Crafty accused of copying Fruit PST

[Desperado]

If you multiply _every_ eval term by 10, you change nothing.

... that is what i said too, didnt i !?...

But if you add 10 to just one, you do change someting.

... if you mul just one value(feature)... you change sth. too

well, i dont care about rybka, all i wanted to say is that this discussion
is once again waste of time because even _if_ there would be / are some
_similar_ values, i cannot understand why this should be a problem.

of course i would defend my own work too, but on the other hand if people
arent able to, or simply dont want to backtrace code, you wont be able to assure them of anything (imho).

Michael

[michiguel]

If you multiply _every_ eval term by 10, you change nothing.

... that is what i said too, didnt i !?...

But if you add 10 to just one, you do change someting.

... if you mul just one value(feature)... you change sth. too

well, i dont care about rybka, all i wanted to say is that this discussion
is once again waste of time because even _if_ there would be / are some
_similar_ values, i cannot understand why this should be a problem.

of course i would defend my own work too, but on the other hand if people
arent able to, or simply dont want to backtrace code, you wont be able to assure them of anything (imho).

Michael

There is no problem, but the whole thing is dodging the original point made at the Rybka forum. I showed code that could generate Bishop tables in R1 w/o using any number from Fruit. Bob challenged me to use that code to generate Crafty numbers (it was completely pointless). Anyway, I checked and not only I could do it, but it was possible to derive the Crafty table from Fruit just adding +8, demonstrating that it was not completely impossible to find these similarities. My original point, that some of these tables carry a very low information content is completely ignored.

What is really pathetic is that Bob is trying to say that Fruit Bishop table is more similar to Rybka than Crafty. The numbers in R1 are not even proportional to each other (square by square) because they need more than one multiplier for each vector used to derive the table.

Adding +8 means that the tables are identical. A similar effect is done by adding +8 to the value of the bishop, keeping the "placing scores" intact. Moving one piece from one square to another will have the same "delta score"

Miguel

[geots]

It seems that at one point some of Fruit's PST values were copied by Crafty and tuned with a constant. While that may seem reasonable and part of a tuning process, this is exactly what Vas has been accused of.

Not at all. Vas has been accused (and proven guilty) of copying large chunks of other programs, including both algorithms and data structures, to the point that it became obvious that rybka 1.0 was just a tuned version of Fruit's sources with chunks of Crafty in it.

Here, what the zealots at rybkaforum are trying to accomplish is to desperately throw suspicion above Bob and Crafty. What they found was one single data structure: the bishop PST. As I don't know if Crafty got it from Fruit, or by Bob's team own research, or if, at the contrary, Fruit got it from Crafty, I won't comment this. What I'll say anyway is that it is NOT at all what Vas did, not in spirit, nor in scale. So your statement "this is what Vas did" can't stand, not even taking into account your "exactly"...

I suppose it will shock you to know that the most zealots who blindly follow Bob, or anything they can- I call them follow the crowd simpletons- are right here on Talk Chess. He gets much more criticism on the Rybka forum. For example: From YOUR RESEARCH, and no one others, explain how you KNOW Vas is guilty. I thought so- you haven't a clue.

This forum is overrun with guys who won't let facts get in the way of the truth. No respect for other opinions. An exception to this rule, one who values his own opinion and respects others- is Ted Summers. The hate mob on this forum could take lessons from him.

[bob]

If you multiply _every_ eval term by 10, you change nothing.

... that is what i said too, didnt i !?...

But if you add 10 to just one, you do change someting.

... if you mul just one value(feature)... you change sth. too

well, i dont care about rybka, all i wanted to say is that this discussion
is once again waste of time because even _if_ there would be / are some
_similar_ values, i cannot understand why this should be a problem.

of course i would defend my own work too, but on the other hand if people
arent able to, or simply dont want to backtrace code, you wont be able to assure them of anything (imho).

