Thoughts...

[Alexander Schmidt]

Christopher

Finally Chris. I misst your comments in this thread.

[Rolf]

Is there anybody who is forced to speak the truth if he's talking with crook? Or let's ask the question this way: is the FBI forced to only speak the truth even if that would mean that crook gets important signals? Being harrassed by crook is bad enough but is it therefore forced to add another misfortune to the first?

To all these questions KungFuDse made legendary answers. He said "NO!" to each question above. Although it might sound unfriendly but he insisted and said No! So you see what wise men are capable of. I knew that the MIT is a very special facility for mega brainers.

Rolf, no need to talk to me anymore, because I don't read your posts. I just don't understand what you wanna say to me.

Have a nice day.

I was responding to a post by Graham, so please excuse me if you misunderstood my message.

[Christopher Conkie]

As you admitted yourself in one of your posts, Jury is probably the best person apart from Vas who would know.

So you believe Vas was lying?

About the code being from Rybka 3 rather than later code? Could have been, but would have had his reasons for doing so, I'm sure.

Cheers,
Graham.

OK, then no more punishment for me when I say the statement was wrong

Mud is mud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y64S4hzcekj

As Howard Wilkinson (manager of Leeds United) once said....

"I am always in the shit, only the depth varies......"

This is quite a nasty little thread.

I move on like you to the next injustice. I agree with most everything of what you have said.

The handling is the main issue here.

We will get those who claim open source is good.

We will get those who claim it is bad.

We will get those who claim theft.

And we will get those that claim they were stolen from first.

The next scandal is coming soon.......of that there is no doubt.

At least we know one thing......

One day......all software will be free and there will be no need for any licences.

No one will be able to make money or earn a living. By this I mean anyone.

This may suit some people now but such is the progressive and entrepreneurial human race, I doubt they will be satisfied for long.

We always want something better. It is how you go about achieving that, that is the important factor.

Gruss

Christopher

[Christopher Conkie]

Christopher

Finally Chris. I misst your comments in this thread.

I cannot be bothered anymore Alex.

Let them get on with it.

One fine day however......corrective measures are in order.

It may be soon, if the disease is caught early enough.

I hate Ippolit threads as much as I hated El Chinito, Toga and Patriot threads now.

They are really fucking shit IMHO.

They are not why I am here.



Christopher

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

As you admitted yourself in one of your posts, Jury is probably the best person apart from Vas who would know.

So you believe Vas was lying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm_yzJ99ZYs

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/the/sweet+ ... 36192.html

He would say that, but then Juri would also propagate it by compiling it.

Let's see who Convekta go for......right?

What a twisted web this is.

Anyway 0.45 and 4.56 in the video, they are good for the (lemon) soul.

We help to make a free GUI, and that is a fact. We do our best to keep it clean within reasonable parameters.

Don't want no dirty scummy fish in it. It's a C(G)od war.....

Christmas is coming. Let see what Santa brings......



CTF Mod greetings from the forum that has no (lemon) soul supposedly.......



Christopher

Wow Christopher,has you shifted sides bro
If so,welcome to our side of the battle front
Dr.D

[Christopher Conkie]

As you admitted yourself in one of your posts, Jury is probably the best person apart from Vas who would know.

So you believe Vas was lying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm_yzJ99ZYs

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/the/sweet+ ... 36192.html

He would say that, but then Juri would also propagate it by compiling it.

Let's see who Convekta go for......right?

What a twisted web this is.

Anyway 0.45 and 4.56 in the video, they are good for the (lemon) soul.

We help to make a free GUI, and that is a fact. We do our best to keep it clean within reasonable parameters.

Don't want no dirty scummy fish in it. It's a C(G)od war.....

Christmas is coming. Let see what Santa brings......



CTF Mod greetings from the forum that has no (lemon) soul supposedly.......



Christopher

Wow Christopher,has you shifted sides bro
If so,welcome to our side of the battle front
Dr.D

I am unaware of any change.

I am aware of only one thing.

I have better things to be doing than to be involved in such ping pong arguments/discussions.

My roots lie elsewhere. Somewhere much less devisive than this.

Know what you were told. The rest is up to you.

I don't sit on fences like some.

Christopher

[gerold]

Nice games Michael.
Do you think 85d3 is the strongest?

Best.

Gerold.

P.S.
Do you have any comment on the node
count of this engine.

[Matthias Gemuh]

Nice games Michael.
Do you think 85d3 is the strongest?

Best.

Gerold.

P.S.
Do you have any comment on the node
count of this engine.

Better time management in 85d4 and above.
Will now test 85d8.

Matthias.

[Graham Banks]

Remember how the engines inproved in the last years. After years of stagnation Fruit (and later Glaurung) appeared. Are you sure no one copied some code? Did you ever blame a commercial author for the improvement in his engine because he maybe took some code?

You did not, and that is fine.

You did not when Rybka 1 appeared, allthough it was 600 ELO points stronger than it's predecessor.

You did it not even when I showed similaries between Rybka and Fruit. This is also fine to me as long as you apply the same standart for all engines.

Despite Zach posting that he'd provide absolute proof that Vas had taken code from Fruit for Rybka 1.0, nothing has been shown after more than a year.
Despite this, some here are still making accusations without proof.
Is there a link to where we can all view the absolute proof?

Cheers,
Graham.

[bob]

I've never seen Vas own up to doing this. Which is certainly not exactly honest, to say the least.

Due to time, space here and the attention and or interest of casual readers here I roughly sum up the main aspects of your whole mind frame as you presented it here. Of course you are still for me expert nr. 1 in computerchess because of no visible alternative. And I thank you like always for all the statements like ususual. Only with your presentation I could make my case without too much laborous studies.

