Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:27:05 05/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2005 at 14:21:21, Alex Schmidt wrote: >>Why do you now insist in asking such questions to the author of the (actual) >>program that has been reveiled as a clone? > >Because the programmer still want to make the people believe the programm is not >a clone. So I asked him for comments to the evidences. What evidence? What Christopher Conkie brought up in http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?425099 - this isn't evidence IMO but I'm not an experienced computerchess engineer. You use your suppositions very losely. You write "he wants to make people believe" - this is in other words the accusation of fraud. I don't believe that you have have found anything in the above mentioned example by Conkie. Could you please explain how you can explain the differences in the deeper variations with their eval? As Vladimir has written "please look deeper...". I'm not at all defending someone as if I would believe in his innocence against the majority which is convinced of the guilt of this man. However I can count two and two together (hopefully like all here in CCC) and what I see is that the given example doesn't hold the water it should hold in your opinion. BTW I must say that after having read some of Vladimir's answers in his weak English I can discover the speech of someone who is not exactly spreading hot air or fog to confuse the readers but someone who's always arguing ringht onto the point of the messages of his opponents. Would surprise me if he would be something like a crook. But to your honor I must admit that I really dont know further data to have a deeper opinion on all that. I just talked about the here given material. > >>If this should be some justice debate to prepare something, why can't this happen via email? > >Yes, such things should be done by mail. The reason to publish the evidence was >that Vladimir stated he wants to sell his (IMHO illegal) program on his own. I >didn't decide this on my own, also Frank and most important Fabien wanted me to >publish it. BTW: You can see the reason on my site: > >"I don’t want anyone to earn money with the hard work of others, so now I have >to show some of the proves:" Perfectly moral and decent standpoint. > >>Again, why then turning this against a distant person, when the responsibles are >>nearer? I must also mention that I'm surprised that you give now (when it's too >>late) your material if this proof is such a trivial matter. In short: why do you >>speak for someone else and so retarded? > >You didn`t follow the history, right? Patriot 1.3.0 was sold, but so far there >are speculations, but no evidence, after my tests even no hint, that it could be >a clone. It is for sure no Fruit clone. > >Patriot 2.0 was discovered to be a clone, and the distributor did the best what >he can do: No more marketing for Patriot 2.0, taking Patriot 1.3.0 away from the >shop. Honestly, this is beyond my understanding. Why should a programmer make a new version and this time a clone while his former program wasn't a clone and still good enough to be sold by Frank?? You are right with the suspicion that I didn't follow the development of these programs. - The reason why I wrote my message is the impression that a possibly more or less innocent or harmless talent could be crucified here for reasons that are in their deteils not even sound, see above the Conkie example which you repeated. Also Pagé jumped on that train waggon and asked why there was that suspicious 2/3 factor in the evals. I don't see justifications for such a campaign. With all due respect to you who might have a lot of more data which could have been a proof for cloning. I could also see that the highest experts here kept their silence for good reasons. And I must tell you that I'm simply following the ethical principle that one must contradict a movement right at the beginning before it can extend its influence on people's minds. In the end it would lead to a so called hytery where no rational argument could be made - if NOW the experts remain silent. It would be a tragical fault if the highly motivated Frank would destroy his relations to such talents in the whole World only because superficial rumors led to suspicions of a cloning. That doesn't refutate the possibilities that we _all_ could be wrong in details. Even Bob is misleaden at times when he's speaking to longtime dead people. Nobody ever concluded that Bob must be a modern cloning Frankenstein... I hate this debate about clones. Why? Because most programmers with best status admit that they copied a lot of stuff from their predecessors. As long as such amateurs remain in the amateur scene I have all excuses for them if they are experimenting with all kind of material from open sources. Perhaps we can here see a point where people with marketing interests must be more careful to prevent that a talent like Vladimir could be completely burnt only because he experimented too much and with little care. To be exact I want to repeat. We must differentiate between a mmore or less legal and common practice in the sciene and the judicial consequences at the moment when a program becomes commercial. Here persons like Frank have a really high responsibility to prevent possible damages to the programmer and also himself. Thanks for your message. > >>I must add that I'm not interested in any details from the company that sold the >>discussed program. It makes no sense to push this topic into public. > >>The faults of the company are easy to be seen. IMO. > >Please take a closer look... > >Best, >Alex
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.