how you doing. I hope well. As you noticed I have stopped posting in the forum (and reading as well, right now there are about 600 new posts which I am not gonna read). I think my timing as far as getting into the forum was a little unfortunate, seems to be a lot of fighting back and forth currently, and I was getting sucked into that a little myself. Hopefully it will all blow over with time. I won't be posting anymore. I wish EVERYBODY, on both sides, nothing but the best.
for legal issues I needed the exact postal address of the ICGA or of its representative President David Levy.
For further matters I needed also the postal address of Fabien Letouzey.
I hope that all this is no secret and can be transferred soon.
I visited the webpage of the ICGA and there was no address whatsoever. I ask you because you was organizer of the panel and you also know closely Mr. Levy.
If Vas asks me for them i would of course supply them to him.
Thanks for responding to the PM. Very Sorry to bring in back into this.
"ICGA Investigations Wiki
This wiki is used to gather data for investigation allegations of program theft or cloning for ICGA tournaments. It is a private wiki and information from it may not be shared with other sites without the permission of the ICGA."
When the panel was formed, the address of the wiki was published so people could join.
I just do not see how you could not know what the wiki was for.
In any case, you are welcome to leave the panel. Please send me or Harvey or Bob a message on the wiki to confirm you are you and we can easily remove you from the membership.
We are about to start another investigation, and I think we will certainly make this clearer this time around and dismiss anyone that is not interested in actually taking part. I simply don't join things I am not willing to participate in, and didn't think others would either since the discussions were not going to be "lightweight" but would deal with lots of assembly language and C programming comparisons...
Version 2.0 of the panel will, therefore, probably be significantly smaller, but with a significantly higher final voting percentage than 41%.
unfortunately I am starting to realize why some one with your credentials is held in such a very low esteem in this forum. >
> 14 out of 34 (or 41%) of those accepted did vote. I now know that 41% is a "tiny fraction" of the total panel, according to one "expert" here.
I believe you are here referring to an argument that I put forward. Then you chose to use sarcasm, and put the word expert in quotation marks ("expert"). I assume you were making a joke because at no point have I ever claimed that I was an expert. Nor did I get involved in any of the technical discussions. I do have to congratulate you on your sense of humor. I was actually saying that 7 of the so called panel members were the original plaintiffs, so they should not have had a vote in the first place in my opinion. That leaves us with a guilty vote of 7 out of 27 and that means that approximately one out of every four people on the so called panel voted guilty. I am glad you have finally admitted that you will try to iron out some of the problems of this panel in the next version. That's okay, I don't need a thank you note from you for pointing that out, sarcasm will suffice. I just hope you don't load up your next panel with only people whose opinion is exactly the same as yours.
However you still continue to imply that those who abstained from voting were either people who were not interested in reading the report or could not understand it because of their background. In other words, you continue to insist that all people who actually understood the evidence voted guilty and the rest did not understand it (or did not want to read the reports). Well, that is your personal assertion, it may be true or it maybe false. Do we have any independent corroborating evidence of this assertion? You are also saying that playing black jack in a casino is not gambling, I guess you are an expert in gambling too. Bottom line is that you have lost a lot of your credibility with me and I am just not accepting anything that you say on face value. If that makes me an idiot, then so be it.
I think you dealt with so many negative posts that you basically brush everyone aside as being idiots (that's one of your favorite words by the way). Then your colleague Harvey wanted to check my IP number just because I made a simple factual criticism of his so called panel. I hope he was smart enough to quickly realize that he was going to get himself into a lot of REAL WORLD problems if he insists on trying to get my personal private information. Or maybe he was joking about getting my IP number, I guess you guys both have the same type of humor.
I have to say the two of you are continuing to do a wonderful job of representing ICGA and yourselves.