Michael

There is no problem, but the whole thing is dodging the original point made at the Rybka forum. I showed code that could generate Bishop tables in R1 w/o using any number from Fruit. Bob challenged me to use that code to generate Crafty numbers (it was completely pointless). Anyway, I checked and not only I could do it, but it was possible to derive the Crafty table from Fruit just adding +8, demonstrating that it was not completely impossible to find these similarities. My original point, that some of these tables carry a very low information content is completely ignored.

What is really pathetic is that Bob is trying to say that Fruit Bishop table is more similar to Rybka than Crafty. The numbers in R1 are not even proportional to each other (square by square) because they need more than one multiplier for each vector used to derive the table.

Adding +8 means that the tables are identical. A similar effect is done by adding +8 to the value of the bishop, keeping the "placing scores" intact. Moving one piece from one square to another will have the same "delta score"

Miguel

I am going to go thru this one more time and then I am done.

Your code proved NOTHING. You took the rybka PST values, and then tried to write code that would produce them, intentionally making it look different than the Fruit initialization code that will also produce the Rybka values with some simple constant changes (or by adding some simple multipliers I gave on the rybka forum.)

What is the point of taking the rybka PST values, writing code that _intentionally_ produces them, and then claiming "Hey, lookee here... two different programs will produce the same values, two different people could have written these two pieces of code independently. The only problem is that you specifically targeted producing the Rybka PST values. Two people working independently would not have the SAME pst values as a "target". So that is pointless.

Second, given a semantic description of a process, there are an INFINITE number of syntactic language constructions that will produce exactly those semantics. CS 101. And completely uninteresting because it is known. If you want to somehow claim that Vax and Fabien developed two different pieces of code that produce the exact same PST values (factoring in the necessary multipliers to correct for the material piece value differences) then that's nonsense. Because you didn't do that either.

Therefore, in conclusion, I have no idea what your "new code" was supposed to prove, it was something any beginning CS major would tell you is a known thing, not a new discovery. And they would tell you it is pointless for discussion about supposed independent programs, because you violated that the instant you chose the exact Rybka PST values, which are clearly related to the fruit PST values with some small multipliers added in to the initialization code. And you produced different code.

<yawn>. So what? Doesn't say one thing about how two different programmers came up with PST values that the same piece of code will produce with just a few multiplier changes...

[michiguel]

If you multiply _every_ eval term by 10, you change nothing.

... that is what i said too, didnt i !?...

But if you add 10 to just one, you do change someting.

... if you mul just one value(feature)... you change sth. too

well, i dont care about rybka, all i wanted to say is that this discussion
is once again waste of time because even _if_ there would be / are some
_similar_ values, i cannot understand why this should be a problem.

of course i would defend my own work too, but on the other hand if people
arent able to, or simply dont want to backtrace code, you wont be able to assure them of anything (imho).

Michael

There is no problem, but the whole thing is dodging the original point made at the Rybka forum. I showed code that could generate Bishop tables in R1 w/o using any number from Fruit. Bob challenged me to use that code to generate Crafty numbers (it was completely pointless). Anyway, I checked and not only I could do it, but it was possible to derive the Crafty table from Fruit just adding +8, demonstrating that it was not completely impossible to find these similarities. My original point, that some of these tables carry a very low information content is completely ignored.

What is really pathetic is that Bob is trying to say that Fruit Bishop table is more similar to Rybka than Crafty. The numbers in R1 are not even proportional to each other (square by square) because they need more than one multiplier for each vector used to derive the table.

Adding +8 means that the tables are identical. A similar effect is done by adding +8 to the value of the bishop, keeping the "placing scores" intact. Moving one piece from one square to another will have the same "delta score"

Miguel

I am going to go thru this one more time and then I am done.

Your code proved NOTHING. You took the rybka PST values, and then tried to write code that would produce them, intentionally making it look different than the Fruit initialization code that will also produce the Rybka values with some simple constant changes (or by adding some simple multipliers I gave on the rybka forum.)

