What do you folks make of this ?

[hyatt]

What new lie? You want to claim you didn't say something to the effect that "if I knew about the >= vs > mistake, I would not have signed, the 0.0 was the thing that convinced me."

Will you stop misremembering 9 months of discussion as if signed the Fabien because of 0.0 alone ?

When Fabien contacted me for my signature I had a discussion with Mark and Fabien first because at that time I was hovering between VII and VIG. In that discussion 0.0 by Fabien was emphasized as evidence in a court case. Eventually I gave my permission.

Hi Fabien,

Okay, you can put my name under the document. Provided I receive a copy of the email to David so I can elaborate my position to David, just in case I feel the need.

I think the evidence speaks volumes nevertheless my concern is the major danger of a tunnel-vision that is always present in cases with zillions of variables such as this one. This still keeps me a bit worried, the 10% I wrote you about.

But then again the evidence is pretty overwhelming and VR can always escape by appointing 1 or 2 experts that he trust, send them the Rybka 1.0 beta source code for a comparison to disembarrass himself from the (upcoming) shame.

As for me the most striking trace he left is the conversion of the time-control from float to integer leaving "0.0".

So I hope the ICGA will take away all his WC titles until he will have done his GPL duties.

Ed
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you have a problem with truth finding Bob ?

If not, then don't resort making false accusations.

Thanks so much.

I believe you said EXACTLY what I said you had said. "0.0" was THE point that caused you to accuse him of copying. Now you want to dismiss 0.0 with lots of implausible arguments. I pointed out the ICGA report didn't even MENTION 0.0 in the first place. Yet you have stated that you would not sign the letter today because you now believe the 0.0 is not relevant.

I've not made up ANYTHING. You simply do a poor job of reviewing all that had been made available at the time, and let the "0.0" sway your decision. And now you regret doing so. That's YOUR problem, because there is a LOT of other evidence around. Of course, Rybka 1.6.1 is irrelevant because it can't be hand-waved away, so the plan becomes "That was not one of the versions that participated in the ICGA event so I can just stick my head in the sand whenever that gets mentioned."

[hyatt]

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.

1. It is not "false". the >= should be >. The 0.0 is still present and accounted for.

2. I didn't think about it at all, I was looking at all the blocks of code we had exposed that matched. Some non-bitboard code is a perfect match. The bitboard code takes a bit of analysis to expose the match...

It didn't play a factor in my decision at all. There was too much other evidence, aka 1.6.1 and the stuff in 1.0 beta that showed what Vas was REALLY doing..

[lmader]

Isn't the point here that there is an integer comparison being made to a floating point constant, in the movetime logic? And that this floating point constant is in the same movetime logic in Fruit? The comparison operator changed but this still looks fishy. Perhaps it's not important to enough to give much weight, but it is there, right?

[hyatt]

Isn't the point here that there is an integer comparison being made to a floating point constant, in the movetime logic? And that this floating point constant is in the same movetime logic in Fruit? The comparison operator changed but this still looks fishy. Perhaps it's not important to enough to give much weight, but it is there, right?

Correct. But some are looking for ANY possible explanation to get away from copying. And they choose to ignore "the elephant in the room named Crafty 1.6.1" which has no possible explanation other than blatant copying.

[lmader]

Isn't the point here that there is an integer comparison being made to a floating point constant, in the movetime logic? And that this floating point constant is in the same movetime logic in Fruit? The comparison operator changed but this still looks fishy. Perhaps it's not important to enough to give much weight, but it is there, right?

Correct. But some are looking for ANY possible explanation to get away from copying. And they choose to ignore "the elephant in the room named Crafty 1.6.1" which has no possible explanation other than blatant copying.

Yep.

I think it is worthwhile to emphasize to those that feel that this piece of evidence has been discredited that if this was ever a smoking gun, or a point of any importance, its status hasn't changed just because the comparison operator changed. It still looks suspicious because it is extremely odd for a floating point constant, the same floating point constant as seen in Fruit, to appear in Rybka's integer based code.

[Rebel]

What new lie? You want to claim you didn't say something to the effect that "if I knew about the >= vs > mistake, I would not have signed, the 0.0 was the thing that convinced me."

Will you stop misremembering 9 months of discussion as if signed the Fabien because of 0.0 alone ?

When Fabien contacted me for my signature I had a discussion with Mark and Fabien first because at that time I was hovering between VII and VIG. In that discussion 0.0 by Fabien was emphasized as evidence in a court case. Eventually I gave my permission.

Hi Fabien,

Okay, you can put my name under the document. Provided I receive a copy of the email to David so I can elaborate my position to David, just in case I feel the need.

I think the evidence speaks volumes nevertheless my concern is the major danger of a tunnel-vision that is always present in cases with zillions of variables such as this one. This still keeps me a bit worried, the 10% I wrote you about.

