To campaign or not

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
rebel777

To campaign or not

Post by rebel777 » Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:09 pm

Zach Wegner wrote: Thanks for the support guys.
Well, you don't have mine :wink:
Zach Wegner wrote: It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

User avatar
GenoM
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:46 pm
Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: To campaign or not

Post by GenoM » Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:44 pm

My POV:

Without the source code of Rybka any "comparision" would be pointless. So to prove any possible GPL infringement would be impossible "beyond any reasonnable doubt".

Because we all now know that FSF has the copyright of Fruit 2.1, I think it would be logical if any further steps are in their, FSF, responsibility.

So let them do their work (if they find there is something to do, of course).
take it easy :)

TSP

Re: To campaign or not

Post by TSP » Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:49 pm

Hi Ed,

Great to see you back!

I seldom post myself, glad to see someone of your stature bring some much needed sanity back to the forum.

Omnia vincit amor

User avatar
Sylwy
Posts: 3572
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:19 pm
Location: IASI (Romania) - the historical capital of MOLDOVA

Re: To campaign or not

Post by Sylwy » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:00 pm

Nice to see you and Anthony Cozzie posting again on CCC.
A classic will be always a classic !

All the best,
Silvian

User avatar
kranium
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:43 am

Re: To campaign or not

Post by kranium » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:06 pm

rebel777 wrote:
Zach Wegner wrote: Thanks for the support guys.
Well, you don't have mine :wink:
Zach Wegner wrote: It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed
Ed-

This is where we are starting:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

theres more to come...

gerold
Posts: 10121
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: van buren,missouri

Re: To campaign or not

Post by gerold » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:55 pm

Thanks for your on target post Ed.

Very best to you,

Gerold.

LarsA

Re: To campaign or not

Post by LarsA » Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:57 pm

kranium wrote:
rebel777 wrote:
Zach Wegner wrote: Thanks for the support guys.
Well, you don't have mine :wink:
Zach Wegner wrote: It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed
Ed-
This is where we are starting:
You fail to see Ed's point. You don't start here. You gather all your evidence and package it nicely - then you release it.

User avatar
kranium
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:43 am

Re: To campaign or not

Post by kranium » Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:27 pm

this is compelling information for discussion, not an accusation of any kind, or a presentation of evidence...

rebel777

Re: To campaign or not

Post by rebel777 » Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:28 pm

LarsA wrote:You fail to see Ed's point. You don't start here. You gather all your evidence and package it nicely - then you release it.
Exactly....

Ed

Tony

Re: To campaign or not

Post by Tony » Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:53 pm

GenoM wrote:My POV:

Without the source code of Rybka any "comparision" would be pointless. So to prove any possible GPL infringement would be impossible "beyond any reasonnable doubt".

Because we all now know that FSF has the copyright of Fruit 2.1, I think it would be logical if any further steps are in their, FSF, responsibility.

So let them do their work (if they find there is something to do, of course).
Actually, you have a good point.

Most chesstournements say the programmer has to show his sourcecode when accused of not being original work.

I'll make sure next time when I'm participating at a tournement ( and Rybka is) , I'll file this complaint. It's the easiest way of checking wether the situation still exists.

Tony

Post Reply