Congratulations to the new moderators

[michiguel]

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.

My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.

Cheers,
Graham.

Until Vasik mans up and prove his source code to be stolen,which I strongly doubt,there is no need to delete links....so your fellow moderators are doing just fine
Dr.D

Just for the record, it is not needed that the author of the original product demonstrates the existence of a clone. Someone else can do it. In fact, most of the time that is what has happened in the past.

There are more things at stake here than a specific author interest. The integrity (or lack thereof) of this discipline is in jeopardy, at least, from my perspective. For some reasons, many people prefer to make it personal. IMHO, that is a narrow view of the problem.

But, many things have been said already. I agree with Michael Sherwin. Last week a last drop of evidence has been brought by GM Kaufman, which I think, needs to be considered. Since the moderators are new, I request them to examine all the evidence and make a decision. I would like to see an official statement with whatever decision they reach. Once that is reached, keep discussing this will be pointless unless new evidence, of course, is shown.

Miguel

[Damir]

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.

My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.

Cheers,
Graham.

Larry's post should help http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 318#323318

I did not know Larry was author of Rybka....
__________
Damir D

[Harvey Williamson]

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.

My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.

Cheers,
Graham.

Larry's post should help http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 318#323318

I did not know Larry was author of Rybka....
__________
Damir D

If you have a copy of R3 you will clearly see it says by Vas Rajlich and Larry Kaufman after the word author.

[Graham Banks]

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.

My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.

Cheers,
Graham.

Larry's post should help http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 318#323318

Those who read my moderation candidacy statement will know my stance on the matter, but in a mod team the majority view dictates how such issues get handled.
If either Matthias or Swami becomes convinced that the Ippo code is from Rybka, I'm sure that things will change.

Cheers,
Graham.

[michiguel]

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.

My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.

Cheers,
Graham.

Larry's post should help http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 318#323318

I did not know Larry was author of Rybka....
__________
Damir D

Now you know!

Miguel
PS: Still irrelevant though...

[markboylan]

What would constitute a post with illegal status?

I didn't claim that it made any sense, only that it's worded that way.

So really it means nothing?

Everything is legal....right?

If you don't know/or cannot decide what is questionable, everything must be unquestionable....right?

Means anyone could do anything. Talk about rigged votes etc.....no?

The only things I can I can think of that the authors might have had in mind are threats of violence or terrorism, libel, slander or defamation. Otherwise, I'd say yes, point 5 is pretty much meaningless.

[Christopher Conkie]

What would constitute a post with illegal status?

I didn't claim that it made any sense, only that it's worded that way.

So really it means nothing?

Everything is legal....right?

If you don't know/or cannot decide what is questionable, everything must be unquestionable....right?

Means anyone could do anything. Talk about rigged votes etc.....no?

The only things I can I can think of that the authors might have had in mind are threats of violence or terrorism, libel, slander or defamation. Otherwise, I'd say yes, point 5 is pretty much meaningless.

If it is about terrorism, it would be the first chess forum I have seen that had such a rule. I doubt that quoting a post while having dynamite strapped around you is going to be noticed much by the members.

[mariaclara]

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.

Maybe these links can help clarify the situation.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30772

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30665

[markboylan]

The only things I can I can think of that the authors might have had in mind are threats of violence or terrorism, libel, slander or defamation. Otherwise, I'd say yes, point 5 is pretty much meaningless.

If it is about terrorism, it would be the first chess forum I have seen that had such a rule. I doubt that quoting a post while having dynamite strapped around you is going to be noticed much by the members.

Certainly. But, it's likely that the authors were leaving themselves the opportunity to moderate posts of any unforeseen questionable legal status rather than limiting themselves to a well-defined list. That's what I would have done.

[parrish]

Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.

My fellow mods are quite happy allowing links, so unless they have a change of heart, they'll remain.

Cheers,
Graham.

Larry's post should help http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 318#323318

I did not know Larry was author of Rybka....
__________
Damir D

Now you know!

Miguel
PS: Still irrelevant though...

Yes irrelevant, unless one wants to be consistent, in which case Hyatt noted in that same thread that Kaufman's type of argument could also then be used against Rybka to show it was (originally) a clone of Fruit. Which I believe may be the true underlying reason and whole point of why the anonymous authors of Ippolit made their code freely available for all to see.
I mean seriously, people are arguing that an open source code is an obvious clone of a closed source, even though the open source produces obviously superior results--while at the same time, arguing that the original closed source was NOT a clone of a freely available open source because it produced obviously superior results. You can't have it both ways.