As far as who voted, I do not know if the 7 that signed the letter and joined the panel voted or not. I didn't deem that to be important. Again, the ones that signed the letter were the obvious candidates to help with the investigation. They are computer chess programmers with considerable skill and expertise. I do not even begin to "get it" when you (or others) say that anyone involved in the complaint or early investigation should have been barred from being on the panel for the later investigation. That makes absolutely _no_ sense. Those are the very people we wanted to help.
I did _not_ imply that only the ones that understood the evidence voted. I directly guessed that "only the ones willing to invest the time to read/study the report and accompanying information would be willing to vote." Not everyone is willing to put the time needed into reading and understanding the evidence. There's a lot of it. It is of a very technical nature. It takes significant understanding of computer chess programming concepts to follow.
I won't comment on the rest of your post... You can draw your own conclusions about anything you want...
> They did not say that when they joined the panel.
They didn't join the panel! Your first mistake? eh!
There was never any mention of "guests" or anything other than panel members that were investigating the ICGA complaint. Perhaps Albert came, saw the technical discussions, decided "not for me" and left. If he was leaving for good, he should have spoken up and he would have been removed. I don't join committees here at UAB and just stop going when I lose interest. I'm expected to let someone know so that a replacement can be found, if needed. Seems like common courtesy.
And regardless of what you think, we had a large sample of the most qualified people on the planet that are qualified/capable of investigating something like this.
do you think this matter would be settled if we find a top imparcial/independent expert to look at the question of whether Vas cheated? How many man hours do you estimate (and I understand this is only an estimate) this would take and at approximately what cost? Would hiring a guy for 2 to 4 weeks to work on this full time and give us a report just about cover it?
The way I look at it, ICGA has already spoken. Vas, Convekta and Chessbase, for whatever reason, have decided to basically ignore this issue. For the rest of us, the alternative is clear, either we do our own testing and present it to the world, or we just get back to our lives. Otherwise, I think more "debate" here will deteriorate to just personal attacks as it already has. Thanks.
One last thing, just curiosity, you mention a "six year hate campaign on talkchess". Could you tell us what sparked this hate campaign in the first place? Thank you.
I can't tell you in full detail what goes on in talkchess because I spend long periods not reading it at all, but I recollect one main thing at the "start". Vas had been on talkchess for about 18 months, talking, asking Bob many questions, providing thoughts. During this time Vas was also learning and doing chess program development, it seems he downloaded Crafty and was busy working on it, learning and so on. I wasn't there at the time but I get the impression the relationship between Bob and Vas was quite important. Vas was the willing and bright learner and Bob was the willing and helpful teacher and they had many technical conversations. Bob likes intelligent younger people to try Crafty out and discuss with him. I suppose you could say Bob was the older man with experience and Vas the younger , keen and bright apprentice. This can be an important relationship for both sides and could be called a sort of friendship.
I don't know the reasons, but after this time Vas left talkchess and the Bob-Vas communication ceased. Vas went on to do commercial development. From Bob's point of view, and I've read his writings to this effect, he (Bob) experienced this as a kind of betrayal. Vas was an "apprentice friend" who happily discussed open source and Crafty with Bob, but then Vas disappeared, went "hidden-source", taking all the ideas that he and Bob had discussed and used them to become commercial, make money and cease the two-way discussion. Bob felt used and abandoned by his young-apprentice.
Sometime later the "Vas is a copier" allegations surfaced, Bob picked up on those and the long slippery slope led us to now.
In a nutshell, Bob was hurt, he thought he had a new young apprentice-friend, perhaps a replacement for Bruce Moreland, who then betrayed him by going secretive and commercial. So, really it is a story about love, hate, abandonment and betrayal.
"I don't buy the "this hurts Rybka" idea, because the cluster rybka is a joke. And a poor joke at that. There have been some decent cluster-based programs. But Rybka is simply not one of them."
To which Vas responded:
"Where did that come from ??
There was no answer to his question, but a reasonable follow-up discussion on clustering did ensue. Try to imagine Vas using Bob's words to describe another programmers program, no matter how bad it was .. doesn't scan.
