OpenChess

Be interesting to see how all this turns out.

Best,
Gerold.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: Most interesting to me is that people like Tord (see http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=467224) and Don have changed their views on this.

Jeremy

I actually hadn't seen that post by Tord before -- this shows that it is not personal. People saw evidence when it was finally presented and reacted accordingly.

Hello to All,


If my post was so irrelevant, why someone asked to have it deleted, censored for completely false reasons?!!! When at Open-chess.org a person's post was censored because he used the word "pathetic" against someone else?! NEVER!!!
I reposted my post above and it is, [b][i][u]from my point of view[/u][/i][/b], very relevant!! Even and [u][b]especially[/b][/u] the parts that I repeat here from other posts!

Moreover, when I say:
"[color=#FF0000][b][u]WHEN SOMEONE GIVES THE SOURCE CODE OF HIS CHESS ENGINE PROGRAM, HE IS SURELY READY TO HAVE EVERY SINGLE LINE OF HIS SOURCE CODE USED IN OTHER CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS. HE KNOWS THAT VERY WELL!![/u][/b][/color]"
[color=#0000FF][b][i]Why none of you has commented on this matter?!!! Well, I touch the issue too close?!!!! Is it not relevant enough for you?!!![/i][/b][/color]

[color=#0000FF][b][i]Sorry to break it to you (those who wrongly complain about my posts) but when I repeat a point, it is [u]always[/u] very relevant and very appropriate.[/i][/b][/color] Moreover, no one reads the previous posts of someone except those who have the intent of finding faults against someone. Therefore, to repeat ideas already expressed in other past posts is perfectly justified and very appropriate.

[color=#FF0000][b]I never ever thought that I would be censored for such bogus reasons on a forum whose name has the word "Open" in it!![/b][/color]

I find this behaviour of attacking me just after asking to delete my post for completely bogus reasons to be totally inadmissible!


Best Regards to All
MichaelIsGreat

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

kingliveson wrote:Some notable names in computer chess:

Georgy Adelson-Velsky
Larry Atkin
D. F. Beal
Hans Berliner
Mikhail Botvinnik
Don Dailey
Robert Hyatt
Alexander Kronrod
Fabien Letouzey
Vasik Rajlich*
Claude Shannon
David Slate

IM Vasik Rajlich is a talented individual who set the bar quite high for computer chess, but will always have an asterisk next to his name. It is very telling when Don Dailey, one of Vasik’s most vocal supporters has signed unto the open letter due to evidence he believes show Rybka (version 1.0) to be a Fruit derivative or at least incorporated significant parts.

The issue could have been resolved without it coming to a point that might prove to be embarrassing and leave a stain in his legacy -- Mr. Rajlich had 5 years. It should also serve as a lesson to anyone who thinks he or she can get away with insincerity. You will forever ruin your name and reputation.

To digress a bit, there are those who felt Vasik’s reaction to Ippolit overstepped his bounds given his own beginnings, and it helped further flaming debate into Rybka/Fruit derivative allegations.

Most interesting to me is that people like Tord (see http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=467224) and Don have changed their views on this.

Jeremy

Thanks for the link Jeremy. I haven't seem that one either.

Best,
Gerold.
P.S. Thanks for your forum and keep up the good work.

What I find interesting is that when more evidence came out against Rybka allegedly being a Fruit derivative, the complaint was that it was published by an anonymous individual. But now this same person has signed his name unto the technical document, and the complaint today is that well..."analysis and conclusions of an unknown." The content and merit of the evidence are what matters.

kingliveson wrote:What I find interesting is that when more evidence came out against Rybka allegedly being a Fruit derivative, the complaint was that it was published by an anonymous individual. But now this same person has signed his name unto the technical document, and the complaint today is that well..."analysis and conclusions of an unknown." The content and merit of the evidence are what matters.

My thoughts exactly. I think it was a fair point while BB was unknown. But now the name is on the doccument I have no issues with its authenticity. BB is now on the ICGA Panel and I have no doubts about his credibility.

Harvey Williamson wrote: My thoughts exactly. I think it was a fair point while BB was unknown. But now the name is on the doccument I have no issues with its authenticity. BB is now on the ICGA Panel and I have no doubts about his credibility.

Who of those on the list is he, exactly?

Best,
Martin

Martin Thoresen wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote: My thoughts exactly. I think it was a fair point while BB was unknown. But now the name is on the doccument I have no issues with its authenticity. BB is now on the ICGA Panel and I have no doubts about his credibility.

Who of those on the list is he, exactly?

Best,
Martin

read the doccument he has signed it.

This comment not aimed at you Martin but it seems many posters have not even bothered to read the evidence that is available before posting.

Martin Thoresen wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote: My thoughts exactly. I think it was a fair point while BB was unknown. But now the name is on the doccument I have no issues with its authenticity. BB is now on the ICGA Panel and I have no doubts about his credibility.

Who of those on the list is he, exactly?

Best,
Martin

He's not a signatory -- he's on the secretariat of the ICGA tribunal. BB+ is Mark Watkins.

Ah yes, thanks. Interesting.

edit: Harvey, for some reason I missed the link to that document the first time I read through the article.