What is the point of taking the rybka PST values, writing code that _intentionally_ produces them, and then claiming "Hey, lookee here... two different programs will produce the same values, two different people could have written these two pieces of code independently. The only problem is that you specifically targeted producing the Rybka PST values. Two people working independently would not have the SAME pst values as a "target". So that is pointless.

Second, given a semantic description of a process, there are an INFINITE number of syntactic language constructions that will produce exactly those semantics. CS 101. And completely uninteresting because it is known. If you want to somehow claim that Vax and Fabien developed two different pieces of code that produce the exact same PST values (factoring in the necessary multipliers to correct for the material piece value differences) then that's nonsense. Because you didn't do that either.

Therefore, in conclusion, I have no idea what your "new code" was supposed to prove, it was something any beginning CS major would tell you is a known thing, not a new discovery. And they would tell you it is pointless for discussion about supposed independent programs, because you violated that the instant you chose the exact Rybka PST values, which are clearly related to the fruit PST values with some small multipliers added in to the initialization code. And you produced different code.

<yawn>. So what? Doesn't say one thing about how two different programmers came up with PST values that the same piece of code will produce with just a few multiplier changes...

You repeated this in the Rybka forum several times, ignoring every single time all my answers. You never understood what I said to you.

The R1 Bishop tables could be written with code that is different than Zach's. That means, Zach code does not prove then that the R1 tables could only come from Fruit numbers. I wrote them in a completely independent way.

The underlying concept is that Fruit Bishop tables are not unique, they contain a very low information content that could be defined with eight parameters (not 128 as you were claiming at the beginning, another point I refuted). For that reason, it is possible that other tables could be very similar when developed in an independent way. The irony is that this is pathetically demonstrated because you had the same tables!! and yours were identical!! while R1 were similar (but not identical).

The point I made is that this is basic chess knowledge that cannot be claimed as so unique that cannot fall under an "idea". Numbers as -3, -1, 0 +1 (which is the only thing it could be claimed to be copied from fruit in this particular case) implied 1) a taxicab concept and 2) a penalty for edges. The fact that I dissected it, it proved it.

if you feel that my code is one of the many ways R1 numbers could be derived, it actually says that Zach's is not unique either. That actually goes against you and you do not even realize it.

Those B tables can be derived from rudimentary basic principles such as
taxicab distance to corners + main diagonal bonus + edge penalty. All the multipliers from R1 are different, so much that the proportionality between squares changed if you look at fruit (not in your case).

The fact that you keep fighting about the Bishop tables is ridiculous.

Miguel
PS: Please drop you arrogant attitude treating me as one of your students. I never treated you as a student of mine. This is the second time I asked you.

[JuLieN]

It seems that at one point some of Fruit's PST values were copied by Crafty and tuned with a constant. While that may seem reasonable and part of a tuning process, this is exactly what Vas has been accused of.

Not at all. Vas has been accused (and proven guilty) of copying large chunks of other programs, including both algorithms and data structures, to the point that it became obvious that rybka 1.0 was just a tuned version of Fruit's sources with chunks of Crafty in it.

Here, what the zealots at rybkaforum are trying to accomplish is to desperately throw suspicion above Bob and Crafty. What they found was one single data structure: the bishop PST. As I don't know if Crafty got it from Fruit, or by Bob's team own research, or if, at the contrary, Fruit got it from Crafty, I won't comment this. What I'll say anyway is that it is NOT at all what Vas did, not in spirit, nor in scale. So your statement "this is what Vas did" can't stand, not even taking into account your "exactly"...

I suppose it will shock you to know that the most zealots who blindly follow Bob, or anything they can- I call them follow the crowd simpletons- are right here on Talk Chess. He gets much more criticism on the Rybka forum. For example: From YOUR RESEARCH, and no one others, explain how you KNOW Vas is guilty. I thought so- you haven't a clue.

This forum is overrun with guys who won't let facts get in the way of the truth. No respect for other opinions. An exception to this rule, one who values his own opinion and respects others- is Ted Summers. The hate mob on this forum could take lessons from him.

