Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Open letter by Eugenio Castillo (ELChinito team) ... What you missed

Author: Rolf Tueschen

Date: 14:24:31 08/28/04

Go up one level in this thread


On August 28, 2004 at 16:03:29, Gerd Isenberg wrote:

>On August 28, 2004 at 15:21:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>On August 28, 2004 at 13:10:53, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>>
>>>On August 28, 2004 at 12:57:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 28, 2004 at 11:44:30, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 28, 2004 at 10:23:53, Frank Quisinsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eugenio sent us the following open letter.
>>>>>>The letter is public on Arena webpages (News-Ticker).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best
>>>>>>Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eugenio wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"I've used crafty source to implement my own program ElChinito.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My public and sincere apologize to Bob Hyatt not to mention that in ElChinito's
>>>>>>readme file and copyright notes and did not ask consequently for permission. I
>>>>>>will ensure that ElChinito is not longer public available for download and plays
>>>>>>any public tournaments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've inform ICGA and French Computer Chess Association about this issue to
>>>>>>accept their decision, and discalificate Chinito from the played events.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My apologize to Frank Q. for the damages caused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My apologize to any one of the tester and downloaders of Arena.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Eugenio Castillo."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My respect to Eugenio Castillo for his late apology.
>>>>>It seems that he had a hard time and a long fight to decide so.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was a severe offence of Eugenio, i understand that routines like NextMove
>>>>>have another quality than some cray like bitscan routines or moveInput.
>>>>>
>>>>>Eugenio obviously used Crafty framework as a toolbox for the bitboard
>>>>>infrastructure and parts of move generation and even minor parts of eval. He
>>>>>was, probably due his naivety, not fully aware of the cloning issue or did
>>>>>repress it in some way, after receiving no answer from Bob after some tries.
>>>>>Didn't Dann Corbit mention Eugenio mailed Bob about that issue, but Bob didn't
>>>>>receive for what reasons ever?
>>>>>
>>>>>It is difficult to quantify for me, but it seems that most of ElChinitos
>>>>>strength was not based on Crafty but on Eugenio's own search and most parts of
>>>>>it's evaluation.
>>>>>
>>>>>So i respect his decision to don't make ElChinito open source and i suggest to
>>>>>give ElChinito a second chance after some time, until Eugenio assures that no
>>>>>more parts of crafty are inside - IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gerd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This way you cant help a collegue! You do the same, already Frank Q did. You try
>>>>to blame those who were cheated. This is indecent.
>>>
>>>Was that really an insult from my side?
>>
>>Yes! I will show you here below.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I was a bit harsh, but i asked some questions and was only aware of the posted
>>>assembly at that time.
>>
>>Gert,

I must apologize. Age.

>
>
>Why do you always confuse my name?
>
>
>>in science talking about witchhunt is like crazy! You say you asked
>>questions. Refuted! Because if you are NOT experienced enough then ask questions
>>but dont insult with such ugly dirt! Gert, because you couldn't follow the
>>debate, that doesn't justify that you insinuate that some noble man might be
>>involved/interested in witchhunts. Idont know your profession but say you are an
>>engineer. Now you build bridges. And for a particular question you make a
>>qualified analysis where you showed that someone else was cheating with his
>>data. Would that be allowed if I then came and called you involved in
>>witchhunting just because I'm angry and I cant understand why suddenly someone
>>is attacking a friend of mine?
>>
>
>I'm not a scientist.
>Only thanks to Willy Brandt second education way Dipl.Informatiker FH.
>I replied to Paul after he mentioned witch hunting, that i had it in mind too.
>My first impression was "Mach meinen Kumpel nicht an!"

Ok. But already Paul hadn't mentioned it in a neutral manner but heavily
complained about Frank and THEN you came with a repetition. Was bad IMO.



>
>
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?383737
>>>
>>>I asked "Did i missed something?"
>>>I asked "BTW. Is it legal to disassembly others executables?"
>>
>>
>>Refuted. Dont play naive. If you
>>asked if you missed something that doesn't allow or justify your insult!
>>
>
>It was not my intention to insult.
>I admit that i asked questions in a biased way.

