When a great genius appears, dunces can be relied upon also.

[Romy]

In advance, forgive me my failures in English for my first post and all permitted successors.

I was attracted here by the controversy of early versions of RYBKA and any alleged small idea or even code/method borrowings or inspirations by its author Mr Rajlich.

You may not know that this matter even has escaped into the realworld media. Der Spiegel!!

I studied the whole thing, read a PDF from Mr Wegner and a PDF from another who did not directly sign his name to it, but who is known. And I read hundreds of post here and in open chess and hiarcs, and a hit-letter to ICGA with list of confederated signers.

I think by this standard applied against Mr Rajlich, even Mr Shakespeare should be banned. Shakespeare borrowed plots, methods, ideas even big groups of words. Plays are not chessprograms but the principle is similar.

Point is, Shakespeare's improvements were of great supergenius, not (relatively) mediocre like his so-called inspiration sources

More I studied this matter, more I was reminded of this wise quotation --

"This evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the management of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes, that need not be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain writer observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift, "Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", 1728

I do not call all the signatories to the anti-Rajlich as "dunces" but I do classify them as dunces by relativity - means by comparison to Mr Rajlich. In my opinion. And in opinion of Chess. Everything is relative. In their own circles I am sure they are all great wiseguys. Maybe, 20 or 30 years ago they too were genius not (relative) dunce.

Reason for my thinking is this. Their creations were not only beaten thoroughly by RYBKA, but were beaten with a maximum of humiliation! They could not even understand the chess method, how they were beaten! Most of the time they and their vast-inferior creations thought they were drawing, even winning, then as if my magic RYBKA prevailed. No magic. Just a higher chess.

So the 10 signatures to the anti-Rajlich letter, to me are all a nonsense and a confederacy. Of no appreciable value. No probative value. No evidential value. No big technical value. Only grapes value. Sour, even?

So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius.

In all so-called evidence I see patch of code here and of source there. Nowhere I see understanding of how the alleged son is so much stronger (at Chess! not programming!) than the father.

If Mr Houdart (author of the HOUDINI) were to sign such a hit-letter as produced against Mr Rajlich, then I would pay some attention to the letter. At least HOUDINI is a suitable calibre opponent to RYBKA, its author's opinion deserve respect. All I can see is result of RYBKA-CRAFTY or other lacklustres. How many game I have to play from neutral openingbook before Crafty win single game against RYBKA? 300? 3000? More? JUNIOR same.

I am waiting to be sent testcopy of Dr Wael Deeb's chessprogram. His most gentle, most refined language is a good attracter for me.

History will record this attack event much the same as my analysis, of this I am confident.

ICGA better disband before Mr Levy gets into trouble, I would advise. It has no legal role and should watch carefully unwise statement.

My advice to Mr Rajlich, ignore the mob, I mean confederacy. Let them make sanctions. History is to your side. Tournament without RYBKA is like human chess world without KASPAROV. Do not even soil your hand with lawsuit. It is in the inherent(?) nature of dog to bark when it sees a frightening power, and of dunces to confederate, so there is no question of blame.

Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation. Mozart had but once to hear other's music, he internally recorded and processed then improved greatly. There are many examples.

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

Excuse me, I have no intention of providing offense to any person, even Salieri. Only for perspective. So, confederacy of (relative) dunces, please excuse my statements, they all were given with the maximum of due, earned respect to you.

Romy

[Robert Flesher]

In advance, forgive me my failures in English for my first post and all permitted successors.

I was attracted here by the controversy of early versions of RYBKA and any alleged small idea or even code/method borrowings or inspirations by its author Mr Rajlich.

You may not know that this matter even has escaped into the realworld media. Der Spiegel!!

I studied the whole thing, read a PDF from Mr Wegner and a PDF from another who did not directly sign his name to it, but who is known. And I read hundreds of post here and in open chess and hiarcs, and a hit-letter to ICGA with list of confederated signers.

I think by this standard applied against Mr Rajlich, even Mr Shakespeare should be banned. Shakespeare borrowed plots, methods, ideas even big groups of words. Plays are not chessprograms but the principle is similar.

Point is, Shakespeare's improvements were of great supergenius, not (relatively) mediocre like his so-called inspiration sources

More I studied this matter, more I was reminded of this wise quotation --

"This evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the management of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes, that need not be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain writer observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift, "Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", 1728

I do not call all the signatories to the anti-Rajlich as "dunces" but I do classify them as dunces by relativity - means by comparison to Mr Rajlich. In my opinion. And in opinion of Chess. Everything is relative. In their own circles I am sure they are all great wiseguys. Maybe, 20 or 30 years ago they too were genius not (relative) dunce.

Reason for my thinking is this. Their creations were not only beaten thoroughly by RYBKA, but were beaten with a maximum of humiliation! They could not even understand the chess method, how they were beaten! Most of the time they and their vast-inferior creations thought they were drawing, even winning, then as if my magic RYBKA prevailed. No magic. Just a higher chess.

So the 10 signatures to the anti-Rajlich letter, to me are all a nonsense and a confederacy. Of no appreciable value. No probative value. No evidential value. No big technical value. Only grapes value. Sour, even?

So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius.

In all so-called evidence I see patch of code here and of source there. Nowhere I see understanding of how the alleged son is so much stronger (at Chess! not programming!) than the father.

If Mr Houdart (author of the HOUDINI) were to sign such a hit-letter as produced against Mr Rajlich, then I would pay some attention to the letter. At least HOUDINI is a suitable calibre opponent to RYBKA, its author's opinion deserve respect. All I can see is result of RYBKA-CRAFTY or other lacklustres. How many game I have to play from neutral openingbook before Crafty win single game against RYBKA? 300? 3000? More? JUNIOR same.

I am waiting to be sent testcopy of Dr Wael Deeb's chessprogram. His most gentle, most refined language is a good attracter for me.

History will record this attack event much the same as my analysis, of this I am confident.

ICGA better disband before Mr Levy gets into trouble, I would advise. It has no legal role and should watch carefully unwise statement.

My advice to Mr Rajlich, ignore the mob, I mean confederacy. Let them make sanctions. History is to your side. Tournament without RYBKA is like human chess world without KASPAROV. Do not even soil your hand with lawsuit. It is in the inherent(?) nature of dog to bark when it sees a frightening power, and of dunces to confederate, so there is no question of blame.

Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation. Mozart had but once to hear other's music, he internally recorded and processed then improved greatly. There are many examples.

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.
Excuse me, I have no intention of providing offense to any person, even Salieri. Only for perspective. So, confederacy of (relative) dunces, please excuse my statements, they all were given with the maximum of due, earned respect to you.

Romy

Welcome to the forums!

And thanks for the enlarged statement above, as I cannot remember when I laughed that hard for that long!

[Romy]

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

A thanks for the enlarged statement above, as I cannot remember when I laughed that hard for that long!

You are my guest.
In my language there is a saying, dogs bark, fools laugh, dunces confederate, but this suffers grievously on rendition in English.

Romy

[tomgdrums]

In advance, forgive me my failures in English for my first post and all permitted successors.

I was attracted here by the controversy of early versions of RYBKA and any alleged small idea or even code/method borrowings or inspirations by its author Mr Rajlich.

You may not know that this matter even has escaped into the realworld media. Der Spiegel!!

I studied the whole thing, read a PDF from Mr Wegner and a PDF from another who did not directly sign his name to it, but who is known. And I read hundreds of post here and in open chess and hiarcs, and a hit-letter to ICGA with list of confederated signers.

I think by this standard applied against Mr Rajlich, even Mr Shakespeare should be banned. Shakespeare borrowed plots, methods, ideas even big groups of words. Plays are not chessprograms but the principle is similar.

Point is, Shakespeare's improvements were of great supergenius, not (relatively) mediocre like his so-called inspiration sources

More I studied this matter, more I was reminded of this wise quotation --

"This evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the management of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes, that need not be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain writer observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift, "Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", 1728

I do not call all the signatories to the anti-Rajlich as "dunces" but I do classify them as dunces by relativity - means by comparison to Mr Rajlich. In my opinion. And in opinion of Chess. Everything is relative. In their own circles I am sure they are all great wiseguys. Maybe, 20 or 30 years ago they too were genius not (relative) dunce.

Reason for my thinking is this. Their creations were not only beaten thoroughly by RYBKA, but were beaten with a maximum of humiliation! They could not even understand the chess method, how they were beaten! Most of the time they and their vast-inferior creations thought they were drawing, even winning, then as if my magic RYBKA prevailed. No magic. Just a higher chess.

So the 10 signatures to the anti-Rajlich letter, to me are all a nonsense and a confederacy. Of no appreciable value. No probative value. No evidential value. No big technical value. Only grapes value. Sour, even?

So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius.

In all so-called evidence I see patch of code here and of source there. Nowhere I see understanding of how the alleged son is so much stronger (at Chess! not programming!) than the father.

If Mr Houdart (author of the HOUDINI) were to sign such a hit-letter as produced against Mr Rajlich, then I would pay some attention to the letter. At least HOUDINI is a suitable calibre opponent to RYBKA, its author's opinion deserve respect. All I can see is result of RYBKA-CRAFTY or other lacklustres. How many game I have to play from neutral openingbook before Crafty win single game against RYBKA? 300? 3000? More? JUNIOR same.

I am waiting to be sent testcopy of Dr Wael Deeb's chessprogram. His most gentle, most refined language is a good attracter for me.

History will record this attack event much the same as my analysis, of this I am confident.

ICGA better disband before Mr Levy gets into trouble, I would advise. It has no legal role and should watch carefully unwise statement.

My advice to Mr Rajlich, ignore the mob, I mean confederacy. Let them make sanctions. History is to your side. Tournament without RYBKA is like human chess world without KASPAROV. Do not even soil your hand with lawsuit. It is in the inherent(?) nature of dog to bark when it sees a frightening power, and of dunces to confederate, so there is no question of blame.

Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation. Mozart had but once to hear other's music, he internally recorded and processed then improved greatly. There are many examples.

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

Excuse me, I have no intention of providing offense to any person, even Salieri. Only for perspective. So, confederacy of (relative) dunces, please excuse my statements, they all were given with the maximum of due, earned respect to you.

Romy

The only problem with the music analogy is that parts of music are copyright protected and other parts are not.

I think that is the issue here. Computer chess has not decided which parts are protected. Borrowing concepts and learning from those before you is important and necessary for progress. However copying large parts of someone's previous work and releasing it as your own are not.

For instance: In music, harmony is not copyright protected. Melody is!


So the question is: Did Vas just borrow Fruit's harmony and create his own melody OR did he use large parts of the melody as well?

And the same question could be posed to the Houdini guy as well.

(and per usual Vas won't answer and the Houdini will answer like a politician just to give himself some wiggle room)

Of course as I said above, Computer chess has yet to decide what constitutes harmony and what constitutes melody as they relate to chess engines. And this is the real problem!

[benstoker]

In advance, forgive me my failures in English for my first post and all permitted successors.

I was attracted here by the controversy of early versions of RYBKA and any alleged small idea or even code/method borrowings or inspirations by its author Mr Rajlich.

You may not know that this matter even has escaped into the realworld media. Der Spiegel!!

I studied the whole thing, read a PDF from Mr Wegner and a PDF from another who did not directly sign his name to it, but who is known. And I read hundreds of post here and in open chess and hiarcs, and a hit-letter to ICGA with list of confederated signers.

I think by this standard applied against Mr Rajlich, even Mr Shakespeare should be banned. Shakespeare borrowed plots, methods, ideas even big groups of words. Plays are not chessprograms but the principle is similar.

Point is, Shakespeare's improvements were of great supergenius, not (relatively) mediocre like his so-called inspiration sources

More I studied this matter, more I was reminded of this wise quotation --

"This evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the management of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes, that need not be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain writer observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift, "Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", 1728

I do not call all the signatories to the anti-Rajlich as "dunces" but I do classify them as dunces by relativity - means by comparison to Mr Rajlich. In my opinion. And in opinion of Chess. Everything is relative. In their own circles I am sure they are all great wiseguys. Maybe, 20 or 30 years ago they too were genius not (relative) dunce.

Reason for my thinking is this. Their creations were not only beaten thoroughly by RYBKA, but were beaten with a maximum of humiliation! They could not even understand the chess method, how they were beaten! Most of the time they and their vast-inferior creations thought they were drawing, even winning, then as if my magic RYBKA prevailed. No magic. Just a higher chess.

So the 10 signatures to the anti-Rajlich letter, to me are all a nonsense and a confederacy. Of no appreciable value. No probative value. No evidential value. No big technical value. Only grapes value. Sour, even?

So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius.

In all so-called evidence I see patch of code here and of source there. Nowhere I see understanding of how the alleged son is so much stronger (at Chess! not programming!) than the father.

If Mr Houdart (author of the HOUDINI) were to sign such a hit-letter as produced against Mr Rajlich, then I would pay some attention to the letter. At least HOUDINI is a suitable calibre opponent to RYBKA, its author's opinion deserve respect. All I can see is result of RYBKA-CRAFTY or other lacklustres. How many game I have to play from neutral openingbook before Crafty win single game against RYBKA? 300? 3000? More? JUNIOR same.

I am waiting to be sent testcopy of Dr Wael Deeb's chessprogram. His most gentle, most refined language is a good attracter for me.

History will record this attack event much the same as my analysis, of this I am confident.

ICGA better disband before Mr Levy gets into trouble, I would advise. It has no legal role and should watch carefully unwise statement.

My advice to Mr Rajlich, ignore the mob, I mean confederacy. Let them make sanctions. History is to your side. Tournament without RYBKA is like human chess world without KASPAROV. Do not even soil your hand with lawsuit. It is in the inherent(?) nature of dog to bark when it sees a frightening power, and of dunces to confederate, so there is no question of blame.

Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation. Mozart had but once to hear other's music, he internally recorded and processed then improved greatly. There are many examples.

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

Excuse me, I have no intention of providing offense to any person, even Salieri. Only for perspective. So, confederacy of (relative) dunces, please excuse my statements, they all were given with the maximum of due, earned respect to you.

Romy

Hey dude, you're overlooking something. Rap musicians must clear their sampling by getting prior authorization. Keep it real, brother.

[tomgdrums]

In advance, forgive me my failures in English for my first post and all permitted successors.

I was attracted here by the controversy of early versions of RYBKA and any alleged small idea or even code/method borrowings or inspirations by its author Mr Rajlich.

You may not know that this matter even has escaped into the realworld media. Der Spiegel!!

I studied the whole thing, read a PDF from Mr Wegner and a PDF from another who did not directly sign his name to it, but who is known. And I read hundreds of post here and in open chess and hiarcs, and a hit-letter to ICGA with list of confederated signers.

I think by this standard applied against Mr Rajlich, even Mr Shakespeare should be banned. Shakespeare borrowed plots, methods, ideas even big groups of words. Plays are not chessprograms but the principle is similar.

Point is, Shakespeare's improvements were of great supergenius, not (relatively) mediocre like his so-called inspiration sources

More I studied this matter, more I was reminded of this wise quotation --

"This evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the management of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes, that need not be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain writer observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift, "Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", 1728

I do not call all the signatories to the anti-Rajlich as "dunces" but I do classify them as dunces by relativity - means by comparison to Mr Rajlich. In my opinion. And in opinion of Chess. Everything is relative. In their own circles I am sure they are all great wiseguys. Maybe, 20 or 30 years ago they too were genius not (relative) dunce.

Reason for my thinking is this. Their creations were not only beaten thoroughly by RYBKA, but were beaten with a maximum of humiliation! They could not even understand the chess method, how they were beaten! Most of the time they and their vast-inferior creations thought they were drawing, even winning, then as if my magic RYBKA prevailed. No magic. Just a higher chess.

So the 10 signatures to the anti-Rajlich letter, to me are all a nonsense and a confederacy. Of no appreciable value. No probative value. No evidential value. No big technical value. Only grapes value. Sour, even?

So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius.

In all so-called evidence I see patch of code here and of source there. Nowhere I see understanding of how the alleged son is so much stronger (at Chess! not programming!) than the father.

If Mr Houdart (author of the HOUDINI) were to sign such a hit-letter as produced against Mr Rajlich, then I would pay some attention to the letter. At least HOUDINI is a suitable calibre opponent to RYBKA, its author's opinion deserve respect. All I can see is result of RYBKA-CRAFTY or other lacklustres. How many game I have to play from neutral openingbook before Crafty win single game against RYBKA? 300? 3000? More? JUNIOR same.

I am waiting to be sent testcopy of Dr Wael Deeb's chessprogram. His most gentle, most refined language is a good attracter for me.

History will record this attack event much the same as my analysis, of this I am confident.

ICGA better disband before Mr Levy gets into trouble, I would advise. It has no legal role and should watch carefully unwise statement.

My advice to Mr Rajlich, ignore the mob, I mean confederacy. Let them make sanctions. History is to your side. Tournament without RYBKA is like human chess world without KASPAROV. Do not even soil your hand with lawsuit. It is in the inherent(?) nature of dog to bark when it sees a frightening power, and of dunces to confederate, so there is no question of blame.

Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation. Mozart had but once to hear other's music, he internally recorded and processed then improved greatly. There are many examples.

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

Excuse me, I have no intention of providing offense to any person, even Salieri. Only for perspective. So, confederacy of (relative) dunces, please excuse my statements, they all were given with the maximum of due, earned respect to you.

Romy

Hey dude, you're overlooking something. Rap musicians must clear their sampling by getting prior authorization. Keep it real, brother.

+200!!

[JuLieN]

In a way, he's not that wrong...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." (Picasso)

Still all those clones piss me off!

[tomgdrums]

In a way, he's not that wrong...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." (Picasso)

Still all those clones piss me off!

Actually he is wrong.

I outlined in my above post about music, harmony and melody.

And to use paining as an example:

Van Gogh routinely copied and traced other paintings to learn how other artists approached their work. BUT the paintings he signed his name to were his!

It is a fine line and as I said above computer chess has not decided where the line is.

[JuLieN]

Tom, should I have waved a "sarcasm" sign in my previous post, just like Leonard does from time to time to help sheldon understand irony?

[Robert Flesher]

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

A thanks for the enlarged statement above, as I cannot remember when I laughed that hard for that long!

You are my guest.
In my language there is a saying, dogs bark, fools laugh, dunces confederate, but this suffers grievously on rendition in English.

Romy

You have no idea Carol, sometimes I bark, or when feeling especially vivacious I may even bite, but that is not to the point of the matter.

Your logic is flawed, and beyond reproach! Your logic seems to suggest that if someone steals a car, then installs an incredible revolutionary engine that runs on cow farts (methane) , this somehow justifies the theft? The problem is sometimes the thief gets caught and goes to prison, or in some places/states (Texas comes to mind) he is shot by the rightful owner. Capiche?