As long as you don't call me, Miguel B and Chris W biased I am fine with your point.
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.
Heard about that yes. Nowadays anything goes. I don't mind, as long as the truth comes out.
Rybka forum wasn't my choice in the first place, I started at open-chess and found my postings copied into Rybka forum. Debating the same stuff in multiple fora is a nightmare so I had to make a choice.
bhlangonijr wrote: 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.
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 ?
WIth "numbers" you don't have "semantic equivalence". With numbers, you simply show "outright copying". How hard is that to understand? Since dealing with your deception for a while, never mind. It might be impossible for you to understand. But not for most others. Semantic equivalence is what is used to compare a C source to an assembly language source (or any other source if you wish, such as what we do when students copy each other, but change the program significantly with respect to variable names, comments, loop structure, even data structures. But that doesn't change the semantics at all. If you don't get that, it is most likely because you don't WANT to get it...
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.
That's kind of like saying "The National Enquirer is the place to catch up on the important news around the world." Which is true, UNLESS you want actual, real, accurately reported news. There certainly isn't very much in the way of "technical merit" over there, now is there?
As long as you don't call me, Miguel B and Chris W biased I am fine with your point.
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.
Heard about that yes. Nowadays anything goes. I don't mind, as long as the truth comes out.
Rybka forum wasn't my choice in the first place, I started at open-chess and found my postings copied into Rybka forum. Debating the same stuff in multiple fora is a nightmare so I had to make a choice.
Best to you,
Ed
I am sure it has nothing to do with the small fact that here, or on open-chess, you don't have ANY supporters whatsoever in your deceptive arguments? While on the Rybka Forum, you've found a very FEW Rybka supporters that won't listen to facts, and instead are happy to blindly follow you and Chris off the cliff just like a group of lemmings???
Yep, it is "the place to be". Just not the place to be for factual discussions about the issues...
This is not a "political" issue. It is a factual case of someone clearly breaking the rules, breaking copyright law, and then denying it repeatedly. That's all there is to it. The letter to the CSVN simply shows that THEIR statements were also completely false, which means their conclusions are not based on any truth whatsoever. Everyone should just ignore what Vas did? What the CSVN did? The old "turn the other cheek" repeated over and over and over? When do you finally realize that you'd better do something different before you get your head slapped off completely? Tournaments are not fun when knowing cheaters are playing. Human chess events. Human sporting events. Computer chess events. All are the same.
Rebel wrote: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 ?
Classic fallacy. The first statement is about a method, the second about values within a method. You show yourself easily persuaded by such sophistry. It's no wonder you're in complete thrall to that former chess programmer Screwtape, arch master of the half-truth. So you think Rybka forum is the place to be because that is where he and his âmes damnés hold court.
Rebel wrote: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 ?
Classic fallacy. The first statement is about a method, the second about values within a method. You show yourself easily persuaded by such sophistry. It's no wonder you're in complete thrall to that former chess programmer Screwtape, arch master of the half-truth. So you think Rybka forum is the place to be because that is where he and his âmes damnés hold court.
This actually is not a fallacy. It is OUTRIGHT dishonesty, because no one that actually has programmed both in C and in assembly language would make such a statement in the first place. The difference between not knowing, and knowing but being dishonest, speaks volumes here...
I am not going to respond to all your insults here at CCC. Having to face that on Rybka forum is already more than enough.
So, say anything you want about me and I won't reply.
However I will respond to those respecting the normal social way of speech.
Truth hurts? You are making statements that are clearly false. So false, you can not possibly be so inexperienced that you make them in good faith. The PST vs semantic equivalence post is a prime example. Nothing but deception. Intentional deception... hoping "someone" will overlook the obvious problem with your statements...
Don't care whether you respond or not. Last I heard you were "through" (was that the second or third time for that?) and were going to go off and write up your "amazing tale"/ Be interesting to see who you send it to and what they reply... Probably most technically competent people will just hit the "delete" button thinking they are dealing with a kook...
I am not going to respond to all your insults here at CCC. Having to face that on Rybka forum is already more than enough.
So, say anything you want about me and I won't reply.
However I will respond to those respecting the normal social way of speech.
Truth hurts? You are making statements that are clearly false. So false, you can not possibly be so inexperienced that you make them in good faith. The PST vs semantic equivalence post is a prime example. Nothing but deception. Intentional deception... hoping "someone" will overlook the obvious problem with your statements...
Don't care whether you respond or not. Last I heard you were "through" (was that the second or third time for that?) and were going to go off and write up your "amazing tale"/ Be interesting to see who you send it to and what they reply... Probably most technically competent people will just hit the "delete" button thinking they are dealing with a kook...
Sorry Robert, but these are only a lot of personal attacks towards Ed, as far as I can see. Ed really has nothing to gain with making false statements, he is not in any way involved in the Rybka project and just like you, I would assume, he is only interested in a fair review of the case. The same holds for you. I understand that emotions run high on both sides and I have not read all those threads but I don't recall Ed accusing you of making deliberate lies to obfuscate the issues. Even if he has, I am sure that neither of you really thinks that is how this debate should be held.
Regards, Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