> "So, really it is a story about love, hate, abandonment and betrayal."
The human tableau in a single sentence, you are a poet sir!
3) Wasn't it another programmer who complained about Vas in the first place? What does any of this have to do with Hyatt? (duh...I know it's a dumb question, but I had to ask it).
> 1) that Hyatt's hurt feelings actually led him to falsely accuse another human being (let's say my girlfriend leaves me and my feelings are very hurt, that doesn't necessarily mean that I am going to falsely accuse her of something that she didn't do).
A jury will make that assessment -- if it sees a hate campaign it will assume that it has had a bearing. I know, I have had the dubious pleasure of sitting on two juries (oh the boredom). It's all part of the evidence for the defence.
> 2) where is the evidence that Hyatt was the principal force here, convincing the ICGA board of falsely accusing Vas?
Since the ICGA decision I would use the metric of posts per hour per forum with the jury as evidence for Bob being the driving force. Probably someone from the panel would need to be summoned to testify one way or the other, under oath.
> 3) Wasn't it another programmer who complained about Vas in the first place?
I think Ed is at the top of the chain, yes, but not complaining, supporting.
> What does any of this have to do with Hyatt? (duh...I know it's a dumb question, but I had to ask it).
Bob Hyatt's words, specifically "the cluster rybka is a joke. And a poor joke at that.". Bob really does believe this but he is jumping to a conclusion (again), the jury might see it as Bob seriously undermining something that Vas spent a lot of time working on, they will also wonder about the character of the individual saying such words.
> A jury will make that assessment
That is completely false of course. This case has not even gone to court -nor is it in front of a jury- nor do we know if it ever will.
> Since the ICGA decision I would use the metric of posts per hour per forum with the jury as evidence for Bob being the driving force
Let's say Dr Hyatt has put 10 billion posts here attacking Vas. How does that translate into him being the driving force to convince the ICGA board of Vas being a plagiarist. In other words, how did Dr Hyatt convince 5 people on the ICGA board to falsely accuse Vas? Did he bribe the board? Did he intimidate the board? You also mention "the jury" again -what jury are you talking about?!
> I think Ed is at the top of the chain, yes, but not complaining, supporting.
so you are saying that an investigation was launched because the programmers sent a letter of support to ICGA?!
> the jury might see it
what jury are you talking about?
I am sorry, but based on the lack of evidence in your post, I am not convinced that Dr Hyatt was the principal instigator of this investigation, nor that he was the driving force behind it's conclusion. I mean there are guys who have put hundreds and hundreds of posts here, but that doesn't mean that because of the volume of their posts, I am going to sympathize with them. Yet, you expect us to believe that because Dr Hyatt hated Vas, that somehow he was able to convince the board to falsely accuse Vas of plagiarism. That maybe true, but no concrete evidence was presented so far.
> Thanks for your reply also, I understand from a recent post from Harvey that this potentially might be going further, perhaps into a legal phase, so it's probably wise not to talk about it in public. We can agree to disagree .. as Michael Sandel says, "democracy is not neat and systematic, it's messy, it's contentious, it's argumentative -- at it's best."
Translation: I don't know the answer to your probing questions so I will stop debating.
Isn't this just deflection anyway? You seem to attempting to give reasons why Dr Hyatt has been posting what he has been posting. It doesn't wash though - most of his posts are calm, technically correct, to the point and I don't detect any personal animosity towards Vas in any of them. You seem to miss the point that Vas has been proven to have stolen the work of others and has shown no remorse for doing so. Making up back-stories is pretty much irrelevant, even if they were true, which doesn't seem to be the case.
> Translation: I don't know the answer to your probing questions so I will stop debating.
The reason that I entered the debate was because I saw that the Rybka PST "code" in the Zach document is shown as appearing in Rybka but it is not in Rybka. Mark and (eventually) Bob have both agreed that the PST issue is not about alleged code copying, it's about alleged data copying, and that the code shown in the Rybka columns for the PST code is not actually in Rybka. I probably should have left the above post from Bob Hyatt denigrating Rybka out, so as not to pre-warn the accusers. Any other matters for the defense I will talk to Vas personally about, if he asks me.
