PST of Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1.0 Beta

[wgarvin]

Whether this copying of the PST schema, by itself, would be enough to make the program non-original or not (in the Rule 2 sense) is a difficult question and I think your efforts have helped to argue that the answer should be "no".

Thank you.

Then it would not be a real problem to modify the Zach and BB documents accordingly.

But I understand you are not Zach nor BB.

I'm sorry, you seem to have mis-interpreted my post. (Quite deliberately, I suspect). There's nothing wrong with the documents. I was addressing a hypothetical case where the PSTs were the only evidence of copying, in other words, a very different situation from this one.

[hyatt]

That was quite clear. This has now progressed to a Clintonesque "depends on what 'is' means. Or depends on what ALL means. Or depends on what "by itself" means.

We've long since left the technical issues and gone into fantasyland...

[Rebel]

I'm sorry, you seem to have mis-interpreted my post. (Quite deliberately, I suspect).

Thanks for the new insult.

There's nothing wrong with the documents. I was addressing a hypothetical case where the PSTs were the only evidence of copying, in other words, a very different situation from this one.

But you said more,

If we ever do have an accusation against an engine and a compatible PST schema is the only evidence of non-originality that can be found, then my guess is that it would not be enough to decide that the program violated Rule 2. Unless every table entry was copied verbatim or something (and maybe not even then? Fortunately such a grey-area case has not come up yet).

Which implies a document change according to the new insight.

Look, this is not a normal discussion without consequences. This is a discussion about REAL LIFE consequences. Someones career is seriously damaged and if there are errors I want them see corrected, rephrased, whatever your conscience tells you. The least I expect from scientists.

[hyatt]

Ed, you are taking the most ridiculous position I have ever seen anyone take. The ICGA report needs no changes, because we did not JUST look at PST data. Get serious for a change and stop the nonsense.

[wgarvin]

If we ever do have an accusation against an engine and a compatible PST schema is the only evidence of non-originality that can be found, then my guess is that it would not be enough to decide that the program violated Rule 2. Unless every table entry was copied verbatim or something (and maybe not even then? Fortunately such a grey-area case has not come up yet).

Which implies a document change according to the new insight.

No it doesn't. Thats just you putting words in my mouth. Believe whatever you want, but please don't twist my words to try and mean the opposite of what I said.

Look, this is not a normal discussion without consequences. This is a discussion about REAL LIFE consequences. Someones career is seriously damaged and if there are errors I want them see corrected, rephrased, whatever your conscience tells you. The least I expect from scientists.

If by 'someone' you are referring to Vas, he has no one but himself to blame. He had a chance, several chances in fact, to defend himself and his good name. Instead, he ignored them and now he has to live with the outcome. I don't even see Vas complaining about it -- just a bunch of people who've somehow concluded that he was treated unfairly and therefore must be innocent, and now latch onto any theory (no matter how outlandish) that support that stance.

If you want to debate the case of Rybka, maybe we should forget about PSTs and move on to the other evidence? Because this PST 'independent invention' theory doesn't pass the laugh test for the Rybka case.

[Rebel]

I'm sorry, you seem to have mis-interpreted my post. (Quite deliberately, I suspect).

After rereading you are right about the first sentence, I must have missed the sarcasm, apologies.

[hyatt]

You really will try ANYTHING here, won't you.

I see no sarcasm at all. I've read hundreds of his posts and exchanged comments many times. You see that which is simply not there. Or you "claim" to see that which is not there...

[Rebel]

You really will try ANYTHING here, won't you.

I see no sarcasm at all. I've read hundreds of his posts and exchanged comments many times. You see that which is simply not there. Or you "claim" to see that which is not there...

At least I don't play dirty.

Something else and I say it one time only, you must have noticed by now I am not answering you. When I come here I do that to talk to honest people like BB, Zach, Wiley without all the noise of Rybka forum. Unlike you, I fight for the truth, you fight to win whatever the truth. I hate that.

[hyatt]

You "fight for the truth?" By telling lies? Changing the meanings of well-known words? By making up any possible explanation to justify Vas' actions, regardless of how implausible those explanations are? By accusing others of actions they didn't do. By claiming they wrote something that they immediately said they did not say? And you talk about "truth"???



I don't really care whether you reply to me or not, since to date hardly any of your replies have been meaningful anyway...

[lmader]

At least I don't play dirty.

Really? Aren't you the one who came after Bob Hyatt claiming that he stole code from Fruit? Which you had to know was beyond specious.

I don't know what has gotten into you, Ed, but your discussions about a lot of the Rybka issues have become irrational. In my eyes it has damaged your credibility. I only say this because you deserve respect based on your successes as a chess programmer, and it seems like a shame to see that respect being undermined and damaged by your own behavior.