In the following I will sum up all the points where it's clear why we disagree. I might forget something but nothing can change the basic judgement.

As we all know we have science issues and ethical ones.

Chapter 1 DB2 vs Kasparov 1997

Bob: there was a contract, Kasparov signed, IBM DB2 respected all points

Rolf: Kasparov is a human being, he asked questions about his observations, he was unfriendly treated, lost his stamina to play his best chess, just normal with disturbed mind wasnt good enough, so that we got no valid result, especially because the evidence hardware was quickly destroyed, but this way we have no clear outcome of the event because of the violations of science basics that stand above or beyond every contract, treatment of client to be able to isolate the researched effect, here solely the power of the machine and NOT the human suggestibility in front of a human made guidance of the machine in relation to the chosen client

You forget a key point. Kasparov got up on "the world stage" at the post-game press conference, and carefully suggested that somehow the DB/DB-team were "cheating". At that point, who in their right mind _would_ cooperate with him? He instantly turned the match from a tremendous scientific experiment to a soap opera complete with conspiracies, cheating, subversion, etc.

Chapter 2 The Confusion about Rybka, best chess software since 2005

Like the one-eyed setting absolutely the details of written contract where unfriendliness certainly couldnt be foreseen, we see here a limited perception on the meaning of facts, limited by again a human guided decision to not to perceive, not to examine other crucial facts, of course that leads to wrong conclusions and false ethical judgements.

In medical fields it's a typical fault to forget about the relation between choice of questions and results in diagnoses and alleged increases. Therefore the claiming of facts is wrong if the decision was man made what should be examined. In the ideal world of science computerchess had only open sources like Crafty. But Chessbase is presenting actually Fritz 12, Shredder 12, allegedly distinct entities. Nobody has ever told us the technical details and how much was plagiatized or stolen from othe codes. That is a decision of the same people who now take under examination the different Rybka versions.

You do realize that not every "cold case" around the world gets equal attention from law enforcement? Some are pursued and solved, others lay around, end end up in unsolved/inactive and are never looked at again. The guys that do get caught do not have the opportunity to claim "foul, you only came after me, what about all the other cold cases? So until you investigate them, you should not be able to incarcerate me..."

That logic is flawed. Someone was curious. They investigated. They found obvious wrong-doing. It's unfortunate it happened. It did. The author opened the door when he made the original choice. Nothing much can be done about it now, once it is done, it is done.

And above all that on a history of CC SW where in >90% literally everything is borrowed, taken and socialised. Everything is friendly-wise stolen but it was never questioned in case of Chessbase products.

There is a difference between speculation and having factual information to support a claim. Nobody has looked carefully at Fritz. Or at Shredder. Why? Don't know, don't care. I've not started an investigation into any programs other than the ones that have been suspected (and later proven) to be clones of my program. I just don't care about this stuff that much. I enjoy competition. Fair competition. I know there are cheaters out there. Always have been. Always will be. You can either worry and lose sleep over the issue, or simply ignore it. I enjoy winning when _I_ win. I'm not inclined to cheat, because that is not much of a "moral victory" when you know you didn't deserve the win. Many don't feel that same way. More power to 'em. I'm not going to let their lack of morals ruin a hobby I have enjoyed for 40+ years. If their moral compass is so far off that they can enjoy winning with things they didn't write, so what?

So, in my eyes from science it's unethical to then accuse and hunt down one single programmer with arguments that would evaporize in a minute the whole alleged million market of commercial computerchess. What for??

Don't follow the argument, so don't understand the question. you copy. you get caught. you get exposed. Beyond that, I could care less. I don't copy.

I argue that it's highly unethical to simply scapegoat a single participant and leaving unquestioned the rest. And that on the base that in chess Rybka is just the best you can get.

I can not attribute motives to people. I have no idea what let do this. I believe it was pure serendipity. R1 was reverse-engineered. Someone looked at the code and said to themselves "this looks a whole lot like fruit in many placed." Then vas made the claim that strelka _was_ rybka-1 reverse-engineered and the genie was out of the bottle. That led to the re-dissassembly of Rybka to make sure his claim was true, which, at the same time, proved that code from Fruit was clearly copied and used. It wasn't, IMHO, a targeted investigation. It was an investigation that follwed from a set of almost unrelated events. Many crimes get solved in that very way.

I can tell you why you dont legally process: because you cant explain why you dont treat all with same procedures. It's full of prejudices what you are doing with your critic against Rybka, but Fritz Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior were not attacked with open code clones with their source codes.
What did you say? Facts are facts? Isnt it about prejudiced=biased chosen facts?

Who has reverse-engineered any of those engines to give someone a working version of a source code? Had that happened as in the Rybka case, then the shoe might well be on the other foot. But it didn't. Is it unfair to catch someone by pure luck, when another goes free because luck was on their side?

It's now in your hands. Should commercial offers be destroyed? Because also the remaining 10 % of the code isnt totally original? Cant you live with that if only 1% were original that it's even more fantastic that Rybka is 100 Elo above everyone else??

If no, then help with all your authority that the little pool of best engines can survive. Thanks.

My interests are a little more tightly constrained than that. I am interested in making my program stronger. And in doing so, I am interested in helping others achieve the same results. Ken Thompson, Dave Slate, Tom Truscott (Belle, chess 4.x, duchess) among others spent hours on the phone with me answering questions and helping me make my program better. And occasionally I had ideas that made theirs stronger. That's all I care about today. The commercial interests are off my radar. And always will be. If you look at 40 years of computer chess, almost all of the dishonesty, bending the rules, etc, have been done by commercial chess developers. Some of the early WMCCC events were classics in deception, dishonesty and conspiracies. Our non-commercial events went off without a hitch. Until the two were combined.