Author of NGplay_61 should give credit to tscp

[User923005]

I suggest the following:
1. Read and examine the entire contents of the full post.
2. Read and examine TSCP and NGPlay_61 yourself.

If those things are not enough to convince you then you are not as smart as I thought you were.

This is starting to sound like "one piece of evidence says nothing, but many things (that say nothing...) do...". Where did I hear that before. What fits the picture even better is the immediate personal attack ("you are not so smart as I thought you were") following it.

Whatever is the truth here, awarding any probative value to the order of some of the most common include files is just plain silly.

Let me rephrase my "you're not as smart as I thought you were..." bit.

My previous assessment of your intelligence was that you were extremely bright. I presented unassailable evidence to back my claims, along with instructions on how to complete the assessment in the off chance that you were not fully convinced yourself. If, after considering all of the evidence and examining the two bodies of code you remain unconvinced, then my initial assessment of your intelligence was in error.

Better?

[syzygy]

Sure, the author of the include header list was joking.
But I wasn't. Clearly you failed to read my posts in the thread or you failed to understand them.
I have made my point. If you failed to comprehend it, that is on you.

Yes, your point is the good old "if you criticise one part of the evidence, I will just call you stupid and say something about all the OTHER evidence".

[User923005]

Sure, the author of the include header list was joking.
But I wasn't. Clearly you failed to read my posts in the thread or you failed to understand them.
I have made my point. If you failed to comprehend it, that is on you.

Yes, your point is the good old "if you criticise one part of the evidence, I will just call you stupid and say something about all the OTHER evidence".

If I did that, then I would be in error.
I didn't.

[User923005]

If you look at the header listing in question, I did not say that the similar header set had any significance.
I said that the use of signal.h for a windows program was funny. Then I showed the code from both programs that uses the signal function.
Clearly, the original poster of the header lists was joking, and I was half joking when I answered him.
Is it clear now?

[User923005]

If you look at the header listing in question, I did not say that the similar header set had any significance.
I said that the use of signal.h for a windows program was funny. Then I showed the code from both programs that uses the signal function.
Clearly, the original poster of the header lists was joking, and I was half joking when I answered him.
Is it clear now?

And, may I remind you, the use of signal in the manner shown is utterly without purpose for a Windows Winboard/Xboard program (and if you go to his site he offers only a Windows binary together with book and the source code.)

[User923005]

If you look at the header listing in question, I did not say that the similar header set had any significance.
I said that the use of signal.h for a windows program was funny. Then I showed the code from both programs that uses the signal function.
Clearly, the original poster of the header lists was joking, and I was half joking when I answered him.
Is it clear now?

Allow me another illustration:
Suppose that instead of a header list the post had said the following fictional response:

Look! Both programs contain:
i = i++;
so it's obvious it's a clone!

I might have responded to that with:
Sure, you're right! Because anyone smart enough to write a chess program knows that modifying i twice without an intervening sequence point results in undefined behavior, so certainly it is clear evidence of copying an egregious error. We certainly would not expect to see a construct that faulty in very similar places in the code. {note that I highly doubt this particular construct is found in either program -- it's a what if...}

IOW, the author who showed the two header lists was poking fun. I picked out an obvious thing in the tiny snippet that he showed that (in fact) was clear evidence and then expounded on it.

Perhaps that illustration can show my meaning more clearly.

[User923005]

I have been something of a 'smart-alec' in some of my responses in this thread, perhaps a tone spurred on by this previous response:

Make it 3 with myself (author of DiscoCheck). I had a look at both codes, and I do not find any basis to this accusation.

"User923005", the ball is in your camp. Can you present some evidence ? Or is this just gratuitious spamming ?

Therefore, I apologize to all that I have offended.

BTW, the word is spelled "gratuitous"

[User923005]

The header file list is a very weak supporter of his assertion - but the rest of the code he posted in his assertion that NGplay_61 has code from TSCP, is quite compelling. Leaves no doubt in my mind that it drew heavily from TSCP, at some time.

If the header list did not contain signal.h it would be no evidence at all.
This is from the Xboard standard by Tim Mann:

"Engines that run on Unix need to be concerned with two Unix signals: SIGTERM and SIGINT. This applies both to engines that run under xboard and (the unusual case of) engines that WinBoard remotely runs on a Unix host using the -firstHost or -secondHost feature. It does not apply to engines that run on Windows, because Windows does not have Unix-style signals. Beginning with version 2, you can now turn off the use of either or both signals."

IOW, what in the world is this signal handling code doing in a program designed for Windows (and which is now obsolete anyway) and what in the world is this code doing being used in the exact same manner and place in both programs, which also happen to have a strangely similar structure in those places.

Again, a single piece of evidence, not enough on its own to be of much importance. But if you are familiar with TSCP, the similarities will be striking to you.

[zullil]

I have been something of a 'smart-alec' in some of my responses in this thread, perhaps a tone spurred on by this previous response:

Make it 3 with myself (author of DiscoCheck). I had a look at both codes, and I do not find any basis to this accusation.

"User923005", the ball is in your camp. Can you present some evidence ? Or is this just gratuitious spamming ?

Therefore, I apologize to all that I have offended.

BTW, the word is spelled "gratuitous"

We all make mistakes. Like

He also dies his hair yellow ...

[pedrox]

User923005, If you think that the developer of NGplay should give credits to TSCP programmer because you do not send an e-mail to Tom? and so we can know the opinion of him. It should not take too long to Tom, 10-15 minutes may be sufficient.

Perhaps you too could have contacted the developer of NGplay (his e-mail is on your website) and get their opinion.

Possibly with the 2 steps above you could have avoided open a thread in this forum and if you are wrong do damage a programmer free.