Turn Out the Lights, the Party's Over

[Tony Thomas]

Post Great Licence Regards
Steve

Did you mix the words intentionally? Steve B, the inventor of great post (porn/Poontang) license.

[Rolf]

I really don't understand why all this arguing back and forth. So somebody has some questions about a program... Big deal. I don't think Mr. Hyatt would lie. Let him do his homework and if he finds something- Great. If he finds that nothing was done wrong - even better. Is there something wrong with someone researching something he has a question about??

Rick Andrews

Nice try. Homework yes. Where and how? Would you think that Bob should lament here in public or should he better compare the programs in doubts? But in truth he laments and talks and attacks and insults, because the ethical rule is violated which says: innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proven, not prejudiced. Ask if you miss something.

Hi Rolf,
Maybe I did miss something. Did he say that Rybka definitley did something wrong or that he suspected it.

Rick Andrews

The answer lies in your "big deal" from above. I repeat. Instead of doing his homework as a scientist, this is also what Ed Schroeder advised to Bob and his teamsters, Bob, as I wrote, laments and questiones here in public and this way he violates the iron ethical rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Because Bob is by no means the judge, nor the police, nor the attorney general who should make this case if there were any case at all. By his behavior here in public (note that this can be read woreldwide without registration) creates the impression as if "something" fishy in Rybka would exist, but this is on a level where you could ask the same questions of "research" for all other commercial programs. And with the focus on Rybka the research itself smells fishy. Note also that Bob isnt even entitles by a court to act here as expert. If he were BTW, Bob would never act here in public in the same manner. So all in all it makes no sense other than you see thisd here as a big campaign and this is exactly what many high status experts have made clear.

I must admit that you cant understand what Bob did wrong if you ignore the campaign aspect here in public and simply reduce the problem on the question if Bob had definitely accused Rybka or its author. The problem isnt that simple. However IMO the language being used over the months allows the conclusion of the implicite pre-judgement against Rybka&Author, because otherwise one wouldnt make such a campaign.

Thanks Rolf, Good answer I see your point.
Rick Andrews

One giant producer of static. My part in this so far has been to discount the idea that two different programmers will write a chess program that has multiple blocks of duplicate code. The probability is too low to worry with.

Bob, not true. Your task here is much more to lend some seriosity to the main campaigners after the motto if you as giant didnt directly call it bs what they proposed then it must have some relevance. Also you already acted as a sort of legal authority in many exchandes wirh CW what again looked like support for the campaigners. But instead you should have told them from the start that they should shut up, do their homework and present their case in full length without continual allegating wrongdoing against Vas. But then you would have remained a neutral scientist - what a lame position, when you already knew that Vas must have done something wrong because why didnt he defend himself and proved that he's innocent when you only wanted to see his code to understand the details of his art so that progress could be increased in time, a genuine task of science...

[Steve B]

Post Great Licence Regards
Steve

Did you mix the words intentionally? Steve B, the inventor of great post (porn/Poontang) license.

yes i did Tony
to illustrate the point that one cannot simply reverse lines of the code..i mean of the post..and hope to escape the confines of the GPL(as we have now defined it)

LPG Regards
Steve

[bob]

I really don't understand why all this arguing back and forth. So somebody has some questions about a program... Big deal. I don't think Mr. Hyatt would lie. Let him do his homework and if he finds something- Great. If he finds that nothing was done wrong - even better. Is there something wrong with someone researching something he has a question about??

Rick Andrews

Nice try. Homework yes. Where and how? Would you think that Bob should lament here in public or should he better compare the programs in doubts? But in truth he laments and talks and attacks and insults, because the ethical rule is violated which says: innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proven, not prejudiced. Ask if you miss something.

Hi Rolf,
Maybe I did miss something. Did he say that Rybka definitley did something wrong or that he suspected it.

Rick Andrews

The answer lies in your "big deal" from above. I repeat. Instead of doing his homework as a scientist, this is also what Ed Schroeder advised to Bob and his teamsters, Bob, as I wrote, laments and questiones here in public and this way he violates the iron ethical rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Because Bob is by no means the judge, nor the police, nor the attorney general who should make this case if there were any case at all. By his behavior here in public (note that this can be read woreldwide without registration) creates the impression as if "something" fishy in Rybka would exist, but this is on a level where you could ask the same questions of "research" for all other commercial programs. And with the focus on Rybka the research itself smells fishy. Note also that Bob isnt even entitles by a court to act here as expert. If he were BTW, Bob would never act here in public in the same manner. So all in all it makes no sense other than you see thisd here as a big campaign and this is exactly what many high status experts have made clear.

I must admit that you cant understand what Bob did wrong if you ignore the campaign aspect here in public and simply reduce the problem on the question if Bob had definitely accused Rybka or its author. The problem isnt that simple. However IMO the language being used over the months allows the conclusion of the implicite pre-judgement against Rybka&Author, because otherwise one wouldnt make such a campaign.

Thanks Rolf, Good answer I see your point.
Rick Andrews

One giant producer of static. My part in this so far has been to discount the idea that two different programmers will write a chess program that has multiple blocks of duplicate code. The probability is too low to worry with.

Bob, not true. Your task here is much more to lend some seriosity to the main campaigners after the motto if you as giant didnt directly call it bs what they proposed then it must have some relevance. Also you already acted as a sort of legal authority in many exchandes wirh CW what again looked like support for the campaigners. But instead you should have told them from the start that they should shut up, do their homework and present their case in full length without continual allegating wrongdoing against Vas. But then you would have remained a neutral scientist - what a lame position, when you already knew that Vas must have done something wrong because why didnt he defend himself and proved that he's innocent when you only wanted to see his code to understand the details of his art so that progress could be increased in time, a genuine task of science...

My "task" was exactly as I stated. I did look at the data, and concluded that "this needs further study" as opposed to "this is nonsense, there's no way code was copied." If that is a campaign, you have a very odd dictionary you are referencing.

[Rolf]

I really don't understand why all this arguing back and forth. So somebody has some questions about a program... Big deal. I don't think Mr. Hyatt would lie. Let him do his homework and if he finds something- Great. If he finds that nothing was done wrong - even better. Is there something wrong with someone researching something he has a question about??

Rick Andrews

Nice try. Homework yes. Where and how? Would you think that Bob should lament here in public or should he better compare the programs in doubts? But in truth he laments and talks and attacks and insults, because the ethical rule is violated which says: innocent until PROVEN guilty. Proven, not prejudiced. Ask if you miss something.

Hi Rolf,
Maybe I did miss something. Did he say that Rybka definitley did something wrong or that he suspected it.

Rick Andrews

The answer lies in your "big deal" from above. I repeat. Instead of doing his homework as a scientist, this is also what Ed Schroeder advised to Bob and his teamsters, Bob, as I wrote, laments and questiones here in public and this way he violates the iron ethical rule of "innocent until proven guilty". Because Bob is by no means the judge, nor the police, nor the attorney general who should make this case if there were any case at all. By his behavior here in public (note that this can be read woreldwide without registration) creates the impression as if "something" fishy in Rybka would exist, but this is on a level where you could ask the same questions of "research" for all other commercial programs. And with the focus on Rybka the research itself smells fishy. Note also that Bob isnt even entitles by a court to act here as expert. If he were BTW, Bob would never act here in public in the same manner. So all in all it makes no sense other than you see thisd here as a big campaign and this is exactly what many high status experts have made clear.

I must admit that you cant understand what Bob did wrong if you ignore the campaign aspect here in public and simply reduce the problem on the question if Bob had definitely accused Rybka or its author. The problem isnt that simple. However IMO the language being used over the months allows the conclusion of the implicite pre-judgement against Rybka&Author, because otherwise one wouldnt make such a campaign.

