![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
Part 2: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7908
I'm surprised every question didn't just begin: "By the way, Rajlich is innocent..." :)
I'm surprised every question didn't just begin: "By the way, Rajlich is innocent..." :)
> I'm surprised every question didn't just begin: "By the way, Rajlich is innocent..." :)
I'm not surprised at all that you would be making that kind of statement.
I'm willing to bet you'll be making a hell of a lot more as time goes on!
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
> Part 2: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7908
A very disappointing interview! Personally I have not been swayed either way up until now and the questions that seemed to be more emotional than substance oriented did nothing to enhance the VII cause. If anything, as difficult as it is to admit it, I thought David Levy's answers were well prepared. Perhaps a missed opportunity here for the VII population and a brownie point for the VIG population.
PeterG
I think he is still in cloud cuckoo land about the whole thing, he just isn't engaging with the mountain of evidence out there now that say his experts were wrong.
And it is incredible that he still thinks that the process was fair and balanced. Anyone with even the smallest amount of legal knowledge can see that it was not.
And it is incredible that he still thinks that the process was fair and balanced. Anyone with even the smallest amount of legal knowledge can see that it was not.
> I think he is still in cloud cuckoo land about the whole thing, he just isn't engaging with the mountain of evidence out there now that say his experts were wrong.
>
> And it is incredible that he still thinks that the process was fair and balanced. Anyone with even the smallest amount of legal knowledge can see that it was not.
Ray, I think there are some important aspects that need to be considered.
1. The evidence supporting VII only materialised post ban decision but Vas declined to defend himself for reasons we suppose that were it was a hostile investigation team. Not sure if Vas actually gave the reasons why not? However, in that instance, when comparing to say a court, if the defendant offers no defence then guilty as charged! Don't think there can be much complaint about that.
2. The ICGA could have left it at that and did not need to publicly post any of the evidence. That would have made sense because either through the ICGA or perhaps some legal framework Vas could still have put forward a defence that would cause the ICGA to reconsider. The ban would still have been implemented but the door not closed. To date Vas has done nothing. Remember it was not the third party supporters who were accused. Any evidence needs to be sent to the ICGA for consideration. Don't expect them to pay attention to what is posted here.
3. There is a difference between falling foul of the ICGA rule 2 and the accusation of plagiarism. There is no doubt there is significant traceability from Rybka back to Fruit 2.1 and still back to Crafty up to Rybka 3. Some of the mistakes that Rybka makes can be shown to be unique to that chain. There may be similarity of ideas or even absence of information e.g. bad bishop endings but that is not plagiarism unless the code is the same and there seems a reasonable case being made that there are significant differences.
4. The main contention that made most people anti-ICGA was what happened post decision with what seemed to be an attempt to publicly humiliate Vas and pillory him. Whether or not that was successful will be determined by the sales of the next Rybka release. Although the posts on the events on this site made interesting reading it is unlikely they will have any influence wih the ICGA. More direct action is required.
As it stands the VII third party group have made much counter claim about the originality of the Rybka engine(s) but public opinion will not change the ICGA decision. Therefore it needs to move on from here because for some time now the situation has become static and is going nowhere. If Vas does not care one way or the other, why continue with what are actionless comment and lets move on away from it.
PeterG
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Peter,
I know your post was addressed to Ray, but I was wondering why Vas has to defend himself at all? It's the accusers' job to convict him in a fair tribunal.
You want to move on, I agree, it's a good idea. Please stop posting about it then. Please also pass along the same advice to the guys at talkchess, etc. FYI, we are talking about it because part 2 was just published.
All of a sudden now that the tide is turning, now that CB has delivered two swift kicks in the ass to Dr Levy and company, now that distinguished programmers like Schroder and Ballicora and Wittington are speaking out, now it's time to be quiet and move on.
I do agree with you in that ICGA obviously does not care about the public opinion. I dare say that their venture into the public domain was a disastrous one. Hopefully they'll be more careful before putting their foot in their mouth next time.
Best regards.
I know your post was addressed to Ray, but I was wondering why Vas has to defend himself at all? It's the accusers' job to convict him in a fair tribunal.
