Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 05:36:34 12/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2003 at 04:10:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 03, 2003 at 03:23:44, Uri Blass wrote: > >You and a lot of people at CCC are missing the point. > >If we must proof something, we can be busy 30 years without result. > >Disproving for an author in general takes no more than 2 minutes. > >If such author refuses to cooperate, saying loudly he distrusts everyone on the >planet especially professor Jaap v/d Herik (the only european professor with 2 >professor titles and leading a big department; imagine what happens to >netherlands if he is not trustable) and also refusing to proof 2 weeks after the >event Dr Ernst A Heinz will come to him and he can show it at his laptop to Dr >Ernst A Heinz, then the ICGA can take only 1 action and the author should be >banned forever. I think that this had been a generous offer by ICGA. Learning more and more about this, I think that the ICGA had had no other choice but to demand for clarification. I am sorry for having posted to much nonsense already about this in my 1st frust about the decision. Uli > >The only possible thing with regards to source code is proving you are original. >This is a 2 minute procedure in some cases. > >Proof that it is a crafty clone is not needed anyhow, he has to show he is an >original engine and nothing more. > >Otherwise we get computer-go world scenes here where the winner of the world >championships was a reversed engineered commercial program, which has lead to >big courtcases and accusations world wide, and i am very sure that every serious >programmer wants to avoid that. > >So the ICGA using the principle that programmers must proof they have an >original engine is a very correct way to do things. > >If they would NOT do it, just imagine the number of clones. You can show up with >shredder for example, put R to 2 and load it in Arena or wherever. What time do >you guess it will take to proof that it is shredder when it just plays 1 move >different, say Be2 instead of O-O? > >Furhter we change a few tables inside that executable of shredder so it won't be >even closely playing everywhere the same move to it, i hope you realize how easy >that is. This is a 2 minute thing for a good hacker. > >So now i hope you shut up about proving it is crafty. > >The guy was given weeks of time to proof he had an original engine. He failed to >do so, so it is banned till 2006 from ICGA, as simple as that. > >That he was extremely rude towards the ICGA and professor Jaap v/d Herik >especially, is not even relevant for that. > >Also distrusting his own openingsbook creator with his source code, it's >incredible. > >Even Hyatt has had my source code on his machine, many have. > >At the national supercomputer there is at least 30 persons with root access and >at SGI there is another 10 persons at least who have seen DIEP's source code. > >If my openingsbook creator would request me to ship the source code to proof >something somewhere, i would blindfolded do it. Without hesitation. > >The List author doesn't even want to show it at his own laptop or own computer >or own whatever, at a mathcongress to Dr Ernst A Heinz, where he has to show up >in 2 weeks anyway. Of course in the sure know that Heinz is not a beginner and >has had his own bitboard program. > >So even Reuls paranoia source code excuse is no longer valid. > >What must the ICGA do in such a case then? > >Ban him of course. > >If they wouldn't, next year 100 shredder clones would show up. > >>On December 03, 2003 at 02:35:43, Tony Werten wrote: >> >>>Personnaly, I think this mail does make the accusation valid. >>> >>>Together with the the refusal of the author to show his code, I would have made >>>the same decision as the organisation did, and have given the same reason for >>>disqualification. >>> >>>Tony >> >>I think that we needs more than it. >>I see a lot of claims without a proof. >> >>We talk about old version of list that is freeware so we need instructions for >>everybody how to generate a proof that the claims are correct. >> >>Claiming that a program has the same holes in evaluation is not enough and we >>need to see examples. >> >>Note that attacking list is attacking Dann Corbit indirectly because if the >>accusation against list can be proved then it mean that Dann is blind in the >>best case and lied about list in the worst case. >> >>I want to believe that the accusations are wrong because I prefer to believe >>Dann and not somebody who hides and even does not mention his name. >> >>I think that even if the accusation are right it was wrong to throw list in the >>middle of the tournament and it should be punished before the tournament or >>after it. >> >>Uri
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.