> 3) Wasn't it another programmer who complained about Vas in the first place? What does any of this have to do with Hyatt? (duh...I know it's a dumb question, but I had to ask it).
The ICGA investigation started when a letter of complaint was sent to the ICGA. It was signed by several programmers including Ed. Bob did not sign it.
The whole argument reminds me of the German Nazi past. There are naive people who tried to raise hatred among the people after the war by claiming that Hitler never knew bout the massmurder of the Jews. For all that he never signed a "Befehl", the magic word that all autoritarian nonames took as justification for their own participation in some bloody murder. But to make the point quit clear. Judging the hatred of Hitler against the Jews that was content of vast chapters of his own book and more in almost all speeches in public, and then to insinuate a possible innocence and a theory that he on the top didnt know about the whole evil system of a bureaucratically disguised mass murder by a whole people, that is a crazy nonsense.
But it's clear that Hyatt begins slowly to crawl backwards because if anyone then he is guilty of leading this yearlong shameless activity by the propaganda over the internet. He even defended it by numerous justification long before anything had been worked out by his aid Zach. That is the reason for this term lynch justice at all. In a legal justice you respect certain routines and logic. You cant begin with the verdict and then seek evidence. Or you should always declare that it's only a theory or hypothesis, an assumption, but how could then Vas be prejudged in a evil ad hominem as if it had all been proven already? (See my quote from Christophe Theron from France.)
That is what brought me into the debate at all because it all went counter the well known routine of science. Dr. Hyatt hat it all the other way round. Because of his expertise he believed he had the right to spit his slime on another member of the community. I had no idea of the tech details of the whole debate, but I knew that the routine of honest justice and science was not respected. Abd that brought me to the consequence that then Bob couldnt be right. Especially when Bob admitted that he himself didnt have the time at all to look into Fruit code, I knew that there was something totally wrong, that this man had an axe to grind with Vas. And I asked him over and over again. And he replied, he said that what Vas has done wasnt ok. He had communicated with Bob and then after he had understood a lot he went away and started a commercial program. And although Bob wouldnt be against going commercial Vas nevertheless had deceived him. Because he stopped communication which was against Bob's philosophy of taking and giving.
The witchhunt was born because now Bob tried to find out on his own why Rybka had become so strong. Bob's only explanation, Vas must have cheated. After that idea was born, Bob took many steps that had the only goal of reveiling what Bob had never discovered himself. The hate campaign was the cover up for outright stealing code and understanding ideas of the strength of the new World Champion program. Bob's ethic went down lower and lower. He even tolerated pseudo guys who had stolen Rybka code. He cooperated with Norm the King of Cloning and Fraud. The rest of the 14 votes is history.
The FSF now look like they will take on the case so we will see what happens.
"I had nothing to do with the original letter, I chose to not sign it since David had already asked me to be a member of the investigative committee, and it seemed sort of stupid to sign a letter to myself. :) "
Which strongly suggests he would have signed it if he had not been asked to be a member of the investigative committee.
Let me give you a second example 16 years ago we had a debate about death verdicts etc on the then called rgcc in usenet. You can google it.
After a while of heated debates I thought it could help to see how the University officials would think about such undemocratic propaganda. I got no response whatsoever. So, I brought this into the forum and Bob explained to me in a legendary explanation for his total lack of ethics. He wrote. If I would really think that he would let pass such an email with such a bad content, since he was the operator for the email box himself with some others and they had directly shown him the email from Germany.
Know what I mean? What do you expect Bob should do with Harvey when he manipulated the output of Hiarcs?
Again, I like Bob's honesty and teaching about computerchess basics, but it's beyond me how a democrat is able to propagate certain stuff over the internet. Thus violating basic elements of ethics. And it's unbelievable how sloppy Bob is in his handling scientific rules. In DB and also Harvey's case this way and here against Vas with his prejudging that way.
