What you could read in Rybka 3 FAQ by Vas

[bob]

What you just delt with, Bob, was taken from the newest message Jeroen had written. I am happy that you treated his thoughts with respect. Thanks for that.

I can only say that I wonder if you really could say that someone like Vas did that because a concrete goal and that this goal is visible for true experts like you or Chris. All you can say IMO that he doesnt give usual output. But you cant pretend that he must have some wrong or unallowed in mind and that he exactly veils this by the displayed numbers. Why dont you just translate the wrong numbers into what you think is better??

OK, take this example. You are communicating with someone on a daily basis. Using plain text. And it goes on for years. Suddenly, your "plain text" is run thru some sort of cyphering algorithm so that it is impossible to decode without massive effort. What could I conclude about this? I can at _least_ conclude that the two of you are trying to communicate in a way that can't be interpreted by others, so that there is something being communicated that you want to keep secret. I can't deduce whether you are discussing a new type of bomb, or a new girlfriend that is married. But clearly there is a reason for encryption, and that is to communicate in secret.

I use exactly the same reasoning here. To "encrypt" the node count, depth, PV, certainly leads one to the _same_ conclusion. Something is being hidden from public scrutiny. The only "something" is the internal search and how it works...

Do I believe it is possible someone would communicate in code, or buy a secure telephone, and have no secrets to hide? Yes. Is it likely? Certainly not.

[bob]

Or could it be that he is simply trying to justify something where he got caught red-handed and now has to try to explain his way out of a box that is tightly sealed on all sides???

Ouch!

Bob and Christophe!

Take me just as a friend or a reporter, because I didnt say this, I didnt cause it to be said and I wont repeat it to making you angry. But if I had seen someone making des blagues about you you really should make a couple of clarifications.

The point is that an expert from outer space/CCC says with a smile:

Rybka is very similar to fruit, at least in its origin.

It uses a different knowledge representation (bitboards), according to CT.

It uses a far more sophisticated search than other programs, according to Hyatt.

More, Rybka uses also Larry's evaluation research, so that we get the following very logical argument, Bob, and everybody is laughing now about the two fairy tellers from CCC. Here is what he says about this new logical argument, if we take everything together:

Rybka IS fruit, only with a different search, different evaluation, and different knowledge representation!

And he continues his laughter! He said to me he will continue his ROTFL as long as I dont come back and tell him what you truly think about the mess. <cough>


The worst is to me that all what he said sounds logical for me. So, who could I believe? CT never. You was always state of the art for me. But now someone sees you in an absolute wrong. And I cant tolerate that. I feel unwell and before I swing I want to hear what you had to explain as another expert. In short, did you exaggerate a bit? In your support of CT?

If yes, couldnt you correct this allegation to the blood-red hands? Peace!

So one can't start with A, spend a lot of time to produce A', which is much stronger? That's all this is saying from that perspective. There are GPL issues if A is GPL'ed, as A' must be GPL'ed also.

[Zach Wegner]

Ouch!

Bob and Christophe!

Take me just as a friend or a reporter, because I didnt say this, I didnt cause it to be said and I wont repeat it to making you angry. But if I had seen someone making des blagues about you you really should make a couple of clarifications.

The point is that an expert from outer space/CCC says with a smile:

Rybka is very similar to fruit, at least in its origin.

It uses a different knowledge representation (bitboards), according to CT.

It uses a far more sophisticated search than other programs, according to Hyatt.

More, Rybka uses also Larry's evaluation research, so that we get the following very logical argument, Bob, and everybody is laughing now about the two fairy tellers from CCC. Here is what he says about this new logical argument, if we take everything together:

Rybka IS fruit, only with a different search, different evaluation, and different knowledge representation!

And he continues his laughter! He said to me he will continue his ROTFL as long as I dont come back and tell him what you truly think about the mess. <cough>


The worst is to me that all what he said sounds logical for me. So, who could I believe? CT never. You was always state of the art for me. But now someone sees you in an absolute wrong. And I cant tolerate that. I feel unwell and before I swing I want to hear what you had to explain as another expert. In short, did you exaggerate a bit? In your support of CT?

If yes, couldnt you correct this allegation to the blood-red hands? Peace!

What makes you think this person is an expert?

[Rolf]

So one can't start with A, spend a lot of time to produce A', which is much stronger? That's all this is saying from that perspective. There are GPL issues if A is GPL'ed, as A' must be GPL'ed also.

Why isnt it a field where people from different places do communicate with one another??

What I'm tryting to do for some hours now is to connect two experts so that they talk without forcing them to directly address each other. What a complicated method.

GLP your collegue had something else to say. You find it here http://www.rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka ... l?tid=6210

- GPL, despite its (not totally unjustified) nickname of "general public virus", cannot subjugate anyone who grabs a few ideas from another GPLd product (EVEN using the product code itself as a basis for thinking about his own product).

or

- So the only way there is a breach of GPL is if a chunk of non trivial code related to program flow went from fruit into Rybka's code (even with slight modifications to make it look different).

and

- The whole point of my previous posts was to emphasize the fact that the programs are so utterly different in every way, that EVEN if there was a
breach of license would be nothing more than a technical issue (Breaches that stem from minor misinterpretations of certain parts of a license, are usually either dismissed from the courts or grant the claimer a very "symbolic" compensation).


A direct question, Bob. Why do you restrict yourself so much and refuse to communicate with people, say, in the Rybka Forum? Not the keep you away from the traditional CCC but because also there are often interesting debates. Just take a look for yourself and then you can make your own decision if you want to discuss with the author of the above selective quotes, that I had to shorten because I didnt want to violate good manners.

In that forum BTW Jeroen Noomen, former operator of Tiger (!), brought a couple of aspects that prove that Christophe did certain things he is now attacking Vasik of. How can this be in our scene? Shouldnt there be a minimum of consitancy at least? And if you support such a guy, well, this is looking strange, Bob.

Another aspect. Suddenly someone appears whose name I at least had never seen before. Then it was described how 'Norman Schmidt' had tried to cheat with another Rybka clone. CT reacted with a sarcasm. Well he said, this guy should play a role in our debates because he is motivated enough to NOT tolerate clones or such some, and CT surely meant Rybka itself. Bob, is this a madhouse or what?

I just inform you about such developments so that you can make your own decisions. in case that you missed a couple of messages.

[Rolf]

What makes you think this person is an expert?

The class of his thinking. I have no idea in what field he's working. It seems to me that he isnt just an undergraduate of some sorts.