Bob, without your expertise in this field, both in CS and computer chess, most would certainly not have heard or able to put two-and-two together. I know I've certainly learned lots of facts from your posts, here or in other forums. Otherwise the blatant lies would've flooded uncontrollably as actual facts. Just look at how adamant 'some' chose to stick with what's been proven to be clearly false in spite of facts; from misunderstanding the issue of the matter, to being ethically & morally challenged, to the point of intentionally misquoting you, to misunderstanding an analogy, to arguing incoherently, to anger & name-calling, to ignoring those they can't refute, to plain clasping at straws.....
The point ..... people in CC need your expertise. Thanks.
And yes, stupidity just can't be fixed. I don't disagree there.
I had wondered about your name
(1) wondered if you really were clairvoyant and chose it to be synonymous with Vas' plight, even though you chose the name before this started;
(2) were you such a generally disagreeable person that you _were_ banned for some reason?
Either answer works...
OK, I have revised the categories to correct the misrepresentation of the importance of chess engines in Bob's universe.
your only debate skills revolve around hyperbole
your reading comprehension is WAY down there and you ought to sue your former educational sources.
were you such a generally disagreeable person that you _were_ banned for some reason?
No Bob post would be complete without the gratuitous insults! These are pretty low quality considering all of the practice that Bob gets in this art form.
As far as "Banned For Life" showing up in the ICGA sentence, I had assumed that this was Harvey's doing, showing some creativity for a change. I probably should have applied for a trademark...
"ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they
are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other
penalties the ICGA imposes."
So we had an "out" for Rajlich, where he could be allowed to prove future works were no longer derivatives. The ICGA Board chose a more severe penalty, I guess because Rajlich did not participate in the investigation.
However, I have stated also that I would think it appropriate to consider an appeal, if Vas can provide proof that the new version is completely clean. Most here scoff at that suggesting "he should never reveal his source to anyone." First, it seems pretty obvious that if he sells a program to the wrong person, he reveals his source via RE. Second, if he is not willing to prove that the program meets the rule, the that should end it. No idea what he will do.
>That was a very long _yes_ to my question.
For our "fussy eaters"
Small... easy to digest bites... please...
This should help: http://www.gerber.com/sitter/products.aspx
I guess that didn't last long.
Your attempt to belittle anyone who would suggest otherwise by referring to them as "effeminate" is a pathetic, immature cop out.
You cannot even adhere to your own principles, which is a natural extension of my conclusion that you don't respect people. Why act respectfully towards persons you have no respect for?
People are not going to read what you write or take you seriously this way.
It's not exactly easy to land an academic job at a reasonable university. It is not exactly easy (nor quick) to become tenured. It is not exactly easy to progress in an environment of "publish or perish." In short, you have no clue what you are talking about. Which seems to be a common issue for you.
> Uniacke, Williamson, Hallsworth, Ban, SMK. Bauer, Wegner. This looks like 7 names to me. If we add in others with obvious conflicts of interest, like yourself (Hyatt) and Letousky we get nine people with serious conflicts of interest compared to 14 people who voted to redistribute Vas' titles.
I have to admit your strategy is compelling. Keep bashing on everyone BUT the guy who cheated. Good strategy!
You defend Vas like he is your mommy or something.
Its hard to accept bad things when someone did good for humanity(here chess)
I personally feel one thing. In Bhagwat Gita its written Honesty pays. You get your returns in within your life time. Life is a cycle.
He did some good things, that's why won Championships and showed the world how a program can be developed. Suddenly there are No competitors in his line!!.
On the contrary he did some bad things for which he is facing all these. Good things in bad method. Base was not his and that's for sure. Ideas of improving were his and brilliant. Just like Tesla did on Edison.
After looking all these drama in this foum I have personally find the problem is Not Vas copying code rather _VAS_MADE_MONEY_ AND_SUPERSEDED_ from something he has _not_ written from scratch.
Had it been free No problems. Like Houdart Doing now. If he personally had it commercial without no interest in ICGA still all people would have bought it.
Whatever may be good Vas is. Wrong is wrong and can't be right. Vas knows this and he never cares for ICGA. He has no point to prove now. He has already did.
Now If he now releases Rybka 5 commercially , people will buy again.
But I do know something about due process, and what has happened here isn't it. Your post used the result of a very flawed process ['the guy who cheated'] to defend that same process. I've seen many of your posts before, and you have a better mind than that.
>But I do know something about due process
From where? Grammar school?
So explain to me and the rest of us patient listeners... just what exactly is "due process" and how does it apply to ICGA?
>Not being a programmer, I don't have any well-defined position about Vas's guilt or innocence.
I would just love to hear someone summoned for jury duty say something on the order of... "Your Honor, I must disqualify myself from jury duty from this (e.g. Enron) trial because, you see, I must first become a Corporate Accountant before I can have any well-defined position about any corporate officer's guilt or innocence."
And for you "smarty-pants" who recognize the mismatch of my two short retorts... please be shhhh about it. thanks.
>I'm not sure how one would put together a worthwhile panel using that approach.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right.
When the ICGA decided to go this route they should have decided to do it correctly or not at all.
The primary fault one can raise is that there was no evidence or arguments from the accused. But exactly _whose_ fault was that? We could ask, we could not subpoena.
> Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Despite undeniable Fruit+Crafty evidence against Rybka, you present the "innocent until proven guilty" argument. Fast forward to the IppoLit vs. Rybka issue which to date haven't been proven to be a Rybka clone....especially from someone whose words can't be trusted. Yet you take this person's words and consider IppoLit guilty!.
So by your "standard of justice", I have to ask: Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? in the case of IppoLit and Rybka?
> Despite undeniable Fruit+Crafty evidence against Rybka, you present the "innocent until proven guilty" argument. Fast forward to the IppoLit vs. Rybka issue which to date haven't been proven to be a Rybka clone....especially from someone whose words can't be trusted. Yet you take this person's words and consider IppoLit guilty!.
> So by your "standard of justice", I have to ask: Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? in the case of IppoLit and Rybka?
The anti-Rybka lot put a lot of faith in what BB has to say. Here is his take for what it's worth:
Here are my (current) opinions about R3/IPPOLIT. It is abundantly clear that IPPOLIT's creator(s) reverse-engineered R3. Whether or not IPPOLIT "started out life" as R3 is hard to say, though my guess would be that the R3 principal functioning (w/o contempt, SMP, and other "extras") was replicated on top of their own bitboard implementation [which might have been taken from Crafty?!], and then additions/subtractions were progressively made to it. One annoyance for comparing R3/IPPOLIT is that the former has many things (such as entire search functions, move generators, and evaluation features) that the IPPOLIT designer(s) chose to ignore/exclude.
I would say that the evaluation of IPPOLIT infringes the copyright of R3, both with features and numerology [either of these could be debated] -- I'd have to analyse the situation more to determine whether the "degree of infringement" exceeds that of my opinion of Fruit/R1. I do not think IPPOLIT would pass the ICGA "originality" test. Comparing searches seems much more difficult to me, and I haven't really convinced myself of a good methodology for that, particularly to separate "ideas" from "specifics" (most notably for pruning, but also other aspects).
Statements like "IPPOLIT is essentially R3, with some additions and (a lot of) subtractions" are perfectly reasonable to me, as long as they are not taken too strongly [one needs to make a list of R3/IPPOLIT similarities/differences, and quantify the value of each component therein -- and then prepare for the inevitable dismissal of one's work ]. Similarly, "IPPOLIT differs in almost every facet from R3" is again reasonable, but be warned that some facets differ a little, and some differ a lot, some facets are important, and some are not.
I've never been happy with trying to compare the R1/Fruit "overall similarity" to that of R3/IPPOLIT, in part because the situations are so different. But perhaps I should revisit this at some future point. ["I'll address that more at a later time."]
I haven't looked much at R4, but I agree that the eval is more lightweight than R3.
