Refutation of Theories From 4 Mousquetiers - Holy or not?

[Rolf]

With all due respect Rolf, it's time to give this a rest.

Regards, Graham.

Ok, and thanks for your support.

For me, it's never been a problem with those involved Rolf, only the manner of the process.
Regardless, I suspect that many members are sick of reading about it, which is why I suggested giving it a rest.

Cheers, Graham.

No need for such explanations. Since I trust you it was a valuable hint for me. Again thanks to you.

[Rolf]

Notice that in the current threads about this topic, neither Z or CT have posted anything new, and have made no new claims, just responded to misstatements made by the masses. I introduced nothing new other than to reiterate my believe that duplicate code does not happen naturally. You continue to try to spin the thread out of control.

You added no new information, insight, or anything that sheds any new light on the topic.

There is no "smear campaign". That is in your head. There is simply a search for facts, based on some observations made that appear to be suspicious in nature. The same thing happened with Voyager. Where were you then? The same thing happened for Le Petite. Where were you then? Where were you when any of the previous clone discussions sprang up? So why now???

This will play out at its own pace, regardless of what is written, posted or demanded. Everyone just has to wait. Or else pitch in to help speed the process up.

First of all I beg for the opportunity to make a central argument that I forgot to mention in my first response. Let me make this very clear, my contribution is not for putting the debate out of control but for trying to convince you where the wrong is lying on your side against Vasik.

You ask me for Voyager and Le Petite. In my memory these were problems that were examined, discussed , solved and then forgotten. Why should I as a non-expert for such coding questions interfere?

But actually we have the situation that your side doesnt have proof against Vas and you argue as if you could hold this problem here open so long as you want and that cannot be ethical. And this is the reason for my engagement. I dont know what happened, what Vas did or not, but I know for sure that this case must be solved in a reasonable time frame. And three years after Rybka 1 time is slowly running out for your side. This is my sole argument and for such a question I'm experienced enough. The underlying argument was made by several people. George, Dann, Graham, Joseph and others. If you have a case, go for it, but if you havent it is not up to you to hold open the painful question if sometime, perhaps in 10 years, something could be proven. This is intolerable. Computer science should be applied and a solution should be tried. If this doesnt succeed say in some months now then you should close it. You see the difference in my approach? You want to see. Perhaps in 10 years I say. But I say, no, this is intolerable because it holds Vas in a yearlong lock. This is illigitimate.

You say your side people dont write here actually and you do as if then the case wouldnt hurt Vas anymore. But the wounds come through the held open case by people who then even claim in public that they have other things to do... This, what I call ethically wrong. And to conclude this I must not be a computerchess programming expert or a computer scientist.

Let's close it if you could grant me the right of a doubt without deminoring my person as such. Say that you missed this point I'm now making. And then let's close it. Let's get back to normal computerchess.

Please accord me also that I am NOT speaking in my one interest. I speak for a better ethical protection for our actually best chess programmer. And I have enough eperience to make such a point. It has basically nothing to do with computerchess programming.

You follow me? It's not your choice to argue that you know that Vas is wrong and that therefore we must hold open the case for many years to come. This is intolerable, Bob. I hope you see that it doesnt require computerchess expertise to make this ethical argument.

I apologize for making this last message to Bob in this thread but I had missed the content in his message. Thanks for the members' tolerance.

[bob]

Notice that in the current threads about this topic, neither Z or CT have posted anything new, and have made no new claims, just responded to misstatements made by the masses. I introduced nothing new other than to reiterate my believe that duplicate code does not happen naturally. You continue to try to spin the thread out of control.

You added no new information, insight, or anything that sheds any new light on the topic.

There is no "smear campaign". That is in your head. There is simply a search for facts, based on some observations made that appear to be suspicious in nature. The same thing happened with Voyager. Where were you then? The same thing happened for Le Petite. Where were you then? Where were you when any of the previous clone discussions sprang up? So why now???

This will play out at its own pace, regardless of what is written, posted or demanded. Everyone just has to wait. Or else pitch in to help speed the process up.

First of all I beg for the opportunity to make a central argument that I forgot to mention in my first response. Let me make this very clear, my contribution is not for putting the debate out of control but for trying to convince you where the wrong is lying on your side against Vasik.

You ask me for Voyager and Le Petite. In my memory these were problems that were examined, discussed , solved and then forgotten. Why should I as a non-expert for such coding questions interfere?

But actually we have the situation that your side doesnt have proof against Vas and you argue as if you could hold this problem here open so long as you want and that cannot be ethical.

First, I have no "side". There has been enough evidence shown to justify further investigation, like it or not. Second, I am not holding _anything_ open. I am waiting just as you are for additional information.

And this is the reason for my engagement. I dont know what happened, what Vas did or not, but I know for sure that this case must be solved in a reasonable time frame. And three years after Rybka 1 time is slowly running out for your side.

And why is that? Is there some sort of international statute of limitations on dealing with copyright/plagiarism/etc cases? Particularly when the problem might well be ongoing if code from fruit is still in R3.

This is my sole argument and for such a question I'm experienced enough. The underlying argument was made by several people. George, Dann, Graham, Joseph and others. If you have a case, go for it, but if you havent it is not up to you to hold open the painful question if sometime, perhaps in 10 years, something could be proven. This is intolerable. Computer science should be applied and a solution should be tried. If this doesnt succeed say in some months now then you should close it. You see the difference in my approach? You want to see. Perhaps in 10 years I say. But I say, no, this is intolerable because it holds Vas in a yearlong lock. This is illigitimate.

Who has suggested 10 years? Or 5 years? or even 1 year. But one thing is for sure, it will take as long as it takes, and that depends on how many people have the time to invest..

You say your side people dont write here actually and you do as if then the case wouldnt hurt Vas anymore. But the wounds come through the held open case by people who then even claim in public that they have other things to do... This, what I call ethically wrong. And to conclude this I must not be a computerchess programming expert or a computer scientist.

Let's close it if you could grant me the right of a doubt without deminoring my person as such. Say that you missed this point I'm now making. And then let's close it. Let's get back to normal computerchess.

Please accord me also that I am NOT speaking in my one interest. I speak for a better ethical protection for our actually best chess programmer. And I have enough eperience to make such a point. It has basically nothing to do with computerchess programming.

You follow me? It's not your choice to argue that you know that Vas is wrong and that therefore we must hold open the case for many years to come. This is intolerable, Bob. I hope you see that it doesnt require computerchess expertise to make this ethical argument.

I apologize for making this last message to Bob in this thread but I had missed the content in his message. Thanks for the members' tolerance.

[Rolf]

First, I have no "side". There has been enough evidence shown to justify further investigation, like it or not. Second, I am not holding _anything_ open. I am waiting just as you are for additional information.

And why is that? Is there some sort of international statute of limitations on dealing with copyright/plagiarism/etc cases? Particularly when the problem might well be ongoing if code from fruit is still in R3.

Who has suggested 10 years? Or 5 years? or even 1 year. But one thing is for sure, it will take as long as it takes, and that depends on how many people have the time to invest..

From a neutral science perspective as a psychologist I observe and therefore report this, that here people are engaged in a laborous and time-consuming activity with the pretense that the products of a particular programmer must be examined for its potential copied content of Fruit code. After three years existence of the program Rybkja 1.0. And you have the nerve to claim that you have no side here?

We are talking here about veritable living people and their products and not some circle or loop in a programming routine of computer "science". Again, in what social reality are you seeing yourself here if you have no other motives than the pure science motif?

Where is your logic of the examination process? Please prove how you will prove with thousands of ant-like workers what you cannot prove on the basis of your logical reasoning. It was pointed out to you that even if you could find code similarities that this wouldnt mean anything unallowed. All computerchess programmers are using a range of coding traditions in a technical sense. And then they add and create in the first place 'their' own program in a chess playing sense. But the wheel is not invented another time by each new programmer.

Numerous people have told you that in the first place it would be Fabien (Fruit author) who should be concerned if anything illegal happened but when seeing the new code he just said that it well could be rewritten. And how will you prove that this cant have happened?

What risk of any investment you made, are you personally running, Bob, by siding and motivating the compiling process of some talented young people? Do you offer them at least a diploma in computer sciences? What would happen if the results cant prove anything illegal by Vas? Will you then retire or resign and give up your job as a professor at the university of Alabahma?

How can you justify to motivate other people with no safe existence yet to waste their time with such compiling if we can already now say that nothing relevant could come out of the activities? Rybka 1 is three years old, it was clearly motivated and helped by the ideas of Fabien, and Vas said so in his long list of thanks, so, what is the point now? When will you have finished the decompiling of Ryabka 3? After Rybka 5 or 7 has been published? For how long will you aid these young people to waste their lifetime with such illogical and irrelevant passtimes? For all why do you resist to motivate to examine JUNIOR, SHREDDER or FRITZ? Why not CHESS TIGER? Is it because of the necessary manpower alone?

Or is this all done because by proving certain small copy bits you could potentially damage the actually best chess software on the World and its author?

