Rybka Chess Community Forum
So much for the pretty much unanimous agreement of the panel.
So, just 14 voted ? Almost all the articles in the press imply that all 34 people found him guilty. As they say, don't believe everything you read in the press !!
> So, just 14 voted ? Almost all the articles in the press imply that all 34 people found him guilty. As they say, don't believe everything you read in the press !!
Going by what Miguel posted in CCC:14 voted
Matt, in CTF, provided a link to it:
All you will probably never know who they were. But you could probably about guess a few of them.
> All you will probably never know who they were. But you could probably about guess a few of them.
Hopefully not all who have a "conflict of interest" as others put it.
If it is true that just 14 voted shouldnt be that much a surprise. Even on this site, and it is a Rybka site, there is a great divide and we do not have consensus, despite the efforts of a few radicals from both camps IME it seems that most here believe that some form of punishment was merited. However, there are a few that unfortunately believe that nothing should have been done and there are a few that agree 100% with the verdict. Apparently the ICGA was also in the same boat.
Yea reading the articles in the media you'd think the entire panel voted guilty. Also some of the articles in the media do not mention that most of the panel is made up of his direct competitors.
Like I said before, in my opinion this ICGA investigation and verdict would not last 5 minutes in a court of law.
The FSF however would probably succeed.
Because you are presumably an expert in both the ICGA investigative work and peer review...
How courts (be it Criminal or Civil) function.
Thanks for your "opinion".
> Thanks for your "opinion".
Oh... I am sorry...
I thought you would detect the sarcastic tone of my post thereby understanding what I really meant.
What I really meant was... your statement, "Like I said before, in my opinion this ICGA investigation and verdict would not last 5 minutes in a court of law.”
I find incredibly ignorant and naive as... when I think about how much work must have gone into the ICGA investigation of Rybka, and my knowledge of criminal and civil law.
But who knows... maybe you are right.
The amount of time spent has nothing to do with due legal process, which was completely flawed.
Of course it does not... what is your point?
It was a "games association" matter which was seems to be handled adequately for a GAMES association... invite highly qualified individuals who could make a legitimate decision of whether or not certain rules had been violated... report their findings and allow the board of directors to vote on the matter and determine how to handle the matter.
That Cuban dude was booted for a similar thing... trying to enter a work that wasn't his (2010?).... I didn't hear all y'all whining about him not being able to participate. And he didn't get a fraction of the scrutiny Rybka did. Some Spanish guy also when "they" were in Spain if I remember correctly.
Completely flawed my pinky toe... 30+ reviewers working for free for a GAME to make sure all was on the up and up.
What more do you want? Here in the U.S. you want Congressional Hearings? Titans of the Industry testifying for or agains this or that? Maybe the matter should be decided at The Hague or the United Nations?
I repeat: completely flawed. Any court would suffice. Now the plaintiffs were judge, jury and executioners and not one legal expert was part of the panel or consulted.
repeat however many times you wish
Court? For a game?
Is this how you solve a problem when you play a game with another person? Someone has a dispute and you seek legal counsel?
Isn't that kind of like having a roast turkey and refusing to cut it up until you consult a surgeon or coroner how to make what cuts and where with precisely what instruments?
You don't see how ridiculously silly the idea is of going to court over a dispute in the rules of a game? C'mon... let's use our thinking caps and determine a reasonable course of action.
You think this is perceived as a couple of guys quibbling over a game? Wake up. You know the stakes and impact are much higher than that.
I think it is a Game Association that bent over backwards (30+ very well credentialed individuals spending months of work) to come to the determination whether or not one of their participants had violated their entry agreement.
ICGA did not just take just an accusation from one person or 2 - 3 that didn't know anything about programming - specifically writing code for a chess engine... then make a "shotgun" decision.
Or wait an eternity for something that will probably never happen... this case finally winding its way thru some civil court system (although the prospect of FSF being involved greatly raises that possibility).
No... completely logical, mature, responsible (and a bit gutsy not to shy away from a case like this involving the current champion) to assemble a qualified team "in house"... investigate... document... present its findings to a board for the decision. Consulting a lawyer on legal ramifications would be a good idea but I bet David Levy "smart enough" to know whether or not that was necessary.
So... "there is not a wise man among us, not even one, who will be able to judge between us?" We have to take everything to and tie up the courts? The courts where you are, are not burdened with frivolous lawsuits? (sure are here) Oudheusa you sound like you live in the litigious U.S. where suing everyone for anything is our national pastime.
If/when Vas refuses to return trophies... prize money... then it is time to consider bringing in the hired guns (lawyers) to initiate proceedings / filing a complaint in the civil system.
Or if Vas feels wronged and seeks pecuniary damages... ok, then go to court.
But not for a decision over whether a rule was broken... Otherwise it's "overkill"... totally unnecessary and easily avoided.
i am unsure if Vas still has all the trophies.i believe he let other members of his team have some of them.just something i read somewhere.i may well be wong on this.