Don't worry, I have no doubt you like to call people names. And as this seem to be a prevalent characteristics of the Rybka followers it doesn't help people who first felt neutral to feel any sympathy for them.

So you doubt the panel? Are you calling them liars? As for me, I respect the names in this list, so I tend to believe them instead of the over-excited Rybka fan. And as a jurist myself I have quite a good understanding of what a world where everyone could make ones justice oneself and ever contest tribunal decisions would lead to: anarchy, savagery, barbary.

Before Fabien's letter, I tended to get annoyed by those who I thought were throwing mud at Rybka, as my first reaction in such circumstances is usually to suspect jealousy of small people. Although something troubled me: some of my friends who were not engine developers nor had any financial or sportsmanship interest into this question but were skilled and connoisseur people were sure Rybka was a fruit clone, and that since nearly the beginning of Rybka. So after Fabien's letter I wondered if maybe there was a real case here after all, and got convinced by the panel's investigations. That and Vas' inability to present any counter-evidence.

Now, watching the hysteric and insulting fanatic crowd at Rybka forum doesn't really help to feel any sympathy for the Rybka case, nor doest it make me feel much hope for Mankind's ability to get better and control ones instincts. Poor Vas, having such defenders really doesn't help...

[Steve B]

Now, watching the hysteric and insulting fanatic crowd at Rybka forum doesn't really help to feel any sympathy for the Rybka case, nor doest it make me feel much hope for Mankind's ability to get better and control ones instincts. Poor Vas, having such defenders really doesn't help...

Exactly
as i posted here when the ICGA first rendered its decision to strip Rybka of all titles..it is sad to see the folks in Rybka continue to deny the obvious
i guess for some of them it no longer is really about Rybka .. they are really defending their forum ....where they gather each day ..almost like a social networking site
they flail out in all directions,accusing everyone everywhere of wrongdoing and it keeps the site from vanishing away into oblivion
anyway..i imagine what goes on there now is similar to what it would be like if we had a forum for someone who has just been convicted of a crime and sent to prison
the family members,friends,neighbors..etc etc of that convict would all be saying how he didn't really do it..the judge was biased..the jurors all idiots ,,justice was not served..etc etc
Sad to see Regards
Steve

[M ANSARI]

It seems that at one point some of Fruit's PST values were copied by Crafty and tuned with a constant. While that may seem reasonable and part of a tuning process, this is exactly what Vas has been accused of.

Not at all. Vas has been accused (and proven guilty) of copying large chunks of other programs, including both algorithms and data structures, to the point that it became obvious that rybka 1.0 was just a tuned version of Fruit's sources with chunks of Crafty in it.

Here, what the zealots at rybkaforum are trying to accomplish is to desperately throw suspicion above Bob and Crafty. What they found was one single data structure: the bishop PST. As I don't know if Crafty got it from Fruit, or by Bob's team own research, or if, at the contrary, Fruit got it from Crafty, I won't comment this. What I'll say anyway is that it is NOT at all what Vas did, not in spirit, nor in scale. So your statement "this is what Vas did" can't stand, not even taking into account your "exactly"...

I suppose it will shock you to know that the most zealots who blindly follow Bob, or anything they can- I call them follow the crowd simpletons- are right here on Talk Chess. He gets much more criticism on the Rybka forum. For example: From YOUR RESEARCH, and no one others, explain how you KNOW Vas is guilty. I thought so- you haven't a clue.

This forum is overrun with guys who won't let facts get in the way of the truth. No respect for other opinions. An exception to this rule, one who values his own opinion and respects others- is Ted Summers. The hate mob on this forum could take lessons from him.

Don't worry, I have no doubt you like to call people names. And as this seem to be a prevalent characteristics of the Rybka followers it doesn't help people who first felt neutral to feel any sympathy for them.

So you doubt the panel? Are you calling them liars? As for me, I respect the names in this list, so I tend to believe them instead of the over-excited Rybka fan. And as a jurist myself I have quite a good understanding of what a world where everyone could make ones justice oneself and ever contest tribunal decisions would lead to: anarchy, savagery, barbary.

Before Fabien's letter, I tended to get annoyed by those who I thought were throwing mud at Rybka, as my first reaction in such circumstances is usually to suspect jealousy of small people. Although something troubled me: some of my friends who were not engine developers nor had any financial or sportsmanship interest into this question but were skilled and connoisseur people were sure Rybka was a fruit clone, and that since nearly the beginning of Rybka. So after Fabien's letter I wondered if maybe there was a real case here after all, and got convinced by the panel's investigations. That and Vas' inability to present any counter-evidence.

Now, watching the hysteric and insulting fanatic crowd at Rybka forum doesn't really help to feel any sympathy for the Rybka case, nor doest it make me feel much hope for Mankind's ability to get better and control ones instincts. Poor Vas, having such defenders really doesn't help...

Ok that makes sense ... so you were one of the people accusing Vas and you seem to dislike any information that shows that maybe you did something wrong. You totally dismiss a setup that was used to accuse Vas of wrong doing because it is only one set of PST tables? Well, what if we assume that ALL the tables were stolen from Fruit at one time, and that the other tables were modified enough to remove any similarity (Bob does mention robust cluster tuning) and the only remaining artifact of the original plunder is the bishop PST's ... so to obfuscate it let us add +8 and all will be good. I know this is all assuming stuff, and the "ASS" out of "U" and "ME" is relevant and all. But this sort of assuming seems to have been OK when you were on your witch hunt ... most likely a lot of asses were made then. You never used the sources that participated in the ICGA, yet you "assumed" that this was irrelevant and that Rybka 1.0 beta was good enough to base your assumptions on. Playing the Rybka Forum Maniacs card it silly, stupid and getting old. If you have something that can show how an entire PST table can be identical with adding a +8 constant without copying the original set of data please please show it. Denegrading an entire group of people simply because they disagree with you is not really helping much.

[JuLieN]

It seems that at one point some of Fruit's PST values were copied by Crafty and tuned with a constant. While that may seem reasonable and part of a tuning process, this is exactly what Vas has been accused of.

Not at all. Vas has been accused (and proven guilty) of copying large chunks of other programs, including both algorithms and data structures, to the point that it became obvious that rybka 1.0 was just a tuned version of Fruit's sources with chunks of Crafty in it.

Here, what the zealots at rybkaforum are trying to accomplish is to desperately throw suspicion above Bob and Crafty. What they found was one single data structure: the bishop PST. As I don't know if Crafty got it from Fruit, or by Bob's team own research, or if, at the contrary, Fruit got it from Crafty, I won't comment this. What I'll say anyway is that it is NOT at all what Vas did, not in spirit, nor in scale. So your statement "this is what Vas did" can't stand, not even taking into account your "exactly"...

I suppose it will shock you to know that the most zealots who blindly follow Bob, or anything they can- I call them follow the crowd simpletons- are right here on Talk Chess. He gets much more criticism on the Rybka forum. For example: From YOUR RESEARCH, and no one others, explain how you KNOW Vas is guilty. I thought so- you haven't a clue.

This forum is overrun with guys who won't let facts get in the way of the truth. No respect for other opinions. An exception to this rule, one who values his own opinion and respects others- is Ted Summers. The hate mob on this forum could take lessons from him.

Don't worry, I have no doubt you like to call people names. And as this seem to be a prevalent characteristics of the Rybka followers it doesn't help people who first felt neutral to feel any sympathy for them.

So you doubt the panel? Are you calling them liars? As for me, I respect the names in this list, so I tend to believe them instead of the over-excited Rybka fan. And as a jurist myself I have quite a good understanding of what a world where everyone could make ones justice oneself and ever contest tribunal decisions would lead to: anarchy, savagery, barbary.

