BB+ on the matter

[Milos]

Who is BB? Too many people like to hide behind anonymity, which doesn't do a lot for their credibility. Just my opinion.

It's better being anonymous under pseudonym than under real name, like some here .

[Roger Brown]

Who is BB? Too many people like to hide behind anonymity, which doesn't do a lot for their credibility. Just my opinion.

Hello Graham,

Robin Hood and his merry men wrote the following:

2+2 = 4.

Does it make a difference to the validity of the argument posted whether Robin Hood is an obvious nom de guerre?

Attacking the argument for inconsistency or inaccuracy is a much better determinant of credibility in my opinion. You go after the person's identity as though concealing identites started and ended with the internet.

Your argument tends to suggest that if a known person says:

2 + 2 = 25

You would consider its merits, even for a moment, although it is a nonsense.

Later.

[Gino Figlio]

Who is BB? Too many people like to hide behind anonymity, which doesn't do a lot for their credibility. Just my opinion.

I think anonymity speaks more about character or personality flaws rather than credibility. or professionalism.

[gerold]

Who is BB? Too many people like to hide behind anonymity, which doesn't do a lot for their credibility. Just my opinion.

I stand with you on this issue Graham. I have read the report and followed all the other reports. No comment on his report.
No; name No report.

Best,
Gerold.

[Michael Sherwin]

To get a clean thread on the matter what BB states about R3 and Ippolit I copied this from the original thread http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 41&t=36829 from where this discussion started with M Ansari. Don't blame me on copy pasting this stuff... but it find it most interesting

As my R3/IPPOLIT report seems to be being used in the kangaroo courts of TalkChess, perhaps I should comment:
M ANSARI: You ask "where is the proof" that they are clones ... I think the best proof is the BB report.

That's a fairly jaundiced view of the report. Maybe if "clones" were put in inverted commas I could agree. I interpret the word "clone" rather strictly, and by that measure,
R3 and IPPOLIT don't come remotely close to such a descriptor. The word "derivative" has a technical quasi-legal meaning that I prefer to avoid (similarly with "code") -- by the traditional standards of computer chess, I would say that R3/IPPOLIT and Fruit/R1 are essentially on the same footing [qualitatively, and as I say, quantitatively it can depend on your metric], in that both R1 and IPPOLIT re-use a substantial quantity of specifics of the respective pre-cursors. [The fact that Fruit was "free and open source" and R3 a "commercial product" is not relevant to me -- there are a number of dissenters in the intellectual property world, but the more common opinion is that once software is obtained legally, an end-user can use it for the purposes of discovery unless there is an agreement to the contrary]

BB has changed his stance quite a bit in favor of Ippolit not being a clone and he is even uncomfortable using the word derivative. Now, why would he do such a thing if he was not an honest investigator--setting the qualification issue aside. However, there are those that are qualified that say that BB obviously knows what he is talking about. My only criticism of BB is that he is a chronic hedger. In his early investigation when he was leaning strongly towards vindicating Vas he hedged back slightly towards Ippolit. Now that he is mostly vindicating Ippolit he is hedging slightly back towards Vas. This is a common human trait in that there are those that just cannot risk being 100% wrong. In the investing world it goes like this; "XYZ is a great stock and I believe it is going much higher, but, wait for a pull back before buying it". This kind of thing just drives me nuts--oh wait a minute, too late.

[Jim Ablett]

Who is BB? Too many people like to hide behind anonymity, which doesn't do a lot for their credibility. Just my opinion.

Maybe Borko Boskovic ? (Author of Umko, BBchess)

Jim.

[K I Hyams]

Who is BB? Too many people like to hide behind anonymity, which doesn't do a lot for their credibility. Just my opinion.

You aren't anonymous, but your refusal to read or otherwise consider the tremendous work of analysis done by BB+ in an objective manner hurts your credibility enormously. Just my opinion.

It isn't just your opinion, Matthew. Incidentally, I note that the "pirate", Robert Houdart, is actually unwilling to use Nalimov's bases without permission from Nalimov. I wonder whether that fact will cause Graham Banks to pause for thought.

[K I Hyams]

Incidentally, I note that the "pirate", Robert Houdart, is actually unwilling to use Nalimov's bases without permission from Nalimov. I wonder whether that fact will cause Graham Banks to pause for thought.

It wouldn't for me, that's for sure. To be allowed to use the Nalimov TB's is not a big issue.

It won’t for Graham Banks either, or anyone else of that mindset. The question was rhetorical, I considered the point to be mere background detail and therefore not worthy of an answer.

Perhaps it was all a cunning plan, designed to convince idiots like me that he does in fact have principles.

Incidentally it appears that Houdart may be using his real name. I am sure that Banks will be impressed by that.

[K I Hyams]

Perhaps it was all a cunning plan, designed to convince idiots like me that he does in fact have principles.

That's what I intended to suggest.

Well it is always a possibility, I suppose. In fact it seems like useful "evidence" with which to launch a further smear attack on him. Damned if he does seek Nalimov's permission, damned if he doesn't seek Nalimov's permission. I note that nobody else saw fit to make such a slur, perhaps they thought that it was too cheap. Either way, if you don't want to further exploit it yourself, point out the possibility to Graham, he may not have thought of it.

I seem to remember that Houdart made the resources that he used perfectly clear and at an early stage.

[Don]

To get a clean thread on the matter what BB states about R3 and Ippolit I copied this from the original thread http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 41&t=36829 from where this discussion started with M Ansari. Don't blame me on copy pasting this stuff... but it find it most interesting

As my R3/IPPOLIT report seems to be being used in the kangaroo courts of TalkChess, perhaps I should comment:
M ANSARI: You ask "where is the proof" that they are clones ... I think the best proof is the BB report.

That's a fairly jaundiced view of the report. Maybe if "clones" were put in inverted commas I could agree. I interpret the word "clone" rather strictly, and by that measure,
R3 and IPPOLIT don't come remotely close to such a descriptor. The word "derivative" has a technical quasi-legal meaning that I prefer to avoid (similarly with "code") -- by the traditional standards of computer chess, I would say that R3/IPPOLIT and Fruit/R1 are essentially on the same footing [qualitatively, and as I say, quantitatively it can depend on your metric], in that both R1 and IPPOLIT re-use a substantial quantity of specifics of the respective pre-cursors. [The fact that Fruit was "free and open source" and R3 a "commercial product" is not relevant to me -- there are a number of dissenters in the intellectual property world, but the more common opinion is that once software is obtained legally, an end-user can use it for the purposes of discovery unless there is an agreement to the contrary]

BB has changed his stance quite a bit in favor of Ippolit not being a clone and he is even uncomfortable using the word derivative. Now, why would he do such a thing if he was not an honest investigator--setting the qualification issue aside. However, there are those that are qualified that say that BB obviously knows what he is talking about. My only criticism of BB is that he is a chronic hedger. In his early investigation when he was leaning strongly towards vindicating Vas he hedged back slightly towards Ippolit. Now that he is mostly vindicating Ippolit he is hedging slightly back towards Vas. This is a common human trait in that there are those that just cannot risk being 100% wrong. In the investing world it goes like this; "XYZ is a great stock and I believe it is going much higher, but, wait for a pull back before buying it". This kind of thing just drives me nuts--oh wait a minute, too late.

The thing about his analysis is that it didn't really accomplish anything - people maintained their point of view and as I have noticed both sides viewed his analysis as proof of their own position.

He is a hedger I agree, I think he probably went too far out of his way to "appear" objective.

I am pretty cautious about letting others do my thinking - most of us take it as a matter of credulity that his report was accurate without actually checking for ourselves, because it's a massive amount of work and we have no reason to believe his report was faked or anything. I believe it was honest but of course I didn't try to prove it one way or the other.

Assuming it is all above board (which I think it is), what I took away from it is that the sudden appearance of ryka-like programs was no coincidence, that Rybka was reverse engineered and in the process a number of things were changed too. Since none of these "clones" play significantly stronger or differently, it is clear to me that the changes were mostly inconsequential.

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics. It's a deliberate act of malice towards an individual. In our society we generally are assumed to have some rights in connection with things we create. Whether this is good or bad, right or wrong is another discussion but the point is not legal to me, it's ethical - this is an expectation people count on and violating that is an act of cruelty and shows a lack of compassion - a selfish disregard for the feelings of others.

On the other hand, taking something that is clearly open source and using it seems to be viewed as even MORE reprehensible. The assertion is that Vas did this and lied about it and that what he did justifies any kind of sort of vigilante justice against him. Ugly mob mentality to string him up by the neck.

I think the most telling thing here is that 90% of those vocal in their support of the so called "clones" happen to also be the most venomous attackers of Vas. That speaks volumes about what is really going on.