Steve B wrote:
are your guys actually DEBATING these issues in your new forum or is everybody drinking koolaid and celebrating already?
here we have debate..both sides
Hello Steve,
You do know that there are persons who might disagree with this? Particularly with the censoring, moving and deleting that took place here in the recent past?
Steve B wrote:
i see the Internet regarding CC this way now
on the far right ..we have the commercial interests who allow no discussion of any kind ..verbotin.....its our way or the highway...have a nice day..
to the far left..we have you guys and your new forum
everyone agreeing beforehand that every engine is fine and dandy..here's the links..go enjoy yourselves
we might have elections or maybe not
who knows or who even cares..here are your links
and in the middle
STILL ..to this day...13+ years and counting.. the Premiere site on the net for CC
the industry watchdog..
Where lively debate is always welcome and indeed encouraged
I have no issue with your classifications. What is debatable is the fact that you have seemingly moved the commercial interests to point A, the linkers etc. to point B and have Talkchess as some point C.
I submit that all those classes reside right here.
Lively and open debate would have doused this fire ages ago too.
My opinion.
Later.
full debate is still allowed here Roger
you simply need to register to participate
anyway..how can somebody join in a debate without registering?
AFAIK no no one can post on the new forum without registering although i guess you can read everything and silently nod in agreement or disagreement
we fought long and hard last year to keep the debate flowing
creating an EOC forum and then making it hidden was a compromise to keep everyone happy after our terms ended
it worked for awhile then blew up i guess
Sigh Regards
Steve
Steve B wrote:
full debate is still allowed here Roger
you simply need to register to participate
anyway..how can somebody join in a debate without registering?
AFAIK no no one can post on the new forum without registering although i guess you can read everything and silently nod in agreement or disagreement
we fought long and hard last year to keep the debate flowing
creating an EOC forum and then making it hidden was a compromise to keep everyone happy after our terms ended
it worked for awhile then blew up i guess
Sigh Regards
Steve
Hello Steve,
I know, I know. In the EOF you will see that I wanted to encourage this process of discussion. That did not work. There was no reason for this mess to happen.
Incidentally you do know that I never expressed an opinion on this issue as to hide versus not hide. In fact I left that up to the moderators.
bob wrote:I am not going thru the rest of your comments point by point as that serves no purpose. If you don't want to believe he copied code, that's your choice. But certainly nothing you offer above says _anything_ about the topic.
Has basically the same contents as: "I have not read your post. But it is wrong."
bob wrote:I am not going thru the rest of your comments point by point as that serves no purpose. If you don't want to believe he copied code, that's your choice. But certainly nothing you offer above says _anything_ about the topic.
Has basically the same contents as: "I have not read your post. But it is wrong."
*sigh*
Sven
I gave specifics, if you had taken the time to read them.
copying A to produce B, then modifying B significantly by converting to a different board representation does _not_ make the "copying A to B" part go away. Which is what you are implying, and which is wrong. Anyone could copy ip* and convert to another board representation, and probably not lose more than 10% performance, and by your "standard" that program would be an original work and ok to use in tournaments and such. Makes no sense to me, however...
bob wrote:I am not going thru the rest of your comments point by point as that serves no purpose. If you don't want to believe he copied code, that's your choice. But certainly nothing you offer above says _anything_ about the topic.
Has basically the same contents as: "I have not read your post. But it is wrong."
bob wrote:I am not going thru the rest of your comments point by point as that serves no purpose. If you don't want to believe he copied code, that's your choice. But certainly nothing you offer above says _anything_ about the topic.
Has basically the same contents as: "I have not read your post. But it is wrong."
*sigh*
Sven
I felt basically the same way about your post.
Here is what I feel is the basic problem:
Both sides have valid points.
The opinions of both sides have some possible merit.
In chess programming, we have a very competitive environment. If we see something has been done and it feels wrong, we assume that wrongdoing must have taken place. Is it possible that what we want is what we prove?
On the other hand, there is very compelling evidence that some Rybka code has striking resemblance to some Fruit code. Since Fruit is GPL, to simply use the the code is definitely breaking the law. Is it possible that we ignore abuse of the Fruit code simply because we like Vas or because we like Rybka? (BTW, I am guilty of liking both Rybka and Vas and so this may possibly color *my* decision making process).
Many have probably noticed that I tend to err on the absurd side of not assuming guilt. Personally, I think that is the best approach, but your actual mileage may vary.
Since I was informed of a deletion of a message I repeat the text which was slightly edited by Graham for reasons unknown to me because I didnt write anything offensive or against the charter. But I dont dispute decisions by mods.
quote of the text:
bob wrote:
"leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.
BB isnt expert but anonymous. Zach isnt expert but a youngster without experience, not mentioning other aspects and questions questions. Who are your experts? The whole Hipp experts are anonymous cowards. Who else? Norm Schmidt? A cloner? So, who are your experts? Mine are Vasik, The Champion and some others.
Also to Sven Schüle many thanks and compliments for the hard work.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
