Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:47:01 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. > >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. Where was he given "weeks"? Nobody heard a thing until the middle of the event where he was summarily ejected. It is too late to "proof" anything _after_ that point. The damage is done. > >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. I'm not sure what that means. I've never looked at your source code, and have no idea what you do inside. I don't even know that it was ever on my machines, as most of the time you claimed to compile elsewhere... > >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. You can prevent root from seeing anything. Encrypt it. > >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. OK. That is definitely "suspicious". But "suspicious" is not "guilty". > >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. I'm not nearly so concerned with the "ban" as the "timing". Do it before. Or do it after. Just don't do it "during". It screwed up results. > >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.