Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:03:31 08/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2004 at 04:48:37, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On August 24, 2004 at 02:47:20, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>Frank, >>ich las deinen Artikel aufmerksam, in dem du viele Aspekte bringst, die echt >>bedenkenswert sind. Aber Frank, du kapierst im Moment einfach nicht was mit >>Priorität am wichtigsten ist; was also bereits 100% feststeht. Und was 100% >>bereits jetzt gegen Eugenio spricht. (Ich rede nur von ihm, weil ich immer >>dachte, dass er der Programmierer, während Tang der Buchautor ist. Sorry wenn >>das falsch ist.) Und das ist, dass Eugenio Code aus dem Crafty-chess-kernel, >>also dem Hauptteil, einfach rüberkopiert hat. Gert Isenberg ist diese Nacht >>gerade mit dem Versuch gescheitert, solche Vorgänge noch als für sich harmlos zu >>definieren. Übrigens beweist der Kopiervorgang, dass Eugenio (und Tang) den Code >>auch gar nicht verstanden haben, sonst hätten sie ihn gesäubert. Die Sache ist >>also unheilbar!!! Was deine Partner jetzt noch zu sagen haben, ist für den >>Vorgang an sich, also der unerlaubten Abkupferung, also des Betrugs, >>uninteressant. Hoffentlich kapierst du das jetzt möglichst schnell. >> >>English translation: >> >>I read your message with attention. You present many aspects that should be >>considered. But Frank, actually you dont get what is important with highest >>priority; what has been proven already with 100%. And what stands against >>Eugenio with 100%. (I speak only of Eugenio, because I thought that he's the >>programmer while Tang is just the book author. Sorry, if that is not true.) >>And that is that code from the chess kernel of Crafty was simply copied. Gert >>Isenberg failed tonight to show such a copying as for itself as harmless. > >Sorry Rolf, > >my name is Gerd. My attempt was not to show that copying or cloning is harmless. >Based on the assembly lines of NextMove i had some doubt and tried to pointed >out that there are other possible causes to produce same assembly in this range, >e.g. a movegen routine posted here in CCC or in other fora. >I agree that a NextMove routine has another quality then let say some bitscan or >popcount routines, which got posted here thousands of times. Gerd, I hope that you also read my message where I explained how you might think if really some bad intention were working against ElChinito. You know what I am split in two when I see a programmer defend a collegue but then must realise the worst possible case. In my eyes the knocker against your attempts was what Bob pointed out. That such a long code could NEVER be written by two persons and then leading still to the same assembler code. But copying such a long code with all the bugs etc. is certainly fraud. There is nothing that could cure it. It is not a court case where someone still should be heard. The scientifical proof is there. - A different question is what should happen with these programmers, but also here Bob did already mention that he had no interest in further investigation. If becoming commercial that would change things however IMO. - Finally I hope that you didn't see me in any driving role. I was just reporting anf to Frank I tried to say the obvious from an independent standpoint. Best to you, Gerd. > >Thanks, >Gerd > > >>BTW the copying does prove that Eugenio & Tang didn't understand that code >>because otherwise they would have cleaned it. So the whole case can't be cured >>anymore, it's incurable!!! What your partners now would have to say, is >>uninteresting for the event, the illegal copy. Hopefully you get this as quick >>as possible.
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.