Rybka 1.0 source code

[Terry McCracken]

(To both sides).

Hopefully, the next moderation team will keep all those crazy threads were they belong: in the engines origin subforum.

Because right now, this is boring the vast majority of people and turning people against each others.

Lots of people are leaving the scene. Two years ago, a Talkchess election would gather more than 200 votes. Now it's about 70 voters only. You even drove away important people of the community like Dann Corbit

Both sides are acting irrationally because this has become personal. You'll never solve this problem with this kind of useless threads. If you REALLY want to solve the problem, use the enormous amount of time you're wasting in these endless threads in a more useful way: write a complete report will all the arguments, pros and cons.

You're right, it's not productive and is damaging the very fabric of the community.

All this energy wasted could have gone into book and we would buy it.

Thousands of posts going around and around or running on a treadmill, going nowhere, is an embarrassment to the community.

[Harvey Williamson]

Jaap has NOT "stalled an investigation."

I did not mention names, simply said that it is stalled.

Fabien filed a written protest.

When if I may ask.

Before, after or at the same moment Fabien wrote his Rybka complaint ?

A date would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

After.

[Rebel]

Jaap has NOT "stalled an investigation."

I did not mention names, simply said that it is stalled.

Fabien filed a written protest.

When if I may ask.

Before, after or at the same moment Fabien wrote his Rybka complaint ?

A date would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

After.

Harvey,

Fabien's Rybka complaint was dated: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 and action was taken soon after.

So it would show transparency if you give us the exact date of Fabien's LOOP complaint.

I mean, the ICGA investigating the ICGA is an already hard to understand concept.

[Harvey Williamson]

Jaap has NOT "stalled an investigation."

I did not mention names, simply said that it is stalled.

Fabien filed a written protest.

When if I may ask.

Before, after or at the same moment Fabien wrote his Rybka complaint ?

A date would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

After.

Harvey,

Fabien's Rybka complaint was dated: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 and action was taken soon after.

So it would show transparency if you give us the exact date of Fabien's LOOP complaint.

I mean, the ICGA investigating the ICGA is an already hard to understand concept.

A statement on Loop will be made soon.

[Rebel]

You're right, it's not productive and is damaging the very fabric of the community.

All this energy wasted could have gone into book and we would buy it.

Thousands of posts going around and around or running on a treadmill, going nowhere, is an embarrassment to the community.

Hi Terry,

How many times have you complaint in the 2006-2010 period every time the Rybka/Fruit issue came up ?

Best to you,

Ed

[Terry McCracken]

You're right, it's not productive and is damaging the very fabric of the community.

All this energy wasted could have gone into book and we would buy it.

Thousands of posts going around and around or running on a treadmill, going nowhere, is an embarrassment to the community.

Hi Terry,

How many times have you complaint in the 2006-2010 period every time the Rybka/Fruit issue came up ?

Best to you,

Ed

Nowhere near your record. Not even close. It's time to drop it. You're doing a lot of damage not only to the community but to yourself. IMO Bob has made an error trying to explain and defend the ICGA in all the forums. The ICGA made an informed and rational decision. Trying to defend that decision is non productive.

[bob]

So you are saying that these two things are different, semantically:

if (x >= 0.0) a=10;

if (0.0 < x) a=10;

They are IDENTICAL, in fact. So exactly what is the "no, it does not mean the same thing?" supposed to be about???

They are not identical

if you start with x=0.0 a=5 you are going to get a=10 in the first case and a=5 in the second case.

Oops. You are correct. make it x >= 0.0 and 0.0 <= x in the second...

Doesn't really change a thing in the discussion.

No, it doesn't change a thing.

I find the second a bit harder to "grasp" semantically. I want to know if X is not negative. The second option doesn't make that as clear as the first one...

By the way, that makes this discussion even more implausible. Typing <= doesn't give much opportunity to hit the key with the "." on it...

Again, it does not change a thing.

0.<x has the '.' besides the '<'
0.<=x has the '.' besides the '<'

But, you will keep arguing something about the '='
You read my first email about this, but none of the 8 that followed it.

Do I think this is what happened? most likely not, but if you are going to dismiss and alternative scenario, do it based on something substantial, not on outrageous claims like "nobody uses an inverted comparison".

There are other alternatives that nobody mentioned, like using a macro and then you will get ',' besides '.' or even typing something by mistake when the cursor is not where you think it is in the screen. That happened to me a gazillion times. Most of the time I find it because a compiler error is introduced, but if it is legal...

The point is that it is very dangerous to hold somebody guilty of something based on "one" character because the alternative scenarios you did not think about increases.

Miguel

You are using the same strawman argument Ed is using. The "." by itself is not completely convincing, so he didn't copy. The "." is pretty convincing. Taken in conjunction with all the other evidence, it is completely convincing.


x >= .0 or .0 <= x, HOW do you get that "." key in there. Let's take the possible lines one by one and type them.

For "if (x >= 0.0)"

You hit > on the bottom row, ring finger, then same finger to top row to hit the =, and then move two keys to the left and hit the 0. How did he hit the "."?

For "if (x >= .0)

You hit > on the bottom row, ring finger, then same finger to top row to hit the =, and then move back to the bottom row to somehow hit the '.', and then back to the top row to hit the 0 key. Why did he hit that "." which is away from every other character he had to type?

For "if (0.0 <= x)"

how did the "." get in there? copying.

For "if (0. <= x)"

He hit the 0 on the top key, then next wanted to hit the < key (which is shifted). How did he accidentally hit that "." key BEFORE he hit the space bar? 0.<x is not something anyone would type naturally. 0<x is also not natural for an experienced programmer.

Don't just quote this crap about "there is a '.' key on the keyboard and he could easily have hit it..." Tell me how/why his finger would have been anywhere near that key if he intended to type either of these two lines:

if (movetime >= 0) {

or

if (0 <= movetime) {

Where do you get the '.' by accident for either? What finger is close to the '.' when typing EITHER of those statements? Only when typing the > character for the first, yet we know, for absolute certainty that the next character was an '='. SO that's out. On the second, how did he get the . in front of the 0? Not likely. What about the 0. <= movetime? He hit the 0, on the top row, then somehow hit the key to the right of the <, without the shift key down?

Does you REALLY believe that is anything near being called "a plausible explanation?" "Possible?" Yes. But "plausible"? Not a chance. "Possible" doesn't cut it in this kind of proceeding. "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard... Or beyond "reasonable doubt." Not "beyond any possible way-way-out-there doubt."

Utter and complete nonsense.

This is trying to find some explanation why the floor is wet, when any normal person looks up and sees a 3 foot hole in the roof and it is raining outside and concludes that the rain came in through the hole. Of course there COULD have been a plumbing leak. But none is found. Of course it COULD have stopped by itself. But is is reasonable?

[bob]

Jaap has NOT "stalled an investigation."

I did not mention names, simply said that it is stalled.

Fabien filed a written protest.

When if I may ask.

Before, after or at the same moment Fabien wrote his Rybka complaint ?

A date would be nice.

Thanks in advance.

After.

Harvey,

Fabien's Rybka complaint was dated: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 and action was taken soon after.

So it would show transparency if you give us the exact date of Fabien's LOOP complaint.

I mean, the ICGA investigating the ICGA is an already hard to understand concept.

A statement on Loop will be made soon.

And what is this "The ICGA investigating the ICGA" nonsense? I'm not aware of the ICGA "sponsoring or writing" a chess program...

In any case, had Ed stayed on the panel rather than running off and pouting, he would have known about all of this as it unfolded, rather than now posting false assumptions, false statements, and such...

Of course one has to wonder "what does this have to do with the Rybka investigation???" Took Fabien several years to file a formal complaint. So what?

[bob]

1. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, types "if ( 0.0 < movetime) instead of "if (movetime >= 0.0)

Not true!

First of all, ( 0.0 <= movetime) if equivalent of (movetime >= 0.0)

Second, some people, including myself, write many times I place the constant on the left and there are very good reasons to do that. In fact, many recommend it!

O.T.: I am currently working with some Japanese Java code, and these coders often put the constant on the left. However - I cannot say that they are using good coding practice, because of the number of times I have seen:

if (true = variable) instead of if (variable)

It would make the code read VERY strange IMHO.

If I want to know if x is greater than zero, and I write "if (0 <= x)" it loses some of it's readability to me, and the #1 goal of a programmer has to be to write code that can be read, comprehended, so that it can be maintained. If someone walks up to you and says my age is greater than 30 and less than 40, I grasp that instantly. If they walk up and say 30 is less than my age, and 40 is greater than my age, I have to stop and think about it for a minute.

[Don]

1. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, types "if ( 0.0 < movetime) instead of "if (movetime >= 0.0)

Not true!

First of all, ( 0.0 <= movetime) if equivalent of (movetime >= 0.0)

Second, some people, including myself, write many times I place the constant on the left and there are very good reasons to do that. In fact, many recommend it!

O.T.: I am currently working with some Japanese Java code, and these coders often put the constant on the left. However - I cannot say that they are using good coding practice, because of the number of times I have seen:

if (true = variable) instead of if (variable)

It would make the code read VERY strange IMHO.

If I want to know if x is greater than zero, and I write "if (0 <= x)" it loses some of it's readability to me, and the #1 goal of a programmer has to be to write code that can be read, comprehended, so that it can be maintained. If someone walks up to you and says my age is greater than 30 and less than 40, I grasp that instantly. If they walk up and say 30 is less than my age, and 40 is greater than my age, I have to stop and think about it for a minute.

That's only because you are used to thinking of it that way, not because it's inherently unnatural or awkward. It's like RPN or reciting the alphabet backwards, it's only more "natural" because you decided that it was and don't do it any other way.

However I agree that for code to be readable you need to stick with a standard way of doing things. In Komodo I get this deal all the time with whether some value is greater than, or greater than or equal and so on. Or if I tell Larry that we do high depth forward pruning between depths x and y there is always a question of what that means, does it INCLUDE x and y? With our half ply extensions it's even more confusing but we now pretty much speak in half depth language now.

Don