You are old and decrepit, and gum your food and your women, but your memory is still good. Lukas has some of the trophies on a shelf somewhere. If I were him, I wouldn't even think about returning them though.
cant imagine Lukas returning trophies to anyone nor Vas returning prize money.this could run and run.
Just kidding, but I owed you after the WBCCC stuff.
You should have insisted that got Flipped!
It would be Vas that would decide if trophies were returned... that was my point.
I've have seen the snaps of the Lukas wall with the various and sundry souvenirs.
others than Lukas have Rybka winning trophies.
It's a good thing that I'll never bring one of those home. My wife would tell me that I have no taste and throw it in the trash!
similar to my darts trophies which were binned many years ago.now if they were made of 24ct gold i expect your wife would love them.
if they were made of 24ct gold i expect your wife would love them.
She would love them after she had them melted down and turned into a necklace!
haha so we can expect your home to be raided too
will be keeping an eye out bbc news
only by burglers.it's happened twice.on first i was uninsured on second occastion i was protected from financial loss.However that is not the point my home was violated and i now feel unsafe.although this may sound ridiculous to you.i have been told by close friends that certain peoplle from a different district to me intend to rob me.they are under an illusion that i hold vast amounts of cash at home.watch this space my life is no funbag.
No Paul... it sounds absolutely serious and I think I know precisely what you mean.
Last Dec. I was in a back part of my house when I heard four loud bangs to my front door... by the time I got out there the villains were gone but I was bloody terrified.
Broke the handle part of the door (was jammed good and had to use a sawzall to cut out the lock mechanism) but it held as did the dead bolt... but man!
Half thought about getting a London Bar...
seems you're in a real pickle. I put up a webcam to watch the front door now... and some other stuff I'd just as soon not talk about over a forum.
yes a couple of guys 2 months tried to get into my place with baseball bats.i managed to call police and they vanished.the baseball bats were intended for my head.
Jesus, where do you live!?
its not where you live that matters,i believe these guys came from a district 3-4 miles away.i heard of someone i know only 48 hours ago that opened his door to a guy who immediately pulled down a mask over his face and pulled out a big knife.he robbed him of his money and took a number of small expensive items.what this idiot robber did not realise was that the guy recognised his voice.when police raided his house a couple of hours later they found all stolen items.he has been charged i believe with aggravated burglary and now sits quietly in Bristol jail.a big hard jail i believe.
about 3 months ago i had a phone call from the police at 8.am asking if i had looked at my car this morning,i said no and went out to look.My wing mirror on pass side had been smashed off.i told policewoman what had happened and she said.We have a youth here who has walked into police station and said he has been around smashing car wing mirrors and wrote down list of car registrations yours was one of them.she said a police officer would be round later in the day to get a statement,which happened,i also filled out the compensaition claim form she gave me.£250.she said she would in touch and when it went to court there would be an order put before the court for my comepnsation.
2 weeks later this woman police officer phoned me at home and tolld me they had just cauntioned the guy.
i said who pays for my wing mirror now.she replied he does,so i asked for his name and address,she refused to give it to me as i would violating his human rights and the police cannot give out others adresses.has the world gone mad.
Paul I have heard from both Harvey (you've told me stories right?) and a mate that lives near Camberley that it is upside-down there with Criminals being protected and you're the one that has to worry about them and the police... especially if you do anything to defend yourself.
Where I live you have a "constitutional right" to defend yourself, your family and your home with whatever means necessary.
Short time back a Marine on leave here was accosted outside a restaurant... he was legally carrying a concealed pistol... drew down on the attacker and when the attacker fled, the Marine shot the dude as he was fleeing and hit him in the rump. Prosecutor didn't file any charges against the Marine because the guy said, "I was in fear for my life when I fired..."
Those are the "magic words" here... someone puts you in reasonable fear of losing your life, and you are highly likely of being justified to use deadly force. There really is no question of this inside one's own home.
Texas takes it to a whole 'nuther level. Back during the infamous "Texas tower shooting" in the mid 60s, at UT Austin... people (civilians) stopped what they were doing and started firing back at the sniper atop the university tower (pulling rifles out of their vehicles). They helped pin the idiot down apparently making harder for him to shoot folks on the ground level.
judge and jury were _separate_ from the panel. Defense was not even present, having refused to take part. What would you expect. If he didn't show up at court, you get what is called "a summary verdict".
Who was the jury then? Imo it was the panel, and they should never have been asked to recommend a sentence. If they had limited themselves to a guilty or not guilty verdict, with the ICGA board setting the sentence, at least part of the perceived partiality could have been avoided.
For the n+1th time, the jury was the 5 member ICGA board. This is all explained on the ICGA web page if you would just stop and take the time to read it. The 3-member secretariat formed a panel of computer chess experts and investigated the question of whether Vas violated ICGA rule 2 (explicitly mentioned). We were directed to do the analysis, produce the evidence along with a final report, and submit it to the ICGA president. David would then meet with the board members, give them an opportunity to read the report, give Vas yet another opportunity to reply after the report was submitted, and then the board was responsible for reaching a final decision and then set the punishment if they felt the report proved a violation had occurred.
The "poll" we took was simply to see if anyone had an issue. Initially, we got a couple of no's, with explanations for why. We then addressed their concerns specifically, sometimes by doing more investigation, sometimes by explaining something more clearly, and at some point, each person that had a problem with the report would say "OK, I am not satisfied and am convinced he broke the rules."
Took a lot of time, but that was it. We were not even mandated to produce a report that everyone agreed with, but we took that as a goal and succeeded.
The panel recommended on the sentence right?
It's under 5.Recommendations in the summary document.
Yes, without complete agreement. Everyone pretty much agreed on vacating tournament results (I was not keen on it, but there is ample precedent, see this year's NCAA vacation of the 2004 College Football National Championship (won by USC) as but one example. And there is an issue about leaving it "open" which is a bit odd. But I was certainly willing to accept that. I think everyone was quite put off by the complete lack of participation from Vas, in an investigation that was of a very serious nature. When he just blew it off over and over, I think the lifetime ban was a "reward", basically. In a court proceeding, for a comparison, plea bargains are worked out all the time. And in most every case, if a defendant rejects a plea offer, and is found guilty, the sentence is harsher than the plea bargain sentence. I suppose this was the final thinking of the board as well, but was not privy to their discussions.
This was my point above; the ICGA should have never asked the panel to recommend on the sentence IF they had wanted to uphold at least some impartiality. Not that it would have made much difference, I expect, as the panel and board seemed equally rancunous about Vas' lack of participation.
I don't know that the ICGA did ask us. Doesn't really matter. If you go into a criminal proceeding, the prosecution certainly recommends a sentence to the judge. In the federal system, there is a group in the pre-trial office that do an investigation and fill out a sentencing recommendation. The FEDs have guidelines that total up points for various things. Add points for prior convictions, add points for violence, subtract points for cooperation, subtract points for accepting responsibility and showing remorse, etc. In the end, you come up with a number, or sometimes a range of numbers where some of the additions or subtractions have a range. And that number (or range) gives a specific sentence recommendation that is usually a range. And the prosecution then recommends a sentence within that (sometimes more, but generally the judge will not exceed the guidelines except for exceptional cases).
So our recommending a set of possible punishments was not exactly unusual... Remember, the ICGA is an organization that was founded by and for "the programmers." It seems reasonable that "we, the programmers" have input in making the rules (we do, and we get to discuss them every year to see if tweaks or changes are needed), and have input on cases where rules are broken...
I have made my point.
The fact that you are willing and able to produce large amounts of text - relevant or not - to justify your/the IGCA's actions doesn't change that.
If you don't show up, the other guy may get a default judgement. Once again, this is power of the state, not to be confused with what an organization like ICGA can get away with.
The organization has much greater latitude than the state. What are you talking about??? The state has a constitution, and a legal code written by the legislature, and is constrained by federal laws when dealing with elections or interstate matters.
Nonsense. When the state wants to do something, if other organs of the state allow it, in most circumstances there is absolutely nothing that an individual or organization can do about it. Individuals and organizations are much easier targets when they exhibit abusive business practices.
Can we stay on focus? There are no abusive business practices at work here. The only issue is did Vas cheat or not. The question was investigated thoroughly, and the answer was, and still is, "Yes."
Can we at least limit the discussion to computer chess, if not the specific cheating allegations? I get the idea. The more off-topic posts there are, the smaller the percentage of posts that contain "damaging information" about Rybka, and the harder it will be for the layperson to find out what is going on as they won't be willing to read thru 500 posts about nonsense, to get to the few dozen posts that discuss specifics...
Can we at least limit the discussion to computer chess, if not the specific cheating allegations?
This is a good idea. I have requested that the moderators establish a moderated "math" page that will be dedicated to discussing the comparison of evaluation functions in different engines (this is 90%+ percent of your investigation by page count). This will not be for the layperson and will focus on comparison of evaluation functions rather than cheating allegations, but will include relevant sections from open-chess. Rants, pontification, and off-topic discussion will be removed.
90% by page count does not mean 90% of the proof offered. The report is not a stand-alone document. It is a somewhat abstract document to cut the volume of evidence down to something a layperson might be willing to dive into. But either the crafty/rybka evidence, or the fruit/rybka source code comparisons (not eval feature comparisons) are most revealing. The feature analysis was done since line for line comparisons are not possible due to data structure differences between Fruit and Rybka. But we have code that is independent of the data structures that is presented, and there line-by-line comparisons are possible. Zach led that investigation starting a couple of years ago...
I think Ray is absolutely right. ICGA should stick to engines that competed in its competitions, and that clearly did not happen. It is very clear that ICGA assumptions are not based on the engine that participated but rather on older beta engines that had nothing to do with the mentioned tournament. While you can say that "I don't think his engine would be different in the tournament", you can't claim it as positive proof ... and thus the entire ICGA proceeding is flawed (to put it mildly). This looks more like a lynch mob that had pre-determined that Vas is guilty and just wanted to use the ICGA as an authoritative cover. It would be interesting to see the names of the 14 who voted, and I am pretty sure it is easily predictable.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill