World Computer Chess Championship ?

[bob]

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Stockfish would be welcome to such events I am sure.

Good.

I don't see why you think there would be an issue.

Because I suspected (ICGA) Bob would mumble and I was right.

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

Bob a while also called Richard a cloner. Today I learned (from the other thread) he has accused Daniel S. of cloning Crafty. It made Dann Corbit (who inspected the source code and disagreed) to say: I think it should serve as a severe warning about using ideas from crafty. Basically, I now think it is a very bad idea to read the crafty code.

Now what should he mean by that?

I have no idea what you are talking about myself...

[bob]

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

"Speak now or forever hold your peace" this sentence has a sense !

What it means "until a protest is filed" ? Until tournament is finished and once a partecipant find itself lost then fills the protest ? Until 6 years later ???

It means, quite simply, "when someone files a formal protest and provides credible evidence to support the protest, then that program will be evaluated." It means nothing more or nothing less. No statute of limitations. MOST protests occur during the event. But not all, as has been recently seen.

I think partecipants have the right to rise concerns above competitors but before the start of the tournament, not after. Anyhow this is just a secondary issue compared to the real big issue of the strongest (not in ELO terms!) partecipants letting come in only who they like using the straw man and hypocritical argumentation of "original engine" (well supported in this by the ICGA).

The rules were defined by the participants. If you don't like 'em, find a LARGER group of authors that want changes in ICGA rules. It will then happen since the organization operates as a democracy with regard to the tournament rules. Always have...

Minorities can either abide by existing rules or not play...

[Rebel]

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Stockfish would be welcome to such events I am sure.

Good.

I don't see why you think there would be an issue.

Because I suspected (ICGA) Bob would mumble and I was right.

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

Bob a while also called Richard a cloner. Today I learned (from the other thread) he has accused Daniel S. of cloning Crafty. It made Dann Corbit (who inspected the source code and disagreed) to say: I think it should serve as a severe warning about using ideas from crafty. Basically, I now think it is a very bad idea to read the crafty code.

Now what should he mean by that?

I have no idea what you are talking about myself...

Did you apologize to Daniel ?

[Rebel]

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Stockfish would be welcome to such events I am sure.

Good.

I don't see why you think there would be an issue.

Because I suspected (ICGA) Bob would mumble and I was right.

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

In the case of Houdini, I don't believe there is any doubt someone would protest. Would you disagree with that, particularly in light of everything that has been discovered on OpenChess???

When in trouble, change the topic, classic. The topic was Critter and Stockfish, not Houdini.

[Rebel]

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Stockfish would be welcome to such events I am sure.

Good.

I don't see why you think there would be an issue.

Because I suspected (ICGA) Bob would mumble and I was right.

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

Bob a while also called Richard a cloner. Today I learned (from the other thread) he has accused Daniel S. of cloning Crafty. It made Dann Corbit (who inspected the source code and disagreed) to say: I think it should serve as a severe warning about using ideas from crafty. Basically, I now think it is a very bad idea to read the crafty code.

Now what should he mean by that?

I have no idea what you are talking about myself...

The spider analogy comes to mind. Again.

[geots]

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

"Speak now or forever hold your peace" this sentence has a sense !

What it means "until a protest is filed" ? Until tournament is finished and once a partecipant find itself lost then fills the protest ? Until 6 years later ???

I think partecipants have the right to rise concerns above competitors but before the start of the tournament, not after. Anyhow this is just a secondary issue compared to the real big issue of the strongest (not in ELO terms!) partecipants letting come in only who they like using the straw man and hypocritical argumentation of "original engine" (well supported in this by the ICGA).

Marco, you are a lot smarter than me- but one word of advice. Stop and talk to Sven, Miguel Ballicora and Whittington. They will tell you quickly there is no point in trying to make Bob see anything but the way he sees it with his tunnel vision and silly analogies. They will also tell you that when his mouth gets him in a bind, he will pretend he doesn't understand what you are trying to say, or just ignore it altogether and go to some other area of the topic and he will surely talk down to you. I was reading when Miguel told him, "I have asked you 3 times now not to talk down to me like I am one of your students- as nicely as I could- but there won't be a 4th time." And there wasn't. Arguing any point concerning anything with him is a waste of your good time.


Best,

george

[hgm]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

[chrisw]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

Thanks for your insane clarification of Catch 22: "you can't take anything, idea, code, because we own, apply and control Rule #2 on you, depending whether you are "one of us" or "we like you""

It seems crystal clear indeed that the position of these Rule #2 Police and assorted ICGA hacks can be summed up in one sentence.

"It is not theft when we do it."

[Uri Blass]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

It is not correct that you cannot take anything because taking ideas is allowed.
Everybody is allowed to use null move pruning or LMR
Everybody is allowed to have some definition of passed pawns and use it.

The problem begins when you take too many ideas and you take the exact definition of passed pawns from other programs and the same for other factors.

[Joerg Oster]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

Thanks for your insane clarification of Catch 22: "you can't take anything, idea, code, because we own, apply and control Rule #2 on you, depending whether you are "one of us" or "we like you""

It seems crystal clear indeed that the position of these Rule #2 Police and assorted ICGA hacks can be summed up in one sentence.

"It is not theft when we do it."

Following the discussions very carefully during the last months, and, not only reading what is written, but also listening to what is not, I now tend to believe you're right.