I have full respect for your motif to prevent or disable clones of your open source program, this has also paedagogique merits. So, there you are in harmony with your own job as a teacher, but the year and monthlong hunting after a possible wrong of the new number one, when you know exactly thast he could never be number one if he just copied, has no justification. It's unreasonable and from the perspective of the hunted man an intolerable wrong. And for all it disables progress because talented young people are disturbed in their work for their own programs!

Instead that call for many new talents to try their own step into computerchess programming, you support and want to justify that they all in masses should join the decompilinmg process of antique Rybka versions. And this well knowing that Vas has improved his always new versions in dimensions of more than 100 Elo points compared to his competitors and you want to fool us all with the theory that this is all only possible because long ago Vas has copied parser bits of code from Fruit??? Please, Bob, get real! Stop this project of mass hypnosing.


Please resist a new period of deminoring my status without even contradicting my arguments. At best let it as it is and beg your helpers to work on their own chess programs or completely different projects. It's almost a sin not to warn these young people that they are wasting precious lifetime. Look at Bejing! Hiarcs is leading with Rybka. How come? Please examine how HIARCS could contain potentially Fruit stuff too! Just kidding.

Sorry, Graham, but why dont you write these trivial contradictions to help Bob to renounce from such spooky activities? You could speak for 500 amateur programmers who shouldnt decompile of outdated Rybka mummies for the rest of their lives.

[bob]

Rolf, your only goal is to spin this thread out of control. I choose to leave it to you to do so, as, to paraphrase the Borg, "discussion is futile..."

[Rolf]

Rolf, your only goal is to spin this thread out of control. I choose to leave it to you to do so, as, to paraphrase the Borg, "discussion is futile..."

Sorry Bob, this isnt true. But let's simply both leave it. BTW, arent you here only addressing the group as such because me you cannot mean because my relative lay status is very well known, but you were always friendly enough to answer and explain. You know that I am thankful for that. But the medal has two sides. If something doesnt fit I have the right to mention it.

Again with big thanks and the hope that something of my criticism might get through to you.

I thought that the programming subforum would give you and all enough room for really top tech questions but here in the General you dont want to enforce a test where everybody must at first explain what bitboards are doing in codes - before he is allowed to write. Therefore I leave this topic for now because I know that it's not you who doesnt tolerate it but you must also react on those voices who say but dont always answer him he just wants to get this out of control. The latter is wrong and I'm sad that people could think so. But enough said.

[GenoM]

Rolf,
you're rolling!
Congratulations!

ps:
did i miss some 't' in the sentences above?

[Philippe]

Can anyone make a short description of Rolf's post.
English is not my mother language and I don't feel like reading it entirely.

[bob]

Can anyone make a short description of Rolf's post.
English is not my mother language and I don't feel like reading it entirely.

He has a room full of monkeys typing 24 hours a day. When one types something that appears to make some sort of syntactical sense, he posts it here. In short, there is no meaning. It is just an attempt to keep a topic alive that he claims he wants to die, but really doesn't..

[Rolf]

Can anyone make a short description of Rolf's post.
English is not my mother language and I don't feel like reading it entirely.

He has a room full of monkeys typing 24 hours a day. When one types something that appears to make some sort of syntactical sense, he posts it here. In short, there is no meaning. It is just an attempt to keep a topic alive that he claims he wants to die, but really doesn't..

Sorry but this is wrong. Sure also the thread could well die but my concern is and always was how the underlying campaign against Vas/Rybka could be either lead into a serious scientific research in peace without insults and suppositions or the topic could be finished because also someone like you realisesd how damaging the whole is for computerchess, also in a sense that real talents are kept away from their own potentially super strong entities. But I already explained all that. You are a teacher and you can follow that like a big puzzle or a season in Americaqn football. You have a safe existence but these young or not so young guys should soon be able to make a living.

But exactly because you are a scientist and teacher, Bob, please decide if it couldnt be of help for all the lays, the interested and also other experts. if you would describe a process flow with different issues and possible decisions, and then giving the potentially maximum of what we could expect to come out of it all. Also in relation to the newest versions of the program if you have the first under the microscope.

Following what Dann has written, I have still hope that normally you must realise that practically not much will come out of it. So still another reason to make a decision, to halt this procedure. Fabien isnt interested much, so, where is the beef?

I know that this all was already thought through, also by you in debate with ChrisW. But again, couldnt you make a closing message with how you would describe the whole process how it could happen in real future?

Hey, one of my monkeys has bitten me. He was astonished about the good idea I was telling you.