Thanks Rolf, Good answer I see your point.
Rick Andrews

One giant producer of static. My part in this so far has been to discount the idea that two different programmers will write a chess program that has multiple blocks of duplicate code. The probability is too low to worry with.

Bob, not true. Your task here is much more to lend some seriosity to the main campaigners after the motto if you as giant didnt directly call it bs what they proposed then it must have some relevance. Also you already acted as a sort of legal authority in many exchandes wirh CW what again looked like support for the campaigners. But instead you should have told them from the start that they should shut up, do their homework and present their case in full length without continual allegating wrongdoing against Vas. But then you would have remained a neutral scientist - what a lame position, when you already knew that Vas must have done something wrong because why didnt he defend himself and proved that he's innocent when you only wanted to see his code to understand the details of his art so that progress could be increased in time, a genuine task of science...

My "task" was exactly as I stated. I did look at the data, and concluded that "this needs further study" as opposed to "this is nonsense, there's no way code was copied." If that is a campaign, you have a very odd dictionary you are referencing.

I never said that you were a campaigner. I always stated that you defended Vas against strongest most suspicious hand waving from campaigners. I always agreed with your expertise as a legal expert. However I was a bit disappointed of your science ssince you accepted almost everything as facts from these campaigners although you yourself never made the concrete analyses.

[bob]

I made a significant amount of analysis. I have not yet gone through everything for myself, classes have just started here and I have been busy, not to mention continuing to work on the cluster testing methodology. However, let me state clearly, I do not believe _anybody_ has fabricated any data in this discussion. I won't say that none of us has made a mistake so far, hence the interest in checking and double-checking. But no fabrication.

[Rolf]

I made a significant amount of analysis. I have not yet gone through everything for myself, classes have just started here and I have been busy, not to mention continuing to work on the cluster testing methodology. However, let me state clearly, I do not believe _anybody_ has fabricated any data in this discussion. I won't say that none of us has made a mistake so far, hence the interest in checking and double-checking. But no fabrication.

Bob, was it a fabrication of a clone from Norm Schmidt, one of your honest testers or not?

Bob, since you avoided to answer this, let me repeat: do you seriously believe that everything what a GLP program contains and what was perhaps copied itself is now forbidden to be taken into a new program because this is a violation of the GLP model and its rules?

Thirdly, Ed Schroeder asked one of your honest testers, I think t was Christophe, if he was allowed to use in his Tiger what Ed had published as a code piece, and above that if he did that without permission. What is your position, was C. Theron allowed to use such code or is he a new case now of someone who stole something from other collegues in computerchess?

In that case, Bob, you would rely on two testers who have violated the copyright. So, I would assume that two of three testers with such a past make your deeper analyses of Rybka a farce. And you should postpone the whole problem solving until you yourself have time enough to analyse yourself.

From an interdisciplinary angle I am shocked that you cant find more serious analysts in computerchess and it looks to me as if some here are only motivated to help you because they might hope that their status could be improved. Although I wouldnt trust such persons anymore if they have violated the trust of their peer group before.

I dont claim that I have the only correct perception but I think that all of my points should at least be considered by you and other innocent experts.

It's beyond me why you dont collaborate with a real expert like Dann Corbit. He has spoken to Fabien, the author of Fruit; he has exchanged emails with Fabien about the questions concerning Fruit and Rybka similarities. Why dont you ask Ed and also Enrique to help you in the general analysis of the actual situation?

At last I want to state, that I am happy and proud for the opportunity to ask all these questions to you, who does always communicate here in CCC. And I must also admit that I criticised you with arguments from people who themselves would never answer my questions probably because they think that experts from other fields havent earned to hear any form of replies out of CC at all. So with all due respect for you, please excuse my straight questions. If others were like you it wouldnt look so one-sidedly directed against you.

[GenoM]

I made a significant amount of analysis. I have not yet gone through everything for myself, classes have just started here and I have been busy, not to mention continuing to work on the cluster testing methodology. However, let me state clearly, I do not believe _anybody_ has fabricated any data in this discussion. I won't say that none of us has made a mistake so far, hence the interest in checking and double-checking. But no fabrication.

Bob, was it a fabrication of a clone from Norm Schmidt, one of your honest testers or not?

In MY dictionary this is called witchhunting.
I have no doubt in your dictionary there is other word for that what you're doing, Rolf.
But this is of no interest to me to find out your word.

[bob]

I made a significant amount of analysis. I have not yet gone through everything for myself, classes have just started here and I have been busy, not to mention continuing to work on the cluster testing methodology. However, let me state clearly, I do not believe _anybody_ has fabricated any data in this discussion. I won't say that none of us has made a mistake so far, hence the interest in checking and double-checking. But no fabrication.

Bob, was it a fabrication of a clone from Norm Schmidt, one of your honest testers or not?

Yes. So? "Let ye who have not sinned cast the first stone." comes to mind. He made a mistake, and everyone has moved on. He's neither the first, nor will he be the last. In fact, it is quite common in the US for the FBI to actually hire "hackers" and "thieves" to help catch others that have not yet been caught. In that light, it makes even more sense for him to be involved.

Bob, since you avoided to answer this, let me repeat: do you seriously believe that everything what a GLP program contains and what was perhaps copied itself is now forbidden to be taken into a new program because this is a violation of the GLP model and its rules?

It is a violation of the GPL, yes. If you copy code, then your code must also comply with the GPL. It is not optional.

Thirdly, Ed Schroeder asked one of your honest testers, I think t was Christophe, if he was allowed to use in his Tiger what Ed had published as a code piece, and above that if he did that without permission. What is your position, was C. Theron allowed to use such code or is he a new case now of someone who stole something from other collegues in computerchess?

Not knowing anything at all about what was said, what was done, how would I have any opinion on it?

In that case, Bob, you would rely on two testers who have violated the copyright. So, I would assume that two of three testers with such a past make your deeper analyses of Rybka a farce. And you should postpone the whole problem solving until you yourself have time enough to analyse yourself.

From an interdisciplinary angle I am shocked that you cant find more serious analysts in computerchess and it looks to me as if some here are only motivated to help you because they might hope that their status could be improved. Although I wouldnt trust such persons anymore if they have violated the trust of their peer group before.

What is this "help me"? I was not particularly interested when Vincent first suggested that Rybka was based on fruit several years ago. I was not particularly interested this time. I only posted to point out that one assumption many were discussing was mistaken, concerning the probability of two different programmers producing similar code.

I dont claim that I have the only correct perception but I think that all of my points should at least be considered by you and other innocent experts.

It's beyond me why you dont collaborate with a real expert like Dann Corbit. He has spoken to Fabien, the author of Fruit; he has exchanged emails with Fabien about the questions concerning Fruit and Rybka similarities. Why dont you ask Ed and also Enrique to help you in the general analysis of the actual situation?

I have talked to dan about chess stuff for years. He made a serious mistake a week or so back, claiming the data was fabricated, because he didn't notice that the code he posted actually was the code for strtok() which he claimed was not even used. Easy enough to do. But shows that anyone can make a mistake.

At last I want to state, that I am happy and proud for the opportunity to ask all these questions to you, who does always communicate here in CCC. And I must also admit that I criticised you with arguments from people who themselves would never answer my questions probably because they think that experts from other fields havent earned to hear any form of replies out of CC at all. So with all due respect for you, please excuse my straight questions. If others were like you it wouldnt look so one-sidedly directed against you.

[Terry McCracken]

Thirdly, Ed Schroeder asked one of your honest testers, I think t was Christophe, if he was allowed to use in his Tiger what Ed had published as a code piece, and above that if he did that without permission. What is your position, was C. Theron allowed to use such code or is he a new case now of someone who stole something from other collegues in computerchess?

That is libel Rolf.

Christophe wrote his own code from scratch. He has never copied any code or obtained any ideas from Friut 2.1 or from any other program and stated so.

Christophe addressed this issue with Ed.