>For input into evidence of the "hate campaign" I offer up the following link:
He makes an off-hand comment about someone's work being a joke... that makes it a "hate campaign"??? Let's laugh that evidence "out of court."
Of course, you've never said that about something that someone did (behind their back).
Someone makes a jibe or takes a poke at you... and you feel the need to run home and cry about it? Or do you stand up and defend what you are doing? Keeping silent works too... but crying about it?
Let's not be Forum Girlie-Men.
Hate campaign my robert derrière...
>Bob really does believe this but he is jumping to a conclusion (again), the jury might see it as Bob seriously undermining something that Vas spent a lot of time working on, they will also wonder about the character of the individual saying such words.
"Oh boo hoo... sniff sniff... your words... how they pierce my heart and wound me..."
A jury might also think about the attorney who brings up such a thing, "what a dope".
Nice try to discredit Bob since you do not like his responses.
You really amaze me Nick with these posts.
> What is it with this "let's find a top expert to tell us" thing? There isn't one. You have to arrive at your own decision after reviewing the open unredacted debate where both sides are able to express their view, for or against, and critique the other side's position.
The great majority of chess players, distributors, etc do NOT have the time nor the interest to "review the open unredacted debate" as you put it. Nor should they be expected to do that. Yet they still want to know whether this CD in their hand or this software that they downloaded is plagiarized or not. So after both sides of extremely intelligent people, such as yourself, have expressed their views and debated everything, the regular chess player will ask: "so, did Vas cheat or not"? That's when my " "let's find a top expert to tell us" thing" as you put it comes into play. >
Thank you again for your great post and reply.
I read some of your other posts already today, you have a razor sharp wit, looks like you are locked and loaded this morning, good for you, keep the posts coming, I enjoy them.
George, I am very slowly starting to read the ICGA investigative files, and I mean slowly, but I'll finish reading them by the end of August. First of all, my idea of getting an expert was probably a dumb one, I say that now, because I took a look at the names of the investigative panel of the ICGA, the 34 or so people that looked at this. I am telling you, THESE GUYS WERE THE EXPERTS. Plus they had Ken Thompson, and Friedel and a couple of other guys. They had multiple prior computer world chess champions on that list and a who's who of computer chess programmers. Well, you can see the names yourself if you haven't already. One thing that concerns me is why Vas failed to defend himself -looks like he was given that opportunity. Someone accuses you of cheating and you just say "i don't care"? I mean you George have no vested interest in this thing and you obviously care. It just doesn't make sense when he says I don't care. I know he has also said he is innocent, but where is his technical analysis?
Getting back to your question though, I am far from a moralist too. As a chess player, I just want to have the best engine to analyze my games and show me the best moves. However, if I were in a competition, I would want it to be fair. I wouldn't want any cheaters in it. If I have spent several years developing a software, I wouldn't want anyone violating my rights or copying my work and then claiming it as his.
Anyways, I know you and some others are very passionate about Vas's innocence and that's cool. I certainly don't know the truth, maybe after reading the reports, I'll have a more concrete opinion. I enjoy your posts George, please keep them coming.
PS: I have to admit, I'll probably buy Ryb5 (no matter how this thing shakes out), but of course only if it's stronger than Houdini -and you are aware that a new version of Houdini is due to be released this year.
> I have to admit, I'll probably buy Ryb5 (no matter how this thing shakes out), but of course only if it's stronger than Houdini -and you are aware that a new version of Houdini is due to be released this year.
This is a 100% sensible attitude in my opinion. You are saying, in effect, that what matters is ELO strength and all the rest is not relevant to your decision to purchase/play or not. There is no one who could object to that, not even Vas. (If he does object then let me say right here that he's wrong and the free market decides such things.) My point: what sane and mentally balanced individual would care about anything else?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill