Fwd: Open letter to the CSVN

[Terry McCracken]

BTW, who's The Brain, Pinky, who's going to work out World Computer Chess Domination, hmm? The Whittless Wonder
Chris?

[bhlangonijr]

Since when is semantics proof for code ?

....

So by following your reasoning it would be completely legal if I reverse engineer Rybka 4.0, make some adaptions in the code, change some textual occurrences, generate the new binary and then claim it as my own work.
It would be a 100% semantics matching, but that's okay in your view since I haven't used the original Rybka source code to produce the binaries....

What about the Crafty dead code found in previous Rybka versions?

I guess your are just complicating yourself here...

[bob]

Since when is semantics proof for code ?

....

So by following your reasoning it would be completely legal if I reverse engineer Rybka 4.0, make some adaptions in the code, change some textual occurrences, generate the new binary and then claim it as my own work.
It would be a 100% semantics matching, but that's okay in your view since I haven't used the original Rybka source code to produce the binaries....

What about the Crafty dead code found in previous Rybka versions?

I guess your are just complicating yourself here...

If you had followed this discussion for the past two months, you'd have wrapped about 10 rolls of duct tape around your head to keep it from exploding from the absolutely insane arguments that have been proposed. Such as "semantics can't be used, only source." However, we have no source. You can't compare a binary to a specific source, you have to first take the binary and convert it to SOME source and then compare that to the original. If it doesn't match, keep trying. You can't use the "original" as a pattern. (I'm sure the optimizer developers in the gcc project would love to have to debug the optimizer like this.) "It is not that unlikely that two programmers will write most code in the engine the same way, in many cases there is only one way to write such code... (contrary to what I have been seeing in student assignments for 43 years, and contrary to much research and software development to detect student plagiarism in programming courses.) The list goes on and on...

[Kirill Kryukov]

For what it's worth, I support the gutsy move of engine programmers.

With respect,
Kirill

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Kirill,

with respect of all the work you and the CCRL team do for us ...

But ...
Engine programmers should programming here engines. It seems that much of them made mistakes in political situations.

I think that we can say:
No please!
Please bring our hobby not in danger!

If other persons aren't able to do that, we (persons which are working on an official rating list or others) can give the information:

STOP this Madness!
It's time for it because the situation will be harder and harder.

I think a group should try to organice computer chess a bit in background or we will get the big chaos. And this group should work hand in hand with our organization ICGA.

And please, I will not see any of "Open Letters" programmers in this group or one of them withdrawn his signature.

That's my opinion about all this.
Time to say: STOP from my point of view!

Time for a clear decision!
Time for discusing about all the clone topics should be over, enough words are spoken.

Best
Frank

[Graham Banks]

Hi Kirill,

with respect of all the work you and the CCRL team do for us ...

But ...
Engine programmers should programming here engines. It seems that much of them made mistakes in political situations.

I think that we can say:
No please!
Please bring our hobby not in danger!

If other persons aren't able to do that, we (persons which are working on an official rating list or others) can give the information:

STOP this Madness!
It's time for it because the situation will be harder and harder.

I think a group should try to organice computer chess a bit in background or we will get the big chaos. And this group should work hand in hand with our organization ICGA.

And please, I will not see any of "Open Letters" programmers in this group or one of them withdrawn his signature.

That's my opinion about all this.
Time to say: STOP from my point of view!

Time for a clear decision!
Time for discusing about all the clone topics should be over, enough words are spoken.

Best
Frank

Kirill is speaking on his own behalf, not that of the entire group of CCRL testers, each of whom will have their own opinion.

The only thing that I'll say at this stage Frank is that your decision is a very brave and gutsy one.

Graham.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Graham,

that's quiet clear for me!

Must drive to my work now.
I will thinking in the next day how I can continue my work, very complicated at all, perhaps a new idea in combination must here.

Hope that different people will get some common sense.
For all the fans of computer chess!

Have a nice day Graham!

Best
Frank

[Rebel]

Hello Ed Schroder,

With all due respect - and there is a considerable amount on my part - that is just wrong.

Talkchess has been the place to be from year one so long ago.

Roger, I did not say, nor meant to say that Rybka Forum is the number 1 computer chess forum. But for the aftermath of the Rybka affair it definitely is the place to be.

[Thomas Mayer]

Hello Ed Schroder,

With all due respect - and there is a considerable amount on my part - that is just wrong.

Talkchess has been the place to be from year one so long ago.

Roger, I did not say, nor meant to say that Rybka Forum is the number 1 computer chess forum. But for the aftermath of the Rybka affair it definitely is the place to be.

Hi Ed,

don't you think the Rybka Forum is a bit biased ? And in fact I can't find anything there that enlights the situation about Rybka in any way. Just big silence from Vas and a lot of blabla.
Also for a long period it was completely forbidden to mention the Littos in the Rybka Forum. So free discussion wasn't possible there. So do you think that the Rybka Forum is really the place where such controversial stuff should be discussed ? I understand their reasons to forbid some kind of discussions - so nothing against that, but in consequence the Rybka Forum is in no way the correct place to discuss the Rybka affair.

Greets, Thomas

[Rebel]

Hi,

So by following your reasoning it would be completely legal if I reverse engineer Rybka 4.0, make some adaptions in the code, change some textual occurrences, generate the new binary and then claim it as my own work.
It would be a 100% semantics matching, but that's okay in your view since I haven't used the original Rybka source code to produce the binaries....

"LOL" all you want, never said that, never implied that.

When it's about "semantics" check the current debate between an unknown guy to me who calls himself "Alkelele" and Bob.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid371933

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid371972

Hyatt - One MUST use semantic equivalence. There is no other way to compare a binary to a source.

Hyatt - Who said the PST values had anything to do with semantic equivalence in the first place?

How does this rhyme ?