Before Fabien's letter, I tended to get annoyed by those who I thought were throwing mud at Rybka, as my first reaction in such circumstances is usually to suspect jealousy of small people. Although something troubled me: some of my friends who were not engine developers nor had any financial or sportsmanship interest into this question but were skilled and connoisseur people were sure Rybka was a fruit clone, and that since nearly the beginning of Rybka. So after Fabien's letter I wondered if maybe there was a real case here after all, and got convinced by the panel's investigations. That and Vas' inability to present any counter-evidence.

Now, watching the hysteric and insulting fanatic crowd at Rybka forum doesn't really help to feel any sympathy for the Rybka case, nor doest it make me feel much hope for Mankind's ability to get better and control ones instincts. Poor Vas, having such defenders really doesn't help...

Ok that makes sense ... so you were one of the people accusing Vas and you seem to dislike any information that shows that maybe you did something wrong. You totally dismiss a setup that was used to accuse Vas of wrong doing because it is only one set of PST tables? Well, what if we assume that ALL the tables were stolen from Fruit at one time, and that the other tables were modified enough to remove any similarity (Bob does mention robust cluster tuning) and the only remaining artifact of the original plunder is the bishop PST's ... so to obfuscate it let us add +8 and all will be good. I know this is all assuming stuff, and the "ASS" out of "U" and "ME" is relevant and all. But this sort of assuming seems to have been OK when you were on your witch hunt ... most likely a lot of asses were made then. You never used the sources that participated in the ICGA, yet you "assumed" that this was irrelevant and that Rybka 1.0 beta was good enough to base your assumptions on. Playing the Rybka Forum Maniacs card it silly, stupid and getting old. If you have something that can show how an entire PST table can be identical with adding a +8 constant without copying the original set of data please please show it. Denegrading an entire group of people simply because they disagree with you is not really helping much.

Yet another disappointing post, Mr Ansari.

* You write "so you were one of the people accusing Vas". This is a lie: I wrote I was neutral until I read the ICGA's decision, that convinced me of Vad's guiltiness. Again, I'm a jurist, so for me everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I even wrote that I didn't like how people were throwing mud at Rybka during all those years. I even wasn't one of the prosecutors, I was just an observer whose sympathy was for Vas in the beginning. Until the gathered evidences made me reverse my opinion. And... until his hysteric sycophants made him look like the Guru of a sect of madmen.

* You write "You totally dismiss a setup that was used to accuse Vas of wrong doing because it is only one set of PST tables". This is a lie, as I wrote just the contrary, saying it was one of the points. But only one of the numerous points. I also said that I had no ideas of who copied whom in this bishop PST skirmish, and so couldn't even have an opinion regarding it, and so certainly not feel any authority to "dismiss" it, as you dared to write.

For the rest of your post, I have the feeling you were addressing someone else (like Bob?) instead of me...

You people scare me. I'm scared to see how easily passion can make people lose their objectivity and their rationality. In your hysteric madness you even turn neutral people against you. You spread hatred, lies and antagonism, making enemies of people who had nothing against you. You made fools of yourself, creating dissension and iniquity in the process. You use lies, give up rationality and resort to personal attacks. This is plain and simple madness.

If a cause is just and fair, then it doesn't need lies to get cleaned. No good can be done with bad. If you people are ready to resort to such methods, with such consequences among our once friendly community, for something as anecdotical as a chess program, what will you do with real life problems? This is the very root to why people like Hitler, Stalin and their likes can achieve such apocalyptical results. If I weren't a christian, I would despair, seeing how Mankind seems to never learn and always repeat the same mistakes, even in the smallest things.

I have no illusion at all when I write this, but I'll say it anyway: calm down, put yourself together and recover a few basic human attributes like: reason, politeness, friendship, kindness, objectivity. I am not, and have no reason to be, your enemy, so I'd like you and your likes to stop acting like you needed to have enemies you could fight. I don't even know you. I don't know who your family is, what principles they taught you, why your friends like you and other people don't. And the same for you with me. Yet you're putting words in my mouth I've never told, act aggressive with me and seem happily willing to turn me into an enemy. People who know me consider me as a friendly person, but think if I were to be otherwise, and, for instance, as sanguine as you seem to be: soon the most unpleasant names would be exchanged here in a growingly hideous caricature of a kindergarden. I have no interest in that.

I don't know exactly what you're trying to accomplish here, but I'm sure of something: nothing good and productive can be accomplished by trying to turn everyone into enemies in the process. If you are so sure that something unfair has been done, then learn to erase the bad with the good. Be gentle, be logic, be polite and that way maybe, *maybe*, you'll get people's sympathy and attention on your case instead of turning them against you.

[Roger Brown]

Yet another disappointing post, Mr Ansari.

* You write "so you were one of the people accusing Vas". This is a lie: I wrote I was neutral until I read the ICGA's decision, that convinced me of Vad's guiltiness. Again, I'm a jurist, so for me everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I even wrote that I didn't like how people were throwing mud at Rybka during all those years. I even wasn't one of the prosecutors, I was just an observer whose sympathy was for Vas in the beginning. Until the gathered evidences made me reverse my opinion. And... until his hysteric sycophants made him look like the Guru of a sect of madmen.

* You write "You totally dismiss a setup that was used to accuse Vas of wrong doing because it is only one set of PST tables". This is a lie, as I wrote just the contrary, saying it was one of the points. But only one of the numerous points. I also said that I had no ideas of who copied whom in this bishop PST skirmish, and so couldn't even have an opinion regarding it, and so certainly not feel any authority to "dismiss" it, as you dared to write.

For the rest of your post, I have the feeling you were addressing someone else (like Bob?) instead of me...

You people scare me. I'm scared to see how easily passion can make people lose their objectivity and their rationality. In your hysteric madness you even turn neutral people against you. You spread hatred, lies and antagonism, making enemies of people who had nothing against you. You made fools of yourself, creating dissension and iniquity in the process. You use lies, give up rationality and resort to personal attacks. This is plain and simple madness.

If a cause is just and fair, then it doesn't need lies to get cleaned. No good can be done with bad. If you people are ready to resort to such methods, with such consequences among our once friendly community, for something as anecdotical as a chess program, what will you do with real life problems? This is the very root to why people like Hitler, Stalin and their likes can achieve such apocalyptical results. If I weren't a christian, I would despair, seeing how Mankind seems to never learn and always repeat the same mistakes, even in the smallest things.

I have no illusion at all when I write this, but I'll say it anyway: calm down, put yourself together and recover a few basic human attributes like: reason, politeness, friendship, kindness, objectivity. I am not, and have no reason to be, your enemy, so I'd like you and your likes to stop acting like you needed to have enemies you could fight. I don't even know you. I don't know who your family is, what principles they taught you, why your friends like you and other people don't. And the same for you with me. Yet you're putting words in my mouth I've never told, act aggressive with me and seem happily willing to turn me into an enemy. People who know me consider me as a friendly person, but think if I were to be otherwise, and, for instance, as sanguine as you seem to be: soon the most unpleasant names would be exchanged here in a growingly hideous caricature of a kindergarden. I have no interest in that.

I don't know exactly what you're trying to accomplish here, but I'm sure of something: nothing good and productive can be accomplished by trying to turn everyone into enemies in the process. If you are so sure that something unfair has been done, then learn to erase the bad with the good. Be gentle, be logic, be polite and that way maybe, *maybe*, you'll get people's sympathy and attention on your case instead of turning them against you.

Hello Julien,

I would have been proud to have been the author of that post above. Alas, it will make no difference to those whom it is addressed to. What is odd to me is that if one case condemns an open source program, how much more so do several cases condemn a closed source, commercial program?

You have written a beautiful piece of prose and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

+100 as they say.

Later.