Hold the mouse on "Spezial" ... then hold the mouse on "Computerschach" ... then click on "Interview Don Dailey".
And thanks again for your hint.
Best
Frank
Thanks Frank,
I found the link now! I don't think it was there the first time I looked, the page had not been updated yet maybe. Good interview!
Regards,
Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
Informative QnA article with a history lesson. One particular response raised my eyebrows and got me to sit up straight. Those questions you asked could only have been asked by one with background knowledge. Interesting...Frank
one of the questions that interests me most is how could you justify for yourself to use a code that became public through reverse engineering? As I could understand it, it was claimed that the code of Rybka 3 had been stolen from Vas Rajlich. Would that give you any reason for double thoughts in the hindsight or is stolen code part of the history of computerchess? This is a question that I see with highest importance before I would speculate about higher jumps in the strengths of any other program than Rybka. I just dont get it, how honest people could applaud the publication of source code from authors who have never agreed to that sort of publication. I ask you because on one hand you salute that the ideas of mighty Rybka now became public to the world, but you in your own case dont public some last ideas, just to keep some advantage over your collegues. Question is trivial, how can you justify reserving that extra right for yourself but not for Vas Rajlich? Sorry, but I cant wuote from the original interview text because of possible copyright issues, so that I remembered the text more in general. Excuse me for that one.
Regards, Rolf
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
one of the questions that interests me most is how could you justify for yourself to use a code that became public through reverse engineering? As I could understand it, it was claimed that the code of Rybka 3 had been stolen from Vas Rajlich. Would that give you any reason for double thoughts in the hindsight or is stolen code part of the history of computerchess? This is a question that I see with highest importance before I would speculate about higher jumps in the strengths of any other program than Rybka. I just dont get it, how honest people could applaud the publication of source code from authors who have never agreed to that sort of publication. I ask you because on one hand you salute that the ideas of mighty Rybka now became public to the world, but you in your own case dont public some last ideas, just to keep some advantage over your collegues. Question is trivial, how can you justify reserving that extra right for yourself but not for Vas Rajlich? Sorry, but I cant wuote from the original interview text because of possible copyright issues, so that I remembered the text more in general. Excuse me for that one.
Regards, Rolf
Knock it off Rolf....your obssesion with Vasik and his little Rybka is not welcomed here....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Rolf wrote:how could you justify for yourself to use a code that became public through reverse engineering?
Because Fruit is GPL and everyone can look into it's sources.
Oh, for goodness sake, I am sick and tired to see every single thread of this subforum hijacked with the Rybka vs. Robbinhoodito issue. Can you guys restrain yourself from keep spamming the forum?
Rolf wrote:how could you justify for yourself to use a code that became public through reverse engineering?
Because Fruit is GPL and everyone can look into it's sources.
Oh, for goodness sake, I am sick and tired to see every single thread of this subforum hijacked with the Rybka vs. Robbinhoodito issue. Can you guys restrain yourself from keep spamming the forum?
Miguel
Please Miguel excuse me if I just tell you that Don Dailey had mentioned exactly what I tried to ask him. Oherwise I wouldnt have asked him. I asked him in person because Don also wrote in this thread already. I dint make anything up, nor did I ask him something he never ever mentioned himself. Sorry, if I have hurt your sentiments. I dont want to reopen this topic. Was just spectacular to read in raw text that he thinks it's a good idea if the world now knows many good ideas thanks to the re-engineered code of Rybka. All I stated was that Vas had stated that his code had been stolen so that this wasnt in his agreement if the code became public. - I directly asked Don, after the text in the interview now. Sorry again. I didnt know that now the whole Rybka topic was tabooed. I wont mention it until the topic is allowed again. Sorry.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
