GenoM wrote:I appreciated your point, Eelco, but so far neither Christophe, neither Zach or Norman, or Robert Hyatt can be blamed of witchhunting.
Regards,
Geno
Hi Evgenii,
I appreciate your point, I agree with it, it is just that if discussions seem to drag on without anybody really able to say what are actually are the grounds for this discussion, because these still have to be made up, I think that would be enough even for any legal case or even just an ICGA case to be nulled, thrown out of "court", before it ever came to that. What is Vas going to respond to? He can't respond to anything yet. Is that fair? I don't think that would be fair.
That is just what I wanted to say.
Have a good weekend Evgenii!
Eelco
Seems one(Bob) if not all those named above (by Evgenii ) have already made up their minds about Rybka/VAS, if my reading comprehension is up to snuff.
Quote:
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
DUPLICATE CODES-NO IFS-ANDS OR BUTS.I reiterate, it seems they've made up their minds already.
<sigh> More "out of context". How about including the key words "based on duplicate code that has actually been published"??? That evidence is quite compelling, because the probability of such happening by chance is vanishingly small. So yes, the duplicate code published so far looks to be convincing and it doesn't take any imagination or Ouija board to make inferences. More similar code will only increase the probability of copying. Let's see what comes out next...
BTW it would seem that you are the pot, calling the kettle black, since you are obviously arguing from the other point of view, that this is all a tempest in a teapot.
GenoM wrote:I appreciated your point, Eelco, but so far neither Christophe, neither Zach or Norman, or Robert Hyatt can be blamed of witchhunting.
Regards,
Geno
Hi Evgenii,
I appreciate your point, I agree with it, it is just that if discussions seem to drag on without anybody really able to say what are actually are the grounds for this discussion, because these still have to be made up, I think that would be enough even for any legal case or even just an ICGA case to be nulled, thrown out of "court", before it ever came to that. What is Vas going to respond to? He can't respond to anything yet. Is that fair? I don't think that would be fair.
That is just what I wanted to say.
Have a good weekend Evgenii!
Eelco
Seems one(Bob) if not all those named above (by Evgenii ) have already made up their minds about Rybka/VAS, if my reading comprehension is up to snuff.
Quote:
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
DUPLICATE CODES-NO IFS-ANDS OR BUTS.I reiterate, it seems they've made up their minds already.
<sigh> More "out of context". How about including the key words "based on duplicate code that has actually been published"??? That evidence is quite compelling, because the probability of such happening by chance is vanishingly small. So yes, the duplicate code published so far looks to be convincing and it doesn't take any imagination or Ouija board to make inferences. More similar code will only increase the probability of copying. Let's see what comes out next...
Regards
Michael
Your 'duplicate' code is about as convincing as a flying pig.
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
It means quite simply, as per your comment
Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3
The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.
I do not write ambiguously. The current effort is looking at rybka 1. If that produces completely convincing evidence of copying, then rybka 2 has to be looked at next. I believe, based on 40 years of writing these things, that there is a _high_ probability that version 2 re-uses lots of code from version 1 of any piece of complex software. That is hardly a "giant leap". If R2 is based on R1, and R3 is based on R2, then all three have a huge problem with respect to entering ICGA events based on the rules currently in place.
Well, in that case since you've not yet made your case against R1, that's still being worked on - the anti-anti side will want some time to check what you've done and have the opportunity to refute it - Beijing is very close - so R2 being looked at "next" won't happen fast enough for start of Beijing, let alone R3 ...... so .....
Will you make a statement that the participation of Rybka 3 or whatever version they call it now at Beijing is not under any sort of threat as far as you are concerned?
What does Beijing have to do with anything? You won't find mention of that in _any_ post I have made. So that is yet another strawman argument someone else is responsible for. I'm not going to Beijing. I don't know who is and who is not going, and really don't care. That tournament has become much less important, IMHO, than the various CCT-type events we host with 4-5 times the number of participants. So I have not given any arbitrary time frame where this has to be resolve, neither did Zach, Christophe, or others looking at the issue.
I could not care less who/what participates in Beijing, that is a subject for the ICGA and the participating authors to deal with.
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
It means quite simply, as per your comment
Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3
The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.
I do not write ambiguously. The current effort is looking at rybka 1. If that produces completely convincing evidence of copying, then rybka 2 has to be looked at next. I believe, based on 40 years of writing these things, that there is a _high_ probability that version 2 re-uses lots of code from version 1 of any piece of complex software. That is hardly a "giant leap". If R2 is based on R1, and R3 is based on R2, then all three have a huge problem with respect to entering ICGA events based on the rules currently in place.
Well, in that case since you've not yet made your case against R1, that's still being worked on - the anti-anti side will want some time to check what you've done and have the opportunity to refute it - Beijing is very close - so R2 being looked at "next" won't happen fast enough for start of Beijing, let alone R3 ...... so .....
Will you make a statement that the participation of Rybka 3 or whatever version they call it now at Beijing is not under any sort of threat as far as you are concerned?
What does Beijing have to do with anything? You won't find mention of that in _any_ post I have made. So that is yet another strawman argument someone else is responsible for. I'm not going to Beijing. I don't know who is and who is not going, and really don't care. That tournament has become much less important, IMHO, than the various CCT-type events we host with 4-5 times the number of participants. So I have not given any arbitrary time frame where this has to be resolve, neither did Zach, Christophe, or others looking at the issue.
I could not care less who/what participates in Beijing, that is a subject for the ICGA and the participating authors to deal with.
You brought Beijing into all of this with your comment:
Bob wrote: As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Given your statement above, put together with statement in same thread:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO.
That would appear to be a call for Rybka to be banned from Beijing (the next tournament).
Will you make a clear statement that is not your intention to give that impression and that you consider Rybka entry in Beijing is not and should not be under any threat?
GenoM wrote:I appreciated your point, Eelco, but so far neither Christophe, neither Zach or Norman, or Robert Hyatt can be blamed of witchhunting.
Regards,
Geno
Hi Evgenii,
I appreciate your point, I agree with it, it is just that if discussions seem to drag on without anybody really able to say what are actually are the grounds for this discussion, because these still have to be made up, I think that would be enough even for any legal case or even just an ICGA case to be nulled, thrown out of "court", before it ever came to that. What is Vas going to respond to? He can't respond to anything yet. Is that fair? I don't think that would be fair.
That is just what I wanted to say.
Have a good weekend Evgenii!
Eelco
Seems one(Bob) if not all those named above (by Evgenii ) have already made up their minds about Rybka/VAS, if my reading comprehension is up to snuff.
Quote:
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
DUPLICATE CODES-NO IFS-ANDS OR BUTS.I reiterate, it seems they've made up their minds already.
<sigh> More "out of context". How about including the key words "based on duplicate code that has actually been published"??? That evidence is quite compelling, because the probability of such happening by chance is vanishingly small. So yes, the duplicate code published so far looks to be convincing and it doesn't take any imagination or Ouija board to make inferences. More similar code will only increase the probability of copying. Let's see what comes out next...
Regards
Michael
Your 'duplicate' code is about as convincing as a flying pig.
Your arguments are about as effective as farts in a hurricane...
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
It means quite simply, as per your comment
Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3
The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.
I do not write ambiguously. The current effort is looking at rybka 1. If that produces completely convincing evidence of copying, then rybka 2 has to be looked at next. I believe, based on 40 years of writing these things, that there is a _high_ probability that version 2 re-uses lots of code from version 1 of any piece of complex software. That is hardly a "giant leap". If R2 is based on R1, and R3 is based on R2, then all three have a huge problem with respect to entering ICGA events based on the rules currently in place.
Well, in that case since you've not yet made your case against R1, that's still being worked on - the anti-anti side will want some time to check what you've done and have the opportunity to refute it - Beijing is very close - so R2 being looked at "next" won't happen fast enough for start of Beijing, let alone R3 ...... so .....
Will you make a statement that the participation of Rybka 3 or whatever version they call it now at Beijing is not under any sort of threat as far as you are concerned?
What does Beijing have to do with anything? You won't find mention of that in _any_ post I have made. So that is yet another strawman argument someone else is responsible for. I'm not going to Beijing. I don't know who is and who is not going, and really don't care. That tournament has become much less important, IMHO, than the various CCT-type events we host with 4-5 times the number of participants. So I have not given any arbitrary time frame where this has to be resolve, neither did Zach, Christophe, or others looking at the issue.
I could not care less who/what participates in Beijing, that is a subject for the ICGA and the participating authors to deal with.
You brought Beijing into all of this with your comment:
Bob wrote: As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Given your statement above, put together with statement in same thread:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO.
That would appear to be a call for Rybka to be banned from Beijing (the next tournament).
Will you make a clear statement that is not your intention to give that impression and that you consider Rybka entry in Beijing is not and should not be under any threat?
How about we do the following: From here on, lets argue about what I _write_. Not about what you think I write. Particularly when you take something from two different posts and juxtapose them together.
I have not yet said "Rybka is a copy of Fruit." I have said that the evidence presented so far is compelling. There has been no rebuttal to any of it, except by people disconnected from Rybka that just produce tons of static to try to drown out the communication. So neither have I called for any sort of ban, or any other penalty _yet_. So there has been absolutely no implication with reference to Beijing on my part, neither has the word "Beijing" been used by me in any post until these past two.
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
It means quite simply, as per your comment
Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3
The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.
I do not write ambiguously. The current effort is looking at rybka 1. If that produces completely convincing evidence of copying, then rybka 2 has to be looked at next. I believe, based on 40 years of writing these things, that there is a _high_ probability that version 2 re-uses lots of code from version 1 of any piece of complex software. That is hardly a "giant leap". If R2 is based on R1, and R3 is based on R2, then all three have a huge problem with respect to entering ICGA events based on the rules currently in place.
Well, in that case since you've not yet made your case against R1, that's still being worked on - the anti-anti side will want some time to check what you've done and have the opportunity to refute it - Beijing is very close - so R2 being looked at "next" won't happen fast enough for start of Beijing, let alone R3 ...... so .....
Will you make a statement that the participation of Rybka 3 or whatever version they call it now at Beijing is not under any sort of threat as far as you are concerned?
What does Beijing have to do with anything? You won't find mention of that in _any_ post I have made. So that is yet another strawman argument someone else is responsible for. I'm not going to Beijing. I don't know who is and who is not going, and really don't care. That tournament has become much less important, IMHO, than the various CCT-type events we host with 4-5 times the number of participants. So I have not given any arbitrary time frame where this has to be resolve, neither did Zach, Christophe, or others looking at the issue.
I could not care less who/what participates in Beijing, that is a subject for the ICGA and the participating authors to deal with.
You brought Beijing into all of this with your comment:
Bob wrote: As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Given your statement above, put together with statement in same thread:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO.
That would appear to be a call for Rybka to be banned from Beijing (the next tournament).
Will you make a clear statement that is not your intention to give that impression and that you consider Rybka entry in Beijing is not and should not be under any threat?
How about we do the following: From here on, lets argue about what I _write_. Not about what you think I write. Particularly when you take something from two different posts and juxtapose them together.
I have not yet said "Rybka is a copy of Fruit." I have said that the evidence presented so far is compelling. There has been no rebuttal to any of it, except by people disconnected from Rybka that just produce tons of static to try to drown out the communication. So neither have I called for any sort of ban, or any other penalty _yet_. So there has been absolutely no implication with reference to Beijing on my part, neither has the word "Beijing" been used by me in any post until these past two.
We're talking exactly about what you wrote. And wrote all together in one post (not two as you falsely suggest).
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
That's one post. Not two. Not juxtaposed.
Case against R1 pretty convincing ... looks bad -> my policy ... banned for life.
So, no clear statement from you to lift the weight off the Rybka entry to Beijing.
Up until this point, I have not participated in any of these clone debate threads because I am not a programmer and I do not think there is any substantive material I could add to the discussion.
I feel compelled put this in the record before this message board implodes: Dr. Hyatt is one of the pioneers in computer chess programming with over forty years of experience in his field. He has a doctorate in computer science and, based on the posts I have seen him make on various newsgroups over the years, I get the feeling that he is probably smarter than 99.9% of the rest of us. I am sure that his teaching, research, and personal interests consume a large amount of his time. Despite that, he actively participates in this group with lucid and informative posts and he responds promptly to emails from complete strangers asking him questions about computer chess.
Given these observations, I am shocked at the degree of disrespect that is frequently shown to him by members of this community. If I were him, I would have given-up on forums such as this long ago. I think it is a testament to his character that Dr. Hyatt continues to share his thoughts with us despite the discourteous behavior he has to endure.
I have no idea if Dr. Hyatt’s opinions on this matter or correct or not. However, I think this community should show him a significant degree of deference in regard to the ideas and theories he has pertaining to this debate. I think that a person with his credentials should be afforded a high degree of respect. I’m disappointed so few users here feel the same.
mike860 wrote:Up until this point, I have not participated in any of these clone debate threads because I am not a programmer and I do not think there is any substantive material I could add to the discussion.
I feel compelled put this in the record before this message board implodes: Dr. Hyatt is one of the pioneers in computer chess programming with over forty years of experience in his field. He has a doctorate in computer science and, based on the posts I have seen him make on various newsgroups over the years, I get the feeling that he is probably smarter than 99.9% of the rest of us. I am sure that his teaching, research, and personal interests consume a large amount of his time. Despite that, he actively participates in this group with lucid and informative posts and he responds promptly to emails from complete strangers asking him questions about computer chess.
Given these observations, I am shocked at the degree of disrespect that is frequently shown to him by members of this community. If I were him, I would have given-up on forums such as this long ago. I think it is a testament to his character that Dr. Hyatt continues to share his thoughts with us despite the discourteous behavior he has to endure.
I have no idea if Dr. Hyatt’s opinions on this matter or correct or not. However, I think this community should show him a significant degree of deference in regard to the ideas and theories he has pertaining to this debate. I think that a person with his credentials should be afforded a high degree of respect. I’m disappointed so few users here feel the same.
mike860 wrote:Up until this point, I have not participated in any of these clone debate threads because I am not a programmer and I do not think there is any substantive material I could add to the discussion.
I feel compelled put this in the record before this message board implodes: Dr. Hyatt is one of the pioneers in computer chess programming with over forty years of experience in his field. He has a doctorate in computer science and, based on the posts I have seen him make on various newsgroups over the years, I get the feeling that he is probably smarter than 99.9% of the rest of us. I am sure that his teaching, research, and personal interests consume a large amount of his time. Despite that, he actively participates in this group with lucid and informative posts and he responds promptly to emails from complete strangers asking him questions about computer chess.
Given these observations, I am shocked at the degree of disrespect that is frequently shown to him by members of this community. If I were him, I would have given-up on forums such as this long ago. I think it is a testament to his character that Dr. Hyatt continues to share his thoughts with us despite the discourteous behavior he has to endure.
I have no idea if Dr. Hyatt’s opinions on this matter or correct or not. However, I think this community should show him a significant degree of deference in regard to the ideas and theories he has pertaining to this debate. I think that a person with his credentials should be afforded a high degree of respect. I’m disappointed so few users here feel the same.
it's been absolutley despicable, shameful. i lodged a complaint yesterday to the mods (swami) because a couple members were posting unflattering enlarged photos in an effort to mock him. i was gratified to see the offending posts had been removed.
i have a suggestion, perhaps if ChrisW was more respectful (as an authoratative 'mod' role model), others might be more inclined to follow suit...
there have been 'no holes barred' in the recent efforts to discredit him, IMHO, and the forum moderator seems to be leading the way.
