Rebel wrote:
The PM is interesting for the following reasons,
1. Is basically telling me to shut up.
Was basically telling you to make
serious suggestions, and not indulge in things closer to conspiracy theories, with little or no supporting evidence. If you interpret that as "shut up", so be it. As Julien Marcel put it on TalkChess, the principal manner in which any movement will occur is by rational and convincing argument, not by: proposing X, then saying that it didn't matter anyway,
rinse-lather-repeat -- in this genre, Adam Hair [sorry to drag him into this]
termed this as "spurious alternative positions" of you (and ChrisW).
One reason why I've answered almost everything you raised so far (and as promptly as feasible) is that I have (or had) great respect for you as a doyen of computer chess. REBEL was indeed my favourite program back in my college days. But now recently I have concluded that my efforts in enumerating specific evidence are simply squandered, as it is not even clear that you even read them. I could have posted something in Swahili, yet I think your "form letter" response:
Thank you for clarification. To say it in a few words, you basically discovered that comparing the eval of 2 good chess programs contain about the same amount of chess knowledge and its implementation look similar. I could have told you that from the beginning -- would still seem to fit.
2. Raises questions, such as why that urgent need to reply to my (or anyone else for that matter) postings? Since when Is that an obligation on the Internet?
I happened to have some time to spare, as earlier in the morning I was at the US Consulate for a passport issue (then got my haircut), which freed up a chunk of time. I figured you might prefer an answer sooner, rather than later -- I conclude that my 3 hours was not well-spent. You yourself: said it was an
atomic bomb, noted that I
didn't comment on the issue
[
I am so sorry for all your work. [...] For me (today) the whole issue stands or falls with the part you did not comment...], said you
weren't interested in other things now, etc. I thought, at the very least, that it would be courteous of me to respond in an informed manner as quickly as possible.
As I proposed in a previous PM (when you asked me to join the Rybka Forum discussions):
I will, however, be happy to answer any technical questions about the ICGA process or its findings -- can you condemn me for vigilance in such duty? [NB: I hereby retract any inherent or implied commitment therein]. If I'm too fast, you complain -- if I'm too slow, you complain. I reiterate that I took your previous response to my efforts as a quite dismissive slap-in-the-face (my next-door Dutch colleague informs me that denoting it a
kaakslag would be an over-statement).
Did the ICGA compensate you for your work ?
No. If they were (say) to offer me an Honorary Membership, I would refuse. To get a sense of my "ethical duties" on a related question, Fabien offered to put me up for the night in Lille when I visited -- as there is some chance I will be providing "expert opinions" for his legal action with the FSF, I declined this, as being a possible conflict of interest [otherwise, I likely would have taken him up on the offer -- nor did I let him pay for lunch/dinner]. As Bob mentioned in a different thread, academics have this stuff drilled into them periodically [though they do, of course, often have lapses like anyone else]. Furthermore, I don't quite think that "Extracurricular duties, related to profession: Computer Chess Fraud Investigator, International Computer Games Association" will exactly be something that I will put on my CV.
If you wish to make the issue about persons (me, Levy, Hyatt, Harvey, Ken Thompson...) and impugn motives therein, rather than having the issue be Rybka/Fruit, then say so -- but then don't obscure this among impertinent queries concerning the R/F evidence. Perhaps I should inquire if you and ChrisW are being compensated by VR to "stir up trouble"?