most chess programmers have all their old versions.  Someone asked me for the "Jakarta" version of Crafty (1996 was the year).  I had it handy.  So I find it _impossible_ to believe that none of the ICGA participating versions is still around.  That just isn't plausible.  However, we did test versions that were available that "sandwiched" the ICGA events, with the obvious conclusion being that if the one available before an event, and the next one releases afterward are "dirty" then the one that played was "dirty".  To believe otherwise is really "out there"...

BTW, that "sample" is most likely _still_ available, you do realize?  Today, DNA evidence is kept indefinitely in a frozen storage facility.  I'd bet that case was so important, the original sample is still available should a question be asked.

Bob is very fond of saying the truth hurts, and there is another painful truth that runs rather too obviously through this whole issue. That is that Vas managed to dominate his field for five years, with no one even getting close. The fact that he did it without producing his own UCI parser or whatever, doesn't change the fact that he achieved results that others could only wonder at.

The reason I have lost respect for Bob is that he knows that Vas achieved remarkable things, things that no one else in the computer chess world could get close to. To now dismiss all that as merely "cheating" is disingenuous at best, and certainly beneath the standards one might expect from such a man.

I think you are on the right track but the whole truth is even much more stinking. Sorry for my wording but I'm not a native speaker.

Try to grasp all the other aspects of the story. Take the Russian line with anon like Osipov. Consider also the reason of the likewise anonymous Hobo etc family. Include a bit of H. And now write a verdict.

Just for the theoretical benefit please assume it were a case of International politics, peace and war with the CIA included and the Courtg in The Hague.

Here is what I suppose.

The whole anonons were created by Theron/Hyatt and other morons like kranium. The latter BTW had published the basic idea. In my own wording he said something like:

We can believe that Vas somehow betrayed, not to say that this could be proven. But even if we cannot prove it we do a little lynching like the famous inquisition in MA.

We create clones of Rybka, and hereby we at least make him suffer. We always hold the fantasy in the air that also Vas did nothing but copy and clone. He has no remedy against us because we are anonymous and the important people like Hyatt do tolerate our sinister practice.

The actual step by the ICGA is ecactly in that line.

They say, now when practically all others have copied enough from Rybka, Vas can be banned. The tournaments are played by Rybka clones. But we finally have exterminated the best programmer of chess software who became a real pain because he was always the winner and Junior no longer had a chance to win.

They say, Vas is the only one who doesnt brownnose us. But that is high treason. It's well known since the times of Willy Tell from Switzerland, that everybody must lift their hats in front of the stuffed dummies (German Ölgötzen = tin gods) like Levy or Hyatt.

They say, in the end we would still have the tiny progs of Harm G. Muller from the Netherlands. Then he could become World Champion of the ICGA.

They say, or we all play Black Jack... or strip poker.

+1

I think that Vas made it VERY CLEAR that he started out with code that was already functional, and decided to concentrate on innovations that would add strength.  It is incredible that no mention of this is ever mentioned by those trying to vilify Vas.  It is as if all Vas did was copy Craft and Fruit and came up with an instant hybrid which was Rybka ... with no input from him whatsoever.  The code of Crafty and Fruit was available for all to see and all to learn from, but ONLY Vas was able to dramatically increase playing strength of all engines ... give credit where credit is due.  And I don't buy the claim that nobody else wanted to do what Vas did because it was "unethical" ... that morality sure went out the window when Rybka 3 guts were spilled out with Ippolit code ... even though Ippolit was unauthorized RE code of Rybka 3.

I see your point(s) Phil, and can certainly appreciate what you have said (albeit not agreeing with some things).  So thanks for your reply.

You know tho it is not atypical when someone who is held in such high esteem for their accomplishments, when it is discovered (or they are exposed) that they have not participated according to the rules, their fall can be quite dramatic.

I can remember in the Engine Room during the summers, all the vitriol concerning Lance Armstrong.  Despite all the blood tests he took, so many believed him guilty of doping. "No one can be this good" (this is I reckon an "anti" analogy and intro to the next).

Floyd Landis maintained for a number of years his "innocence" until finally confessing to doping.  His career was basically over when he was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title (despite his lies). Re: his career, the confession put the last nail in the proverbial coffin.

As far as other engines being investigated, I understand Loop is still under suspicion (don't know the status there).  All it takes is a reasonable complaint and some evidence... not like Ed's nutty accusation about Crafty.  I do not believe for one moment you could go into Hiarcs, Junior, Shredder, Fritz, Zappa (Rondo) etc… and find section after section of similar code with respect to another engine.  They will not be investigated for the simple fact "no one" (ok save Vincent from time to time) believes this to be the case.  Squarknll won nothing.  Yet it and its author received a lifetime ban (with the concomitant ICGA press release) when it was shown to be a copy of another program. Other programs / authors have been booted…

So I am not buying this argument that Vas is being picked on because he won for such and such years.

Speaking of Zappa / Rondo... there is the pattern to follow.  You don't pull the “No. 1 engine” when it becomes open source, change a few bits and bobs and then call it your original work.  That is pathetic.  A "readme" acknowledgment saying, "I looked at such and such programs taking such and such ideas," does not jive with what you actually did.  Maybe you can dupe some others that way, but not anyone who has ever done any programming.

You do what Zach Wegner did if that is something you want to do.  We can all admire and be thankful for what Zach is doing.  This follows the idea of "standing on the shoulder of giants". There's a "right way" and a "wrong way".  All CS guys/gals know the difference.  Vas knew the difference.  He chose a short cut.  I cannot respect that.  Especially in light of the fact so many authors have written their own programs.  All he had to do was acknowledge his source and comply with the Fruit GNU.

On the one hand Vas has done remarkable things yet on the other it would be almost impossible for him to start from scratch?  Well which is it?  If Vas is so good, why cannot he do the same thing all these "other authors" have done?  Because he wasn't willing to take the time.  And he is paying that price now.

And to say about Vas, "can't touch this"... Houdart has shown that patently false by doing something similar.  He made Vas's work "better" than Vas did himself.  So the theory that Vas is some sort of programming genius is shot down with the arrival of Houdart.

What he did wasn't special... it was really "anti-special"... he merely continued Fabien's work. They way he did it reminds me of the lab assistant that when the professor dies, the assistant grabs all the notes and research and pawns the work off as his own. Everyone is so impressed until he is found out to be a fraud.  Fabien could have done what Vas did.  He already had a "No. 1" program.  Most assuredly, a number of other authors could have done what Vas did.  It is not as if Vas is some prodigy.  If that was the case, why the need to have someone develop a top-of-the-line engine for you, before you start work?  These "other guys" did develop their own engine from scratch.  Then they chose to continue their work instead of copying someone else's who did "better".

If you are a "true competitor" with a sense of ethics... winning and losing is not all that matters.  There is great satisfaction in knowing what you are capable of.  People would offer me their books... I did not want them... and I never asked Eros for his book.  When I learned how to work on a book, I took great satisfaction doing the work myself and seeing how well it would perform.  Did I care that I wasn't the "best bookmaker"... sure I cared enough to work hard.  Did I ever use Roger's book and claim it as my own work... absolutely never, not one time.  Someone asks, “whose book you using”… “it’s mine” (if it was mine)… it’s Sebi’s (if it was Sebi’s)…

Bob stated in another thread: "You do fail to grasp what an advantage it is to _start_ with a program rated near the top at the time (Fruit) as opposed to starting with just an idea and a compiler.  You save years of time."  Even with my limited programming experience, I can wholly appreciate what Bob said.  Again, if Vas was/is so good, why the need for Fruit?  Why the need to make (and enter into competition) a clone of Crafty?

Vas managed to dominate... sure. But the same can be said for Armstrong. If any samples had tested positive and there was evidence of this,  Armstrong would too become a byword save for those most devoted fans.  Something similar has happened with Vas, and now he has to accept the consequences of his actions, just like all of us have to do.  Don’t be surprised when your fellow competitors become “up in arms” when they believe you are not competing according to the rules.  These attacks on Mark, Bob are crass and hypocritical because who in their right mind wants to play with someone who is not abiding by the rules.  And remember, it was Vas himself who got the ball rolling that Rybka was not original.

So when I see the huge advantage he took over other programmers, I find Rybka quite unremarkable; if you plumb the depths of what this word "cheating" actually means (seems it can be surprising deceptive)... his remarks are quite accurate and logical.  This cheating becomes (I hope you don't mind this analogy) the fly in the soup.  Or the rat in the kitchen (apologies... couldn't help that one... the movie "Ratatouille" suddenly came to mind).

I have to agree the likelihood of finding common ground is remote... nothing wrong with the “agreeing to disagree”… your perspective is appreciated and thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant.

All the best to you too and continued success in your business.
Rob

Eloquent prose, Phil.  I agree with all of it except for one part you are omitting.  Vas is, at heart, a rogue.  Given an opportunity, he will seize it.  Like almost everyone else.

I don't think he has much use for rules, norms and process.  You just have to add up the clues:

1.  Before our first interview (18 months ago) I briefly chatted with him on Skype to test the connection.  He looked like he hadn't shaved or had a haircut in six months at least.  I felt compelled to suggest a change.
2.  In our first interview, during the biographical portion, he mentioned that he was working for Ford Motor Company and there were complaints from the staff that he was not wearing shoes.  Imagine it.
3.  He has not held a steady, conventional job since 2003.
4.  In Freestyle competition he was somewhat controversial in his interpretation of rules on one occasion which caused quite a flap at the time.
5.  No version control until Rybka 4: a highly irregular and undisciplined process.
6.  What can only be described as a purposefully neglectful attitude toward the ICGA. 

I am sure others could come up with other pieces of the puzzle.  Does it convict him of anything?  No, of course not.  But it does sketch the outlines of an idiosyncratic personality that is competitive, opportunistic, disordered, brilliant, unconventional.