> Well, maybe you're right. I don't know. I did give an interview to Nelson which you can find on Youtube.
>
> Vas
Hope you and family are well Vas.
You should have spoken up a long time before you did. This issue has festered way too long. I really do hope that you'll help clear the matter up by answering questions clearly rather than in riddles.
Thanks, we are. 
I've been answering questions about this topic for a while. If some of my comments are not clear, please ask and I'll try again.
Vas
I've been answering questions about this topic for a while. If some of my comments are not clear, please ask and I'll try again.
Vas
I will rephrase then, hoping that you will answer the questions:
1) By what standard (or methodology) did you use to determine that the codes were not original?
2) How does that standard or methodology differ from that used in the ICGA process?
1) By what standard (or methodology) did you use to determine that the codes were not original?
2) How does that standard or methodology differ from that used in the ICGA process?
Vas compared source code.
ICGA compared fabricated code which is not present in Rybka and compared it to Fruit.
ICGA compared fabricated code which is not present in Rybka and compared it to Fruit.
I just didn't think that the code was written by hand, based on a general weighing of the evidence. You should probably treat this as one person's opinion rather than some sort of authoritative final word.
Vas
Vas
Vas, these guys will try to back you into a corner, analyse every word you say, and read something into them which is not there.
Sure. That's what debate is all about.
Vas
Vas
Hi Vas,
Rybka is allowed to play in CCT 14, when I read Peter Skinner's posting about it correctly. Wouldn't that be a great way of returning to computer chess tournaments!?
I mean, the best way to slam down the whole circus, is by showing it on the chess board! If you play, Rybka is back and no one can deny it anymore :-).
Rybka is allowed to play in CCT 14, when I read Peter Skinner's posting about it correctly. Wouldn't that be a great way of returning to computer chess tournaments!?
I mean, the best way to slam down the whole circus, is by showing it on the chess board! If you play, Rybka is back and no one can deny it anymore :-).
Hi Jeroen,
that would be up to Lukas.
Best regards,
Vas
that would be up to Lukas.
Best regards,
Vas
I already asked Lukas!
Yeah, I saw that.
Vas
Vas
Since you decided to broach that here -and I request that the moderator branch this from Vas greeting along with your post.
You want the gist of that rebuttal - here it is
Taken from Watkins rebuttal-
"From a different angle, copying is usually concluded to have occurred by inference [my italic]
from the end result, rather than via direct observation of the physical act of
copying."
The word "inference" as he uses it here denotes in its connotation the idea of a profound "dilemma", the horns of which Lay in Watkins' gathered assertions that he goes on to support, with the same crappy documentation that Dr. Riis debunked in his four part article.
You want the gist of that rebuttal - here it is
Taken from Watkins rebuttal-
"From a different angle, copying is usually concluded to have occurred by inference [my italic]
from the end result, rather than via direct observation of the physical act of
copying."
The word "inference" as he uses it here denotes in its connotation the idea of a profound "dilemma", the horns of which Lay in Watkins' gathered assertions that he goes on to support, with the same crappy documentation that Dr. Riis debunked in his four part article.
Sure, I believe in the concept of inference.
Vas
Vas
Yeah! No substance just a very poorly documented hypothesis!
I gather you celebrate Russian Christmas?
Merry Christmas!
I gather you celebrate Russian Christmas?
Merry Christmas!
Sure, Merry Russian Christmas!
Vas
Vas
Actually, I would like to hear from Dr. Riis on this one. In particular, Dr. Riis, where did the data in the Elo graphs come from?
Well, if you're answering questions...
Why does Rybka 1.0 beta share almost none of its internals with the pre-beta Rybkas?
Why does Rybka 1.0 beta share almost none of its internals with the pre-beta Rybkas?
My view on this is that private Rybka versions are my own private matter, and off topic for this discussion.
Vas
Vas
Fair enough I suppose. I think they are quite relevant personally...
Thanks for responding though, and a happy new year to you!
Zach
Thanks for responding though, and a happy new year to you!
Zach
Thanks. Happy new year to you.
Maybe at another time I'll have something else to say about those private Rybka versions. I just don't think today is the right day for that.
Vas
Maybe at another time I'll have something else to say about those private Rybka versions. I just don't think today is the right day for that.
Vas
How does one send a "private version" to others, and then think it OK to "not answer questions about it?" The Crafty license in main.c is unequivocal in using Crafty source in another program and then using that program to compete in ANY public computer chess events. That seems to be a serious issue..
I'm sorry but this is just not a topic for today. It's not relevant to the ICGA investigation.
Vas
Vas
Sorry, but when one makes a statement to the ICGA about ALL versions being original, that opens the door for that to become relevant. That is why we investigated that in the ICGA process, in fact. If you don't want to discuss it, that is your choice, of course. But it is something that needs addressing if you want to restore credibility. I know I am not so impressed knowing that my own code competed in the same tournament I was competing in, without my knowing that. Olivier feels the same. As do others...
Whenever you are ready, however...
Whenever you are ready, however...
Bob,
it's all about the appropriate moment. But I wanted to wish you also all the best for this new year 2012. Often people seem to misunderstand the advantages of having the devil's advocate in the house.
it's all about the appropriate moment. But I wanted to wish you also all the best for this new year 2012. Often people seem to misunderstand the advantages of having the devil's advocate in the house.
> That is why we investigated that in the ICGA process, in fact.
You mean, that was the excuse!
> If you don't want to discuss it, that is your choice, of course. But it is something that needs addressing if you want to restore credibility.
You mean if Vas enters into that discussion with you , it restores the ICGA's credibility and in tandem, yours!
"I know I am not so impressed knowing that my own code competed in the same tournament I was competing in, [and lost with a placement of 53rd
] without my knowing that. Olivier feels the same. As do others..."
No, it means EXACTLY what I said... Restore HIS credibility, because it has taken a beating as all this copying has been revealed. Any sort of explanation / justification or even just his thought processes about this would be useful..
> No, it means EXACTLY what I said... Restore HIS credibility,
No, the underlying meaning is as I stated -It would go toward restoring the ICGA and your credibility by Vas' having dignified the a question that implies he did something wrong to begin with.
The ICGA has lost NO credibility in this, at least with people that matter...
You can repeat that mantra 4590 times and it will not change the fact that the ICGA has lost and continuing losing credibility and standing within the computer chess community. It is just a matter of course before you end up taking your ball and on a sour note go home.
You just keep looking through those Rybka-colored glasses and repeating that over and over. It won't come true, but it might make you happier...
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=214313&t=23424
Bob! Recognize this argument?!
Bob! Recognize this argument?!
Certainly. Pure nonsense. Person thinks semantic equivalence requires that the ENTIRE program be semantically equivalent, and then he wants to disprove that by showing that Rybka plays different moves than fruit. We were talking about semantic equivalence between specific blocks of code that were copied. Not all parts of Fruit were, in fact, copied. But WAY too much.
Bob, seriously now, you don't know how wrong you are.
How wrong I am about what? Clearly you are not talking about the code copying case. So what, exactly?
The people that matter must be the second rate engine developers. Most people didn't hear about the last ICGA tournament until two weeks after it was over. Now that they've pissed off Chessbase, maybe we'll get lucky enough not to hear about next year's event at all!
The ICGA has lost ALL credibility in this case, by using a procedure that dubious regimes would be proud of. Any SENSIBLE thinking human being will admit that instantly.
at least with people that matter...
People that matter = people gaining world titles for free, having commercial interests, hating Vas from the beginning and think that they can get away with this..... Not surprisingly these 'people that matter' are mostly second rates engine authors or people that have retired from computer chess.
at least with people that matter...
People that matter = people gaining world titles for free, having commercial interests, hating Vas from the beginning and think that they can get away with this..... Not surprisingly these 'people that matter' are mostly second rates engine authors or people that have retired from computer chess.
No, I mean it was the REASON. Several of us had been privately investigating this since Zach/Christophe first broached the subject.
Did you Bob? Have any previous girlfriends who would like to share some of your love letters to them with your wife?
Can you read? Never wrote any. Easier to phone or visit.
How hard is that to grasp???
Apparently VERY.
On that topic, I would not care WHAT my wife wrote to her old boyfriends, if, in fact, she wrote anything. I doubt she would care about what I wrote during the first 18 years of my life. By the time I was 18, we were in an exclusive relationship, and have been ever since. First date was October 28, 1966 if that matters. Friday night. Took her to a football game that my brother was playing in, we met in a junior college my / her freshman year. Married 6/30/68, almost 2 years later. Been married ever since.
Any other issues of non-relevancy?
How hard is that to grasp???
Apparently VERY.
On that topic, I would not care WHAT my wife wrote to her old boyfriends, if, in fact, she wrote anything. I doubt she would care about what I wrote during the first 18 years of my life. By the time I was 18, we were in an exclusive relationship, and have been ever since. First date was October 28, 1966 if that matters. Friday night. Took her to a football game that my brother was playing in, we met in a junior college my / her freshman year. Married 6/30/68, almost 2 years later. Been married ever since.
Any other issues of non-relevancy?
I think you get the gist!
I don't at all. 1.6.1 was WRONG. Based on an outright lie. Violated participation rules. Violated license agreements. What does that have to do with "love letters"???
No, Bob, it was a copy of a programmers very early attempts at cultivating and developing his OWN voice- using models in his learning process. Scrapped and later modeled differently and refined to better express his own more innovative ideas.
I am willing to bet that somewhere in your own history you did exactly the same thing. With the one exception that no one dug up your first attempts, throwing in your face your starting point stating that your ensuing work was not original.
I am willing to bet that somewhere in your own history you did exactly the same thing. With the one exception that no one dug up your first attempts, throwing in your face your starting point stating that your ensuing work was not original.
It was a copy of MY source code. Used contrary to the license agreement. Used contrary to tournaments it participated in. And the programmer claimed it was his original work. If you don't see anything "wrong" with that, you really have no clue about moral/ethical/legal bahavior standards...
you really have no clue about moral/ethical/legal bahavior standards...
Seeing these words coming out of YOUR mouth really makes me smile
Seeing these words coming out of YOUR mouth really makes me smile
And, based on this, you establish a modus operandi in the WCCC case, is that it? Circumstantial evidence at best.
google "prior bad acts establishing a pattern of behavior".
It is one of MANY pieces of evidence presented in the ICGA report. Not the ONLY piece. Nor was the PST stuff the ONLY piece. Nor was the 0.0 the ONLY piece. There are SO MANY pieces, there is no other reasonable explanation for how all the duplications happened.
It is one of MANY pieces of evidence presented in the ICGA report. Not the ONLY piece. Nor was the PST stuff the ONLY piece. Nor was the 0.0 the ONLY piece. There are SO MANY pieces, there is no other reasonable explanation for how all the duplications happened.
There is absolutely no evidence at all. This is purely an assumption on your part, probably due to guilt from copying Fruit's bishop PST table.
If you think the evidence for Rybka 1.6.1 and Crafty 19.0 is "non-existent" then you really are as clueless as you act... ANYBODY can follow that and see that the entire engine was copied. And it doesn't take an experienced programmer to follow THAT at all.
Oh big headed one. None of us have ever seen Rybka 1.6.1. However, I am open to the suggestion that it contains Crafty code because there must be some explanation for it's being such a God awful engine.
But there is no sign of any Crafty code in any released Rybka version, so I can understand why you feel the need to keep going back to Vas' early experimentation days...
But there is no sign of any Crafty code in any released Rybka version, so I can understand why you feel the need to keep going back to Vas' early experimentation days...
There is crafty rotated bitboard code. Always has been. And fruit code. Always has been too.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill