Milos wrote:
Lets assume (just assume nothing more) for a second that what you write is true. These values are far more different from Ippolit values than the values BB presented (btw. Larry agreed on BB's values )
So, are you trying to defend Ippolit Chris? Because, this is exactly that what you are doing here...
I'm saying that the values he is using for Rybka 3 in his paper, are not the values we know.
Apart from that I have shown you only one file, which is no use whatsoever to you to compare things, if you do not know the complete table.
The values he has for Ippolit are correct, so I suppose he is half right.
It kinda makes the comparison of the two things a dead duck if half his data is wrong.
Christopher Conkie wrote:I'm saying that the values he is using for Rybka 3 in his paper, are not the values we know.
Apart from that I have shown you only one file, which is no use whatsoever to you to compare things, if you do not know the complete table.
The values he has for Ippolit are correct, so I suppose he is half right.
It kinda makes the comparison of the two things a dead duck if half his data is wrong.
I don't know how to tell you this, but these values are quite well known and of course what BB presented is correct.
For example: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=15164
And your values is something you've just invented. Similarly as you invented the values for LMR last time you posted "similarities" between Rybka and Ippo.
But I just let you write a bit of gibberish as usual because your "invented values" were actually defending Ippo. In your hopeless attempt to discredit BB, you didn't even check the values. Now, that's the really funny part.
Christopher Conkie wrote:I'm saying that the values he is using for Rybka 3 in his paper, are not the values we know.
Apart from that I have shown you only one file, which is no use whatsoever to you to compare things, if you do not know the complete table.
The values he has for Ippolit are correct, so I suppose he is half right.
It kinda makes the comparison of the two things a dead duck if half his data is wrong.
I don't know how to tell you this, but these values are quite well known and of course what BB presented is correct.
For example: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=15164
And your values is something you've just invented. Similarly as you invented the values for LMR last time you posted "similarities" between Rybka and Ippo.
But I just let you write a bit of gibberish as usual because your "invented values" were actually defending Ippo. In your hopeless attempt to discredit BB, you didn't even check the values. Now, that's the really funny part.
So did you also mistakenly take the values from some previous Rybka?
There are plenty in here who know the values are not invention. Moreover the values that are presented in that paper are in no way comprehensive. They are not even close to the detail required. For example you could ask BB what the values are for.....
The line is not clear to most people because ideas are free, code is not. RMS may say that the GPL is the only way for a program to be free but even that is not true in the sense that it is only free within the GPL. With Fruit being GPL the important thing is the code, not the ideas from any legal stand point. Yes you can prove that ideas from Fruit are used in Rybka, and from a moral stand point maybe Vas understates the use. This does not yet prove that GPL code was taken outside the the GPL. The PSTs are an interesting subject on this because they are easy to find in the code of both programs by anyone. The issue is that PST values and data shape as far as I know are not covered by the GPL. If people take moral exception to some of what was in Rybka 1 that is an understandable subject to debate that I prefer stay away from but GPL violations are a serious charge that I hope are not dangling here any longer as this would be a poor place for such an issue. The FSF takes reports serious and if a program is cleared by the FSF the program should not be questioned on its GPL status any longer.
Ryan Benitez wrote:The line is not clear to most people because ideas are free, code is not. RMS may say that the GPL is the only way for a program to be free but even that is not true in the sense that it is only free within the GPL. With Fruit being GPL the important thing is the code, not the ideas from any legal stand point. Yes you can prove that ideas from Fruit are used in Rybka, and from a moral stand point maybe Vas understates the use. This does not yet prove that GPL code was taken outside the the GPL. The PSTs are an interesting subject on this because they are easy to find in the code of both programs by anyone. The issue is that PST values and data shape as far as I know are not covered by the GPL. If people take moral exception to some of what was in Rybka 1 that is an understandable subject to debate that I prefer stay away from but GPL violations are a serious charge that I hope are not dangling here any longer as this would be a poor place for such an issue. The FSF takes reports serious and if a program is cleared by the FSF the program should not be questioned on its GPL status any longer.
I dont think that I should applaud to this message. Among other reasons the most important is this. This forum isnt science with its strict rules about proof and refutation and neither a court of justice because then the Rybka question could have been answered years ago - in favor of Vas against unproven allegations by the so called mousquetiers. But in real we have here a place for all sorts of insinuations, insults and character defamations. And in such games time is important. Weeks or months later, when the war is over, even the absolute truth couldnt delete the evil that had been created over the years.
Flame wars (without any truth) create a climate for illegal activities which were brandmarked by the crowd if the hystery against a program and its author hadnt been created. In other words if a famous figure declares that someone is immoral in his practice the immoral as such becomes tolerable as a revenge - not in truth but in the distorted minds of the people.
In reality we have institutions like the police or the attorney general who are allowed to fight crime also with methods that are itself illegal. But private persons without any authorization have no right to analyse and then even to publicise something out of the private sphere of other people. Not to mention the criminal hype if illegal activities are covered by anonymous authorship.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
I found this thread by luck today and I stumbled over the following:
Sven Schüle wrote:
VR: Anonymous engines are not accepted by the CC community, so there is no hurry.
SS: What makes you believe this is true? My impression is different, currently the CC community seems to be thinking like 50-50 about that, which may be surprising but is mainly driven by the "innocent until proven guilty" argument. Clearing the case once and for all very soon would be better than waiting, IMHO.
VR: I meant rating lists, tournaments, etc. No doubt a lot of users won't really care about anything I have to say.
Let me put this as I understand it: The rating list (among others reasons) did not test 'alleged' clones, therefore there is no need for further illustration ...
English is not my mother language, but if I get it right I am a bit stumped about the argument as well as about the simpleness on how to get a solution for the problem.
Seeing that my carying for 8 monthes was the reason for my worries makes me think I made the right decision a few days ago!
)
.
