What "allegations" have I made? My participation started when someone asked "why would one obfuscate node counts, depths, and PV output?" My response was not any sort of allegation, it was a simple and direct explanation of why that might be done. Then another alternative was provided by CT and it does carry some weight.Rolf wrote:Well, didnt we two discuss more than once the differences between mere lynching justice without fair court trials and a justice after the Roman system? Innocent until proven guilty but NOT guilty until having defended oneself against all kind of campaign like CT&BobH allegations.bob wrote:Sorry, but that boat won't float. When I was accused of cheating several years ago, about something that happened back in 1986. I chose to not sit idly by and let the accusations reverberate around r.g.c.c... I replied factually, quoted a specific letter from David Levy which described the investigation he did and the conclusion that absolutely nothing wrong was done, and so forth. It would be easy enough to simply post "Rybka is my own unique work, I didn't borrow any code form any GPL or open-source programs, so I don't know why this kind of discussion has come up." I can think of only one reason why _I_ would not write that were the discussion about me, I'll leave discovering that reason as an exercise for the reader. I think it is obvious enough that anyone will "get it."Rolf wrote:I think he can rely on a purely psychological standpoint for the moment. When did you talk to a commercial programmer collegue during the last 50 years? Now that's going too far. You are looking upon everything like the guy with a hammer. Everything looks to him like a nail while hidden nails frighten him. A commercial programmer cannot discuss what he does, Bob, he lets his program speak. He's in chess what you are on ICC in Bullet. Simply the best!bob wrote:Has Vas responded in any way about this? How can one find points in his favor if there is nothing but a deafening silence from his side of the table???Rolf wrote:I could cut out the other stuff because this here already shows your bias. You simply argue always from the position that Vas has done something wrong. I already wrote a message to write my astonishment how experts could be biased. If you at least would find arguments in favor of Vas, just out of principle. Or also in case you knew how something might have no legal relevance.bob wrote:You are assuming too much. For example, would you file suit against someone that was making a claim that hurt you, if you_knew_ that the claim was true? Because to file the suit, you have to make a sworn statement that the claim is false in order to seek damages. And if the claim is later proven true, you just committed perjury and are now looking at prison time rather than seeking financial redress from someone else. The sword of justice cuts both ways so caution is required.
I can't parse that and have no idea what you mean.
It also strikes me that you sit in a boat with people who admittedly have cheated with clones and or output but you cant leave someone innocent his innocense until he was proven guilty.
I said nothing of the kind. When Berliner first made his claim, David quickly followed up on it. We did not play at the 1986 ACM event because we had just played in the 1986 WCCC and won it. But Harry went because he wanted to attend the conference. David asked him to have Cray restore the same program we used a month or two earlier at the WCCC, and play over some disputed moves in that game. We had already provided the log file showing all analysis, and David/Harry replayed the game to verify that the analysis matched the log, and the actual game. David then wrote a lengthy letter explaining how he evaluated each claim by Berliner, and dismissed each one in succession in several ways, from the replay mentioned above, to "here are other programs that play the same move that you said _no_ computer would play."Your newest law of Friday morning is that someone is guilty until he has not asked David Levy ('Satisfying sex with robots', Dissert. Maastricht 2007!) and for all didnt declare that he has never slapped his, sorry, stolen Fruit code nor from Crafty.
As the president of the ICCA, he had an obligation to maintain the integrity of the ICCA, and he investigated thoroughly. I mentioned him, not because of who he was, but because he did a careful analysis of each claim in turn and verified that they were _all_ 100% unfounded. If someone else had done that rather than David, I would have cited their findings instead.
I don't see anything to reconsider. He offered to explain how his search worked, and how his node count was somewhat different as a result. I've already posed several "options" for counting nodes. But you notice that the "other side" (your words) never offers any answers. Only counter-claims and counter-questions. Which do nothing to help resolve the questions being asked.
Again, although you attack the actually best programmer worldwide except Alabama as already guilty because he doesnt speak you buddy with the Tiger author who was indirectly accused of having obfuscated the output of his Tiger versions 12, 13, 14. At least he never answered the decent questions of former cooperator Jeroen Noomen. But this is no problem for you. Although CT has obviously cheated his users you still support CT and attack Vas. Furthermore you buddy with someone who was caught red-handed with a clone what he denied for a long time until he confessed his guilt. So you buddy with such famous programmers but you hate to grant Vas the same innocense. Vas is already guilty for you with unknown reasons.
Please reconsider all that, Bob.
