A Question for Our Sponsor..IPPO Links OK or Not??

[Christopher Conkie]

See?

There you go again answering Rolf.

If you are not careful Bob, people will think you are a only here to answer him.

Think about it prof.....

[bob]

See?

There you go again answering Rolf.

If you are not careful Bob, people will think you are a only here to answer him.

Think about it prof.....

I am convinced that with (a) a big enough shoe; and (b) enough time; once can stamp out any degree of ignorance. So I keep trying.

[Christopher Conkie]

See?

There you go again answering Rolf.

If you are not careful Bob, people will think you are a only here to answer him.

Think about it prof.....

I am convinced that with (a) a big enough shoe; and (b) enough time; once can stamp out any degree of ignorance. So I keep trying.

It is a quality I think from my experience that you should never give up.

Just don't let it become a yoke around your neck and let you forget who you are.

There are many people relying on you here and it has nothing to do with clones. Clones are a fashion. They are like buses. There will be another one along in a minute.

I am more interested in the next version of Crafty than anything else engine wise.

Forget Rolf....lets get back to reality. If and when the occasion arises when you must/need to present what you know then do so.

I look at many of the threads in here and know that they (their intention) is going nowhere.

You are all looking for certainty in the wrong place. Go present what you know to whoever is the one who decides. Would you rather destroy a forum and maintain the status quo or get something done?

Put up or shut up. Harsh it is true.....but it is reality.

Chris

[BubbaTough]

I am convinced that with (a) a big enough shoe; and (b) enough time; once can stamp out any degree of ignorance. So I keep trying.

I have never seen much evidence of this (perhaps I need bigger shoes) but must admit it is a good attitude for someone paid to instruct our youth to have.

-Sam

[Roger Brown]

I am convinced that with (a) a big enough shoe; and (b) enough time; once can stamp out any degree of ignorance. So I keep trying.

Hello Dr. Hyatt,

Ah, but if the one making the comments is convinced that they know of the things they speak of then you are not combating ignorance are you?

In that event your actions will be futile.

I think that I admire your belief that you can do this and as an educator it is perhaps a required quality but you are really wasting your time.

Later.

[Rolf]

Here below is the refutation of the "case" some or many experts here have erroneously assumed as being the truth. Let me first state that of course I dont want to imply that suddenly the absolute lays had entered this ship. Not at all. I came to the conclusion that almost everything of the observations that were reported and then assisted by many others - are correctly reported and I trust all of you for being honest enough in their reports.

But this isnt the point. A judge isnt the Attorney either nor the buddy of the laywers who defend the accused person. So what reason should a judge have to hesitate in accepting what the many experts had reported? Is it because he doesnt trust experts? Not ast all. Now I'm a judge either but this is not a court either where professional experts of justice are acting.

There is something that I can judge on although not being an expert of CC tech nor s judge being familiar with the justice of the USA or even in Europe. What I can do is examine if the participating here perhaps missed some basic scientifical caveats that turn around completely a pretended as closed or solved case by justice lays which shouldnt be forgotten.

The most important caveat is experts should follow the guidelines of neutrality and NOT what the Attorneys and the police do, namely cooking until the intended goal has been reached. To understand this importance you dont have to be by any stretch a computer sciences professor. It's the basic logic of any reasoning in science. Also of psychology. So, every academic with a solid education (with a final examination; it's not enough having attended 4 or 5 semesters because most of the time the practical education comes later near the end) knows that we humans are no robots but if we shall judge something we cant approach with emotions and artistic luxations.

If I discover a campaign like motion and a group dynamical mutual padding on each others shoulders I know completely without all the CC tech details that here something is going wrong. In other words as judge or observer I wouldnt buy the given results. Just to give you a couple of names. Dann C. to me would be a more independent guy-expert or also suddenly BB the anonymous of the Open Forum. I would also rely on someone like Fern who finaly showed (in the OF too) why it's always important to watch closely the whole scene not just a single example of it if you want to get to objective conclusions. This is what I meant with my pointing at the other commercial guys with their closed codes. What would here come out if similar efforts would be undertaken with their data material?