> The anti-Rybka lot put a lot of faith in what BB has to say. Here is his take for what it's worth:
BB is entitled to an opinion but this sounds like an undecided conclusion. How do I reach this conclusion? Well in one statement, BB states: Here are my (current) opinions about R3/IPPOLIT. It is abundantly clear that IPPOLIT's creator(s) reverse-engineered R3.
The key words is "(current) opinions". So, depending on further findings, his opinion either solidifies or against as IppoLit being a Rybka clone.
In another statement of the same summary, he also states: Statements like "IPPOLIT is essentially R3, with some additions and (a lot of) subtractions" are perfectly reasonable to me, as long as they are not taken too strongly [one needs to make a list of R3/IPPOLIT similarities/differences, and quantify the value of each component therein -- and then prepare for the inevitable dismissal of one's work ].
Similarly, "IPPOLIT differs in almost every facet from R3" is again reasonable, but be warned that some facets differ a little, and some differ a lot, some facets are important, and some are not.
In his 1st statement of the second sets of statements that I quoted here, If I were to take his personal opinion (as he's clearly implied) to be absolute truth, this makes IppoLit a Rybka3-clone. If I take 2nd statement in the second statement to be true (an implied opinion too), this makes IppoLit original and not a Rybka3-clone. Yet you selectively chose what you want to believe from his preliminary report. Why not also give the same 'benefit of doubt' or 'innocent until proven guilty' that you preach when it comes to Rybka being 100% Fruit+Crafty clone to IppoLit?
So while BB states his opinion on the IppoLit and Rybka issue, note that, he has yet to thoroughly examine the similarities and differences in both programs to reach a conclusion based on findings & facts. I'm surprise you ignore the "other" equally underlying message in his report.
I agree with Ed: the lifetime ban is really out of any proportion.
I asked Dr. Hyatt to comment on his logic that it shouldn't matter if the ban was for one year or for life time. He replied that in both cases Vas is out, so it doesn't matter.
This reply really astonished me... yeah let him hang high whatever the relation is with the crime. The vigilantes gather on.
If Vas did copy code for any of his programs, punish him for exactly that and not more.
NB For the record: i am not a Rybka fan boy.
b) It wasn't a trial, but a determination of rule-compliance by the ICGA. The ICGA found that its rules were broken and punished Vasik with a lifetime ban. You contend that this ban should only start after the last competition he was involved in? Clearly it begins at the time of the initial violation.
As for the lifetime ban being retroactive, this means that you think that Rybka versions 1 and 2 having a small amount of Fruit code in them (in the UCI parser) have having *some* similar behavior in terms of features justifies a lifetime ban. Well, the ICGA can do anything it wants--but they are no longer really considered a legitimate organization for computer chess. If you don't believe me, let's see what kind of coverage they get over the next few WCCCs and whether anybody cares.
As for your opinion that the ICGA has ruined itself by enforcing its rules, time will tell. They are only considered illegitimate by people on this forum, as far as I can tell, but maybe you're right.
>Perhaps, then, the Ippo issue is a good one for Mark and Ed to discuss, as it seems clear that Ed thinks that Ippo is basically Rybka 3 with some changes, and he thinks that this is generally well-recognized. When I see this from him, it definitely makes me rethink my previous beliefs.
Even Hyatt believes it. See a fragment from CCC:
S. Taylor wrote:
So the ippo or robbo (in official events, till now) would be rybka itself, wouldn't it?
Bob Hyatt wrote:
Unproven, but suspected, so probably yes. Of course, there is the same idea for Fruit/Rybka.
> That doesn't make any sense, turbo. As we established (some months ago, on this forum, you and I), Ippo doesn't play like Rybka. It doesn't choose the same moves, it doesn't evaluate identically, etc. So it's impossible to state that Ippo source == Rybka source. If you read Mark Watkins comparison of Rybka 3 and Ippolit, you'd know that it's functionally different than Rybka on several levels (although there are some similarities). And you know what I think about what Vas says...
