TalkChess.com

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

Sven Schüle wrote:

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...

Steve B wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

Steve B wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote: Best wishes,
Alex

are your guys actually DEBATING these issues in your new forum or is everybody drinking koolaid and celebrating already?

Steve? What the hell are you talking about? I posted 1 message in the new forum, wishing them good luck.

I am not a friend of 2 forums, one for every opinion...

woops my Bad Alexander
i apologize

haven't checked the other forum all that much so im clueless as to their goings on

for all i know they are debating the issues but for some reason i doubt it

Sorry Again Regards
Steve

There are debates going on.

Sven Schüle wrote:

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.

Zach Wegner wrote:

Sven Schüle wrote:

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.

Rolf wrote: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.

Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?

benstoker wrote:

Rolf wrote: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.

Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?

He didn't read/comprehend the BB report, so yeah.

Oh, and BB isn't anonymous, Zach Wegner met him in person, and IIRC Larry Kaufman thinks the report is accurate.

Peter

alpha123 wrote:

benstoker wrote:

Rolf wrote: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.

Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?

He didn't read/comprehend the BB report, so yeah.

Oh, and BB isn't anonymous, Zach Wegner met him in person, and IIRC Larry Kaufman thinks the report is accurate.

Peter

I still think it would be nice for him to come out of the closet so all can evaluate his credibility.

I am 99% certain I know who he is. I have seen his posts as BB on the Rybka forum for many years. His real name was not one I had heard of although he has a presence on the web.

Harvey Williamson wrote:

alpha123 wrote:

benstoker wrote:

Rolf wrote: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.

Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?

He didn't read/comprehend the BB report, so yeah.

Oh, and BB isn't anonymous, Zach Wegner met him in person, and IIRC Larry Kaufman thinks the report is accurate.

Peter

I still think it would be nice for him to come out of the closet so all can evaluate his credibility.

I am 99% certain I know who he is. I have seen his posts as BB on the Rybka forum for many years. His real name was not one I had heard of although he has a presence on the web.

Shaun Press is in Canberra as far as i know.

http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~shaun/

.....not Canada.

http://www.rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka ... l?uid=2060

You mean the Vanilla Chess author right?

Also....those are not the piece square tables in Rybka as we know them. The ones in the paper I mean. Here is just a little sample somewhat more precise from something we assume is quite close to what he says he used.

king_a1_op=43.97
king_a2_op=42.97
king_a3_op=40.97
king_a4_op=38.97
king_a5_op=36.97
king_a6_op=34.97
king_a7_op=32.97
king_a8_op=31.97

king_a1_eg=-66.28
king_a2_eg=-44.19
king_a3_eg=-33.13
king_a4_eg=-22.09
king_a5_eg=-22.09
king_a6_eg=-33.13
king_a7_eg=-44.19
king_a8_eg=-66.28

Still waters run deep.



Chris