OpenChess

BB+ wrote: by BB+ » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:34 pm
With the ICGA Investigation for Rybka winding down, it looks like Loop 2007 will be next on the agendum. I attach a preliminary version of an annotation of its evaluation function. The differences to Fruit 2.1 are few, and some might be in a Toga version (such as the Tempo bonus). Unlike some other derivatives, it seems that Reul did not even bother to change the numerology.

Any news to mention Mark ?

Adam's similarity report is showing a 84% similarity between Loop 2007 and Fruit 2.2.1 which was closed source. This somehow indicates that Fabien gave Reul the 2.2.1 sources. And if this is the case then the ICGA should first investigate what kind of deal Reul and Fabien made. So far my simple yes or no question to Fabien (did you gave Reul your 2.2.1 sources) was ignored. instead Fabien announced I shouldn't count on answering except for possibly a couple of lines for another two weeks.

I would hate to see another false ICGA verdict branding someone innocent as a fraud. Mind you, the evidence against Loop 2007 is clear but if the 2 gents made a kind business deal then that has the potential to set Reul free. You will have to know the details first. And Fabien's unwillingness to answer that simple question is not a good start.

I am happy to post my whole correspondence with Fabien which remained unanswered for 99%, 2 short evasive answers without addressing one topic.

Rebel wrote:

BB+ wrote: by BB+ » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:34 pm
With the ICGA Investigation for Rybka winding down, it looks like Loop 2007 will be next on the agendum. I attach a preliminary version of an annotation of its evaluation function. The differences to Fruit 2.1 are few, and some might be in a Toga version (such as the Tempo bonus). Unlike some other derivatives, it seems that Reul did not even bother to change the numerology.

Any news to mention Mark ?

Adam's similarity report is showing a 84% similarity between Loop 2007 and Fruit 2.2.1 which was closed source. This somehow indicates that Fabien gave Reul the 2.2.1 sources. And if this is the case then the ICGA should first investigate what kind of deal Reul and Fabien made. So far my simple yes or no question to Fabien (did you gave Reul your 2.2.1 sources) was ignored. instead Fabien announced I shouldn't count on answering except for possibly a couple of lines for another two weeks.

I would hate to see another false ICGA verdict branding someone innocent as a fraud. Mind you, the evidence against Loop 2007 is clear but if the 2 gents made a kind business deal then that has the potential to set Reul free. You will have to know the details first. And Fabien's unwillingness to answer that simple question is not a good start.

I am happy to post my whole correspondence with Fabien which remained unanswered for 99%, 2 short evasive answers without addressing one topic.

Why should he answer you? He has answered questions from the ICGA about Loop.

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

BB+ wrote: by BB+ » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:34 pm
With the ICGA Investigation for Rybka winding down, it looks like Loop 2007 will be next on the agendum. I attach a preliminary version of an annotation of its evaluation function. The differences to Fruit 2.1 are few, and some might be in a Toga version (such as the Tempo bonus). Unlike some other derivatives, it seems that Reul did not even bother to change the numerology.

Any news to mention Mark ?

Adam's similarity report is showing a 84% similarity between Loop 2007 and Fruit 2.2.1 which was closed source. This somehow indicates that Fabien gave Reul the 2.2.1 sources. And if this is the case then the ICGA should first investigate what kind of deal Reul and Fabien made. So far my simple yes or no question to Fabien (did you gave Reul your 2.2.1 sources) was ignored. instead Fabien announced I shouldn't count on answering except for possibly a couple of lines for another two weeks.

I would hate to see another false ICGA verdict branding someone innocent as a fraud. Mind you, the evidence against Loop 2007 is clear but if the 2 gents made a kind business deal then that has the potential to set Reul free. You will have to know the details first. And Fabien's unwillingness to answer that simple question is not a good start.

I am happy to post my whole correspondence with Fabien which remained unanswered for 99%, 2 short evasive answers without addressing one topic.

Why should he answer you? He has answered questions from the ICGA about Loop.

He was quite responsive when he needed my signature.

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

BB+ wrote: by BB+ » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:34 pm
With the ICGA Investigation for Rybka winding down, it looks like Loop 2007 will be next on the agendum. I attach a preliminary version of an annotation of its evaluation function. The differences to Fruit 2.1 are few, and some might be in a Toga version (such as the Tempo bonus). Unlike some other derivatives, it seems that Reul did not even bother to change the numerology.

Any news to mention Mark ?