> As for your opinion that the ICGA has ruined itself by enforcing its rules, time will tell. They are only considered illegitimate by people on this forum, as far as I can tell, but maybe you're right.
Regarding move selection, it was demonstrated in CCC, and it was statistically very significant, that the closest engine to ippo* is Rybka 3. Moreover, the similarity was higher than the one you find between R1 and Fruit. Data was coming from at least three people.
From the point of view of the code, BB+ said that ippo* are more similar to rybka than rybka to fruit. Amazingly, people ignored this statement.
>That doesn't make any sense, turbo.
No disrespect intended to the honorable Adm. Nimitz... but
Uncommon sense is a common virtue with the turbo.
Hi Ed, nice to see you here. Compared to sockmonkey you are a different type of guy and your merits are well known in the scene. Still I want to criticise you for the wrong picture you are creating.
This is not a case about Chris. I dont understand you why you could make such a noise about this secondary problem. Critics have shown since long that the 5 year long hate campaign a) was unfair towards Vas and b) violated the innocent until proven guilty. Basically you behave like Hyatt, nothing better, you claim that Vas did something wrong but Vas says that he didnt. Now in such a situation it's not the best move to spontaneously or emotionally take one side. This should be fairly researched but what we had in these months wasnt fair and wasnt koscher from a methodological standpoint. In other words the so called proof against Vas is nonsense. BTW this is what Chris is also saying partially. Of course it's also important what the others did otherwise Vas is being singled out. So, for various reasons the whole process is false and unfair. I dont understand why this is not so important for you and that you see in Chris alienation from the panel the main problem. This is not about formal nonsense but nonsense of false content.
BTW I have no doubts that the truth will come out very soon. So this is not depending on ourt debates here. The foolishness of the research by ZW and MH and also RH is easy to show. It already has begun here in the forum.
Because we can talk here in freedom I have no problem admitting that I understand much of the counter attitudes that basically were caused by Vasik's reactions. But understanding cannot mean to condemn his reactions. Have we had his experiences with these guys in the ICGA?
What I would expect and hope to come from VIP like you Ed, that is that you help to argue in favor of a minimum of freedom for a defendant in such a pre-legal case to do what he wants without sirectly being smeared as if he had now proven his guilt.
Your opinion about his pre-tournament period is wrong IMO. But I have no problem with any verdict like what the ICGA has now decided. They can do what they want. It's not a legal case anyway. And I could easily imagine that thew ICGA woulkd be held responsible for their public ballyhoo to Vasik's disadvantage. Nit that Vas already had plans for it. Perhaps the lawyers of Chessbase will do what is necessary. The time of the ICGA dinners is over since long. It's a typical academic ideosyncrasy to organise one's im portance by inventing rules so that the main activity of a board is to control if the rules are respected. But in the end it's degenerating into unimportance.The sadomaso aspect is also interesting. The necessity of alleged only by scratch beginning is such an example. Honestly I think it's crazy to humiliate talents like Vince and many others who are in the race for such a lobg time that they should be forced to invent the basics always from scratch. Where is the problem when a role model is being taken and the new program is >100 Elo stronger? Isnt this because of the talents of the programmer? Note tht in 2005 it was an exceptional situation because Fabien had left. Vas didnt cheat him in his Fruit competing. Fabien just was no longer in the game.
Also here I want to add the caveat that this is all only valid for CC sport competition. Not for science or professional software as such. You cannot compare this with doping in other sports because beginning with a raw model is nothing that destroys your sanity like all the chemical pills. It just minimises the necessary period of developing certain skills. It's not at all a guarantee for a new world class engine. I think you supported or tolerated exactly with the same argument the Hippo family. What they did was great programming you said. - That Bob as scientist would want a different ruling is quite understandable. But sports isnt a science. All the best.
I agree with you on the wrong of the life ban. A specific punishment would have been enough.
The ONLY evidence in the supporting documentation for Crafty-Rybka matches was in their comparison of something they called 'pre beta rybka'. Vas had been working with Crafty sources, as is encouraged by Hyatt in order to learn about chess programs. The restrictions applied by Hyatt are basically do not publish/distribute my code and do not enter my code in tournaments without permission. Vas has not published/distributed. He has given betas for testing, but that is not publishing. He has apparently breached the tournament criteria, but, and given the basement nature of the tournament, the fact that Vas has no effect on the tournament, that there was no loss to Hyatt and the fact that in more charitable circumstances it could just be seen as an oversight by Vas, happening once only, it all seems rather low grade and technical. A breach yes, but very trivial.
Given the triviality, the expression 'plagiarised Crafty' seems to me at least grossly disproportionate. He messed with and copied Crafty because Hyatt allows and encourqges it. That is not plagiarism. The breach, technically, is simply 'failure to fully observe licence when experimenting with program' - not the same thing at all.
So there was plenty of dishonesty at that point, and I do not believe anyone would have rated a crafty clone had they known, since the other classics like Le Petite, Voyager, El Chinito and such were immediately purged when their origin was revealed.
But in your world, it is somehow "irrelevant". Even though the bitboard code from Crafty remained in later commercial versions?
sensible, somewhere. Not here.
BTW Hyatt doesn't allow one to modify crafty and then compete _anywhere_. The license is quite clear and explicitly excludes such behavior. Not that rules seem to discourage Vas anywhere...
what you call R 161 is referred to in the supporting documentation as pre beta rybka
the relevent documentation about Crafty Rybka is about the non distributed pre beta rybka version, Crafty-Rybka evidence (RTF) below. Zero evidence about any other rybka version.
Vas did nothing outside your licence except the mistake to enter the basement tournament. Your wild response to him is psychopathicaly disproportionate. Plagiarism is a defamatory charge and there is NO EVIDENCE in the support documents to support it in the case of Crafty. Very large continuing and persistent hurt in exchange for a very minor 'hurt' to you which caused you no loss nor damage.
Downloads (on the chess vibes site)
Crafty-Rybka evidence (RTF)
Rybka vs Fruit: evaluation (PDF)
Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA
Evaluation functions in Rybka 1.0 Beta and Rybka 2.3.2a
A comparison of Rybka 1.0 Beta and Fruit 2.1
Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation (TXT)
Quantifying evaluation features
Rybka investigation report
* All rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced in any *
* form or by any means, for other than your personal use, without the *
* express written permission of the authors. This program may not be used *
* in whole, nor in part, to enter any computer chess competition without *
* written permission from the authors. Such permission will include the *
* requirement that the program be entered under the name "Crafty" so that *
* the program's ancestry will be known. *
* Copies of the source must contain the original copyright notice intact. *
* Any changes made to this software must also be made public to comply with *
* the original intent of this software distribution project. These *
* restrictions apply whether the distribution is being done for free or as *
* part or all of a commercial product. The authors retain sole ownership *
* and copyright on this program except for 'personal use' explained below. *
* Personal use includes any use you make of the program yourself, either by *
* playing games with it yourself, or allowing others to play it on your *
* machine, and requires that if others use the program, it must be clearly *
* identified as "Crafty" to anyone playing it (on a chess server as one *
* example). Personal use does not allow anyone to enter this into a chess *
* tournament where other program authors are invited to participate. IE you *
* can do your own local tournament, with Crafty + other programs, since this *
* is for your personal enjoyment. But you may not enter Crafty into an *
* event where it will be in competition with other programs/programmers *
* without permission as stated previously. *
Now, that you have the actual comments from main.c, explain how his actions were OK? In fact, there is a paragraph defining "personal use" that seems clear. On your machine. Identifying itself as Crafty if anyone from outside plays it when it is running on your machine. You may not enter it into an event (and I believe a rating list certainly qualifies)...
So, what now???
plagiarism is plagiarism. Copying is copying. What more can be said???
BTW he _has_ admitted, several times previously, that he copied the rotated bitboard code from Crafty. SO the code is in rybka 1.0 beta and later versions until supposedly version 4 where he then used Pradu's magic bitboard stuff instead.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill