OpenChess

Hello Mark,

Assuming you have seen the Chessvibes article part-1 and part-2 I have one specific question about the LOOP case as addressed in part-2.

I recently had a long conversation with Jaap van den Herik and he told me you in Japan (WCCC august 2013) during the programmer meeting have stated the evidence against Loop is not so clear.

Can you explain what changed your mind?

Mark, here are Jaap's words, any comment?

Ed

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

dear ed, i can imagine that it bothers you. I may admit that it bothers me too. you know that i eliminated the program List from the tournament in graz. thereafter we ( ICGA board) had a long discussion and many things happened. The result was that reul was given the opportunity to return. then even more things happened, he came to me to ask me for the possibility of being his supervisor which i did. I spoke in Yokohama with mark watkins and gave him the opportunity to tell his story to the assembled chess porgrammers. Mark did so and informed us on the state of affairs. from his point of view it was not as clear as you stated but there were pointers. His material was not cross checked since the panel members, competent to perform this task had lost interest in doing so. therfore the progress of the investigation was calmed down to almost being stopped.

.....

therefore, i admit i was interested in true facts and i spoke to mark watkins. amir ban went into discussion with mark, and a few other people from the audience too. the oral formulation of a kind of conclusion was that there is not a convincing proof, moreover there was a discussion to what extent .... . in brief, it was not clear whether the monks were equal, they might be similar, but the weighing of the proportional part was too difficult for the "audience judges".

as seen from your side, i may understand that our perspectives on these clone topics are still different and that my arguments did not make the gap in our minds on this topic smaller. so be it. however, be convinced that my sympathy for your opinion is there but agreement is too great a request which i cannot fulfil

i wish you all the best and look forward to seeing you in future events and be convinced that i certainly will start a conversation with you

best regards,
jaap

Mark,

Your below post tells a different story, what am I missing?

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=12152#p12152

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Loop 2007 / Fruit 2.1
by BB+ » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:15 am

I made a cursory glance at Loop 2007 (the 64-bit version). It uses exactly the same PST as Fruit 2.1. The pawn eval uses the same scores. It shifts the mobility count as with Fruit (by 4,6,7,13) before multiplying, and then the arithmetic is the same (4 for N, 5 for B). I'm not that interested in going further.

If these messages are targeted at BB+, why do you spam everyone ?
Why don't you use PM instead ?

It is not about the "answers". It is all about the "notoriety", specifically.

lucasart wrote:If these messages are targeted at BB+, why do you spam everyone ? Why don't you use PM instead ?

I don't see how a question about chess programming possibly can be labelled as spam in the programmer part of the forum. To answer your second question, I have mailed Mark long before I repeated my question here.

hyatt wrote:It is not about the "answers".

Of course it is. If LOOP 2007 (ICGA vice worldchampion Amsterdam 2007) isn't a (99%) clone of Fabien's closed source Fruit 2.2.1 then (according to Mark) what the hell is Rybka 1.0 beta? That's the underlying logic if Jaap's words are true.

It is all about the "notoriety", specifically.

That too.

It has been 2 years and 4 months by now since Fabien filed the LOOP complaint. Nothing happened. Then we see Jaap's words. I can not believe Mark changed his mind, nor softened his stance on LOOP hence I ask publicly since a try via email did not work.

If you had not left the panel in a "huff" you would know exactly what is going on...

As a note, you complain if I discuss anything relative to the ICGA panel before a verdict is released. You complain if I DON'T discuss anything relative to the ICGA panel (in the case of loop) before the verdict is released. In short, you complain, period... You simply have to wait and see what happens.

I am aware you don't like my pesky question towards Mark, no need to defend him, Mark is a big boy, he doesn't need your help.