Are you sick of the Ippo/Robbo spamming of CCC?

[BBauer]

Here Bob is obviously right.
Simply by logic.
This poll is stupid and only proofs Einstein's theorem.
(2 things are infinite...)

People seam to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Following their logic we have to say: Crafty23.1 is a clone. It is a rybka clone. Proof: Crafty23.1 is much stronger than Crafty23.0. How is this possible? Only by cloning rybka.

Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

[Terry McCracken]

Here Bob is obviously right.
Simply by logic.
This poll is stupid and only proofs Einstein's theorem.
(2 things are infinite...)

People seam to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Following their logic we have to say: Crafty23.1 is a clone. It is a rybka clone. Proof: Crafty23.1 is much stronger than Crafty23.0. How is this possible? Only by cloning rybka.

Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

You just fell into Einstein's (sic) theorem.

[Rolf]

People seem to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

Should they worship someone like you?
But even this insinuation is wrong.
In CCC people hate Rybka and Vas.
And that is crazy because Rybka is the reigning Wch.

Because they hate Rybka people in CCC spam with Ipporobbol.

I am the only one who stood up against this sort of smear.

Members here prefer anonymous guys who -after the Wch- stole his code, and I cannot take this lightly. This is unbelievable. And after your logic people here are doing exactly what you would want them to do. They do not worship Vas. But ok, I like him and his superior presentation.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

People seem to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

Should they worship someone like you?
But even this insinuation is wrong.
In CCC people hate Rybka and Vas.
And that is crazy because Rybka is the reigning Wch.

Because they hate Rybka people in CCC spam with Ipporobbol.

I am the only one who stood up against this sort of smear.

Members here prefer anonymous guys who -after the Wch- stole his code, and I cannot take this lightly. This is unbelievable. And after your logic people here are doing exactly what you would want them to do. They do not worship Vas. But ok, I like him and his superior presentation.

Yet to be prooved,sorry....
Dr.D

[bob]

People seem to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

Should they worship someone like you?
But even this insinuation is wrong.
In CCC people hate Rybka and Vas.
And that is crazy because Rybka is the reigning Wch.

Because they hate Rybka people in CCC spam with Ipporobbol.

I am the only one who stood up against this sort of smear.

Members here prefer anonymous guys who -after the Wch- stole his code, and I cannot take this lightly. This is unbelievable. And after your logic people here are doing exactly what you would want them to do. They do not worship Vas. But ok, I like him and his superior presentation.

Here's the question: How is this new "clone" stronger than that which it was cloned from? You have said, many times, that even if Vas did copy Fruit, he changed it dramatically to make R1 significantly stronger than fruit. Which, according to you, makes it perfectly OK. If you believe that Robo* was cloned from Rybka, it is significantly stronger based on results I have seen posted, so why is _that_ "not OK?" Seems like a bit of a double-standard to me.

What "robo*" really is is unknown. Until we have some _real_ proof as to what it is, it seems premature to just accept the old "this is my code, copied" explanation with no evidence of any kind to support that. As far as I am concerned, if Vas is bothered by Robo*, he will come forward with some solid evidence that it is based on his program. If he is not, he will do nothing, which is what he has done to date.

I choose to just sit and wait to see what happens, as I have plenty of things to work on while doing so.

[Rolf]

People seem to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

Should they worship someone like you?
But even this insinuation is wrong.
In CCC people hate Rybka and Vas.
And that is crazy because Rybka is the reigning Wch.

Because they hate Rybka people in CCC spam with Ipporobbol.

I am the only one who stood up against this sort of smear.

Members here prefer anonymous guys who -after the Wch- stole his code, and I cannot take this lightly. This is unbelievable. And after your logic people here are doing exactly what you would want them to do. They do not worship Vas. But ok, I like him and his superior presentation.

Here's the question: How is this new "clone" stronger than that which it was cloned from? You have said, many times, that even if Vas did copy Fruit, he changed it dramatically to make R1 significantly stronger than fruit. Which, according to you, makes it perfectly OK. If you believe that Robo* was cloned from Rybka, it is significantly stronger based on results I have seen posted, so why is _that_ "not OK?" Seems like a bit of a double-standard to me.

What "robo*" really is is unknown. Until we have some _real_ proof as to what it is, it seems premature to just accept the old "this is my code, copied" explanation with no evidence of any kind to support that. As far as I am concerned, if Vas is bothered by Robo*, he will come forward with some solid evidence that it is based on his program. If he is not, he will do nothing, which is what he has done to date.

