am now somehow supposed to "read between the lines" or "read the minds" of posters?

I reread the initial post -- now it looks ambiguous, it could be interpreted either way.

If I'm wrong about his intentions then I apologize to you. And if the original poster thinks that I am "dangerous" -- Boo!

[bob]

Eh? Please provide a quote. I quoted the entire post I responded to. It was the first post in this thread. So I am now somehow supposed to "read between the lines" or "read the minds" of posters?

I reread the initial post -- now it looks ambiguous, it could be interpreted either way.

If I'm wrong about his intentions then I apologize to you. And if the original poster thinks that I am "dangerous" -- Boo!

My interpretation was "you should beware of this guy..."

But then I factored in the reputation that author has with me, and it became somewhat like idle chit-chat.

I'm only interested in what really happened, all this nonsense about envy and such is ridiculous. I never beat Hsu (chiptest/deep thought/deep blue) in a computer chess game. We remained friends throughout his chess career, and we shared information and ideas all the time. Ditto for ken and Belle. we were absolutely "fierce rivals" OTB. we were absolutely friends all the time. So for me, envy/jealously/etc simply are meaningless, at least with respect to computer chess.

If I seem a bit "short" at times, it is only because this has been going on for a _long_ times, with the same arguments given over and over, almost all of which are not based on sound reasoning. You've even seen students talk about how simple programs can be way different and faculty regularly detect plagiarism. Until you have "been there, done that, and got the T-shirt" it is difficult to understand. English teachers are quite good and detecting copied text, even when it comes from obscure sources. this is a similar skill, that requires some experience to develop.

[bob]

I have to agree with Bob on this ... not even our cat fears me.

I have followed this newsgroup for many years ... enjoying it, but posting very seldom.

I only started posting on this one topic, because the departure from traditional scientific norms was (IMHO) so marked, that it risked harming a community that I value.

I don't fear anyone in this kind of technical discussion. I have spent a lifetime in this specific area and know it well. And that is not meant to be insulting in any way, it is just a simple statement of fact. I look at more C to assembly translations in a week than most of the contributors to this thread have seen in their lifetime, because I want to continually find the most efficient way to write C code to produce the fastest possible assembly language. I teach an assembly language course every semester, where we often write programs in C in class, and then translate them to assembly language. It is not a "creative art". It is a simple, well-defined process.

The problem here is that there are several complex processes to deal with that take time. Going from raw machine language back to C is a pain. Because you have to understand what the machine language is doing, something made more difficult without variable and procedure names. But it can be done given some time. And then there is the semantical equivalence analysis. Again, well-understood, but time-consuming.

If simple order issues were all that one needed to break semantic equivalence, students would have free rein to plagiarize code and then change variable names, convert a few lines here into a function, re-order some lines over here than have no data/name/control dependences that prevent such, and voila', a new program is born. Except that we have to catch these, and do, regularly. It is less frequent today, because for me, "the word has gotten out."

So, it is a dead-accurate process, but also a dead-slow process. Can't help the latter.

Bob, who has ever doubted that? But I for one could see that Ed for example had a clear perception of what this here all meant to harm Vas no matter if you plus your teamsters were right or wrong, and this is something you seem to have difficulties to understand. You would surely see it differently if you were the one who were defamed. No, you'll reply we defame nobody, but Bob, Ed has exactly shown why Vas is already damaged right now. I wished an academic like you would also have a minimal understanding of such facts. Because you havent, I cant completely call you innocent in that whole campaign. Of course questions of war are much more important actually but with the same negative result for the USA... What is only going on over there? Excuse me in case I've missed your apologies somewhere.

Rolf. Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. Do you remember Berliner's public protest after the 1986 WCCC tournament? I do not believe my reputation was damaged one scintilla once the facts came out, were investigated, and the ICCA published the findings. Berliner looked a bit silly, but that was his problem and not mine.

My interest is simply "was rybka derived from fruit?" A "yes or no" is all I want to see. I don't see any remedy as being able to correct that, even though it would be clearly wrong if it happened. there have been dozens of detected copies of various programs, I am certain there are many undetected copies. Each one that is exposed is one less impediment for beginners to overcome.