If that isnt even discussed or mentioned then again it doesnt need a real genius of CC to understand why the resong is faulty.

Since especially Bob likes to give examples out of criminology let's take a murder case. Let's further assume you have a suspect. And police gut feeling says he's the man who did it. Would that impress me as a judge? Of course not. Where is the victim? Is the case being presented properly? What is with other possibilities? Were they always examined?

Here it's important to know that the US system is totally different to the one in Europe. Here you really have to prove your case but in the USA you have made a case if the jury believes you. You can trust me that in a computerchess trial in Europe we wouldnt see leys as judges but only educated justice experts. No jury.

What is the worst that happened over the years in Bob's case seen with European eyes and with academic education but absolute laymen knowledge in CC programming?

Here it comes:

At least two times Bob worked with "But if this then you cant say that" or "if you come with a program you describe the stuff and their source of what you've taken" or "if you had taken something you cant say there is zero code from XY in my thing".

All that comes down to the terrible mess of the question "when did you slap your mother this afternoon?" Because such a case wouldnt be trustable at all because it works with assumptions of how a culprit woulkd behave. Or what an innocent wouldnt say at all. This is kitchen law but not justice. You know, this is like kitchen psychology. Aha, the guy has his finger deep in his nose, now, he must have grown up without a father!! Such sort of things.

Didnt you know that psychologically the true stories in police inquisitions were more likely those who contained also lies? While the watertight story comes from the criminal. This is such a detail that you cannot decide with public acclamation.

In the minute I read that Vas "had claimed that Strelka is his own code" or something similar and the first messages argued with the magic triangle Fruit Strelka R1beta I knew that this wasnt logically sound. Still Strelka is taken as sort of proof. Although it was made to be looking like the proof.

As a judge I would directly ask my expert how often does this happen when you are examining other people's code? Or do you reassemble and re-engineer practically every single newcomer??? No? But what led you to the idea that here it should be right? If you cannot exclude that all others do the same? Is this fair? But before we continue to talk about your report would you please explain why what should be unallowed or against the law?? What? You dont have a working system for such cases? Let me ask you, Prof Hyatt, and this is the crucial question for me, because I will give my verdict in a couple of moments, what exactly did this Champion do wrong or against the law, and then show me how and with what tech exactly he could have remained sober?

What? YOu mean, if the defendant had come into this forum CCC and answered all your questions then you wouldnt be in this courtroom right now? Have I got this right?

Ok, them Folks! This is no kangoroo-court here, get out of here and ccpme back later, I have other cases today with much mor importance. Excuse me. The meeting is closed. The accuser side pays the trial. The defemndent gets recompensation, day half a million bucks. In the name of the people.


Since I got difficulties with the exact webpage style I put my additions in red.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
########################################
---------------------------------------------------------

As far as "If he might be correct" I have looked at the code. I've already verified that this is a duck. No point in trying to waste any time to attempt to convince me it is a pig in a duck's suit.

Two or three years ago you wrote that you had NOT looked up the code in detail, alone because of the time that would have cost. Like Sven I ask you now if you claim having looked at what Zach had shown to you? If yes, then I can skip this too because it's just not correct science.

Also just as addition, Bob, you are so busy with nice metaphors, the pigs in duck's suit, so you need the personification of what you are talking about. But these anon jerks are totally ok for you although you dont even know their nature. Perhaps they are a herd of monkeys or kangoroos under LSD!

We looked at specific code as a group. All it takes is _one_ example of copied code to settle the issue, and there are several examples. Doesn't matter how trivial you think they are, how unimportant you think they are. When someone says "I copied _no_ code" and you can show they copied _some_ code, that is enough. Yes, a group could go thru the entire binary, convert it back to C and compare to fruiit. But does it matter _how_ guilty one is? I've never seen that in a court. Just "guilty" or "innocent". That was the intent here. Nobody would want to expend the effort to compare the entire binary, when examples of copied code have already been discovered. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Yes, I dont accept your theory. Vas never said what you claimed here. Because he openly admitted that he took some public domain stuff. Dont remember that? So that we have the question what you have seen. What sort of code. Science is a bit mor differentiated than what you are presenting here. So, if I would be bob Hyatt or Theron I could now state that you have a lack of ethics because you tell the untruth about the examined code. But my best argument is still that you relied on what other had found and then presented to you.

Yes, _after_ he was caught "red-handed" however. And what he took was not what he claimed. He mentioned "bit scanning" which is not in Fruit. He did _not_ mention the other obviously copied code. There is no "untruth" being told. Anyone can verify it, if they _want_ to expend the time and effort, and if they have the necessary technical skills. Which you lack. And which means your arguments are simply vacuous. You can't argue on technical issues, yet this is only about technical issues. Which leaves your arguments as not very useful.

In all psychological studies it's well known that it's always a fallacy putting three big experts into a box where they talk about their convictions in a certain problem. They will fool each other but personally they are sure that they had found the truth. This is called folie a trois. LOL

Incomprehensible ramblings are not going to change anything at all.

Jens and I are in a better position. We dont know each other but independantly we came to the same conclusions, well, me without all the tech details, so that our agreement is the proof that we are right.

QED

P.S. Still, Bob your honest description of how you buddied together is worth our whole debate. I knew it all the time that you have been caught by delusional convictions without the scientifically necessary scepticism. Well, IMO I am in principle in such situations immune against such effects because I would only rely on myself. But I know exactly that I have no tech expertise in CC. Still, although you are totally above me I knew for sure that you three were wrong. I knew it. All three of you are too much depending on prejudices.

I've not been caught in any delusional behaviour of any kind. This is a simple technical skill used to compare two programs. The evidence is there for anyone that is interested. No amount of evidence will convince someone that doesn't want to see, however. That's been made painfully obvious by now. But your denials are not going to change the _truth_ here.

All you can argue is that (a) Vas is a current champion; (b) authors of ip* are anonymous; (c) you don't believe the fruit/rybka debate simply because you won't believe it, details are irrelevant.

Sounds good to me.

Please help me out on the public domain statement. Vas did never tell us he didnt take something but, he said, this were public domain. Could you answer that without too much not understandable stuff for a lay?

We have adhered to the basic idea that if a piece of code is of the form one input -> one output, then using that code is OK. The magic move generation stuff from Pradu is an example. Ditto for the various EGTB code (Edwards, Nalimov, etc). Not search, not evaluation, not anything related to playing the game that is not one input produces identical output. Once you do that, you then cite the inclusion, you do not say "Rybka has 0% of Fruit code in it." And that statement _has_ been made.

Where exactly was that? And could you explain the English. What is meant with code? literally or basically? After how many transformations your experts finally got their results? (read Fern and BB in the OF of this morning. Do you know the myst with numbers, where people explain why in soccer Germany must win because it's the 21th? What means transformations? Is the result the only possible or is it just an example how it could look like? How could this be accepted by a judge? Remember a judge in Europe with best legal expertise. Are you sure you have a court case??

The ethical norm was violated by your groubt anyway because

a) why dont you examine the other professionals who might all have taken something and

I explained this several times. Strelka opened pandora's box, because Vas claimed it was a reverse-engineered version of Rybka 1, and some noticed how similar it was to fruit. That provided the initial fruit->rybka path. But some complained about comparing strelka to fruit, so the disassembly process was done on Rybka to get rid of the "middle-man".