I choose to just sit and wait to see what happens, as I have plenty of things to work on while doing so.

I criticise in special you because you as a sober scientist tolerate that anonymous guys appear with stuff that is - after the reigning Wch - made after parts of his code had been stolen. Therefore I dont understand you how you could tolerate this. Since when do you have this faible for anonymous thieves? Ok, nobody should be condemned before he's not guilty along one of our courts. All correct. But why do you tolerate anonymous entries? Or is it thinkable that you are in a party that has one single goal, namely to destroy Vassik's business? Correct, you must not make a living with computerchess, you are a teacher.

But now to your interesting question that you thankfully addressed to me. You must have known that it doesnt take a genial computerchess expert to answer the question, but anyway some here will certainly be surprised, Bob.

First of all the whole results do NOT prove that any of the clones is already stronger than Rybka 3. And you know this in the first place.

The main answer to the question is the long time period since R 3 appeared. Of course it is possible to tune something on R3 and making it almost as strong. Especially if you have stolen some code. But you know better than me that this might be premature to conclude that then the clone is also the best program against all competition. At least no data so far.

You didnt ask me but still, for me such "experiments" are not bad in itself. Also I would never deny that other people are as strong as Vas or even stronger. He's in practical tournament play the best actually. While the cloners wont even make it to the entry door of the playing hall because they are clones or whatever.

Bob, I wished to read honest comments from you what a business guy could possible do, if such Thai or Chinese or Marsian jerks are trying to steal his Christmas profits. Right, he cant do much BUT Bob, is it forced that you stand on top of a movement that yells Vas might have stolen code himself? Are you a researcher or the attorney general? Others have made the same observation, you are so intelligent that you could well be police, investigators, judge and hangman all in one. But must you do it, if it means that computerchess as such is broken? I know you dont like commercial engines, because with some certain egotism you think that as a university worker you dont need business. Dont be so cruel.

Further I support you with your scepticism about the defining of these clones as clones. I wouldnt even want to go deeper into the investigation because these guys or one single jerk are anonymous and I cant accept this. Look Bob, you are already in alert if Vas doesnt speak, but you can live well with people who are anonymously taking Vas for a ride. Would it be character assassination if I would ask Cui Bono? If not Bob himself?

Look, you are furious because Vas doesnt speak and you would be happy if you could force him, right?

The following is crucial, if you can answer that with a somewhat elaboration THEn I would believe you but not atz the moment. Now I am certain that you are on the wrong track.

Here the crucial question and please answer it.

Could you, time and money guaranteed, examine a closed commercial program like Fritz or Junior and then if there are any strange parts of code, testify that ths was done against the known conventions in computerchess? I dont expect you should do it but I want to read, yes I could do that if I had to.

Because bTHEN Bob, I had the next question. How can you tolerate, no, even lead a gang here of Vas haters who are so convinced about his wrong sides, if all the other commercial things are protentially (until you would research them) nexist on similar bases than Rybka? Would you not be guilty of using doublr standard in this case?

Also you never addressed the number 95%. You know that I'm a layman. You however know it all. WHY do you incite a scapegoat hunt if you know that almost everything in all progs is taken from historical models??

Ok, we touch the unknown field of programming. But Bob would you say that Vas is one of the most stupid programmers how he had performed in his code? Or is he still a damned good talent that you could also be proud of as American patriot, because he at least got his know how in one of your elite universities. Bob what are you doing here in your somewhat crass police reaction? Buddying with anonymous jerks against such a brilliant programmer and sportsman? Dont feed these jerks who want to destroy all our periodical fun with the classical tournaments. Troitsky, Lenin and the crap. You dont hear a bell ring? Never thought about our old friend?

Bob, honestly we in our age are so near to death that we often react in panic and want to start something new. I wished you would engage in new friendships or affairs but not into this crazy terrorism against our beloved computerchess.

Please.

You just cant pretend that you are doing science if you interfere into a sport where also tricks are experienced. The whole book stuff is part of the tricks. No?

Look, Junior is now in ICC, what Vas wants to achive on Playchess and Convekta. But do you believe that Junior is a Saint what code etc is concerned? If you examined it, what would you find?

You sound to me as if in classical chess Kramnik would want to prove that all players except him and two others were hopeless imbeciles who could never win the title. And therefore he had to speak it out once and for all. Or if you have friends among genetic researchers. Ask them if it's smart to tell people how much determined they are predisposed with lethal illnesses and death. Do you really think that experts must take us all the fun and all delusions?

Come back to a more elevated wisdom of love and harmony instead of the terror madness.

Yours, Rolf

Excuse my typo flood, but I'm all over with tears and cant read my own text anymore.

[bob]

People seem to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

Should they worship someone like you?
But even this insinuation is wrong.
In CCC people hate Rybka and Vas.
And that is crazy because Rybka is the reigning Wch.

Because they hate Rybka people in CCC spam with Ipporobbol.

I am the only one who stood up against this sort of smear.

Members here prefer anonymous guys who -after the Wch- stole his code, and I cannot take this lightly. This is unbelievable. And after your logic people here are doing exactly what you would want them to do. They do not worship Vas. But ok, I like him and his superior presentation.

Here's the question: How is this new "clone" stronger than that which it was cloned from? You have said, many times, that even if Vas did copy Fruit, he changed it dramatically to make R1 significantly stronger than fruit. Which, according to you, makes it perfectly OK. If you believe that Robo* was cloned from Rybka, it is significantly stronger based on results I have seen posted, so why is _that_ "not OK?" Seems like a bit of a double-standard to me.

What "robo*" really is is unknown. Until we have some _real_ proof as to what it is, it seems premature to just accept the old "this is my code, copied" explanation with no evidence of any kind to support that. As far as I am concerned, if Vas is bothered by Robo*, he will come forward with some solid evidence that it is based on his program. If he is not, he will do nothing, which is what he has done to date.

I choose to just sit and wait to see what happens, as I have plenty of things to work on while doing so.

I criticise in special you because you as a sober scientist tolerate that anonymous guys appear with stuff that is - after the reigning Wch - made after parts of his code had been stolen. Therefore I dont understand you how you could tolerate this. Since when do you have this faible for anonymous thieves? Ok, nobody should be condemned before he's not guilty along one of our courts. All correct. But why do you tolerate anonymous entries? Or is it thinkable that you are in a party that has one single goal, namely to destroy Vassik's business? Correct, you must not make a living with computerchess, you are a teacher.

You _do_ realize that Vas did exactly what you wrote above? appeared from nowhere with a very strong program. Most would take 10+ years to reach that level, he did it in one or so. So how is that different from the Robo* case???

As far as anonymous entries go, this has been an issue since forever. There is no point in worrying about that which you can't control. So I ignore it.

But now to your interesting question that you thankfully addressed to me. You must have known that it doesnt take a genial computerchess expert to answer the question, but anyway some here will certainly be surprised, Bob.

First of all the whole results do NOT prove that any of the clones is already stronger than Rybka 3. And you know this in the first place.

The results I have seen, when combined, suggest that Robo* is at least +70 elo stronger. Not sure what you are looking at, but many are testing and producing similar results.

The main answer to the question is the long time period since R 3 appeared. Of course it is possible to tune something on R3 and making it almost as strong. Especially if you have stolen some code. But you know better than me that this might be premature to conclude that then the clone is also the best program against all competition. At least no data so far.

You didnt ask me but still, for me such "experiments" are not bad in itself. Also I would never deny that other people are as strong as Vas or even stronger. He's in practical tournament play the best actually. While the cloners wont even make it to the entry door of the playing hall because they are clones or whatever.

Bob, I wished to read honest comments from you what a business guy could possible do, if such Thai or Chinese or Marsian jerks are trying to steal his Christmas profits. Right, he cant do much BUT Bob, is it forced that you stand on top of a movement that yells Vas might have stolen code himself? Are you a researcher or the attorney general? Others have made the same observation, you are so intelligent that you could well be police, investigators, judge and hangman all in one. But must you do it, if it means that computerchess as such is broken? I know you dont like commercial engines, because with some certain egotism you think that as a university worker you dont need business. Dont be so cruel.

There is no "chance" that he used fruit code. It is a certainty. How relevant this is today is open to debate. But whether or not it happened is certainly not something that can be debated, the jury is already in on that one. As far as "business" goes, I don't care. This is an enjoyable hobby of mine and has been since 1968. None of these shenanigans are going to diminish my enjoyment of this. If these guys want to act like piranhas and eat each other alive, that's their choice and has no impact on what I do.

Further I support you with your scepticism about the defining of these clones as clones. I wouldnt even want to go deeper into the investigation because these guys or one single jerk are anonymous and I cant accept this. Look Bob, you are already in alert if Vas doesnt speak, but you can live well with people who are anonymously taking Vas for a ride. Would it be character assassination if I would ask Cui Bono? If not Bob himself?

Look, you are furious because Vas doesnt speak and you would be happy if you could force him, right?

Why would I want to force him to do anything? I am not his moral guardian. He can stop the clone discussions by a simple report showing the similarities. He could stop the fruit discussion by simply owning up to what happened and moving on. Whether he does either or not is really his decision, not mine.

The following is crucial, if you can answer that with a somewhat elaboration THEn I would believe you but not atz the moment. Now I am certain that you are on the wrong track.

Here the crucial question and please answer it.

Could you, time and money guaranteed, examine a closed commercial program like Fritz or Junior and then if there are any strange parts of code, testify that ths was done against the known conventions in computerchess? I dont expect you should do it but I want to read, yes I could do that if I had to.

Absolutely yes. It is not something I would want to do, but if paid enough, I might well consider it, or hire people that could do it without my spending excessive time on non-crafty stuff.

Because bTHEN Bob, I had the next question. How can you tolerate, no, even lead a gang here of Vas haters who are so convinced about his wrong sides, if all the other commercial things are protentially (until you would research them) nexist on similar bases than Rybka? Would you not be guilty of using doublr standard in this case?

Also you never addressed the number 95%. You know that I'm a layman. You however know it all. WHY do you incite a scapegoat hunt if you know that almost everything in all progs is taken from historical models??

There is a huge difference between using ideas, and using source code. It is really that simple.

Ok, we touch the unknown field of programming. But Bob would you say that Vas is one of the most stupid programmers how he had performed in his code? Or is he still a damned good talent that you could also be proud of as American patriot, because he at least got his know how in one of your elite universities. Bob what are you doing here in your somewhat crass police reaction? Buddying with anonymous jerks against such a brilliant programmer and sportsman? Dont feed these jerks who want to destroy all our periodical fun with the classical tournaments. Troitsky, Lenin and the crap. You dont hear a bell ring? Never thought about our old friend?

Bob, honestly we in our age are so near to death that we often react in panic and want to start something new. I wished you would engage in new friendships or affairs but not into this crazy terrorism against our beloved computerchess.

Please.

You just cant pretend that you are doing science if you interfere into a sport where also tricks are experienced. The whole book stuff is part of the tricks. No?

Look, Junior is now in ICC, what Vas wants to achive on Playchess and Convekta. But do you believe that Junior is a Saint what code etc is concerned? If you examined it, what would you find?

You sound to me as if in classical chess Kramnik would want to prove that all players except him and two others were hopeless imbeciles who could never win the title. And therefore he had to speak it out once and for all. Or if you have friends among genetic researchers. Ask them if it's smart to tell people how much determined they are predisposed with lethal illnesses and death. Do you really think that experts must take us all the fun and all delusions?

Come back to a more elevated wisdom of love and harmony instead of the terror madness.

Yours, Rolf

Excuse my typo flood, but I'm all over with tears and cant read my own text anymore.

[Rolf]

Bob,

I just want to take two points. These are not negotiable if you want to pretend you are seriously doing science. BTW our maths is wrong, you did NOT need 10 years to be very good. At the many ACM. Please dont forget about Vasik's talents.

1) Anonymity

You claim you ignore what you cant control. Yes that sounds good but it's NOPT what you are doing. You dont ignore such people. If you did they would run away tail between legs. But as it seems you dont ignore but enjoxy their performance. Against Rybka, Vas. That speaks louder than words. But ok, this is you. But then science is NOT.


2) Neutralism of Science and Research

First of all a research must be based on something. If you have the hypothesis that Rybka was illegal then it's not good to just investigate Rybka, but to make a survey about the general practice in that field (commercial engines). You just cant take the first because you feel offended if all are doing the same. Then your work seems biased. But science isnt biased, it's neutral. This is a professional business, it's not scientifical recreation on weekend tournaments.

(I can also add the case Norm Schmidt. I asked you how you could tolerate such someone. You saw no problem. This isnt scientific neutralism. You work with wrongdoing guys to nail IMO decent collegues.)


(I fully respect your standards of your hobby computerchess in open source. But you have no right to scapegoat someone like Vas who must make a living out of what he had discovered.)

[bob]

Bob,

I just want to take two points. These are not negotiable if you want to pretend you are seriously doing science. BTW our maths is wrong, you did NOT need 10 years to be very good. At the many ACM. Please dont forget about Vasik's talents.

Sorry, but you did. And likely still do if you do your own programming. If you _borrow_ code from existing programs, then this can be speeded up. For example, it took Hsu about 3 years to jump to the top of the ACM event. But he completely cloned Belle and put it on a single chip, bootstrapping from Ken's last program. There have been many "talents". You think Vas is "more talented" than (say) Ken Thompson? David Slate? Morsch, Kittinger, Hirsch, Lang, etc? I doubt it. He might be as good, but I doubt he's better. One can look like a genius by copying code, of course.

1) Anonymity

You claim you ignore what you cant control. Yes that sounds good but it's NOPT what you are doing. You dont ignore such people. If you did they would run away tail between legs. But as it seems you dont ignore but enjoxy their performance. Against Rybka, Vas. That speaks louder than words. But ok, this is you. But then science is NOT.

I gave Vas the benefit of the doubt on his claim that Robo* is a clone of Rybka. And I waited. And waited. And _never_ saw any explanation beyond that claim. Testing showed it was stronger than Rybka 3. In light of all of that, I don't see how the "clone" claim can be considered credible.

2) Neutralism of Science and Research

First of all a research must be based on something. If you have the hypothesis that Rybka was illegal then it's not good to just investigate Rybka, but to make a survey about the general practice in that field (commercial engines). You just cant take the first because you feel offended if all are doing the same. Then your work seems biased. But science isnt biased, it's neutral. This is a professional business, it's not scientifical recreation on weekend tournaments.

(I can also add the case Norm Schmidt. I asked you how you could tolerate such someone. You saw no problem. This isnt scientific neutralism. You work with wrongdoing guys to nail IMO decent collegues.)

I'm just willing to give everybody a chance. That _is_ being neutral.

(I fully respect your standards of your hobby computerchess in open source. But you have no right to scapegoat someone like Vas who must make a living out of what he had discovered.)

Discovered or copied???

There's a _huge_ difference.

[K I Hyams]

People seem to worship rybka and his creator (profet).
Feel free to continue this type of discussion at this level until ...
regards
Bernhard

Should they worship someone like you?
But even this insinuation is wrong.
In CCC people hate Rybka and Vas.
And that is crazy because Rybka is the reigning Wch.

Because they hate Rybka people in CCC spam with Ipporobbol.

I am the only one who stood up against this sort of smear.

Members here prefer anonymous guys who -after the Wch- stole his code, and I cannot take this lightly. This is unbelievable. And after your logic people here are doing exactly what you would want them to do. They do not worship Vas. But ok, I like him and his superior presentation.

Here's the question: How is this new "clone" stronger than that which it was cloned from? You have said, many times, that even if Vas did copy Fruit, he changed it dramatically to make R1 significantly stronger than fruit. Which, according to you, makes it perfectly OK. If you believe that Robo* was cloned from Rybka, it is significantly stronger based on results I have seen posted, so why is _that_ "not OK?" Seems like a bit of a double-standard to me.

What "robo*" really is is unknown. Until we have some _real_ proof as to what it is, it seems premature to just accept the old "this is my code, copied" explanation with no evidence of any kind to support that. As far as I am concerned, if Vas is bothered by Robo*, he will come forward with some solid evidence that it is based on his program. If he is not, he will do nothing, which is what he has done to date.

I choose to just sit and wait to see what happens, as I have plenty of things to work on while doing so.

The ball is in Vas Rajlich's court. There are a number of things that he can do and doing nothing is simply one of them. While he takes that option, the exact status of the engine is unclear. Clarification of the issue is an option that the putative "authors" of the engine have also avoided, in fact their behaviour has thickened the plot. Meanwhile, the engine is out there and the question of how to react confronts a number of groups with different interests.

A number of people who program as a hobby appear to have taken the view that it is not sensible to pretend that the engine does not exist because of its unclear status and have therefore had a look at it.

Those programmers who rely on engine sales for an income may feel that their livelihoods are a little less secure as a consequence and I would be surprised if all of those people can afford the luxury of pretending that it does not exist on the basis of unclear status.

The end-users are another category of people faced with the question of how to respond to the problem. From the discussions here, it seems that they take home a little candy whichever option they choose.