As I said witchhunt is insult in science.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>A guy who committed fraud stated that he had contacted Bob, Frank said, several
>>>>times, and who said that Bob didn't answer (!!), but Bob explained that he had
>>>>never received a request by Castillo.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you, Gerd, now want to put Bob and Castillo on equal levels.
>>>
>>>I simply believe both in that issue.
>>
>>
>>What a hoax!!! I cant believe it that you are so premature. Of course a man
>>commiting fraud is NOT in the same boat with Bob.
>
>There are a lot of people in this scene if have great respect for.
>One for sure is Bob.

Fortunately.



>
>
>>Ah, now I see a possible link
>>with you and Vincent. Fine loyalty for other computerchess collegues. But for a
>>multi time Wch you have no respect?
>>
>
>
>Sorry, what is with my link to Vincent?
>Yes, we whole chessprogrammers are secret conspirators.


Didn't you know that poor VD accused Bob for fraud? In a completely hilarious
manner.



>
>
>>
>>>What is the reason that Dann Corbit was involved?
>>
>>
>>I tell you. He was as confused as you were. He thought for a longer moment that
>>he could hope that Castillo could be whitewashed. He didn't answer me other than
>>saying that I didn't understand his message. But I understood it well. The whole
>>Bob story is of no value for the debate because Castillo committed the fraud if
>>Bob answered in time or NOT. Castillo was obliged to include a mention of Bob's
>>Crafty with or without Bob's permission. Man, do we have to debate now Adam &
>>Eve questions. It's incredible.
>>
>>As you could see even Bob's late Christian excuses for the programmer was
>>meaningless because it's NOT Bob who's deciding if it was fraud or not.
>
>
>And who decides?
>You, as the moral imperator of computerchess?

Fortunately NOT. I'm just the reporter. But here the scientifical proof was
convincing.




>
>
>>The
>>not-mention of Crafty is identical with fraud! Period.
>>No matter if Bob is angry or a Saint...
>>
>
>That matters a lot. He may know details you didn't.

Excusemy English, I said, that is not a matter if Bob is angry or not, the
question if it is fraud. Better to understand now? (Just BTW Gerd, I doubt that
Bob could know things I dont, because I'm a clairvoyant!  ggg)



>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I must honestly say that you can forget all about a rehabilitation in this case.
>>>>I do also feel much sorrow that Frank Q and also you insulted Paul H here in CCC
>>>>of something like witchhunt.
>>>
>>>My reply to Paul Hunter:
>>>
>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?383861
>>>
>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?383864
>>>
>>>"Thanks for clarifying this again.
>>>So the executable contained a symbol map.
>>>Yes, witch hunting really came in my mind too."
>>>...
>>>"My apologies to you."
>>
>>Yes, I saw that and it was a fair message. But now you continue with the message
>>to Quisinsky which is again the try to exculpate them. The following paragraphe
>>is perhaps not so known to you but my text doesn't imply that you didn't
>>apologize to Paul. It means, sorry that I have to tell you, but you asked for
>>it, that you should stay on the level of apologizing after that unbelievable
>>insult of withhunting. The same is for Quisinsky. It's morally odd to see you
>>two now in the attack position so short after your witchhunt allegation. Was
>>that understandable now? Please show some respect here. I think I could be both
>>your father and you simply dont want to listen although you made such a grave
>>mistake!
>>
>>Honestly Gert, I wouldn't have written anything at all if Quisinsky wouldn't
>>have behaved here as if he just had made a typo or such petitesse. This is an
>>outrage scandal for the whole computerchess family and that is no occasion of
>>making jokes or playing naive.
>>
>>Let me finally specify. Other than the above you didn't do anything wrong. I see
>>you desperate try to show solidarity with a collegue. That honors you, Gert. But
>>that here is such a scandal that we shouldn't take it lightly. Bob certainly has
>>a somewhat "verklärte" view on these things because he has seen so many
>>possibilities to cheat and he was himself unfairly attacked for alleged
>>cheating. But look, he didn't doubt the work by Paul H for a second.
>>
>
>If Bob has a misty view, what about your view?
>What do you suggest to do with Eugenio?

I'm no official. But honestly I were for strict punishment. For the sake of
computerchess. However ICGA according to Bob has already lost all credibility,
so Eugenio could well become the new financial chief of the ICGA group. What did
you have in mind? :)


>
>Gerd
>
>>
>>>
>>>>I mean you should apologize instead of publishing
>>>>such utter nonsense in your actual message. I mean is this scene so rotten dirty
>>>>that you cant feel what this is dirty in your message?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Gerd



This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.