OpenChess

Hood wrote:

Uly wrote:

Hood wrote:I wonder if that thread is of topic at all.

All the content on that thread was unrelated to "Computer Chess Biggest Liar", so definitively off-topic.

You did not understand what i meant

It seems that you forgot that forum is not the place for the personal attacks. The net-etiquette is forbiding that.
It allows to argue with views, opinions but disallows to estimate or offend someone.

So it is allowed to call sth as not true but is disallowed to call someone a liar etc.

Rgds
Hood

A person who repeatedly and deliberately states falsehoods is "a liar". Sorry, but it's not an attack when it's a simple matter of fact and public record. Robert Houdart is a quintessential liar, Houdini a quintessential clone.

Jeremy

jeremy. what is the sense of calling robert houdart a liar ?

i could make a post and call conkie or skinner blackmailers.

it would be fact.

but why - if not in the storm of emotions in an argument or dialogue with this person - should i
post these facts ?

is robert houdart here ?
is anybody talking with him, he with you ?

no.

if this is the thread that finds out about HOUDINI, wouldn't it be enough to
demonstrate facts and let the insult be in the heads of the readers?

I guess we differ here: I don't consider "liar" an insult. In this case, it's an apt description. If I were to lie with the frequency, vehemence and self-righteousness of Robert Houdart, I'd expect to be termed a liar as well. I don't, however, but then again, I'm not trying to make a living by passing off someone else's work as my own -- that's certainly stressful.

But ok, point taken. There are delicate flowers reading this forum, so I'll stop there.

Jeremy

thorstenczub wrote:jeremy. what is the sense of calling robert houdart a liar ?

i could make a post and call conkie or skinner blackmailers.

it would be fact.

but why - if not in the storm of emotions in an argument or dialogue with this person - should i
post these facts ?

is robert houdart here ?
is anybody talking with him, he with you ?

no.

if this is the thread that finds out about HOUDINI, wouldn't it be enough to
demonstrate facts and let the insult be in the heads of the readers?

what i see is, and i don't talk about YOU now jeremy, that a group of people is misusing all these discussions and also the HUNTING of the cloners
to hide their own intentions for ATTACKING someone.

they behave like an internet gestapo .
IMO these people misuse computerchess and what computerchess is about in the same way like the cloners. even more: these people
need the cloners to feel better, to show their own superiority.
there seems to be a kind of sadistic happyness in their attacks/insults.

they enjoy all the chaos they create by stoning the cloners.

look, in medieval, there were often people killed in public.

there was a market place. and a criminal was punished, burned at stake,
crucified, hanged or whatever horrible stuff humans can invent to behave like sadists.

today we have television, internet and lots of stuff we can do in hobby time.

but stoning or witch hunting people, is still something certain kind of people
like to do or enjoy.

i see people throw stones, who appear mainly on stage when it is to HURT programmers/computerchess.

where were all these people with stones in their hands, when it came to
BUILD computerchess world ?

its much more complicate or difficult to MAKE a new chess program,
to build a new product then to destroy or attack somebody .


of course the programmers should protect themselves against
piracy.

against cloning of code.

but one should be careful HOW to behave. and WHOM to follow.

i know how difficult it is to make progress in a chess program. i know how difficult it is to participate in a tournament. i know how difficult it is to organize tournaments.

but all this cannot justify all means, all methods or all misbehaviour of some people or seem to enjoy when they can destroy communities.


in a society we have to treat even criminals in a fair human way.
if we punish them or use same methods like the criminal, we have no right or justification to condemn them.

e.g. how USA kidnapped or put people to guantanamo can never be justified. the way people in afghanistan were treated in those prisons etc.

a democratic society/community should not behave the same way/methods like the criminals do.

so if Mr Houdart did something wrong, its IMO ok to claim: he did this and that.
but the witch hunt some people here try to implement, with themselves as
holy inquisition, is nothing i do accept.

Perhaps it's all in the proper use of language then. We could say things like "Houdart is no longer a beautiful and unique snowflake. In fact, he is officially off my Christmas list." Although in fact I don't celebrate Christmas and don't even know the guy let alone live near enough to invite him anyway.

Perhaps that should be the open letter - people that have dropped Houdart from their Christmas lists.

Cheers,
Lar

thorstenczub wrote:so if Mr Houdart did something wrong, its IMO ok to claim: he did this and that.
but the witch hunt some people here try to implement, with themselves as
holy inquisition, is nothing i do accept.

Here it is again for the delicate:

Robert Houdart took Norm Schmidt's GPLd Robbolito, made a few changes and called it Houdini. He denies this, is now selling that (improved) clone for no small amount of money and so on and so forth, which is almost certainly not legal in Europe, where Robert Houdart lives. As a programmer who writes original code for a living, I find Houdart's acts repugnant, and I find his refusal to tell the truth about what's he's done even worse.

I also find the inability of this community to confront Houdart about his actions deeply troubling. From the "jealousy" argument, to the "100 Elo improvement makes everything better" argument, to the "public domain" argument, it all rationalizes what a normal person would term "fraud" or "theft". I can think of no other branch of creative (or engineering, or production) endeavor in which this sort of behavior is excused or supported.

We shouldn't use those words, though, because they're clear and accurate. They are frightening in their directness, perhaps. Instead, let's use fuzzy concepts like "ethics", since they're less offensive and durchaus more ignorable. We wouldn't want to offend anyone, after all.

Enough said. I look forward to more side-by-side comparisons from kingliveson, as he's able to provide them.

jb

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: Here it is again for the delicate:

Robert Houdart took Norm Schmidt's GPLd Robbolito, made a few changes and called it Houdini. He denies this, is now selling that (improved) clone for no small amount of money and so on and so forth, which is almost certainly not legal in Europe, where Robert Houdart lives. As a programmer who writes original code for a living, I find Houdart's acts repugnant, and I find his refusal to tell the truth about what's he's done even worse.

I also find the inability of this community to confront Houdart about his actions deeply troubling. From the "jealousy" argument, to the "100 Elo improvement makes everything better" argument, to the "public domain" argument, it all rationalizes what a normal person would term "fraud" or "theft". I can think of no other branch of creative (or engineering, or production) endeavor in which this sort of behavior is excused or supported.

We shouldn't use those words, though, because they're clear and accurate. They are frightening in their directness, perhaps. Instead, let's use fuzzy concepts like "ethics", since they're less offensive and durchaus more ignorable. We wouldn't want to offend anyone, after all.

Enough said. I look forward to more side-by-side comparisons from kingliveson, as he's able to provide them.

jb

Well said.

thorstenczub wrote:a democratic society/community should not behave the same way/methods like the criminals do.

so if Mr Houdart did something wrong, its IMO ok to claim: he did this and that.
but the witch hunt some people here try to implement, with themselves as
holy inquisition, is nothing i do accept.

In other words, your philosophies are: treat the symptoms but DON'T cure the disease. Focus on the smoke-screen problem generated but DON'T fix the source of the problem.

With such mindset, is it a wonder why simple, clear-cut problems don't get resolved? Is it a wonder when honest people attempting to correct the source of the matter are labeled "witch hunt"/ "lynch mob" /"internet gestapo" etc, ONLY serves to encourage those perpetuating dishonesty & THIS problem to continue? And we wonder "why" computer is such a mess today....

You acknowledge (or insinuate) that Robert Houdart did something wrong. Why not tell Robert Houdart to cease from the cause of this problem? Why not attack the SOURCE of THIS problem, instead focusing at those addressing the problem?

By the way, pointing out what someone did wrong does not equate to society "throwing stones". Nor should a society stand back and DO NOTHING to stop the "wrong" that is resented and causing problems, in the first place. Sort of like catching a thief robbing a store but no one should "throw stones" (judge, pointing-put who did it) or state as a matter-of-fact what the thief did....so that makes it "OK" for the thief to steal. By your philosophy, society can complain on the crimes they observed / know for a fact happened, all they want, but nothing gets to be resolved. And the crime continues...

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: We shouldn't use those words, though, because they're clear and accurate. They are frightening in their directness, perhaps. Instead, let's use fuzzy concepts like "ethics", since they're less offensive and durchaus more ignorable. We wouldn't want to offend anyone, after all.

Enough said. I look forward to more side-by-side comparisons from kingliveson, as he's able to provide them.

jb

you are right. the words are clear and accurate.

but computerchess is not alone about money. or programming.
there are customers. fans. tournaments. people who enjoy watching computers fight against each other.


its still mainly a hobby area.

@ thorstenczub,

Your analyses are rather peculiar. Robert Houdart lied, was caught lying, continues to lie, and you say he should not be called a liar; what will it take then?! Lying is more a provocation in itself than being called a liar when you're indeed lying and known to be lying, yet persist. So I'm sorry -- I will not join the choir in chorus and sing his praise.

The computer chess community must not embrace such blatant disrespect from one of its members, and should discourage the kind of behavior by admonishing Mr. Houdart. There is still time for redemption.