Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:35:16 09/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2002 at 18:58:33, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On September 23, 2002 at 18:06:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 23, 2002 at 16:01:38, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>On September 23, 2002 at 15:36:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 23, 2002 at 14:43:23, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 23, 2002 at 14:19:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>2. A copy of a commercial engine, aided by a hex editor to change strings >>>>>> to disguise what has happened. >>>>> >>>>>The only commercial engine, that I am aware of, that supports UCI and WB is >>>>>Gandalf. AFAIK it is not available for Unix systems. Ruffian, when logged into >>>>>ICC shows an interface line with xboard. Unix versions are expected soon. >>>>> >>>>>>5. A completely new program, developed by a completely new author, sight- >>>>>> unseen by anybody until very recently. >>>>> >>>>>I think, point 5 is by far the most probable thing. >>>> >>>>We just have to agree to disagree. I believe it is the _least_ probable >>>>explanation. >>> >>>If you believe this, you believe, your point 2 is more probable. Have you any >>>explaination, how this can be, after reading my argument? >>> >>>Regards, >>>Dieter >> >>I don't know enough about windows. But I could _sure_ write a "wrapper" program >>for a unix application that talked one or the other, and make it appear to >>"talk" both... >> >>So I don't see that as an iron-clad refutation... >> >>Someone with more windows experience than me would have to say "this is >>impossible." In unix it clearly is not. > >Sorry for posting all of the context. Usually I avoid to do this, but sometimes, >it seems impossible. > >To Robert Hyatt - I cannot see anything concrete in your argument. What do you >mean be "that talked one or the other"? Who is one? Who is another Aw crap. Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. What I meant was "I could write a wrapper program that would take a program that could talk "uci" and make it talk to a winboard GUI, easily." IE this is what winboard does in a sense, "wraps" around an xboard/winboard engine and makes it "talk ICS"... > >Is it so difficult to say just once: "ok, I was wrong here"? Really seems to be >the case. Our very first discussion here on CCC was about random numbers. I >seriousily believe, that I know a lot more about this, than you. But it was no >problem for you, to teach me some lectures about pseudo random number generators >(I believe most of it was just wrong) Still, you allways try to have the last >word (with very doubious arguments, IMHO). You seem to have more time for such >discussions than me. So, sooner or later, after all your diversifications, I >must give up. I don't know how I can be "wrong" when I haven't taken a position. I'll leave that sort of fantasy to you since I wasn't involved. I didn't say that Ruffian _was_ a clone of an amateur program. I didn't say Ruffian _was_ a clone of a commercial program. I said this: I don't believe that a new, strong engine comes out of nowhere overnight. They take time to develop, debug, and tune. And they take lots of games to do those things. And there are generally interactions with other chess authors during the process. It is possible Ruffian is a totally new engine. It is possible it was written or partially written by a commercial programmer, anonymously. It is possible it is a clone of something. It is possible it is an illegal copy of something. I remain skeptical. And that is _not_ a point for debate. And it is not something I would say "I am wrong" about. Once the full story surfaces, I will certainly respond with whether my speculation was on or off-target. But at the moment, there is nothing I would claim to be wrong _or_ right about. > >It is very similar in this discussion. Also, I have sent you tells many times at >ICC. Very friendly ones, I think (and honestly meant very friendly). You never >answered. Yesterday, I asked about some clarification of crafty finger note 8 on >ICC by a mess to hyatt. Instead of answering, you prefered to delete my message. Do you _ever_ notice the "told hyatt who has been idle for 30 minutes" or whatever? I think you will discover that I respond _when_ I see a question. But I generally have my account logged on to catch channel 64 discussions when I am not around, and to log results from crafty/scrappy games as they complete. I am not watching most of the time. As a result, questions are not going to get answered. have you _ever_ sent me an email? If so have I _ever_ failed to answer? I doubt you can find anyone that says "Bob is a black hole and never answers questions or emails." Of course, you can make ridiculous statements and make ridiculous claims, based on a lack of attention to details on your part. But if you catch me when I am on, I answer. If I am idle, that doesn't mean I am watching but not typing, it means "I am not there." I wouldn't think that so hard to reason out without my help... > >After all this, can I take your comments seriously anymore? Should I really care? If you pay so little attention to details about "tells" on ICC, what difference would it make? > >To come back to the discussion of this threat. Do you seriously believe, that a >commercial engine, that is only available for Windows environement, can be >modified with a hex editior, and will run under Unix afterwards? Did I say it could? Nope. I haven't _seen_ a linux version. That is vaporware at the moment. If one shows up, then it shows that the author at least has source code, whether he wrote it himself, got it from someone else, or disassembled a commercial engine is another question. Don't put words/concepts into _my_ mouth. I can generally speak for myself and say what I mean... > >Regards, >Dieter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.