Chief Differences between CCC v OPEN

[bob]

Ippolit engines are not questionable anymore (more strong evidence from BB reports)

I have asked Jeremy to read this thread and asked him to comment since he's on a holiday.

BB's report is universally accepted... but then again there are always select few that disagree with the report. Finally we have this report as evidence and the report is enough to prove to many people and atleast 2 moderators that the engine is not in _any_ way questionable.

As for BB, I don't know who he is. I thought he was a good friend of Zach's and had communicated with Larry Kauffman. I have no doubt that he's genuine intelligent programmer.

As I also mentioned, this report by an anonymous person isn't accepted by all.

When all else fails, resort to semantics? Not supported by all _could_ mean "not supported by at least one." It is _clearly_ supported by a majority however, which _ought_ to be good enough.

[bob]

Ippolit engines are not questionable anymore (more strong evidence from BB reports)

I have asked Jeremy to read this thread and asked him to comment since he's on a holiday.

BB's report is universally accepted... but then again there are always select few that disagree with the report. Finally we have this report as evidence and the report is enough to prove to many people and atleast 2 moderators that the engine is not in _any_ way questionable.

As for BB, I don't know who he is. I thought he was a good friend of Zach's and had communicated with Larry Kauffman. I have no doubt that he's genuine intelligent programmer.

As I also mentioned, this report by an anonymous person isn't accepted by all.

Graham, do you ever think for yourself or is it you have your own baggage to blame?


I think it's the latter.

I hope people can look into the content of the intelligent technical research report rather than anonymity/non-anonymity status of the scientist.

What Scientist. Does he have degree in front of his name.
BB.

Best,
Gerold.

No, but I have read his report carefully. And I have _three_ degrees in my name...

You don't have to have a degree to have good ideas. There are many good examples in science.

[bob]

Got any proof of any kind that suggests IP* was derived from Rybka? What about the significant amount of proof offered by bb that says it is not.

You actually prove not having read the BB report by stating this.

Sven

Eh? Care to show any place where he says the majority of the code was copied? He primarily focuses on _differences_ BTW, in case you did not actually read it...

[BTO7]

Got any proof of any kind that suggests IP* was derived from Rybka? What about the significant amount of proof offered by bb that says it is not.

You actually prove not having read the BB report by stating this.

Sven

Eh? Care to show any place where he says the majority of the code was copied? He primarily focuses on _differences_ BTW, in case you did not actually read it...

Exactly...I'm not a programmer but i read all 33 pages of it and its clear to even me that clone could never be used and at best a couple of well know ideas may have. Too many talk but don't read. If i was on a jury BB's report would be a clear deciding point to me they are not cloned or even in my opinion a derivative. The greatest thing about BB's report is its a report done by a neutral party. I'm sure Vas would have his version and Ippo claims other wise at their site but BB is a independent in all of this and thus I feel we get the most unbiased report possible. To me it is very very clear that Ippo family is not any kinda a clone...there is no copied code or copy and paste that went on. They do things very different on almost every level thus Vas statement that the majority of it is copied is just plain not true. So there is absolutely no reason for hiding the talk or links around here other then commercial and biased reasons. Thats why most talk about chess is now over at OpenChess where discussion is free and no bullying is going on ....with any engines being found guilty first and then having to try to prove their innocence thats not the country ive grown up in period.

Regards
BT

[bob]

Got any proof of any kind that suggests IP* was derived from Rybka? What about the significant amount of proof offered by bb that says it is not.

You actually prove not having read the BB report by stating this.

Sven

Eh? Care to show any place where he says the majority of the code was copied? He primarily focuses on _differences_ BTW, in case you did not actually read it...

Exactly...I'm not a programmer but i read all 33 pages of it and its clear to even me that clone could never be used and at best a couple of well know ideas may have. Too many talk but don't read. If i was on a jury BB's report would be a clear deciding point to me they are not cloned or even in my opinion a derivative. The greatest thing about BB's report is its a report done by a neutral party. I'm sure Vas would have his version and Ippo claims other wise at their site but BB is a independent in all of this and thus I feel we get the most unbiased report possible. To me it is very very clear that Ippo family is not any kinda a clone...there is no copied code or copy and paste that went on. They do things very different on almost every level thus Vas statement that the majority of it is copied is just plain not true. So there is absolutely no reason for hiding the talk or links around here other then commercial and biased reasons. Thats why most talk about chess is now over at OpenChess where discussion is free and no bullying is going on ....with any engines being found guilty first and then having to try to prove their innocence thats not the country ive grown up in period.

Regards
BT

There are pros and cons to both approaches (guilty until proven innocent and innocent until proven guilty). I personally believe that the latter is the lesser of two evils, however.

[Steve B]

So there is absolutely no reason for hiding the talk or links around here other then commercial and biased reasons. Thats why most talk about chess is now over at OpenChess where discussion is free and no bullying is going on ....with any engines being found guilty first and then having to try to prove their innocence thats not the country ive grown up in period.

Regards
BT

But the country you grew up in also ELECTS their leaders dont they?
or do you live in China or in a Kingdom perhaps?
not a big issue for you hmm?
free elections vs Appointed mods with a King at the helm?
no biggie?

And i guess you are so "open" that you ignore the small fact that we have shown that the sponsor has issued no directives regarding what we discuss and what we link to(except pirated software of course)
no i guess you have "closed" your mind to that little factoid
your new forum sounds just like this forum the last two mod terms regarding bullying
we never permitted bullying and indeed we banned members who engaged in it
harping on the minor requirement to register to see everything is the same type of "minutiae" argument that those trying to cling to the Ippo is a clone" argument are engaging in now ..forced to resort to the anonymity of the BB report as their last stand
both arguments rely on the "minutiae" and ignore the big picture

creating the OPEN forum with only one month to go before elections tells me that there was more at play here then just having a more relaxed atmosphere
something about the timing of its creation dosent sit right in my gut
actually i could have supported the new forum if this place fell into the hands of extremist moderators for 6 more months in the upcoming election

as it is now..
ill stand pat..fight the good fight ..and try to preserve something that lasted for 13 years and remains to this day the PREMIERE forum in the world for Computer Chess

have fun in your Kingdom Regards

Steve

[Michael Diosi]

Hi,


... <you should know by now>

Thanks for confirming the engine name. I knew I was right.



Michael
http://www.playwitharena.com

[Graham Banks]

we have shown that the sponsor has issued no directives regarding what we discuss and what we link to(except pirated software of course)

In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy.

[Steve B]

In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy.

Sam has made it very clear what the sponsor wanted
i will post again from Sams PM of yesterday
and i QUOTE...

ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.

-Sam-

as i see it these two quotes are not mutually exclusive
the moderators shall decide what they feel are questionable or not
not the sponsor
there would be no need for Quentin to beat around the bush here Graham
he could simply say...
no more links to IPPO or i drop the board..period
but he does not say that
ICD left it up to the mods to determine the legality issue or any other issues as they have aways done..

Steve

[Graham Banks]

In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy.

Sam has made it very clear what the sponsor wanted
i will post again from Sams PM of yesterday
and i QUOTE...

ICD is not dictating anything - they simply asked for more consistent attention to what has been policy forever here - no links to illegal software. They are continuing to leave decisions about what is and isn't legal to the mods. It is up to the membership as always.

-Sam-

as i see it these two quotes are not mutually exclusive
the moderators shall decide what they feel are questionable or not
not the sponsor
there would be no need for Quentin to beat around the bush here Graham
he could simply say...
no more links to IPPO or i drop the board
period
but he does not say that
he left it up to the mods to determine the legality issue

Steve

What I quoted you is what these mod teams were told to do. This was immediately interpreted by Jeremy as meaning Ippo and family.
I have not quoted the full message because I think that it is best kept in the mods forum. It would cause too much of an uproar amongst some members anyway.
However, I will not be painted as a liar.

If you refer back to the "Goodbye Talkchess" thread, you'll find that Jeremy posted:

The moderation team was informed yesterday by the site administrator, Sam Hull, that the site owners, Your Move Chess & Games/ICD, want the moderation team to aggressively remove links and any posts which could be seen as "encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy". "Software of questionable legitimacy" obviously refers to the engines derived from the source code known as I--- (I censor myself here to avoid being banned to the CEO forum by Graham), and the request was justified by the various commercial partnerships which YMC&G/ICD maintains.

.........and that Swami posted:

I don't think "ICD, Your Move" has threatened to "Shut down the forum" if we don't delete links to Robbolito/Houdini/Ivanhoe.
They just requested us to delete the links but they didn't state the _consequences_ if the request was not fulfilled.

............and Sam posted:
I don't set moderation policy. I passed along a request to the CCC mods that I received from Quentin, which came as the result of certain members haranguing ICD about real, suspected, and imagined clones.
and
The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC.

Cheers,
Graham.