Plagiarism

[bob]

The ICGA can of course impose whatever they want. They could require participants to hang from the ceiling during the entire game... The WCCC is their tournament!

I meant impose their will on the rest of the world, such as this beauty from the Panel report:

● encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.

I don't understand that statement - "encourage .... until it is proven clean". IIRC, the evidence showed that R3 and R4 were likely clean of all eval issues. That leaves only the transposition table code.

Not true. They weren't reviewed by the panel beyond R 2.3.2a, others may have looked at the latter but is inconclusive.

R3 was discussed by the panel.

No it wasn't. We stopped with 2.3.2a...

[Terry McCracken]

The ICGA can of course impose whatever they want. They could require participants to hang from the ceiling during the entire game... The WCCC is their tournament!

I meant impose their will on the rest of the world, such as this beauty from the Panel report:

● encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.

I don't understand that statement - "encourage .... until it is proven clean". IIRC, the evidence showed that R3 and R4 were likely clean of all eval issues. That leaves only the transposition table code.

Not true. They weren't reviewed by the panel beyond R 2.3.2a, others may have looked at the latter but is inconclusive.

R3 was discussed by the panel.

No it wasn't. We stopped with 2.3.2a...

Thanks Bob.

P.S. He wants names.

[Rebel]

Perhaps this split and divided community can settle on: He took too much.

Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel. More than enough to call the versions of Rybka we examined to be called "derivatives", and he did not report this as required by the rules.

@Ed: One of the nicest things about being human is the fact we have that what is known as "common sense". We know how to read a word or entire phrase and comprehend the semantic associations based on the context where it is given. BTW, why do you keep with this obsession? Get a life!

With your common sense please define: "too much".

[Rebel]

Hi Ed,

I want to make a plea here for a certain level of reasonableness and common sense because I believe you are being completely unreasonable.

Apparently you have a hard time reading, not the first time I noticed. The thread started with a quote of yours:

You are taking a dictionary definition way out of context and being unreasonable.

I took the time to refute your words with a new thread.

Plagiarism is also about ideas. Every chess programmer can code but the main secret to success is not to code but about ideas, new ideas especially. An average programmer with excellent ideas can lead the field, an expert programmer with average ideas never will.

Like Levy the use of the word plagiarism is just wrong and your mouth was also full of it in the thread I was referring too.

[kgburcham]

Perhaps this split and divided community can settle on: He took too much.

Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel. More than enough to call the versions of Rybka we examined to be called "derivatives", and he did not report this as required by the rules.

@Ed: One of the nicest things about being human is the fact we have that what is known as "common sense". We know how to read a word or entire phrase and comprehend the semantic associations based on the context where it is given. BTW, why do you keep with this obsession? Get a life!

With your common sense please define: "too much".

"Took too much" is complicated, we must discuss this, and then there will be many opinions and then Fern will be mad again for so many posts.

1. Took too much and she left him.
2. Took too much cash and they got him on camera.
3. Took too much beer and got a DUI.
4. Took too much at the buffet and got sick.
5. Took too much code and made the world news.
kgburcham

[Rebel]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

[fern]

That was the idea.
BTW, It looks like you have some rotted tooth.

[Don]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

Ed,

Is this software plagiarism:

for (;;) {
...
}

I use that for infinite loops and I saw the idea somewhere, it's not my own, I don't remember where.

I have never (at least until now) given credit for this idea which is in Komodo.

By the "dictionary" definition of plagiarism which you take absolutely literal, I am a plagiarist. Do you agree that this construct makes me a plagiarist?

[bob]

Perhaps this split and divided community can settle on: He took too much.

Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel. More than enough to call the versions of Rybka we examined to be called "derivatives", and he did not report this as required by the rules.

@Ed: One of the nicest things about being human is the fact we have that what is known as "common sense". We know how to read a word or entire phrase and comprehend the semantic associations based on the context where it is given. BTW, why do you keep with this obsession? Get a life!

With your common sense please define: "too much".

Anything that is "significant". I think the evaluation of fruit is "too much". I think that the complete source of Crafty 19.x to create rybka 1.6.1 was beyond even "too much."

[bob]

The ICGA can of course impose whatever they want. They could require participants to hang from the ceiling during the entire game... The WCCC is their tournament!

I meant impose their will on the rest of the world, such as this beauty from the Panel report:

● encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.

I don't understand that statement - "encourage .... until it is proven clean". IIRC, the evidence showed that R3 and R4 were likely clean of all eval issues. That leaves only the transposition table code.

Not true. They weren't reviewed by the panel beyond R 2.3.2a, others may have looked at the latter but is inconclusive.

R3 was discussed by the panel.

No it wasn't. We stopped with 2.3.2a...

Thanks Bob.

P.S. He wants names.

The ONLY discussion about R3/R4 by the panel was "should we do this RE effort again, or does the R1/R2 evidence convince us that it is now time for Vas to come forward and produce the source for R3/R4 if he wants to continue to compete (if those versions were clean). We did not discuss 3/4 from a RE perspective. Nor did we investigate R3/R4 and find them "clean" as "some" want to purport...