Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:14:41 01/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2004 at 02:36:59, Thomas Mayer wrote: >One of the problem is that you can only be sure that someone uses part of >sources of another one when you have seen part of the code... So there is some >need for such a rule... Of course the shown evidence for the complain must be >strong enough - as I stated above, in the case of List it was... Only when >somebody is really stupid, like this Dennis Grafen was with Depp <9> you can >really prove things -> besides, it would have been not easy to really prove his >first Tiger-clone he has used at the Online Masters. The rules of the Online >Masters not even have a rule for such cases. Afaik. What would you have done if >Dennis had said that it is his original work ? Not doing anything because >innocence first ? The paragraphe stands in its full length without snips. Here we can see, what Mike S. meant and what Thomas M. apparently can't understand. What has this to do with Fritz R.? If language can do anything then it is this, we often can read between the concrete lines and get a meaning, a background music which is telling you more stories than its author wanted. This is no graphology nor super magic. I for one don't know "Dennis Grafen", I have no connections in my brain whatsoever about this name! Yes, this is possible. Hence I have no negative or positive feelings with the mentioned person. So I can concentrate on the text. And the text is indecent. "Only when someone is really stupid, like *this* [!]" is mean and allegatory. Did DG commit the crime of claiming that it was "his own work"? Still he is deminored by this *this*. DG must be the worst individual in the scene. At least this is how he's described here. With Mike S. I say that it would be healthier for our whole field if there were one DG and one Fritz R. who are innocent until PROVEN guilty instead what we have now. We have a scene where the programmers _all_ copied from the past inventions. This is for certain!! Nobody could claim that he had invented his program from scratch. But _nowhere_ there is a note what is taken from where. Professionals are _never_ doubted anyway. But now a newcomer can be treated like a cheater although - I repeat the undeniable truth - _all_ programmers based their programs on past inventions! This disproportionality in attention cries to Heavens. Now we have professionals who are more or less always unsuccessful and _always_ behind the best professionals. And then comes this newcomer Fritz R. and although not proving that he's superior to the best, still stands above progs like SJENG or DIEP. Above QUARK anyways. Now this is the scandal! This cannot exist! An unknown and free program! The same "scandal" was the existence of RUFFIAN. Also RUFFIAN was better than SJENG, DIEP or QUARK. But here early suspicion collapsed in pieces of nothing. This whole fixed scheme stinks to Heaven! Someone who is better than DIEP, SJENG or QUARK must be tested on doping. Without the exact source code everybody is suspicious at least. What a violation of the known decent innocent until proven guilty! Thomas, I am very thankful for 90% of what you wrote here because this is exactly what I wanted to know. Also some details about the procedere in case of looking at the source code. 90% ok. But the 10% is what you didn't take from Mike S. At first the known rule and then the inexistent practice plus Law in ICGA. I rely on what Mike wrote. There is no clarity in advance! Everybody could be the next victim of suspicions. In reality however this will never be someone of the better professionals. This is an impossible practice. Bob Hyatt made the neccessary comments. But as it seems nobody listens or wants to listen. >It was neither weak nor pseudo ! For programmers it was enough to get >suspicious. But it was so weak that the one who brought up these suspicions is still anonymously hiding. Why? If the case is so clear? > >Of course it is unsure what a professional would do in such a situation - well, >so far it did not happen... (Maybe I am wrong and Bob can tell us some story's >from history) Thomas, this is indecent. And I tell you why. Because Bob already made things clear enough but you and the ICGA won't listen. Here I tend to agree with Frank Q. who wrote here [only in German unfortunately] the surprising possibility to simply ignore the whole ICGA lame excuses and practices and create new organisations and events! Otherwise you won't get rid of the sticky interrelations between the business, the rules and the leading people of the ICGA, something Thorsten C. is telling us since years and decades. > >> And then eventually, you'll have to trust someone you don't really know and >> show your code. > >As I said -> this will not be handled like you think... I described it above how >it may be handled. > >Greets, Thomas But you are unaware of what I told you, namely that you are in extreme stress during examinations and this alone could explaine and excuse some communications. But wht if Fritz R. simply is going away from ICGA. BTW like Bob Hyatt too!? Would all this known stuff then also speak for the guilt of Fritz?? When will you begin to include ethical concepts into your engineering modes? Following your reasoning Frank Q. with his product selling of RUFFIAN then also would be most suspicious. Because what has he to hide if he doesn't play the usual game of the known chains?! You yourself are sailing with the big winds and don't realise that you are driven. Although you could understand all what I have written here. You must only take a little step back out of the experiences you had during the Graz event and which cloud a bit your perception. This is no fault of you in particular. This is normal. But this little step back and then think about the whole for some moments. And then ask also how you would feel as Fritz R. What do you know, Thomas, he could be a DG, but he could also be a new Richard Lang. How do you know? Is this too hard to bare for you, V. and JC? Rolf P.S. For the English readers I must add that this message is based on many German spoken messages in the past couple of days here in CCC. In special from Mike S., CL=Christian Liebert, TC, Frank Q., Thomas M., Andreas A. and myself.
This page took 0.01 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.