![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Hehe, Vas is powerful! Destroys entire computer chess organizations! :-D
Another fact springs to mind! A complete absence of our yearlong collaborator Bob (Hyatt) in Levy's arguments. So this is all about the very few who could get rid of their dominating best player. All these Harvey boys, Uniacke, Meyer-Kahlen. I am an outside observer, but Levy is clearly creating a strawman if he's pretending that only with the wisdom of these few commercial aids that what had happened could have been reveiled. It's all dirty lies because
a) these competitors could have understood the secrets of Vas for 5 long years but they are impotent to do it.
b) their own progs of course are kept secret, as if they would stand above serious doubts. They are simply not examined. That's why it's so important for them to remain secret.
No, what they are lacking is the required intelligence to create a top notch program. So from the outside I see Levy and his alike artificially downgrading the absolutely possible heights of best computerchess programming just to satisfy the needs of some impotent freaks who are participating for years but who never really understood the potential in the field.
a) these competitors could have understood the secrets of Vas for 5 long years but they are impotent to do it.
b) their own progs of course are kept secret, as if they would stand above serious doubts. They are simply not examined. That's why it's so important for them to remain secret.
No, what they are lacking is the required intelligence to create a top notch program. So from the outside I see Levy and his alike artificially downgrading the absolutely possible heights of best computerchess programming just to satisfy the needs of some impotent freaks who are participating for years but who never really understood the potential in the field.
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
Bob is mentioned and you perhaps need to check the definition of a straw man. Don't be disheartened, though, you still win the prize for being the most utterly incoherent poster (supposedly) in Rajlich's defence. Your explanation of why it's all "dirty lies" is a logical masterpiece. Perhaps it was only surpassed by your previous statement:
"They are hiding, which in itself is admitting that they know that they are involved in illegal things and that is why I call them criminals."
"They are hiding, which in itself is admitting that they know that they are involved in illegal things and that is why I call them criminals."
If you are quoting my opinion about the hippo gangsters then yes, I think they are moral criminals, when their products proved to be very strong. Yes, you are right, if someone remains hidden like the hippos and also Houdart, they have some evil to hide because in our legal system they could be sued if they appeared under their real names and addresses.
What could you explain against my logic? Come on, you have an axe to grind with me but of course from a safe haven of anonymity. The principle is always the same. Chicken.
What could you explain against my logic? Come on, you have an axe to grind with me but of course from a safe haven of anonymity. The principle is always the same. Chicken.
Actually, apologies for the older post - I've just realised I'd missed the context (I thought it was relating to the ICGA). It's still not exactly logical, but I wouldn't put it on the top of any list. I don't have an axe to grind, though I can see how it might seem that way :) I responded about Polgar simply because I was involved in producing that long interview with her that I quoted so I was particularly alert to what you wrote there. In general, I came here as a chess journalist wondering about writing about the whole affair after the ChessBase article, but now that's unlikely.
Let me just quickly make a statement why I thought Judit of importance for a comparison with computerchess at all. As I said I'm no expert but only an observer. So all I did was presenting an interesting interpretation I had for this problem. Everybody should have the right to speak out his ideas. All good players have a hard time in Opens if they have to play some special well analysed line of an inferior opponent. So here it's important to discover the remedy against this otherwise less well continuation. Perhaps you heard of the famous Tony Miles playing 1.e4 and now 1-a6 against Karpov and Miles won that game. But back to my point. I'm not a journalist as you might have understood. ;)
If Judit plays against super GM who play main lines most of the time she can well prepare for such play and with a bit luck the ending isnt far away. The same with a computer and his books. Due to its horizon effect a computer is defenseless if he gets into an inferior line. So, here the operators play the game by forbiding certain lines. So, IMO they veiled the dumbness of the machine. Ok, also human players make choices but that is not because they would forcedly lose in a particular line, because they dont have such dramatic weaknesses like a computer. Talking about a topic that almost doesnt exist anymore with the actual machine entities. Today the importance of a training tool has priority in modern chess. I'm still looking back to some of these interesting topics of the past three decades.
In future, perhaps I will see a sensational match between the best female against a super GM male player. That would interest millions of people. In my eyes the presentation of the games of the Gib festival had a new direction away from these stupid mentionings of computer evaluations. I think that GM Simon Williams presented a very good irony with a lot of useful explanations altogether without forgetting the fighting in the air. Computers not so well applied lead to the stupid emotion of trivial chess when in truth we have in almost every game a wealth of turbulent ideas and moves.Williams has the rare talent of giving me the delusions that I would live with the event as a spectator at home. It was breathtaking how he hurried through the many different systems of chess. Until now my seldom joy was to watch a player like Short blitz in a 3 1 on playchess, but that is mainly a primitive adventure. Now I must find the interview you metioned of Judit. If you have a link, please give it right away. To all readers, you can still watch all the videos for the Gibraltar event on their webpages. Have fun.
