To campaign or not

[rebel777]

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

[GenoM]

My POV:

Without the source code of Rybka any "comparision" would be pointless. So to prove any possible GPL infringement would be impossible "beyond any reasonnable doubt".

Because we all now know that FSF has the copyright of Fruit 2.1, I think it would be logical if any further steps are in their, FSF, responsibility.

So let them do their work (if they find there is something to do, of course).

[TSP]

Hi Ed,

Great to see you back!

I seldom post myself, glad to see someone of your stature bring some much needed sanity back to the forum.

Omnia vincit amor

[Sylwy]

Nice to see you and Anthony Cozzie posting again on CCC.
A classic will be always a classic !

All the best,
Silvian

[kranium]

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

Ed-

This is where we are starting:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

theres more to come...

[gerold]

Thanks for your on target post Ed.

Very best to you,

Gerold.

[LarsA]

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

Ed-

This is where we are starting:

You fail to see Ed's point. You don't start here. You gather all your evidence and package it nicely - then you release it.

http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

theres more to come...

[kranium]

this is compelling information for discussion, not an accusation of any kind, or a presentation of evidence...

[rebel777]

You fail to see Ed's point. You don't start here. You gather all your evidence and package it nicely - then you release it.

Exactly....

Ed

[Tony]

My POV:

Without the source code of Rybka any "comparision" would be pointless. So to prove any possible GPL infringement would be impossible "beyond any reasonnable doubt".

Because we all now know that FSF has the copyright of Fruit 2.1, I think it would be logical if any further steps are in their, FSF, responsibility.

So let them do their work (if they find there is something to do, of course).

Actually, you have a good point.

Most chesstournements say the programmer has to show his sourcecode when accused of not being original work.

I'll make sure next time when I'm participating at a tournement ( and Rybka is) , I'll file this complaint. It's the easiest way of checking wether the situation still exists.

Tony