Rybka Coding Posts

[kranium]

If you go through my postings you will notice I have argued neither pro or against Vas. I have said the procedure is wrong. It's wrong to spread accusations without full proof. I also argued this discussion should be done behind the scenes (by email) and not in public. Now the whole thing smells as a smear campaign whether intended or not. Fact is harm is done to Vas' good name. No matter how the verdict will be it's the wrong procedure.
Ed

Exactly. Well stated Ed.

No, it's not well stated. In fact it totally misses the mark altogether.

If we wait to do this behind closed doors then we'll be long dead. That's not realistic.

Even if behind closed doors and 10 years from now a verdict is reached so to speak it's far too late.

Also, this would eventually spill over and appear more evil in many people's eyes.

This is a win-win lose-lose proposition.

So you prefer vigilante justice to going through proper channels?

No Graham, and that isn't happening. George apologised and bowed out.

I suggest for the sake of discussion you do the same.

I have nothing to apologise for Terry.
I repeat that if Christophe, Zach and company think they have a case, they should take it to the FSF.
That they seem reluctant to do so speaks volumes.

Graham, we are not reluctant in any way, shape, or form, it's surely going to happen.

we are avoiding the insults, the flame wars, the unending attacks, and discussing this privately, in order to proceed in the best and fairest possible manner.
as of today, it wouldn't be difficult for us to put many many signatures on a letter of concern, or a complaint, if we so chose.

despite the fact that you an chrisw are constantly pressing us to act?, (perhaps in an effort to get us to fall on our face), we will proceed at our own pace in this matter, and remain unperturbed.

Please allow us to proceed without constantly insulting us.

Norm

[bob]

If you go through my postings you will notice I have argued neither pro or against Vas. I have said the procedure is wrong. It's wrong to spread accusations without full proof. I also argued this discussion should be done behind the scenes (by email) and not in public. Now the whole thing smells as a smear campaign whether intended or not. Fact is harm is done to Vas' good name. No matter how the verdict will be it's the wrong procedure.
Ed

Exactly. Well stated Ed.

No, it's not well stated. In fact it totally misses the mark altogether.

If we wait to do this behind closed doors then we'll be long dead. That's not realistic.

Even if behind closed doors and 10 years from now a verdict is reached so to speak it's far too late.

Also, this would eventually spill over and appear more evil in many people's eyes.

This is a win-win lose-lose proposition.

So you prefer vigilante justice to going through proper channels?

No Graham, and that isn't happening. George apologised and bowed out.

I suggest for the sake of discussion you do the same.

I have nothing to apologise for Terry.
I repeat that if Christophe, Zach and company think they have a case, they should take it to the FSF.
That they seem reluctant to do so speaks volumes.

what it says is that they are not yet "finished". There is much more to talk about. There is more new data. But the ones working on it are convinced that it is better until they can post a _significant_ quantity of code for everyone to look at. There is a continual "show us something", and then "wait until you are certain" and bouncing back and forth. Just hold on for a while, this is not going away until it is completed, and the principles are not going to fade away into the sunset as many would hope. Some of the more outrageous posts are actually resulting in more determination to investigate this thoroughly, which is a sort of perverse form of justice I suspect. But one goal for the next outbreak of data will be to avoid the "only 200 identical lines? that is nothing..." sort of stuff. But it takes time to do the analysis, and then check/re-check before moving on to the next block.

Can't have it both ways, it has to either be piecemeal or in one enormous chunk. Current thinking is more along the "one enormous chunk" to avoid wasting time defending every small similarity found.

[tiger]

Just to make things funnier -- no evil intentions -- look at the link I found yesterday

http://www.program-transformation.org/T ... lavRajlich

Weird, isn't it?

I was laughing may be 2 minutes when I found it and I'm smiling every time I'm reading this address again

No harm feelings,
Geno

I am missing the joke I guess. It's his father.

http://www.rajlich.com/

Albert

Sorry, I was thinking it's just a namesake and found it strange that he's a computer engineer too inclined in programs transformation.

Ooooooooops!



// Christophe

[tiger]

Tell me, Graham, do you remember a few cases where an engine has been banned from further tesing by the CCRL? Which ones and why?



// Christophe

We stopped testing Strelka. That's all.

I assume you did so because Strelka was convicted of something by some legal official entity?



// Christophe

No - we made the decision ourselves to stop testing it.

Why have you decided to stop testing it when it was clearly one of the best performing program out there?

I can understand that you stop testing a very weak program by lack of resources, but stopping tests on one of the strongest program is going to influence a good number of ranks and ratings around. So why did you decide to stop testing it?



// Christophe

[GenoM]

Ooooooooops!

// Christophe

Yes.
So much laughing for the wrong reason.

[John]

"[We intend to] proceed in the best and fairest possible manner."

That is very good news.

Long-standing experience in science has show that by far the "best and fairest method" is to specify, publicly and in advance, the evaluation criteria and the evaluation methods of any such study. This Statement From the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors explains why.

Departing from these well-established standards of openness, fairness, and thoroughness invites a reasonable presumption that any and all reported results are not science, but pseudoscience.

As the Statement makes clear, whenever a study neglects these principles, negative and positive results are equally harmful. That is why, if these fundamental principles are going to be neglected, then it is less harmful by far---no matter what the outcome---not to undertake the study at all.

[Graham Banks]

I have nothing to apologise for Terry.
I repeat that if Christophe, Zach and company think they have a case, they should take it to the FSF.
That they seem reluctant to do so speaks volumes.

Graham, we are not reluctant in any way, shape, or form, it's surely going to happen.

we are avoiding the insults, the flame wars, the unending attacks, and discussing this privately, in order to proceed in the best and fairest possible manner.
as of today, it wouldn't be difficult for us to put many many signatures on a letter of concern, or a complaint, if we so chose.

despite the fact that you an chrisw are constantly pressing us to act?, (perhaps in an effort to get us to fall on our face), we will proceed at our own pace in this matter, and remain unperturbed.

Please allow us to proceed without constantly insulting us.

Norm

Please show me where I have insulted you.

Regards, Graham.

[Graham Banks]

Tell me, Graham, do you remember a few cases where an engine has been banned from further tesing by the CCRL? Which ones and why?



// Christophe

We stopped testing Strelka. That's all.

I assume you did so because Strelka was convicted of something by some legal official entity?



// Christophe

No - we made the decision ourselves to stop testing it.

Why have you decided to stop testing it when it was clearly one of the best performing program out there?

I can understand that you stop testing a very weak program by lack of resources, but stopping tests on one of the strongest program is going to influence a good number of ranks and ratings around. So why did you decide to stop testing it?



// Christophe

Personal choice.

[Terry McCracken]

I have nothing to apologise for Terry.
I repeat that if Christophe, Zach and company think they have a case, they should take it to the FSF.
That they seem reluctant to do so speaks volumes.

They are gathering data. That's all. You really don't understand and am through trying to explain this to you.

It's pointless as you don't see what the real picture is and you and others don't wasnt to see it.

I have to leave. I suggest you think before you reply to me.

Good. They should gather their data privately and then present their case.
Posting here in the meantime achieves little except draw fire.

I said think before you reply to me....They are doing both keeping it out in full view.

I'm not interested in circular arguements.

[pedrox]

Hi Pedro,

I can look at CW and Ed as two special programmers to which I did not get either the shoe, but comments on disassembly programs by Chris and acceptance by Ed makes no sense, is completely ridiculous.

If you go through my postings you will notice I have argued neither pro or against Vas. I have said the procedure is wrong. It's wrong to spread accusations without full proof. I also argued this discussion should be done behind the scenes (by email) and not in public. Now the whole thing smells as a smear campaign whether intended or not. Fact is harm is done to Vas' good name. No matter how the verdict will be it's the wrong procedure.

If the disassembly allowed Yury Osipov build Strelka from assembler code of Rybka and for Vas Strelka is a clone, then also make it possible to compare the disassembly of Rybka and Fruit.

Of course, nobody doubts that. Point is that good data isn't presented yet. Still the accusations continue.

If we have to see the disassembly as something artistic, then Yury Osipov is the greatest artist of all.

He for sure is Fact remains reengineering is creative process which includes mistakes. Others should be able to judge. So far there is nothing to judge.

Ed

Thanks for the clarification Ed. I agree to everything you say.

Pedro