If Judit plays against super GM who play main lines most of the time she can well prepare for such play and with a bit luck the ending isnt far away. The same with a computer and his books. Due to its horizon effect a computer is defenseless if he gets into an inferior line. So, here the operators play the game by forbiding certain lines. So, IMO they veiled the dumbness of the machine. Ok, also human players make choices but that is not because they would forcedly lose in a particular line, because they dont have such dramatic weaknesses like a computer. Talking about a topic that almost doesnt exist anymore with the actual machine entities. Today the importance of a training tool has priority in modern chess. I'm still looking back to some of these interesting topics of the past three decades.
In future, perhaps I will see a sensational match between the best female against a super GM male player. That would interest millions of people. In my eyes the presentation of the games of the Gib festival had a new direction away from these stupid mentionings of computer evaluations. I think that GM Simon Williams presented a very good irony with a lot of useful explanations altogether without forgetting the fighting in the air. Computers not so well applied lead to the stupid emotion of trivial chess when in truth we have in almost every game a wealth of turbulent ideas and moves.Williams has the rare talent of giving me the delusions that I would live with the event as a spectator at home. It was breathtaking how he hurried through the many different systems of chess. Until now my seldom joy was to watch a player like Short blitz in a 3 1 on playchess, but that is mainly a primitive adventure. Now I must find the interview you metioned of Judit. If you have a link, please give it right away. To all readers, you can still watch all the videos for the Gibraltar event on their webpages. Have fun.
This is the interview, based on reader questions (some of the earlier "subjects" like Svidler and Aronian gave much more in-depth answers, but it's still interesting... and long!): http://www.crestbook.com/en/node/1668
I think I understand your point, though you'd probably be better mentioning top GMs in general rather than Polgar, as she's a bad example. Highly tactical players like her tend to have less trouble beating weaker players than more classical players like Gelfand, who are more likely to accept draws in objectively drawn positions, especially with Black. I don't really agree in general, though, as the top GMs have always got to the top by comfortably beating players a rank below them, and in open or otherwise mixed events they tend to score heavily. I guess they've taken a look at most of the off-beat but not outright terrible variations in the lines they play.
I think I understand your point, though you'd probably be better mentioning top GMs in general rather than Polgar, as she's a bad example. Highly tactical players like her tend to have less trouble beating weaker players than more classical players like Gelfand, who are more likely to accept draws in objectively drawn positions, especially with Black. I don't really agree in general, though, as the top GMs have always got to the top by comfortably beating players a rank below them, and in open or otherwise mixed events they tend to score heavily. I guess they've taken a look at most of the off-beat but not outright terrible variations in the lines they play.
I see that you have deeper insight than myself and it's good for having you with your experience in chess.
Ridiculous and naive to suggest that only elite chess programmers were qualified to put together the evidence. And actually, I wouldn't call that lot elite anyway. Hundreds of Elo behind Rybka, Vas was in a class of his own in therms of his genius in maintaining a 4 yr or so dominance of the chess scene.
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
What astonishing drivel.
ChessBase: David, do you believe that the ICGA has conclusively proved that Vasik Rajlich copied actual code (as opposed to ideas and algorithmic techniques) from the Fruit program?
David Levy: At the outset I wish to make it clear that this is not an issue about verbatim copying. We have proven that Rybka is a derivative, but due to different internal board representations the Fruit code required modification when being copied.
There is absolutely no proof of copying. There is absolutely no copied code. Vas wrote Rybka after researching as many ideas as possible from various sources including Fruit, saw what nobody else had seen, and then wrote the entire program out of his own head and according to the new paradigm he created. Mobility based evaluation which also dramatically improves the search. Fruit was part way there. Hence the feature similarities of two programs both breaking into a new space. Ideas, ideas and more ideas.
ChessBase: David, do you believe that the ICGA has conclusively proved that Vasik Rajlich copied actual code (as opposed to ideas and algorithmic techniques) from the Fruit program?
David Levy: At the outset I wish to make it clear that this is not an issue about verbatim copying. We have proven that Rybka is a derivative, but due to different internal board representations the Fruit code required modification when being copied.
There is absolutely no proof of copying. There is absolutely no copied code. Vas wrote Rybka after researching as many ideas as possible from various sources including Fruit, saw what nobody else had seen, and then wrote the entire program out of his own head and according to the new paradigm he created. Mobility based evaluation which also dramatically improves the search. Fruit was part way there. Hence the feature similarities of two programs both breaking into a new space. Ideas, ideas and more ideas.
Now you're just spinning your own narrative. It would surely be better if Vas told us what he did.
> What astonishing drivel.
Agreed - but what else could you expect... Trying to defend a flawed decision and process, it was bound to be more of the same drivel.
The master egghead is still replying in his talkchess forum:
Damir wrote:
This report is complete and utter nonsense, and looks like something Prof. Hyatt would come up with, supporting his views. Levy and others on the ICGA panel ( mainly Vas competitors) who have financial interest, would just agree upon this, and hereby prevent Rybka from participating in any events.
Hyatts reaction:
Simply shows how little you know. Those answers were written by David, with input from Mark L, Mark W, Harvey, and myself to name just four. The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case. The answers had to skirt around some hidden implications here and there, and I thought they were well-worded and clear...
the phrase: input from a.o. and Harvey says enough....the only thing that troll Harvey wants is to seat him into publicity for his friend Mark U. Not sure why that is...
I think his friend just eat through the rybka cake and found another 100 elo in there which is now called hiarcs 14.
Yeah but that is not code copying....that just stealing ideas... no not stealing... first revealing and since they are open.. you can use them.
Man i really get sick of this bunch of hypocrytic well feeded eggheads
Damir wrote:
This report is complete and utter nonsense, and looks like something Prof. Hyatt would come up with, supporting his views. Levy and others on the ICGA panel ( mainly Vas competitors) who have financial interest, would just agree upon this, and hereby prevent Rybka from participating in any events.
Hyatts reaction:
Simply shows how little you know. Those answers were written by David, with input from Mark L, Mark W, Harvey, and myself to name just four. The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case. The answers had to skirt around some hidden implications here and there, and I thought they were well-worded and clear...
the phrase: input from a.o. and Harvey says enough....the only thing that troll Harvey wants is to seat him into publicity for his friend Mark U. Not sure why that is...
I think his friend just eat through the rybka cake and found another 100 elo in there which is now called hiarcs 14.
Yeah but that is not code copying....that just stealing ideas... no not stealing... first revealing and since they are open.. you can use them.
Man i really get sick of this bunch of hypocrytic well feeded eggheads
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
The same old nonsense we heard from Hyatt. Levy didn't even understand Vas' statement: 'the author either typed his own code or typed the code which generated his own code'.
Yup, straight parroting of the distortions of Hyatt. Well, if you choose that psychopathic hater as your right hand investigator, what else is there to expect? Levy should fire Hyatt and start listening to those people able to take a balanced view. Anyway, who cares what Levy says, this one will work itself out on the forums. New democracy, the informed people will decide and the uninformed will randomly cancel each other out. Somebody can post Levy the result sometime.
> Anyway, who cares what Levy says, this one will work itself out on the forums.
In the court of public opinion, I think the Vas side still has many shots left in the barrel, besides basic reasoning.
Apart from that, I hope we shall see court action, real court action. I think this will make everybody happy. Especially David Levy, who is ever struggling to find proof of his relevance in this world of instictive empathy. He would absolutely LOVE court action, even if he lost. It's a win-win situation for everybody.
![[no]](/mwf/v12/flags/no.png "Norway")
> Well, if you choose that psychopathic hater as your right hand investigator, what else is there to expect? Levy should fire Hyatt and start listening to those people able to take a balanced view.
I think the choice of Hyatt was made deliberately exactly because that guaranteed the result they got. The interview on Chessbase shows that Levy was just as biased as Hyatt and Harvey. Which is one more reason the ICGA will never overturn their ruling on this issue, no matter how exposed their fabrications and lies become. Still it is very important what you and others do to expose this charade for what it is as public opinion still matters in the big picture.
Well, I dunno. When Levy says in his response on Chessbase, something about "better for computer chess if not guilty", I imagine he means what he says, and of course, it is a true feeling, it would be better.
Hyatt chose Levy, not the other way round. Ask yourself if Levy has actually ever chosen Hyatt for anything? ICGA officer for example? I imagine Levy neither trusts nor likes Hyatt.
Hyatt chose Levy, not the other way round. Ask yourself if Levy has actually ever chosen Hyatt for anything? ICGA officer for example? I imagine Levy neither trusts nor likes Hyatt.
It would be better, but only because then there would be no scandal. But it's not the same as not believing Vas was guilty in the first place. Just like it would be better for cycling if Contador was innocent.
And somewhere on the internet there is a forum where CIG and CII are discussed endlessly.
After reading the CB article 2, I am left with no choice but to conclude that Mr Levy is a liar. He seems to insist that there were only 3 people on the panel with conflicting commercial interests. I count Harvey and the Hiarcs author, I count the Shredder author and his colleague Dingo Bauer, that's 4 already, isn't it? Wasn't the junior author on that panel too? Isn't that a commercial engine? How about Dailey? Surely about to go commercial at that time.
The Fruit author was on the panel too, wasn't he? Didn't he have a conflicting interest in this matter?
How can they put the plaintiff on the panel judging the defendant and call it a fair panel? Can you get any more amateurish than that?
Mr Levy, next time you are gonna judge a man, please start with a fair panel. It will save you from having to lie down the road and your final judgement may actually be more believable.
The Fruit author was on the panel too, wasn't he? Didn't he have a conflicting interest in this matter?
How can they put the plaintiff on the panel judging the defendant and call it a fair panel? Can you get any more amateurish than that?Mr Levy, next time you are gonna judge a man, please start with a fair panel. It will save you from having to lie down the road and your final judgement may actually be more believable.
> Mr Levy
Dr.
> Dingo Bauer
lol
Dr Levy, I am sorry.
You picked up on the other one...lol
What's your title? Mr secretary?
Just kidding
You picked up on the other one...lol
What's your title? Mr secretary?
Just kidding
• Of the remaining 24 chess programmers, seven of them were direct competitors of Rybka, namely the authors of chess engines Junior, Critter, Stockfish, Komodo, Hiarcs, Shredder and Rondo.
• Three of these seven programmers stood to become retroactive world champions following a guilty verdict and all three of them voted guilty: Zach Wegner (Rondo/Zappa), Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (Shredder), Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs).
Here is the type of man we are dealing with, ruthless.
Ed - I think what disturbed people most was the effect of the ICGA press release that was picked-up by the mainstream media and the farce they made out of it, even including pictures of his wedding day. As such an extra and out of proportion punishment. I am holding the same opinion BTW.
David - When the IOC punishes a sportsperson they issue press releases announcing the fact. When the police arrest someone or a court of law punishes someone the media often publish articles about it. Publicity, in our society, is quite normal. I do not feel that in announcing its procedure, the verdict and the sanctions, the ICGA has acted in an unusual or untoward way. The ICGA has no control over how the media presents the information, and while I agree with you that the photo of Vasâ€s wedding was over the top, that was a decision made by a newsppaper and not by the ICGA (the ICGA did not supply the wedding photo)
Ed - I don't disagree, just pointing out the ugly effects. But (perhaps) it could have helped to also say something positive, for instance mention his great contributions to computer chess, 400 (software) elo points, that he is a great programmer who did not need to plagiarize at all, or something like that fitting the style of the press release.
David - Not appropriate in my view.
• Three of these seven programmers stood to become retroactive world champions following a guilty verdict and all three of them voted guilty: Zach Wegner (Rondo/Zappa), Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (Shredder), Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs).
Here is the type of man we are dealing with, ruthless.
Ed - I think what disturbed people most was the effect of the ICGA press release that was picked-up by the mainstream media and the farce they made out of it, even including pictures of his wedding day. As such an extra and out of proportion punishment. I am holding the same opinion BTW.
David - When the IOC punishes a sportsperson they issue press releases announcing the fact. When the police arrest someone or a court of law punishes someone the media often publish articles about it. Publicity, in our society, is quite normal. I do not feel that in announcing its procedure, the verdict and the sanctions, the ICGA has acted in an unusual or untoward way. The ICGA has no control over how the media presents the information, and while I agree with you that the photo of Vasâ€s wedding was over the top, that was a decision made by a newsppaper and not by the ICGA (the ICGA did not supply the wedding photo)
Ed - I don't disagree, just pointing out the ugly effects. But (perhaps) it could have helped to also say something positive, for instance mention his great contributions to computer chess, 400 (software) elo points, that he is a great programmer who did not need to plagiarize at all, or something like that fitting the style of the press release.
David - Not appropriate in my view.
Ed, how does anything you wrote there contradict the interview? Levy said three active competitors voted - you say the same.
On the ICGA press release Levy is absolutely correct. It's normal and correct to issue a press release. The ICGA has no control over whether a tabloid newspaper googles "Vasik Rajlich".
And I agree - it wouldn't have been appropriate when announcing a punishment to praise Rajlich. After all, he'd been found guilty of breaking the rules in a way that impacted on others, both in a financial and sporting sense, not to mention all the time that went into an investigation which he refused to cooperate with. Even you'd have to admit that if Rajlich is guilty it's not the time for warm words. Besides, did Vasik describe others who've now improved on Rybka and other engines as "star programmers" who didn't need to plagiarise? In fact, where's your moral outrage for the questioner(s) at ChessBase stating as a fact that others copied code, without providing even a hint of evidence (I'm not saying it's not there, but you're usually quite a stickler for evidence...).
On the ICGA press release Levy is absolutely correct. It's normal and correct to issue a press release. The ICGA has no control over whether a tabloid newspaper googles "Vasik Rajlich".
And I agree - it wouldn't have been appropriate when announcing a punishment to praise Rajlich. After all, he'd been found guilty of breaking the rules in a way that impacted on others, both in a financial and sporting sense, not to mention all the time that went into an investigation which he refused to cooperate with. Even you'd have to admit that if Rajlich is guilty it's not the time for warm words. Besides, did Vasik describe others who've now improved on Rybka and other engines as "star programmers" who didn't need to plagiarise? In fact, where's your moral outrage for the questioner(s) at ChessBase stating as a fact that others copied code, without providing even a hint of evidence (I'm not saying it's not there, but you're usually quite a stickler for evidence...).
You missed the first sentence? It states 7 competitors, not 3.
Basically the Silver and Bronze medalists were allowed to judge/jury/investigate the Gold winning World Champion. Any sport that takes itself seriously would avoid such a biased procedure, let alone defend it in public on a major chess site.
Your Mileage May Vary but Contador wasn't investigated by his peers.
Basically the Silver and Bronze medalists were allowed to judge/jury/investigate the Gold winning World Champion. Any sport that takes itself seriously would avoid such a biased procedure, let alone defend it in public on a major chess site.
Your Mileage May Vary but Contador wasn't investigated by his peers.
If those extra 4 didn't vote it's hard to see how that makes them the judge and the jury.
A few totally independent programmers would have been a better choice IMHO. There was no overwhelming reason to have the Hiarcs, shredder, fruit guys in there.
>• Of the remaining 24 chess programmers, seven of them were direct competitors of Rybka, namely the authors of chess engines Junior, Critter, Stockfish, Komodo, Hiarcs, Shredder and Rondo
Oh! You Freethinking bastards are all alike! Forming all your precious opinions on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and never allowing yourselves to be influenced by the expert authority of Dr. David Levy , or the sacred traditions of the ICGA and dogmas of Rule #2. Next thing I suspect you'll be proselytizing the merits of Unitarianism and have us all praying to Gaea!
>After reading the CB article 2, I am left with no choice but to conclude that Mr Levy is a liar.
I think you're nit picking! After all that has been said? Not one of these gentlemen that you've cited, had in any why a conflict of interest! They knew exactly what they were there for-and did exactly what was expected of them. If anyone of them had voted nay, I would then have to agree with you. But not one deviated from their course and plan of action, established from the time of the submission of the petition, to the final vote of guilty, guilty -guilty-God dammed Guilty, Sir! Where, in all of that, did you find a conflict of interest? They all maintained a steadfast interest of guilty, guilty, guilty- with a consistency that was undeterred even in the face of the erroneous and most hypothetically interpretive evidence provided any man on the face of this good earth in the form of the ICGA report. What more could you have possibly expected of them?! Where is our Dr Hero when we most need him?
Where is the embodiment of Truth and Morality when you need him most? Perhaps, we will find him leaping the the bounds of computer semantic equivalence!
In other words you miss Bob. Maybe he'll change his mind and come back. I hope so.
Now, there was a man who could look at a blank sheet of paper and read between the lines.
You can't get away from it that easily as Vas clarified his statement to mean what it seemed to mean (otherwise it would be a total non-statement):
Vas: I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".
> Regarding Strelka/IPPOLIT: as the author(s) seem to have typed their own source code (or code to generate this), how are they not "original" under your definition?
Vas: I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".
![[dk]](/mwf/v12/flags/dk.png "Denmark")
This report is complete and utter nonsense, and looks like something Prof. Hyatt would come up with, supporting his views. Levy and others on the ICGA panel ( mainly Vas competitors) who have financial interest, would just agree upon this, and hereby prevent Rybka from participating in any events.
Oh, and this nonsense jumps out too, it's a variant of BBs reasoning for using sub-standard programs to compare against Rybka and Fruit:
David Levy: The suggestion that some of those who voted may have had a vested interest in a "guilty" verdict overlooks one very important and indisputable fact. The world of elite chess programmers is a very small one, and these are the people who are best equipped to judge the issues involved in the investigation. So Rajlich's actions were being assessed by his peers. If the ICGA had excluded from the panel anyone who is an elite chess programmer we would have been significantly diminishing the overall quality of the investigation.
Doh! If the Silver and Bronze medalists in some obscure sport are allowed to judge/jury/investigate the Gold winning World Champion, then there will be terrible and unacceptable bias. Either, if you can't find anyone, then you abort the investigation until you can, or you find appropriate non-biased people for your investigation. Likewise, if you can't find suitable and appropriate programs for the BB comparison, then you abort the comparison and find another way.
But, in this investigation, the most utterly biased were specifically chosen for the Secretariat. Hyatt who had already disqualified himself by his appalling statements and accusations over the previous six years, and the bizarre choice of a representative of a commercial competitor who stood to, and actually did, gain a title on conviction of the victim.
There were, additionally, quite enough specialists around to dispense with the competing programmers, and I was always available to provide balance, but was, as per usual, banned ;-)
David Levy: The suggestion that some of those who voted may have had a vested interest in a "guilty" verdict overlooks one very important and indisputable fact. The world of elite chess programmers is a very small one, and these are the people who are best equipped to judge the issues involved in the investigation. So Rajlich's actions were being assessed by his peers. If the ICGA had excluded from the panel anyone who is an elite chess programmer we would have been significantly diminishing the overall quality of the investigation.
Doh! If the Silver and Bronze medalists in some obscure sport are allowed to judge/jury/investigate the Gold winning World Champion, then there will be terrible and unacceptable bias. Either, if you can't find anyone, then you abort the investigation until you can, or you find appropriate non-biased people for your investigation. Likewise, if you can't find suitable and appropriate programs for the BB comparison, then you abort the comparison and find another way.
But, in this investigation, the most utterly biased were specifically chosen for the Secretariat. Hyatt who had already disqualified himself by his appalling statements and accusations over the previous six years, and the bizarre choice of a representative of a commercial competitor who stood to, and actually did, gain a title on conviction of the victim.
There were, additionally, quite enough specialists around to dispense with the competing programmers, and I was always available to provide balance, but was, as per usual, banned ;-)
Also, if you take a look... Trying to count up to the "14" guilty vote... Knowing what we know and what we can kinda deduce... It seems like 10-12 of the guilty votes were more or less default guilty votes by prejudiced, misled, or severely biased people (think Hiarcs crowd, for instance).
On another note, we could set up our own panel. With forum members chosen from who read here and choose to apply. And we will censor those we don't like. What do you think the vote would be?
The vote was just a stamp. Everything in this process was just another stamp. Wheel A stamping wheel B, and wheel B stamping wheel A. Ultimately, it all comes down to:
1) Vas broke rule 2!
Why?
2) Because Rybka is a derivative!
Why? Explain how Rybka is a derivative.
3) Rybka is a derivative because we voted that it is!
On what criteria did you vote that it is a derivative?
4) That doesn't really matter, we did not have to establish an objective criterium! It is a derivative since we voted that it broke rule 2, hence is a derivative!
It's a complete circle argument, there is no chance of challenging it. By definition, Rybka was voted to have broken the rules, and hence it broke the rules. The vote decides whether you broke rule 2 or not since the vote, and only the vote, defines whether you are derivative or not.
They could have tried to establish objective criteria, but they didn't.
On another note, we could set up our own panel. With forum members chosen from who read here and choose to apply. And we will censor those we don't like. What do you think the vote would be?
The vote was just a stamp. Everything in this process was just another stamp. Wheel A stamping wheel B, and wheel B stamping wheel A. Ultimately, it all comes down to:
1) Vas broke rule 2!
Why?
2) Because Rybka is a derivative!
Why? Explain how Rybka is a derivative.
3) Rybka is a derivative because we voted that it is!
On what criteria did you vote that it is a derivative?
4) That doesn't really matter, we did not have to establish an objective criterium! It is a derivative since we voted that it broke rule 2, hence is a derivative!
It's a complete circle argument, there is no chance of challenging it. By definition, Rybka was voted to have broken the rules, and hence it broke the rules. The vote decides whether you broke rule 2 or not since the vote, and only the vote, defines whether you are derivative or not.
They could have tried to establish objective criteria, but they didn't.
> Also, if you take a look... Trying to count up to the "14" guilty vote... Knowing what we know and what we can kinda deduce... It seems like 10-12 of the guilty votes were more or less default guilty votes by prejudiced, misled, or severely biased people (think Hiarcs crowd, for instance).
>
Obviously they believed what Hyatt tried to convince people of here, that the so called side by side code was Rybka code. And being biased in the first place they just saw what they wanted to see, and never even intended to question anything in the report. A report where the conclusion was decided before the so called investigation started.
I don't know - it does genuinely seem perfect valid to me for peers with the appropriate know-how to be involved in such a technical process as this (especially when the ICGA is essentially a peer group), and I assume that's how it's always been done in the past. It's just that this case has a higher profile. Perhaps ideally you'd pay outside specialists and give them time to get up to speed on chess programming, but who's going to fund that?
By the way, when you talk about seeing the good in people that seems to mean seeing the good in Rajlich at the expense of attributing the most base motives to everyone else.
By the way, when you talk about seeing the good in people that seems to mean seeing the good in Rajlich at the expense of attributing the most base motives to everyone else.
Peers is fine, although take a look at the wiki on "peer review" for the safeguards required, what is and what is not suitable ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
However, peers with conflict of interest is not fine at all (read the wiki).
Now, did you actually read my last post? The section on choice of Secretariat? The idea of casting the net wider, or waiting until more suitable peers could be found, thus excluding the conflict of interest cases?
Seems to me, this panel went out of its way to exclude voices "pro Vas" and include voice "anti-Vas". Such is the result of giving gate keeper powers to Hyatt.
"By the way, when you talk about seeing the good in people that seems to mean seeing the good in Rajlich at the expense of attributing the most base motives to everyone else."
No, you misunderstand. The idea is to exclude those with conflict of interest. It may or it may not be that this conflict of interest mars their thinking, but you prevent that from being a possibility by exclusion. Levy's error is to claim what they used was all they had available, which was not true. And, in any case, the numbers could have been reduced if necessary.
However, peers with conflict of interest is not fine at all (read the wiki).
Now, did you actually read my last post? The section on choice of Secretariat? The idea of casting the net wider, or waiting until more suitable peers could be found, thus excluding the conflict of interest cases?
Seems to me, this panel went out of its way to exclude voices "pro Vas" and include voice "anti-Vas". Such is the result of giving gate keeper powers to Hyatt.
"By the way, when you talk about seeing the good in people that seems to mean seeing the good in Rajlich at the expense of attributing the most base motives to everyone else."
No, you misunderstand. The idea is to exclude those with conflict of interest. It may or it may not be that this conflict of interest mars their thinking, but you prevent that from being a possibility by exclusion. Levy's error is to claim what they used was all they had available, which was not true. And, in any case, the numbers could have been reduced if necessary.
As I understand it (I might well be wrong!), the only person excluded was you, though that was at least partly self-exclusion - you didn't like the verification process. Otherwise the 34 people involved included plenty of independently-minded people and e.g. Frederic Friedel and Albert Silver from ChessBase, who while they might well feel it inappropriate to vote could certainly make their voice known, or publicise the fact, if the process was unfair. But no-one involved has actually come out and said the process was unfair.
Perhaps it wasn't ideal. I don't think Levy should have published any statements prior to things getting started. Although it strikes me that Bob has behaved fairly and honestly (and it's outrageous for you to call him a "psychopathic hater") - let's say Bob could have been left out along with another couple of programmers - but do you really think the verdict would have been any different? There was a consensus among programmers before the actual process started (with the open letter) and even your and Ed's months of work trying to undermine the evidence hasn't produced anything convincing (yes, I realise we'll have to agree to differ on that!).
Perhaps it wasn't ideal. I don't think Levy should have published any statements prior to things getting started. Although it strikes me that Bob has behaved fairly and honestly (and it's outrageous for you to call him a "psychopathic hater") - let's say Bob could have been left out along with another couple of programmers - but do you really think the verdict would have been any different? There was a consensus among programmers before the actual process started (with the open letter) and even your and Ed's months of work trying to undermine the evidence hasn't produced anything convincing (yes, I realise we'll have to agree to differ on that!).
Self-exclusion?! Very drole. Do you seriously believe their line that they didn't know who I was? When I came with a specific introduction from Ed Schroeder? Who was let in with no delay? Pfui!! (new word!). And yte they claim I am instantly recognisable when they want to ban some guy or other who is NOT me! Hypocrites. When it's me they claim to not believe it, when it isn't they claim it is. Catch 22.
The panel with me in and active? Possibly a very different verdict. Without Hyatt? Likewise. Although there was always going to be a voting problem with so many competitors plus the general sourcing from the softened up and biased talkchess.
How would you describe Hyatt? He wanted to annihilate Vas. He spent six years spitting venom at him. For what? Vas slight by quitting talkchess and not "returning" information? Hyatt's response was wholly disproportionate and deadly. I call it psychopathy.
The panel with me in and active? Possibly a very different verdict. Without Hyatt? Likewise. Although there was always going to be a voting problem with so many competitors plus the general sourcing from the softened up and biased talkchess.
How would you describe Hyatt? He wanted to annihilate Vas. He spent six years spitting venom at him. For what? Vas slight by quitting talkchess and not "returning" information? Hyatt's response was wholly disproportionate and deadly. I call it psychopathy.
I don't know what went on, but was there any problem with you taking part in principle? If you'd just jumped through whatever minor hoop there was do you think they'd have refused you entry?
On Bob Hyatt - I seriously think you should try your own thought experiment, but instead of VIG/VII you'd have BIG/BII i.e. "Bob is guilty/innocent". His posts here (and their frequency) make perfect sense if you work on the assumption that he's "innocent", i.e. that he sincerely believes what he's saying and thinks that you and Ed and others are spreading misinformation. You know as well as anyone that it's hard to stop responding to what you consider false statements.
In any case, you can't possibly win the "ad hominem" debate - you come across as at the very least as "psychopathic" as Bob (in fact his vocabulary has been much more restrained in the posts I've read here) - but of course neither of you are.
On Bob Hyatt - I seriously think you should try your own thought experiment, but instead of VIG/VII you'd have BIG/BII i.e. "Bob is guilty/innocent". His posts here (and their frequency) make perfect sense if you work on the assumption that he's "innocent", i.e. that he sincerely believes what he's saying and thinks that you and Ed and others are spreading misinformation. You know as well as anyone that it's hard to stop responding to what you consider false statements.
In any case, you can't possibly win the "ad hominem" debate - you come across as at the very least as "psychopathic" as Bob (in fact his vocabulary has been much more restrained in the posts I've read here) - but of course neither of you are.
> His posts here (and their frequency) make perfect sense if you work on the assumption that he's "innocent", i.e. that he sincerely believes what he's saying and thinks that you and Ed and others are spreading misinformation.
Oh! Please! Flip that coin of yours, and state the obvious other! That Bob Hyatt is here to maintain and spread the misinformation gathered in the ICGA report- against gathered information that points to the contrary.
There was no need to point out the "BIG" option as that's already de rigueur on this forum :) It's possible you can make his posts make perfect sense with that assumption as well, though in that case it's been a mightily fine performance. My best explanation is that Bob, Chris and Ed all pretty much believe what they write - which is why the debate's so ferocious.
All too often a premise is established out of want to believe. Around that want to believe a great deal of hypothetical assertions are based, if only to find out down the road that the original premise was based on a biased perspective that later through a desire to avoid debate was transmogrified into a [Whoops! edited for clarity] psychology of a hypothetical factoid.
Bob's post make perfect sense on the basis that they come from a man that just refuses to admit that he's wrong. I bet that he even see some of the faults, but he hasn't got the heart, the guts and the balls to admit that he has been wrong on certain issues.
Hyatt comes from a school of thought that says winning is more important than anything else. Winning trumps truth here. Or the ego must be sustained in the face of everything. Never give in. Never admit a thing.
> As I understand it (I might well be wrong!), the only person excluded was you, though that was at least partly self-exclusion - you didn't like the verification process.
You don't give us much benefit of the doubt, do you ?
If you want to believe liars then go ahead by all means, here is one of Levy's lies, David Levy the buddy of Ronnie Biggs, notable written by Levy himself, shameless and apparently proud on his achievement to penetrate in the underworld and get friends with British most wanted at the time.
Levy - For example, Chris Whittington, a strong Ralich supporter, asked to join and made the comment that he supposed that I would refuse to admit him. Quite to the contrary, I was in favour of admitting him. Unfortunately, when we asked him as part of the registration procedure to verify his email address, which no longer matched those he used for older forums, he responded using phrases such as "wasting humiliation" and "occasional little hitler"? The Secretariat felt he was unwilling to have civil dialog with others and all three of them felt he should not be a member if he was going to be rude. Then, after a brief period, he was invited to re-apply but declined to do so.
A lie, Chris was never invited to re-apply.
Secondly, what's quoted is out of context. Bob Hyatt and Mark Lefler were told by me they were connected with the real and only Chris, his email address quoted. They needed no verification. Instead they started to play hide and seek for a couple of days.
But just wait for part-2 of the interview, things will get more interesting.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill