Robbolito 0.09 New Edition VS Rybka 3

[K I Hyams]

Hey

sharp

You make an art-form out of missing the point.

He seems to have been offended by the fact that I had the temerity to rephrase my previous post. The irony is that the reason I was editing was to make it easier for people like him to understand.

[K I Hyams]

I always saw you in that role of empty computerchess but still eloquent writer in CTF. Because what have you to say here in computerchess? What have I to say? So, somehow we share the same fate. But I do still play chess. BTW happy new year.

Happy new year, Rolf.

[sockmonkey]

What if... the authors of Ippolit/Robbolito/Iggorit have no interest in competing? If, for whatever reasons, they want to ruin Rybka's #1 status, maybe just because it's a challenge, that's actually their business, not yours. "Propoganda", "drama", "falsehood", "illegal"? Do you read what you write? The moment that there's even ONE piece of actual evidence (not Graham's gut feelings, Vas's business-motivated claims or your I'm-not-really-sure-what-to-call-it) that I/R/I is stolen code, I'll recant, delete and so on. All else is rationalization (on all sides). Prove it or live with it, please. Frohes neues.

Jeremy

Thanks for the nice post. I guess you have been socialised in the USA. For you the evidence is important, correct? Who fabricated the evidence is no longer your question. Important that there is evidence. But please, will you let yourself be betrayed again and always again because a government does this all the time when wars come nearer.

Look, Vas already stated it long ago that he wouldnt care about such stuff that does not lay in his realm. All smart guys react this way. So far it goes after your motto. But what people like me ask all of you with that spirit: is there not the least shame in you? Is that what you would call moral? Or did I miss a new pragmatic theory? The validitity of the evidence for one or two days? What would Obama say?

What does the USA have to do with evidence? Last I checked, German law requires evidence of wrongdoing before prosecution, let alone conviction of a crime, U-Haft notwithstanding. Your point is that I appear to demand evidence without regard for its source? That's naturally rubbish. But it's also a diversion: there is no evidence, fabricated or not, that Ippolit and friends are stolen code. None at all, except for Vas's unsubstantiated claim and your ethical unease. The first is a) unsubstantiated and b) untrustworthy. The second is irrelevant.

You've argued in the past that the rules of evidence don't apply to sports and business. Unless you've been living in a cave for the last 40 years, you'd notice that the rules of ethics don't, either. Not that I think that's a good thing. But if a group of anonymous coders decides to take a shot at Rybka, either by being extremely good, or through analysis and re-engineering, or however (up to, but not including, the point of stealing), that's fair play, world champion computer chess program or not.

So, shame? Not even a little bit. If reliable evidence surfaces which confirms your view, I would certainly have an ethical problem with using it (although note I wouldn't spend any time whatsoever trying to convince other people that my position should be adopted -- evangelism is ugly in all of its forms). I currently have an ethical problem with the ruthless means by which Rybka's most dangerous competitor has been marginalized and ostracized without the slightest tangible bit of proof. The perpetrators of that circus should probably do a little shame-searching themselves.

Jeremy

[Rolf]

What if... the authors of Ippolit/Robbolito/Iggorit have no interest in competing? If, for whatever reasons, they want to ruin Rybka's #1 status, maybe just because it's a challenge, that's actually their business, not yours. "Propoganda", "drama", "falsehood", "illegal"? Do you read what you write? The moment that there's even ONE piece of actual evidence (not Graham's gut feelings, Vas's business-motivated claims or your I'm-not-really-sure-what-to-call-it) that I/R/I is stolen code, I'll recant, delete and so on. All else is rationalization (on all sides). Prove it or live with it, please. Frohes neues.

Jeremy

Thanks for the nice post. I guess you have been socialised in the USA. For you the evidence is important, correct? Who fabricated the evidence is no longer your question. Important that there is evidence. But please, will you let yourself be betrayed again and always again because a government does this all the time when wars come nearer.

Look, Vas already stated it long ago that he wouldnt care about such stuff that does not lay in his realm. All smart guys react this way. So far it goes after your motto. But what people like me ask all of you with that spirit: is there not the least shame in you? Is that what you would call moral? Or did I miss a new pragmatic theory? The validitity of the evidence for one or two days? What would Obama say?

What does the USA have to do with evidence? Last I checked, German law requires evidence of wrongdoing before prosecution, let alone conviction of a crime, U-Haft notwithstanding. Your point is that I appear to demand evidence without regard for its source? That's naturally rubbish. But it's also a diversion: there is no evidence, fabricated or not, that Ippolit and friends are stolen code. None at all, except for Vas's unsubstantiated claim and your ethical unease. The first is a) unsubstantiated and b) untrustworthy. The second is irrelevant.

You've argued in the past that the rules of evidence don't apply to sports and business. Unless you've been living in a cave for the last 40 years, you'd notice that the rules of ethics don't, either. Not that I think that's a good thing. But if a group of anonymous coders decides to take a shot at Rybka, either by being extremely good, or through analysis and re-engineering, or however (up to, but not including, the point of stealing), that's fair play, world champion computer chess program or not.

So, shame? Not even a little bit. If reliable evidence surfaces which confirms your view, I would certainly have an ethical problem with using it (although note I wouldn't spend any time whatsoever trying to convince other people that my position should be adopted -- evangelism is ugly in all of its forms). I currently have an ethical problem with the ruthless means by which Rybka's most dangerous competitor has been marginalized and ostracized without the slightest tangible bit of proof. The perpetrators of that circus should probably do a little shame-searching themselves.

Jeremy

Perhaps it helps you if I frankly state that your reply is so good and that is what only Americans deliver. I dont want to comment this myself. IMO on such a forum there are many others who might want to discuss that. Your position is ok also if I dont agree. What you call irrelevant would also be stamped otherwise if you personally were the victim. I know this all too well. If Americans are the victim then it's like the end of the world (The Two (or three?) Towers e.g.). Otherwise not. Excuse me all my thoughts but I was raisen in the spirit of the American Constitution after WW2. Sorry if I apply the fundamentals now on Americans too. But then I'm not in the diplomatic corps.

[Steve B]

Rolf

lets keep the discussion On Topic here

please stick to Computer Chess Topics without drifting to what we Americans do or dont do

i will assume i have your agreement in advance
Steve

[DomLeste]

As usual people get wind up and deviate off the topic and get personal. Another GroundHog Day on CCC forum... Like a dog chasing its tail as usual this topic goes nowhere zzzzzzz

[sockmonkey]

Perhaps it helps you if I frankly state that your reply is so good and that is what only Americans deliver. I dont want to comment this myself. IMO on such a forum there are many others who might want to discuss that. Your position is ok also if I dont agree. What you call irrelevant would also be stamped otherwise if you personally were the victim. I know this all too well. If Americans are the victim then it's like the end of the world (The Two (or three?) Towers e.g.). Otherwise not. Excuse me all my thoughts but I was raisen in the spirit of the American Constitution after WW2. Sorry if I apply the fundamentals now on Americans too. But then I'm not in the diplomatic corps.

I am neither ashamed of being American, nor of choosing Germany as my adopted home. But this is another diversion. What are you talking about? Is your position so untenable that you have to resort to non sequiters to avoid the final collapse of your argument?

You can't claim exception for sport and business in matters of providing proof of claims, and also speak of victims. Unless you are speaking of Vas as a victim of his own unresponsive, disorganized business practices (see Rybka 3+ update, elsewhere), or the authors of Ippolit and friends as victims of a well-documented, aggressively-waged, evidence-free smear campaign against their work.

In sports or business, if I accuse you of doping or stealing (and winning as a result) without providing proof, I am what's called a 'sore loser'. Schon mal gehört? In this case, without proof, Vas can't be called a victim, because that designation would depend on verified (as in, backed up by evidence) wrongdoing against him (and I don't mean aggressive competition, which is, as we established before, fair play). Your concern for his well-being is touching, though.

Jeremy

[Rolf]

Rolf

lets keep the discussion On Topic here

please stick to Computer Chess Topics without drifting to what we Americans do or dont do

i will assume i have your agreement in advance
Steve

You are right. Now all know that I am American myself (Socialisation wise). Thanks for the hint. Rolf

[mariaclara]

hahaha....

what a clone Unc Rolf is.

oooooops..

I meant a clown.

What are you talking about? Is your position so untenable that you have to resort to non sequiters to avoid the final collapse of your argument?

[Rolf]

I am neither ashamed of being American, nor of choosing Germany as my adopted home. But this is another diversion. What are you talking about? Is your position so untenable that you have to resort to non sequiters to avoid the final collapse of your argument?

You can't claim exception for sport and business in matters of providing proof of claims, and also speak of victims.

Let's keep this short and on topic, because otherwise I am the victim here. The argument of computerchess in sport goes like this:

You are well entitled to state that you were victim of a robbery in sport. However if then smart guys ask for evidence you cant show all the evidence or you would deliver the secrets of your own player. Is that clear? But in such a situation you cant expect that nobody is stating the obvious even once. NOT Vas is repeating this all over but it is obviously debated here without him. He declared it once and then no more. But ill informed people then make an argument out of it. Aha, he doesnt debate it, he doesnt show evidence, so this looks like he was lying to "us". Honestly, that is the unique reason why I am here in this debate because that isnt logical. It offended me that first Osipov appeared and then even worse total anons. Ok, we must agree to disagree. You tolerate the mystery offenders and I dont. But we are just talking about it, ok? I for one am real and authentic, well, sockmonkey is a bit less human IMO. <g>

But we still could be friends. I learn a lot from your world view.