Adam's similarity report is showing a 84% similarity between Loop 2007 and Fruit 2.2.1 which was closed source. This somehow indicates that Fabien gave Reul the 2.2.1 sources. And if this is the case then the ICGA should first investigate what kind of deal Reul and Fabien made. So far my simple yes or no question to Fabien (did you gave Reul your 2.2.1 sources) was ignored. instead Fabien announced I shouldn't count on answering except for possibly a couple of lines for another two weeks.

I would hate to see another false ICGA verdict branding someone innocent as a fraud. Mind you, the evidence against Loop 2007 is clear but if the 2 gents made a kind business deal then that has the potential to set Reul free. You will have to know the details first. And Fabien's unwillingness to answer that simple question is not a good start.

I am happy to post my whole correspondence with Fabien which remained unanswered for 99%, 2 short evasive answers without addressing one topic.

Why should he answer you? He has answered questions from the ICGA about Loop.

He was quite responsive when he needed my signature.

But the ICGA is making the investigation, not you. You resigned.

btw your email above that you sent to mark, fabien, SMK, zach etc - didn't you write in the email that you would not make it public?

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote:

BB+ wrote: by BB+ » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:34 pm
With the ICGA Investigation for Rybka winding down, it looks like Loop 2007 will be next on the agendum. I attach a preliminary version of an annotation of its evaluation function. The differences to Fruit 2.1 are few, and some might be in a Toga version (such as the Tempo bonus). Unlike some other derivatives, it seems that Reul did not even bother to change the numerology.

Any news to mention Mark ?

Adam's similarity report is showing a 84% similarity between Loop 2007 and Fruit 2.2.1 which was closed source. This somehow indicates that Fabien gave Reul the 2.2.1 sources. And if this is the case then the ICGA should first investigate what kind of deal Reul and Fabien made. So far my simple yes or no question to Fabien (did you gave Reul your 2.2.1 sources) was ignored. instead Fabien announced I shouldn't count on answering except for possibly a couple of lines for another two weeks.

I would hate to see another false ICGA verdict branding someone innocent as a fraud. Mind you, the evidence against Loop 2007 is clear but if the 2 gents made a kind business deal then that has the potential to set Reul free. You will have to know the details first. And Fabien's unwillingness to answer that simple question is not a good start.

I am happy to post my whole correspondence with Fabien which remained unanswered for 99%, 2 short evasive answers without addressing one topic.

Why should he answer you? He has answered questions from the ICGA about Loop.

He was quite responsive when he needed my signature.

But the ICGA is making the investigation, not you. You resigned.

ICGA arrogance.

btw your email above that you sent to mark, fabien, SMK, zach etc - didn't you write in the email that you would not make it public?

How can you possibly know? I have not sent you anything.

Happy Easter Harvey.

Rebel wrote: ICGA arrogance.

btw your email above that you sent to mark, fabien, SMK, zach etc - didn't you write in the email that you would not make it public?

How can you possibly know? I have not sent you anything.

Happy Easter Harvey.

I asked mark if he had received the email you had posted about. He was surprised you had published it as the email he received suggested you would not.

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote: ICGA arrogance.

btw your email above that you sent to mark, fabien, SMK, zach etc - didn't you write in the email that you would not make it public?

How can you possibly know? I have not sent you anything.

Happy Easter Harvey.

I asked mark if he had received the email you had posted about. He was surprised you had published it as the email he received suggested you would not.

No idea what you are talking about. If you mean this one: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=16618#p16618 then these are MY words only to Fabien. Do you have a problem with transparency?

This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Rebel wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Rebel wrote: ICGA arrogance.

btw your email above that you sent to mark, fabien, SMK, zach etc - didn't you write in the email that you would not make it public?

How can you possibly know? I have not sent you anything.

Happy Easter Harvey.

I asked mark if he had received the email you had posted about. He was surprised you had published it as the email he received suggested you would not.

No idea what you are talking about. If you mean this one: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=16618#p16618 then these are MY words only to Fabien. Do you have a problem with transparency?

I would think that if you say you are NOT going to do something, you would NOT do it. If you agree to NOT do something, you would NOT do it. For example, posting Wiki stuff? Sound familiar?

Harvey Williamson wrote:This one

In addition I have asked the first signers of the Fabien letter (Fabien, Zach, SMK and Mark Uniacke) 2 questions:

1. Did you know that "if (movetime >= 0.0)" was false ?

2. How much influence had "if (movetime >= 0.0)" in your decision making process.

Pending their answers.

Yes.

And ?

I like to know because Bob (suddenly) is downplaying the 0.0 importance. Suddenly because at Rybka forum he has held 0.0 numerous times against the VII camp that had no plausible explanation for the 2 character oddity for 7 months.