Don wrote:
You are forcing me to set the record straight now because you keep putting words in my mouth. You seem to have some kind of need to believe that I "applaud" and "salute" what was done with Robbolitto. Where in that interview or anywhere else did I say that?
I would like to suggest to anyone reading this that you simply read firsthand what I said and draw your own conclusions, don't let Rolf interpret my words for you since they are there for you to see for yourself.
And for the record I do NOT salute what was done and especially do I not salute the motive behind it. It was done as a malicious attack as you can see from even a quick glance at the Robbolitto web site. In other words it was done in order to hurt and wound and this guy is full of hate inside of him.
My statement on the subject in the interview was of a factual nature and I would like to ask you to refrain from trying to put me in a box.
Thanks for the clear answer. You cant know it but I am a psychologist and for me it's a absolutely trivial and normal method to offer a certain verbal _interpretation_ of a text in your speech (message, Interview), to then hopefully get some more clarity. Of course I am not so familiar with a reaction that attacks me for the help, if then the clarification is exactly what I had hoped for, so that practically everything is ok. But without it it was unclear and dubious.
You are the programmer, the engineer, the expert, but I am nothing of this in computerchess, I am just a user and I read and digest what is written on also my questions.
Now I owe you a demonstration where I read something that then led me to what I have written above. Here is it:
Your text is (with all excuses to Frank for the little quote, but otherwise it's not possible to explain) as follows:
"I think very shortly we are going to see a big jump in the strength of the top chess programs since the recent reverse engineering of the mighty Rybka program - which exposes more good ideas to the world."
Now, Don, read that text without the explanation you have added for me. You speak of a recent reverse engineering of a mighty program, whose author has never offered his program for reverse engineering. So, it was a wrong act to do it against the will of the author. This is one aspect. Then we have the last "the dismantling of the mighty program now exposes more good ideas to the world." And this is where my stomach went rebellious. Ok, factually you are right, the program is mighty. The ideas are good, but that you know it now because of the declared unwanted act, is in itself factually a crime.
Dont you realise this? I dont put nothing into your mouth but what I do from a totally different field, psychology, also a bit justice, I doubt that you are allowed to seperate or reduce the meaning of a mighty program and its good ideas on its public appearance even if you declare yourself that it was reverse engineered. But this was not in your contract when you bought it. That you now could reverse engineer it.
So, what I am trying to explain is this. In a reduced factual reality you are right. The ideas became public through a "crime-sort-of" and you are allowed to use it. You just cant stop your brain from taking notice. All very kosher so far. But I have a different approach that includes also such aspects as how the ideas had been made public and if that was illegally done then you cant by all means and for all not in public, just speak about new good ideas but you should refreign form even speaking about. You spoke these sentences without a direct question for Rybka.
Bu please make no mistake. I am an observer. I asked you a question, you stated that you were just a factually interested engineer and you even condemned now the evil intentions of these robbers - and at this point I am happy that you clarified this. I would be even happier if you would understand such a little exchange NOT as a sort of insult, but as the possibility to clarify things.
I want to add, that you could do me a favor if you would see, that the evil intentions, the sort of anon blackmail appearance was practically excused and marginalised here by others. Couldnt we agree that if you yourself mentioned that you wanted to keep some tricks for yourself that it's not really a joy for Vas Rajlich to have his whole code published? Wouldnt this require a sort of friendly undertone instead of sort of --- well no matter, this is past history, nothing what would have to bother you.
I hope not having molested you too much with these lay questions for you, also if I realise now what a giant your are yourself in the history of computerchess.
Thanks for the clarification.
Regards, Rolf
P.S. Please let's not concentrate this topic too much on me, because I have a bit a difficult standing exactly because I am an outsider who often asked intriguing questions for the mere computerchess believers. All what I wrote above is by no means common sense here. So PM or email would also do. Thanks. And all the best for your new developments.
