This is on a side clear but on another absolutely obscure.Peter Skinner wrote:
2. I don't think it is hypocritical for an author to sign an open letter against a program when he/she looked at the same ideas. It is about the way those ideas are implemented.
1. Taking an idea and re-writing it to suit your needs is 100% fine. Legal instance.
2. Taking code and copying it verbatim is illegal and should be discouraged. Illegal instance.
Peter
I come from the outside. I play chess and play around with the software but I dont test nor program. But I observe people and their elaborations. And I can comment on that. Also if I am not a programmer I am not brain dead. Although some want to let it look like that all non programmers should better shut up.
You have a huge mistake in your description but personally you think you have the ltest most actual and best and highest possible view on the actual conflict but in truth you have almost nothing. In fact for me you sound like a brainwashed sectarian. Here is my view.
The reason why I see all the Vas bashers in the wrong is simple. They hypostate as if it were a question of the like "did someone provenly something wrong". The question is already hypocritical because it depends on the definitions a group has invented.
If it's a group consent (ICGA) that certain requirements should be fulfilled AND (my little add-on) it's proven that all others respected this in the past. except some cheaters who were reveiled, then of course there shouldnt be wasted too much time with a hypocrritical debate as if even those who scapegoated Vas were unhappy deep in their hearts about the loss of their best programmer. Because violation of rules or not, I was told that Vas if he didnt nothing else wrong, that he saved some time and came earlier into the competition than he would have if he had not taken the models from crafty and Fruit. However, even Vas's most brutal enemies admitted that of course Vas were a brilliant programmer simply because he made a World Champion out of two weaker programs. So they agree that not everything is "taken" and that the best was invented by himself.
At the basis we must now evaluate what we want to do in such a exceptional situation. And here I think the ICGA acted in a hurry without long ranged ideas because now we are in a mess that could have avoided.
I think we could agree that the ICGA and Presidend Levy is no Nanny for grown-up programmers. Now if someone has overstepped the rules, and it is someone so brilliant, is it smart to throw him out into the bin?? Is it smart to invent a scenario that he must submit under the papal power of the ICGA or should we choose the Asian way of granting and respecting the "face" even to the strongest deniers?
Shouldnt the decisive people for the best of the community as such act along the necessary but not the total surrender and losing face ideology?
What is if Vas could demonstrate in length that he really is a genius and we all have misunderstood his evidence? Why not giving him as a smart guy the benefit of a doubt. I read that the counter evidence is best outthought and I wont doubt it but is this really the end of the story without any freedom to find some solutions that allows to live on without too much hate feelings? I mean even Bob who was per usual my strongest correspondent admitted that Vas didnt commit a capital crime. So, why shouls we treat Vas with more than necessary? Why not just apply certain reactions but fully without personal feelings of being insulted by the perception on how Vas has not reacted and submissed himself?
Couldnt this be done overnight? So that from this superior elegance a message is spreading everywhere that the ICGA rules should be respected, but if not that nobody in our community wanted to enter into lynch mode and destroy totally the private lives of the depending individuals?
As a psychologists I can well imagine several scenarios where Vas remains completely nice and innocent (subjectively) and that this cannot be allowed as a habit so that some time period should be required for a so called time out but that still the individual as such is respected in his deepest subjective thoughts. Perhaps it's even part of genius if some human beings leave practically our normal rules and are determined and convinced to do the right thing. Do we want to destroy the best genius in our midth? Why should we do that?
his is my message to all of us that we shgould behave like pharisains but more like loving collegues who suffer with someone we cant yet totally normalize? Why should we have such goal at all?
We have all always two sides at least. We are not totally brilliant without faults and even the dumbest observers sometimes have a good idea like me. Why should we avoid to respect this?
So, back to yxou, Peter, I dont want to prove that you are totally wrong but I hope I could elaborate that you perhaps didnt evaluate deep enough the actual conflict always in mind holding the truth that this is NOT about capital crimes.
Since I have such a good example for what I mean, I beg you all to allow me to repeat this. It's not to defamate always the same.
Even the member of the panel secretariat once cheated a bit with his program Hiarcs becasuse he was so wanting that it would win by a draw as I understood it. In the end it even lost! And after Bob had examined the case he judged that this wasnt a huge cheat. But itÄ's also clear that we wouldnt want such a character trait in someone who represented us in an official office. But we still tolerated Harvey.
As an observer I cant directly speak to Mr Levy but you Open Letter Writers or programmers could perhaps process a new stage of humanitarian approach. Why not telling Dr Levy that after all what was said and done it appeared that the loss of Vas is a too big loss and for all that Vas NEVER ever once went into personal unfriendly hate stories. Why not offering him a second chance so that this eviul hate feeling goes away. I for one but I already read it from others, feel also deceived by the commercial guys who certainly want to make some money with us. Why not showing some emotions and against the naked evidence offering a new beginning?
Please coud someone at least tell David Levy that someone has made an attempt to find an exit to the dark moment in time of our beloeved computerchess? Perhaps he will see even better steps that could solve something.
Especially I do beg all sides and interested to realise what a pity it were if the legendary imput from our Dutch friends is in great danger right now? shouldnt we seek solutions back to freindship also for these good-hearted people?
All the best to all readers.
