Due to time, space here and the attention and or interest of casual readers here I roughly sum up the main aspects of your whole mind frame as you presented it here. Of course you are still for me expert nr. 1 in computerchess because of no visible alternative. And I thank you like always for all the statements like ususual. Only with your presentation I could make my case without too much laborous studies.bob wrote:I've never seen Vas own up to doing this. Which is certainly not exactly honest, to say the least.
In the following I will sum up all the points where it's clear why we disagree. I might forget something but nothing can change the basic judgement.
As we all know we have science issues and ethical ones.
Chapter 1 DB2 vs Kasparov 1997
Bob: there was a contract, Kasparov signed, IBM DB2 respected all points
Rolf: Kasparov is a human being, he asked questions about his observations, he was unfriendly treated, lost his stamina to play his best chess, just normal with disturbed mind wasnt good enough, so that we got no valid result, especially because the evidence hardware was quickly destroyed, but this way we have no clear outcome of the event because of the violations of science basics that stand above or beyond every contract, treatment of client to be able to isolate the researched effect, here solely the power of the machine and NOT the human suggestibility in front of a human made guidance of the machine in relation to the chosen client
Chapter 2 The Confusion about Rybka, best chess software since 2005
Like the one-eyed setting absolutely the details of written contract where unfriendliness certainly couldnt be foreseen, we see here a limited perception on the meaning of facts, limited by again a human guided decision to not to perceive, not to examine other crucial facts, of course that leads to wrong conclusions and false ethical judgements.
In medical fields it's a typical fault to forget about the relation between choice of questions and results in diagnoses and alleged increases. Therefore the claiming of facts is wrong if the decision was man made what should be examined. In the ideal world of science computerchess had only open sources like Crafty. But Chessbase is presenting actually Fritz 12, Shredder 12, allegedly distinct entities. Nobody has ever told us the technical details and how much was plagiatized or stolen from othe codes. That is a decision of the same people who now take under examination the different Rybka versions.
And above all that on a history of CC SW where in >90% literally everything is borrowed, taken and socialised. Everything is friendly-wise stolen but it was never questioned in case of Chessbase products.
So, in my eyes from science it's unethical to then accuse and hunt down one single programmer with arguments that would evaporize in a minute the whole alleged million market of commercial computerchess. What for??
I argue that it's highly unethical to simply scapegoat a single participant and leaving unquestioned the rest. And that on the base that in chess Rybka is just the best you can get.
I can tell you why you dont legally process: because you cant explain why you dont treat all with same procedures. It's full of prejudices what you are doing with your critic against Rybka, but Fritz Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior were not attacked with open code clones with their source codes.
What did you say? Facts are facts? Isnt it about prejudiced=biased chosen facts?
It's now in your hands. Should commercial offers be destroyed? Because also the remaining 10 % of the code isnt totally original? Cant you live with that if only 1% were original that it's even more fantastic that Rybka is 100 Elo above everyone else??
If no, then help with all your authority that the little pool of best engines can survive. Thanks.
