Romy wrote: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
A lot of words. No technical content, and no relevance to the current topic. We are, for the 101st time, _NOT_ talking about copying ideas, or plots, or other abstract things. We are talking about copying, _verbatim_ large pieces of both Crafty _and_ Fruit. Shakespeare did _not_ do that. To suggest equivalence between the two issues shows a complete lack of understanding.
Bob, verbatim or not, Vas made an engine far superior to others for years.
This does not cause the program to have a substantial difference to those who
have been copied? This is not a proof that he is a great programmer?
That´s why I advocate Rybka.
Romy wrote: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
A lot of words. No technical content, and no relevance to the current topic. We are, for the 101st time, _NOT_ talking about copying ideas, or plots, or other abstract things. We are talking about copying, _verbatim_ large pieces of both Crafty _and_ Fruit. Shakespeare did _not_ do that. To suggest equivalence between the two issues shows a complete lack of understanding.
Bob, verbatim or not, Vas made an engine far superior to others for years.
This does not cause the program to have a substantial difference to those who
have been copied? This is not a proof that he is a great programmer?
That´s why I advocate Rybka.
[somebody else's original code] + [a chunk of Vas original code] != original code
Romy wrote: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
How long do you think you can carry on this charade? Another mirror site?
PauloSoare wrote:
Bob, verbatim or not, Vas made an engine far superior to others for years.
This does not cause the program to have a substantial difference to those who
have been copied? This is not a proof that he is a great programmer?
That´s why I advocate Rybka.
Is that hard to understand what is the issue here? The quality of Rybka or Vas skills are not being questioned here. If you find that some millionaire started his fortune after robbing banks, is it fine just because he is much richer now? The end justifies the means?
Even the mirrors get damaged by the primates...
This is how the pack here appears to the disinterest outsider. Justice, balance, thoughtfulness, just as in photo. Can you recognise yourself among the brave, independent-mindset hunters -- also, other participant in the thread?
Carol,who's the terrified driver,you or Vasik
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Even the mirrors get damaged by the primates...
This is how the pack here appears to the disinterest outsider. Justice, balance, thoughtfulness, just as in photo. Can you recognise yourself among the brave, independent-mindset hunters -- also, other participant in the thread?
Carol,who's the terrified driver,you or Vasik
I've seen many cars like this in Nizhny Novgorod before.
bhlangonijr wrote:The quality of
Vas skills are not being questioned here.
If such skills are fully acknowledged, as they should be because topmost objective evidence exists (top of world for 4-5 years), can you explain then why such an easily exposed alleged copying happens?