But then again the evidence is pretty overwhelming and VR can always escape by appointing 1 or 2 experts that he trust, send them the Rybka 1.0 beta source code for a comparison to disembarrass himself from the (upcoming) shame.

As for me the most striking trace he left is the conversion of the time-control from float to integer leaving "0.0".

So I hope the ICGA will take away all his WC titles until he will have done his GPL duties.

Ed
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you have a problem with truth finding Bob ?

If not, then don't resort making false accusations.

Thanks so much.

I believe you said EXACTLY what I said you had said. "0.0" was THE point that caused you to accuse him of copying.

Now don't start lying again in your very first sentence. You said this:

since you claim that 0.0 was ALL that you considered when signing the Fabien letter?

Note you capitalized the word "all" yourself.

Scroll up a few posts.

The above quoted email from me to Fabien should make you think again, but no.

[Rebel]

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.

1. It is not "false". the >= should be >. The 0.0 is still present and accounted for.

It's just a typo. You can't proof 2 characters, only one. 0.0 | .0 | 0. | the compiler is happy with each one of them. Together with the >= mistake that makes 2 problems with the instruction and the logic and likeliness of the accusation goes up in smoke.

It's explained in great detail here:

http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm#C6

2. I didn't think about it at all, I was looking at all the blocks of code we had exposed that matched.

The time control code matched?

http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden.htm

1. Three decompile errors
2. Different code, different ordering.
3. Vas introducing 2 bugs in 10 lines of code ?

It might have worked at the time, not any longer.

[lmader]

It's just a typo. You can't proof 2 characters, only one. 0.0 | .0 | 0. | the compiler is happy with each one of them. Together with the >= mistake that makes 2 problems with the instruction and the logic and likeliness of the accusation goes up in smoke.

I think the possibility that this is a typo is being exaggerated.

First of all, I don't believe there is a programmer on the planet that would _ever_ intentionally write .0 or 0. when representing a floating point, or accidentally include a "." when typing an integer constant. In other words, I have _never_ typed, or seen others type, a float or an accidental int as 0. or .0 in over 20 years of C and C++ coding. So those two versions of the "typo" seem spurious to me.

Now it is possible to accidentally type a full floating point constant, the 0.0, when you meant to write an int, and vice versa. This does happen and can be the source of bugs. So yes, it is possible that this was an accidental mistake. But the fact that the constant is the same and used for the same thing (movetime) in both Fruit and Rybka is fishy. It is nothing more or less than that, just fishy. One shouldn't base a case on such a small thing. It's just YAFRT (Yet Another Fishy Rybka Thing) in the case.

Cheers.

[Rebel]

It's just a typo. You can't proof 2 characters, only one. 0.0 | .0 | 0. | the compiler is happy with each one of them. Together with the >= mistake that makes 2 problems with the instruction and the logic and likeliness of the accusation goes up in smoke.

I think the possibility that this is a typo is being exaggerated.

First of all, I don't believe there is a programmer on the planet that would _ever_ intentionally write .0 or 0. when representing a floating point, or accidentally include a "." when typing an integer constant. In other words, I have _never_ typed, or seen others type, a float or an accidental int as 0. or .0 in over 20 years of C and C++ coding. So those two versions of the "typo" seem spurious to me.

Now it is possible to accidentally type a full floating point constant, the 0.0, when you meant to write an int, and vice versa. This does happen and can be the source of bugs. So yes, it is possible that this was an accidental mistake. But the fact that the constant is the same and used for the same thing (movetime) in both Fruit and Rybka is fishy. It is nothing more or less than that, just fishy. One shouldn't base a case on such a small thing. It's just YAFRT (Yet Another Fishy Rybka Thing) in the case.

Cheers.

Assuming Vas wrote his own UCI time control (and I think the overall evidence is overwhelming) then at some point he has to code the "fixed time per second" UCI option which is if (movetime>0) following Rybka's way of initialization of movetime (0) contrary to Fruit (-1).

So one types: if (movetime

And here one can make 2 kind of typo's, look at your keyboard and notices:

1. The "." key and it's shift-part ">". Press them in a hurry twice and you may end up with ">.0" and 0.0 is born.



Second case after one has typed: if (movetime>

Look at the image and then press the "0 and ." key at the same time, the double strike typo we all make on a frequent base. You will end up either with:

0.

or

.0

And in both cases if (movetime>0.0) is born.

[hyatt]

Completely bogus. One does not leave the keyboard position and go over to the numeric keypad to type a single digit (0). That is simply way "out there" in plausible explanations. A touch-typist, which most are today, is quite at home hitting the 0 on the top row of keys, without having to look down. I do it every day... On a laptop such a thing would not even be considered for obvious reasons, as well...