I've never heard a judge say "OK, you helped us catch this guy, but I am finding him innocent until you help us catch _all_ the drug dealers." Or even "and it is now your responsibility to continue working to catch all the others."[/quote]

No, but the judge could conclude , man, then we are all taking this drug. Why should I punish this poor dealer.

b) but here I'm unsure, is this for you just trivially allowed to crack something to find out something?? I already mentioned that at the beginning, when Donninger made the RE os something and he told the public as ifhe were a sort of judge. The same you often do. Who brought you into the position to be allowed to crack other people's code to then making allegations of some wrongdoing?

The good Lord did, when he granted me the intelligence to grasp computer science, eyes to read code, and persistence in chasing the truth in spite of more obfuscation that the volcano that has played havoc with European air travel. I am allowed to look at _anything_ I can legally get my hands on, whether it be microsoft word (which I own) or something else. There is no "you can touch but you can't look law" that I am aware of, with regard to computer programs.[/quote]

Ok, but does this right also mean that you then are the officially installed hangman who is allowed to discriminate concrete people (noz technical programs) only after you had seen something with your God-given eyes? I would doubt that. I mean you are allowed to look, but you have no right to incite a sort of witch-hunt. If you insist, where is your official and institutional authorization? Are you really a sort of FBI or such in computerchess? I dont think so.

Would be thankful if you answered this in the end. I agree with you as you know that basically I cant judge the whole affair because I lack the tinyest details in tech. But therefore I tried to follow the unethical side aspects.

Also the last point that you never commented. IF all chess progs rely to 80 or 90 % on forefathers, how is that what Vas had done in your conviction - how that is then something horrendously wrong? I just dont understand this, Bob. Please be kind and give me the rest of the answers. Thanks.

If you want to take GNUchess and then modify it as you see fit, do so. And when it comes time to enter a tournament, programmers are going to have to look at it to see if it has been modified enough to be considered a new program, or is it just a few small modifications and therefore a derivative. But you do _tell_ people what you have done.

That was not done in the case of Rybka, and that -is- a problem in anybody's book.[/quote]

What do you mean here? Because he didnt tell you or the CCC or what? I agree that this is a problem for you but does this mean Vas should hasve a problem with the law? I cant see the logical in such a conclusion. But if not then the whole campaign is even worse. No, Bob, I think it was wrong to act as if this here were a room in your university. There you could research. But here in such a forum such procedere degenerated into flames and wwitchhunting or in the end in lynching.

And please excuse my many typos as per usual. Nice that you never made anything out of it.

I don't care about typos so long as they don't make reading impossible.[/quote]

[notyetagm]

Why won't any of these people put their names to what they claim?

perhaps because they know that anyone on "that side" of the discussion is subject to massive attacks??? --by a select few???

From what I've see both here and in the new forum, most of the vicious and unsavoury posts actually come from some who support the questionable engines.

Graham, it seems you think there is some duality at work here. Perhaps I can agree with this, but not in the way you paint the picture. Alot of us do not support anyone or any engine (as you would suggest), we search for the truth and do not condemn an engine without proof (which has been done here). There is a difference, although I suspect some cannot see this.

In the current situation it comes down to what is fair and just, the evidence against Rybka (Btw, I purchased Rybka <--- unbiased love for computer chess) is the same as that against Ipp and family. So why is it ok for Vas to use Fruit, and lie about it, then when others do it to Rybka it becomes a crime? Bullshit! double standard!

+1

[Rolf]

Here below is the refutation of the "case" some or many experts here have erroneously assumed as being the truth. Let me first state that of course I dont want to imply that suddenly the absolute lays had entered this ship. Not at all. I came to the conclusion that almost everything of the observations that were reported and then assisted by many others - are correctly reported and I trust all of you for being honest enough in their reports.

But this isnt the point. A judge isnt the Attorney either nor the buddy of the laywers who defend the accused person. So what reason should a judge have to hesitate in accepting what the many experts had reported? Is it because he doesnt trust experts? Not ast all. Now I'm a judge either but this is not a court either where professional experts of justice are acting.

There is something that I can judge on although not being an expert of CC tech nor s judge being familiar with the justice of the USA or even in Europe. What I can do is examine if the participating here perhaps missed some basic scientifical caveats that turn around completely a pretended as closed or solved case by justice lays which shouldnt be forgotten.

The most important caveat is experts should follow the guidelines of neutrality and NOT what the Attorneys and the police do, namely cooking until the intended goal has been reached. To understand this importance you dont have to be by any stretch a computer sciences professor. It's the basic logic of any reasoning in science. Also of psychology. So, every academic with a solid education (with a final examination; it's not enough having attended 4 or 5 semesters because most of the time the practical education comes later near the end) knows that we humans are no robots but if we shall judge something we cant approach with emotions and artistic luxations.

If I discover a campaign like motion and a group dynamical mutual padding on each others shoulders I know completely without all the CC tech details that here something is going wrong. In other words as judge or observer I wouldnt buy the given results. Just to give you a couple of names. Dann C. to me would be a more independent guy-expert or also suddenly BB the anonymous of the Open Forum. I would also rely on someone like Fern who finaly showed (in the OF too) why it's always important to watch closely the whole scene not just a single example of it if you want to get to objective conclusions. This is what I meant with my pointing at the other commercial guys with their closed codes. What would here come out if similar efforts would be undertaken with their data material?

If that isnt even discussed or mentioned then again it doesnt need a real genius of CC to understand why the resong is faulty.

Since especially Bob likes to give examples out of criminology let's take a murder case. Let's further assume you have a suspect. And police gut feeling says he's the man who did it. Would that impress me as a judge? Of course not. Where is the victim? Is the case being presented properly? What is with other possibilities? Were they always examined?

Here it's important to know that the US system is totally different to the one in Europe. Here you really have to prove your case but in the USA you have made a case if the jury believes you. You can trust me that in a computerchess trial in Europe we wouldnt see leys as judges but only educated justice experts. No jury.

What is the worst that happened over the years in Bob's case seen with European eyes and with academic education but absolute laymen knowledge in CC programming?

Here it comes:

At least two times Bob worked with "But if this then you cant say that" or "if you come with a program you describe the stuff and their source of what you've taken" or "if you had taken something you cant say there is zero code from XY in my thing".

All that comes down to the terrible mess of the question "when did you slap your mother this afternoon?" Because such a case wouldnt be trustable at all because it works with assumptions of how a culprit woulkd behave. Or what an innocent wouldnt say at all. This is kitchen law but not justice. You know, this is like kitchen psychology. Aha, the guy has his finger deep in his nose, now, he must have grown up without a father!! Such sort of things.

Didnt you know that psychologically the true stories in police inquisitions were more likely those who contained also lies? While the watertight story comes from the criminal. This is such a detail that you cannot decide with public acclamation.

In the minute I read that Vas "had claimed that Strelka is his own code" or something similar and the first messages argued with the magic triangle Fruit Strelka R1beta I knew that this wasnt logically sound. Still Strelka is taken as sort of proof. Although it was made to be looking like the proof.

As a judge I would directly ask my expert how often does this happen when you are examining other people's code? Or do you reassemble and re-engineer practically every single newcomer??? No? But what led you to the idea that here it should be right? If you cannot exclude that all others do the same? Is this fair? But before we continue to talk about your report would you please explain why what should be unallowed or against the law?? What? You dont have a working system for such cases? Let me ask you, Prof Hyatt, and this is the crucial question for me, because I will give my verdict in a couple of moments, what exactly did this Champion do wrong or against the law, and then show me how and with what tech exactly he could have remained sober?

What? YOu mean, if the defendant had come into this forum CCC and answered all your questions then you wouldnt be in this courtroom right now? Have I got this right?

Ok, them Folks! This is no kangoroo-court here, get out of here and ccpme back later, I have other cases today with much mor importance. Excuse me. The meeting is closed. The accuser side pays the trial. The defemndent gets recompensation, day half a million bucks. In the name of the people.


Since I got difficulties with the exact webpage style I put my additions in red.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
########################################
---------------------------------------------------------

Since I got no reaction, let me further substantiate my criticism against the senseless campaign by ZW and mainly Bob towards Vas and R1beta.

I meantioned the important science aspect and tried to explain where science had been completely forgotten. The top of a scientific survey is the ethically forced character of discussing always at least two sides and better as many sides as required. I already argued wit legal cases where the judge must see more sides than just the lawyers or the attorneys. Because it's always about IN DUBIO PRO REO.

So the same in science. You cant make a sound case if you oversee or forget other important aspects that must be examined. Then you still have made a possibly strong argument but especially if it comes to ethics you lost it if you didnt even research "other" aspects that could speak in favor of the alleged culprit or defendent.

Read here

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... 9cb4#p2923

where Ed Schroder (REBEL) in detail asked you if you had this and that and where he comes to the point that even he himself did also make use of this or that. But if that is the case then how could it speak against Vasik alone?

I asked you more than once such questions and you didnt get it. The background is simply you cannot accuse someone in particular for doing unethical stuff if many others do it the same. I asked you "public domain" and Ed repeats the question. But from you no answer yet.

I dont say that you block questions. Not at all. You are still the best correspondent one could wish. But you have weaknesses like all of us. Not in tech questions but in meta questions of science. Surprising because the ones I asked here are trivial. It doesnt require nobel prize level to understand. It's basic.

Many admire you like me too (see how Hyams characterizes you as professor). I see a possible reason in your daywork of checking progs for plagiarism plus your research if Crafty is concerned. Plus in both cases say not so top smart actors.

In CC however with almost 90% of public domain, if you get done a new trade mark that is stronger by say 30% than all other established competition you must find something better than just a couple of copied lines or snips. These cannot be the reason for the incredible rise of a shooting star.

In science it's often about relevance. Only newbies could forget about that. But where did you ever argue with data where Vas had significally done something wrong? You could not even do that without a thorough in-depth analysis of the othe actors.

So, all in all the examples in ZW texas etc. painted a case that is already refutated by basic science rules. The poor guy worked for years without that someone except me told him that he's missing the meta level. Of course he didnt trust me. But he had trusted you.

Let's see if you can now answer to ES.

All the best and CCC regards.

[Rolf]

If I discover a campaign like motion and a group dynamical mutual padding on each others shoulders I know completely without all the CC tech details that here something is going wrong. In other words as judge or observer I wouldnt buy the given results. Just to give you a couple of names. Dann C. to me would be a more independent guy-expert or also suddenly BB the anonymous of the Open Forum. I would also rely on someone like Fern who finaly showed (in the OF too) why it's always important to watch closely the whole scene not just a single example of it if you want to get to objective conclusions. This is what I meant with my pointing at the other commercial guys with their closed codes. What would here come out if similar efforts would be undertaken with their data material?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In science it's often about relevance. Only newbies could forget about that. But where did you ever argue with data where Vas had significally done something wrong? You could not even do that without a thorough in-depth analysis of the other actors.

I must slightly edit what I wrote. BB+m as he calls himself on OF is nothing better than Bob or any of the anti-Vas campaigners. No wonder.

Actually BB wrote today, I quote a little snip from OF, just to give the readers a linkage to what I am talking about.

QUOTE

Either Ed or Chris had asked for this: "UCI parsing: perhaps its code is public domain. Fabien took it and so did Vas. Has this option been researched by Zach, Bob and you?"

And BB+ answered:

"You have transferred the burden of proof to the impossibility of proving a negative -- surely it is any putative defense's responsibility to provide such evidence that the code actually is public domain, not vice-versa?"

[EBD OF QUOTE]

Here we can study now the typical fallacy of illogical content in the whole campaign against Vas. We have always the same picture:

* we see technically eloquent guys who miss however

* that we have a community which it at best like a university but of course it isnt, but which isnt not at all a market place for private justice, lynching included in the end. And therefore,

* from Ch. Theron up to BB+ now we are hypnotized by the prejudiced private verdict of an unethically wrong-doing on Vasik's side. But have they in the campaign a final proof against Vasik? NOPE. No, it cant be proven for the given reasons of weaky science on their side. And social competence on Vasik's side. <smile>

* Ad hominems and character defamations are the only tool on such forum debates if you want to win a lost case.

Now BB+ is using a macabre trick. In the little quote from this morning he wants to protect the campaigners against an alleged transfer of an alleged burden of proof on Vasik's side. Along the ghoulish logic that if ghostly anons or VIP allegators get personal in their insults, that -dammit- the object of dirty allegations must show up and tell what it's all about. Other than in justice of a court of Law the campaigners want to force the impossible namely that Vas is always lakey-like on the run and excuses himself for every piece of his code. If he doesnt, then he's allegedly guilty of unethical practice. Because so are the standards of computerchess.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

If I discover a campaign like motion and a group dynamical mutual padding on each others shoulders I know completely without all the CC tech details that here something is going wrong. In other words as judge or observer I wouldnt buy the given results. Just to give you a couple of names. Dann C. to me would be a more independent guy-expert or also suddenly BB the anonymous of the Open Forum. I would also rely on someone like Fern who finaly showed (in the OF too) why it's always important to watch closely the whole scene not just a single example of it if you want to get to objective conclusions. This is what I meant with my pointing at the other commercial guys with their closed codes. What would here come out if similar efforts would be undertaken with their data material?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


In science it's often about relevance. Only newbies could forget about that. But where did you ever argue with data where Vas had significally done something wrong? You could not even do that without a thorough in-depth analysis of the other actors.

I must slightly edit what I wrote. BB+m as he calls himself on OF is nothing better than Bob or any of the anti-Vas campaigners. No wonder.

Actually BB wrote today, I quote a little snip from OF, just to give the readers a linkage to what I am talking about.

QUOTE

Either Ed or Chris had asked for this: "UCI parsing: perhaps its code is public domain. Fabien took it and so did Vas. Has this option been researched by Zach, Bob and you?"

And BB+ answered:

"You have transferred the burden of proof to the impossibility of proving a negative -- surely it is any putative defense's responsibility to provide such evidence that the code actually is public domain, not vice-versa?"

[EBD OF QUOTE]

Here we can study now the typical fallacy of illogical content in the whole campaign against Vas. We have always the same picture:

* we see technically eloquent guys who miss however

* that we have a community which it at best like a university but of course it isnt, but which isnt not at all a market place for private justice, lynching included in the end. And therefore,

* from Ch. Theron up to BB+ now we are hypnotized by the prejudiced private verdict of an unethically wrong-doing on Vasik's side. But have they in the campaign a final proof against Vasik? NOPE. No, it cant be proven for the given reasons of weaky science on their side. And social competence on Vasik's side. <smile>

* Ad hominems and character defamations are the only tool on such forum debates if you want to win a lost case.

Now BB+ is using a macabre trick. In the little quote from this morning he wants to protect the campaigners against an alleged transfer of an alleged burden of proof on Vasik's side. Along the ghoulish logic that if ghostly anons or VIP allegators get personal in their insults, that -dammit- the object of dirty allegations must show up and tell what it's all about. Other than in justice of a court of Law the campaigners want to force the impossible namely that Vas is always lakey-like on the run and excuses himself for every piece of his code. If he doesnt, then he's allegedly guilty of unethical practice. Because so are the standards of computerchess.

Why are you under the impression that the world is spinning around Vasik and his stupid Rybka

Go out and get a life....