they had reason about vas cheating/stealing code,but morality,the hasnt any reason,because they only want stop a competitor who won all the tournaments and people buy rybka and stp buying their engines
they had 2 faces:1 face:the face of truth:vas cheated and stole code
2 face:jealousy and wanting stop/ban other competitor to be able to sell their engines
my 2 cents
> vas copied ideas/code from fruit
You use again the slash between ideas and code. But understand that if he used ideas, it would be perfectly fine! While if he used code, it wouldn't (for starters, he would have breached Fruit's GPL and would need to release Rybka 2.3.2a's source code).
Yes nice "counter example", this "counter example" would be a counter example to "Vas wouldn't have been able to move from 2100-2200 to 2800 without code copying". But nodody said that.
Like that you could also have said:
If you can run the marathon, then you dont need to use a vehicle to go from Berlin to Potsdam, you can run on yourself.
Well, there might by in berlin marathon runners, that use/used to run from berlin to potsdam, but you can guess that not all marathon runners are doing that, when they need to go to potsdam.
Both "examples" have one thing in common. It's the time factor. Which makes it often tentative to marathon runners to use a vehicle, and which makes copy copying tentative to developers.
your "counter example", is not a counter example to the problem of code copying:
So your false counter example "could have" the following implications:
1) you lack basic knowledge in logics (what i dont think/expect)
2) you try to manipulate (this i guess is the most likely reason)
3) another reason (like: somedoy forced you to say that)
The premise was: it's impossible to make an elo jump of 600-700 in a couple of years.
Good question, let me take this one a little broader:
1. Do you think it is normal that Don Dailey suddenly has a 800 elo jump with Komodo (since Cilkchess) in the past few years?
2. What is your opinion of the fact that since Fruit went GPL and free Strelka/Robbo source codes came available, suddenly ALL top programs made a few hundred elo point jumps, while before they had considerably less progress?
My simple conclusion is this: everybody is doing the same thing.
> My simple conclusion is this: everybody is doing the same thing.
Such as commericial sold LOOP.
An ICGA financial exploited project and copy of Fabien's Fruit 2.2.1
1) Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
2) Fruit 2.2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
3) Fruit 2.3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
4) Loop 2007 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
5) Toga II 1.3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
1 2 3 4 5
1. ----- 70.38 58.30 67.66 62.78
2. 70.38 ----- 60.62 80.25 66.33
3. 58.30 60.62 ----- 60.51 56.66
4. 67.66 80.25 60.51 ----- 65.36
5. 62.78 66.33 56.66 65.36 -----
An 80% overlap with Fruit 2.2.1 (Fabien) is a percentage as not seen before, the highest I ever saw was Houdini with Robbolito (71%). It's safe to say Loop 2007 is an exact copy of Fruit 2.2.1.
And now we only have to follow the money.
Promotor: Prof. dr. H.J. van den Herik
The new 64-bit computer-chess engine, Loop Amsterdam, achieved the 3rd place behind Rybka and Zappa but before Shredder at the 15th World Computer-Chess Championship 2007 in Amsterdam (NL) For the persons who continuously supported me some words of gratitude are appropriate. In particular, I am grateful to my supervisor Professor Jaap van den Herik who brought me with firm guidance to this success. He stimulated me to continue the R&D of my computer-chess engine Loop Chess and motivated me to write this thesis. In addition, he [Jaap v/d Herik] set up the contact to the company Nintendo in 2007 which implemented my source codes successfully in their commercial product Wii Chess.
Jaap v/d Herik (ICGA) can't afford a scandal in academia land with a cheating thesis under his supervision and explored commercially.
Where is the ICGA investigation ?
How did Reul get the Fruit 2.2.1 sources ?
Logical answer, from Fabien.
Nevertheless, an ICGA investigation is warranted so that they can test compliance with their rule 2. And nothing more than that. Let's hope they have a transparent, unbiased process this time if they do.
BTW Ed already knows that an investigation has been started about this case.
Also there seems to be no issue with the thesis, period. Proper citations are provided. A thesis can certainly be based on another program if it is properly cited/credited... So there is no academic misconduct apparent when we first were asked to investigate this case.
There is one thing that jumps out from the suggested Nintendo deal, i have much experience of software contract dealing with japanese firms, large and small. They would insist on contractual warranties and safeguards as to the integrity of the ownership of the software and these warranties had better be taken very seriously. The providence of the Loop source thus becomes highly consequential, not just for the purposes of rule 2.
> BTW Ed already knows that an investigation has been started about this case.
I must have missed the blitz announcement on Chessvibes.
You should check out if you are not used as an instrument of a business fight.
* EDIT 58% -> 67%
> ICGA has no financial interest in Loop/List. What are you talking about???
> BTW Ed already knows that an investigation has been started about this case.
> Also there seems to be no issue with the thesis, period. Proper citations are provided.
I think you are mistaken. I cannot find that, at all.
> A thesis can certainly be based on another program if it is properly cited/credited... So there is no academic misconduct apparent when we first were asked to investigate this case.
"I'm more than willing to let this be my last post here. It IS pretty much a waste of time anyway..."
Two minutes later, you posted another message.
So I 'admit' nothing, I just tell you the way it is.
When the rules are not clear about what is OK and what is not, it is OK what Vas and others are doing. You cannot come up 5 years later and claim 'OK, this is how we interpret the rules and whoops, sorry, you do not match them'.
If they enter ICGA events without stating where they're derived from
In that case you can disqualify most of the participants in the past few years and possibly a few years before that, too. There IS NOT ONE original program. And then the WCCC is dead.
it doesn't alter the guilt or innocence of Rajlich for entering Rybka in ICGA events.
Alter guilt or innocence is always a 100% probability, so I am not sure what you mean here. IMO he is innocent like the rest, or the rest is guilty like he is.
As far as I can see the rules were clear and understood by the programmers involved, including Vas. He broke them but covered his tracks by obfuscating the engine output and brazenly lying in interviews (that he was an IM helped with the confidence trick that he had a slow engine with a "human" evaluation function). The fact that he got away with it for so long (even getting cocky enough to complain about others doing the same) doesn't make the original offence any less.
"IMO he is innocent like the rest, or the rest is guilty like he is."
If you can show that someone else did exactly the same then sure, they're as innocent and guilty, but "everyone did/does it" is a weak argument usually based on a lie (whether a lie to yourself or to others). As Kramnik said on Spassky's 75th Birthday last week:
"Boris Vasilievich never flirted with the authorities. He never settled for awkward compromises. When the Soviet system collapsed many people had a favourite excuse: “That’s just how the times were. What could we have done?” Those people joined the party at the first possible moment, then left it at the first chance they got, they informed to government agencies… They say: “We’re not to blame, that’s what the times were like!” I really don’t like that, as I think a person always has a choice. Spassky, as well as Tal, prove that really was the case. Adapting to the “rules of the game” imposed by the times is the fate of weak and calculating people. Always remaining true to himself is, in my view, one of the main personal achievements of Boris Vasilievich."
Sure, not a perfect analogy, but I think your argument's actually weaker than that of those who were under Soviet control (the pressure on them really was great, whereas Vas just took a shortcut for the promise of financial gain). If there has been a "paradigm shift" now then fine, perhaps rules will be changed, but it's wrong to try and claim that as an excuse for having broken the rules in place in the past.
Totally disagreed. The rules were not clear, Vas didn't break them and obfuscating engine output says absolutely nothing. Already Theron did that, by showing only 25%-30% of the nodes Tiger was really calculating.
If you can show that someone else did exactly the same then sure, they're as innocent and guilty, but "everyone did/does it" is a weak argument
As the ICGA, Hyatt and you even cannot show that Vas copied code and put their fate in a totally disgraceful procedure and a report full of mistakes, there is really no point in this. If you believe Dailey et al got their elo points all by themselves: keep on dreaming, you are stuck on stupid.
I think your argument's actually weaker
You don't want to accept the truth, that is fine with me. Soviet people also believed the lie of their government that the Soviet Union was the most prosperous country in the world. So why should I bother with people who believe lies, like you?
It remains a mistery to me that you are OK with this huge case of hypocrisy. If you condemn Vas, you condemn all computer chess programmers AND the whole software world.
> As far as I can see the rules were clear and understood by the programmers involved, including Vas. He broke them but covered his tracks by obfuscating the engine output
I hope you do realize that displaying a lesser depth (2 plies) then it was actually was doing Rybka depth equals the FRUIT depth ?
> and brazenly lying in interviews (that he was an IM helped with the confidence trick that he had a slow engine with a "human" evaluation function).
Any reference to offer ?
I'm sure you've read Vas' interviews - in fact at least one of them is posted on your site. If you want to claim Vas mainly just allowed interviewers/the general public to think the wrong thing rather than lying that would fit nicely with your complaints about the ICGA not correcting any false impressions some news sites might have given about the ICGA verdict.
Already done by Theron, who attacked Vas for 'obfuscation', until I pointed out he was doing the same with Chess Tiger: showing only 25%-30% of the real node count.
Seriously, I am just amused how people find 'node count' and 'node obfuscation' truly suspicious. To put sand in the eyes of opponents is as old as the roads to Rome :-).
What is it with these people who are continually looking for bad in others?
As I said before, I think your (or Ed's) VII/VIG approach is wrong. You should weigh the evidence as honestly as you can and decide what most likely happened using the intelligence and common sense you apply to anything else in life. If you still think Vas is innocent then fine, but suggesting, for instance, that's it's morally superior to want someone to be innocent therefore the angels are on the side of the "defence", as I'm sure I've seen argued here (by you?), is ridiculous. Though perhaps it has a touch of the sublime - when I read that a while back it struck me as almost as good a proof of Vas' innocence as the ontological proof is of God's existence.
And, yes, it is better to want that we humans are basically good. A world in which we suspect and distrust others, cast aspersions, invent hate scenarios, act as bullies, torment individuals? No, for me not. If that puts me into the line of fire of nasty people, so be it.
On the technical points: I'm not the person to ask or debate them with, but as an interested observer I'd just say that your arguments with Bob haven't won me over. You do seem to be deliberately trying to ignore probability and arguing that if the ICGA can't prove any particular individual item is 100% identical in Rybka and Fruit then the whole case collapses - but it doesn't. In that particular example I don't have a problem with abstracting bitboard/mailbox. The approach might be generic (but as I understand it there are plenty of "non-generic" ways of implementing the same idea), but all that means is you can't put any great weight on that item alone. I don't see how it harms the ICGA case in any way as the point is that the eval function as a whole is based on Fruit (and it's been acknowledged Vas made improvements).
It still seems to me that ultimately the case for the defence boils down to - there wasn't simple copying and pasting of code (or sometimes the even weaker argument - you can't prove copying and pasting of code without the source code). I don't know, maybe that's a sufficient defence against copyright charges, but even if somehow that was technically sufficient to be "innocent" of breaking the ICGA rules (which seems unlikely) it would still just be a matter of escaping by a legal loophole, and certainly not evidence of a "gross miscarriage of justice". The wronged party in a human rather than any narrow legal sense would still be Fabien Letouzey.
Well, again, this appears to be your underlying assumption, when it, or it's negation, actually ought to be the conclusion. There's not a lot of point in discussing with someone whether or not A is true, who keeps insisting, during the discussion as to the truth of A, that A is true as a premise.
We are looking at the sub-components of A, we've argued out, I think five or six of them now, principally with Hyatt, and shown his cases to be thoroughly unsound, and not at "just a bit less than 100% level" but at 0% level. Hyatt has run away, whether because Ed and I have demolished his arguments, or because he has been told to stop because of certain other little problems elsewhere, but, whatever, the attacker case is in complete disarray.
It's ideas, ideas and ideas. Not code. Ideas are free.
Overall I just think the ICGA has made a coherent and convincing case, so yes, it'd be up to you to convince me that wasn't true with your arguments. Trying to chip away at details and claiming that any slight dent you can put in the edifice brings the whole thing crashing to its knees isn't working so far. But ok, that's just my view and I'm the last person you need to convince.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill