Moderator: Ras
He hasn't actually stayed silent, not at all.bob wrote: 2. When this new program surfaced, he quickly (again) claimed that it was a clone derived from Rybka, just as was done in the Strelka case previously. And when pressured for proof, has remained completely silent, again speaking _volumes_.
Clones or stolen codes are evil and are not debated among serious people. If a leading programmer, here by chance the Wch himself, is announcing such a clone existence, it is not open to debate and asking if perhaps the Wch is the thief or when exactly he slapped his wife this afternoon. Perhaps this is the best move in a role game for immature nerds (to incite confusion) but it has no scientific content _what so ever_.K I Hyams wrote: OK Rolf, you appear to have misunderstood the salient parts of my post because you read it with preconceived ideas.
My post was nothing to do with “what this could mean in a UK court system, on Mars or visavis the Sicilian Mafia”. I merely referred to the probability that there was sufficient evidence to win a court case, in order to convey the idea that the evidence that Robbolito was either a derivative or a gestalt (but not a clone) was very strong.
I also implied the point that, if Vas wanted his “lovers” to be aware that the putative abusers of his code had sent him emails about it, then it would be both sensible and courteous to his lovers to release parts of those emails that did not prejudice his interests.
Although YOU exude emotional reactions to what may or may not be a setback to Vas, if you are implying that, in my post, there are any signs whatsoever of having reacted “like a deceived lover of a woman who's just not incited enough to lift her eyebrows not to speak about any other things.” , then rather like Vas and the emails, I would ask you to point to the evidence, if doing so does not damage your interests.
I hope that this fleeting communication does nothing to weaken your resolve never to talk to me again on CTF. Keep in mind the phrase "hate speech"
ok, clarification.If someone has questions on this clarification then please ask now, because then you should skip such topics. So ready for a 30 minutes palaver. Keep the questions short. Thanks.
actually they can sometimes be interestingmariaclara wrote:hmmmmmmmmm...............
not sure..
gosh. just love polls?Uri Blass wrote:What is your opinion about downloading robbolito and using it?
I mean only to the people who use it and not to the people who develop it
and at least part of the people who admit using it write with their real name.
Uri
yes. "innocent untll proven guilty" sounds sensible.
Spacious_Mind wrote:Well I believe in the basic values of "innocent until proven guilty", therefore the disclaimers that are stated on the website when I recently visisted (after all the hype here) that it is not a clone of Rybka, I would have to accept at face value unless someone makes an open clear statement to the contrary with some examples for proof.
I am playing a lot of 5 ply games at the moment and I DO NOT so far see any indication that it plays similar to my versions of Rybka which are older versions. I cannot say this is the case for version 3 because I do not have it.
Robolito seems to me to behave a lot closer to Fruit or even Stockfish than any of the older Rybka programs that I have.
I believe in what is right, and of course should it be proven that it is a Rybka in disguise then my opinion would change very quickly.
My opinion comes from someone whole just likes to play with all chess programs and my outlook may be skewed from seeing clear easily definable clones within dedicated chess computers. Which I do not see at the moment when playing the mentioned engine.
Best regards
Nick
On topic questions please.mariaclara wrote:
are you and KIHyams talking again?
If someone has questions on this clarification then please ask now, because then you should skip such topics. So ready for a 30 minutes palaver. Keep the questions short. Thanks.
Seriously,is that rightRolf wrote:Clones or stolen codes are evil and are not debated among serious people. If a leading programmer, here by chance the Wch himself, is announcing such a clone existence, it is not open to debate and asking if perhaps the Wch is the thief or when exactly he slapped his wife this afternoon. Perhaps this is the best move in a role game for immature nerds (to incite confusion) but it has no scientific content _what so ever_.K I Hyams wrote: OK Rolf, you appear to have misunderstood the salient parts of my post because you read it with preconceived ideas.
My post was nothing to do with “what this could mean in a UK court system, on Mars or visavis the Sicilian Mafia”. I merely referred to the probability that there was sufficient evidence to win a court case, in order to convey the idea that the evidence that Robbolito was either a derivative or a gestalt (but not a clone) was very strong.
I also implied the point that, if Vas wanted his “lovers” to be aware that the putative abusers of his code had sent him emails about it, then it would be both sensible and courteous to his lovers to release parts of those emails that did not prejudice his interests.
Although YOU exude emotional reactions to what may or may not be a setback to Vas, if you are implying that, in my post, there are any signs whatsoever of having reacted “like a deceived lover of a woman who's just not incited enough to lift her eyebrows not to speak about any other things.” , then rather like Vas and the emails, I would ask you to point to the evidence, if doing so does not damage your interests.
I hope that this fleeting communication does nothing to weaken your resolve never to talk to me again on CTF. Keep in mind the phrase "hate speech"
If someone has questions on this clarification then please ask now, because then you should skip such topics. So ready for a 30 minutes palaver. Keep the questions short. Thanks.
The Rybka's sectarians don't understand this simple logic Marie,they just don't want to....mariaclara wrote:
did vas or any person present evidence roblito's a clone?
the way I understand justice is , the accuser has to present proof of his accusations.
sounds stupid that the accused has to present proof he, the accused,
is guilty.Spacious_Mind wrote:Well I believe in the basic values of "innocent until proven guilty", therefore the disclaimers that are stated on the website when I recently visisted (after all the hype here
I am playing a lot of 5 ply games at the moment and I DO NOT so far see any indication that it plays similar to my versions of Rybka which are older versions. I cannot say this is the case for version 3 because I do not have it.
Robolito seems to me to behave a lot closer to Fruit or even Stockfish than any of the older Rybka programs that I have.
I believe in what is right, and of course should it be proven that it is a Rybka in disguise then my opinion would change very quickly.
My opinion comes from someone whole just likes to play with all chess programs and my outlook may be skewed from seeing clear easily definable clones within dedicated chess computers. Which I do not see at the moment when playing the mentioned engine.
Best regards
Nick
Stay on topic and ask this questions from the devil, here is where you get the answers. So begin to ask or is it true that you have none?Dr.Wael Deeb wrote: So we the stupid sheeps have no right whatever to ask questions
Oh really puuuuhleeeeeeeeeeze 
The Rybka's sectarians don't understand this simple logic Marie,they just don't want to....
It's even worse,when you try to express your opinion and start to ask questions,they get mad at you and start to tell you to stop bashing their prophet....I've never seen a perfect brain wash like this,never....
Dr.D