You want to move on, I agree, it's a good idea. Please stop posting about it then. Please also pass along the same advice to the guys at talkchess, etc. FYI, we are talking about it because part 2 was just published.
All of a sudden now that the tide is turning, now that CB has delivered two swift kicks in the ass to Dr Levy and company, now that distinguished programmers like Schroder and Ballicora and Wittington are speaking out, now it's time to be quiet and move on.
I do agree with you in that ICGA obviously does not care about the public opinion. I dare say that their venture into the public domain was a disastrous one. Hopefully they'll be more careful before putting their foot in their mouth next time.
Best regards.
> but I was wondering why Vas has to defend himself at all? It's the accusers' job to convict him in a fair tribunal.
If someone is accused of something then a failure to defend through the appropriate process will almost certainly result in a guilty verdict unless a judge determines there are mitigating reasons not to do so. Vas has to defend himself to the ICGA because it was through them by the signed letter that the accusation was made.
> Please also pass along the same advice to the guys at talkchess, etc
I gave up my membership to Talkchess some time ago around the time when all of this business started up because I disagreed with what people were doing, so sorry, I cannot oblige.
> now that the tide is turning
Some public opinion is turning but unfortunately it is the guys at ICGA that need to be convinced not public opinion.
> Hopefully they'll be more careful before putting their foot in their mouth next time.
I hope they will take a more considered approach too.
PeterG
If someone is accused of something then a failure to defend through the appropriate process will almost certainly result in a guilty verdict unless a judge determines there are mitigating reasons not to do so. Vas has to defend himself to the ICGA because it was through them by the signed letter that the accusation was made.
Ugh. Vas not defending himself doesn't give the ICGA free reign to libel him. The ICGA is not a court and their findings have no greater validity than that of any individual.
Some public opinion is turning but unfortunately it is the guys at ICGA that need to be convinced not public opinion.
Couldn't disagree more with this statement. The guys at the ICGA are the least important people to convince. The important people are chess product distributors such as Chessbase, and chess engine users.
Ugh. Vas not defending himself doesn't give the ICGA free reign to libel him. The ICGA is not a court and their findings have no greater validity than that of any individual.
Some public opinion is turning but unfortunately it is the guys at ICGA that need to be convinced not public opinion.
Couldn't disagree more with this statement. The guys at the ICGA are the least important people to convince. The important people are chess product distributors such as Chessbase, and chess engine users.
> If someone is accused of something then a failure to defend through the appropriate process will almost certainly result in a guilty verdict unless a judge determines there are mitigating reasons not to do so. Vas has to defend himself to the ICGA because it was through them by the signed letter that the accusation was made.
>
> Ugh. Vas not defending himself doesn't give the ICGA free reign to libel him. The ICGA is not a court and their findings have no greater validity than that of any individual.
But jury verdicts are not the sole domain of courts. Organisation commitees may fulfil that role too. The reference to what happens at court is a useful guideline to understand the ICGA process. Their process was accepted by Vas when he entered the WCCC competitions so little to complain about there. It is what happened after the decision making that is the biggest contention.
Read my point 4. above. Thought I'd covered this.
> Some public opinion is turning but unfortunately it is the guys at ICGA that need to be convinced not public opinion.
>
> Couldn't disagree more with this statement. The guys at the ICGA are the least important people to convince. The important people are chess product distributors such as Chessbase, and chess engine users.
Then what is all of this about? Rybka will remain a commercial product but this was all about the ICGA decision.
But jury verdicts are not the sole domain of courts. Organisation commitees may fulfil that role too. The reference to what happens at court is a useful guideline to understand the ICGA process. Their process was accepted by Vas when he entered the WCCC competitions so little to complain about there. It is what happened after the decision making that is the biggest contention.
I only agree with the last sentence. Courts don't libel people. The ICGA and its members can and likely did. I would not allow myself to be put in the position that Bob Hyatt put himself in for fear of a libel suit. It's very dangerous for organizations to compare themselves to the courts. This wouldn't look good if you ended up in a real court...
Then what is all of this about? Rybka will remain a commercial product but this was all about the ICGA decision.
I have to disagree. If the ICGA did their investigation and quietly came to the same conclusions and took the same actions without the public accusations, I don't think anyone, including Vas, would have really cared. It was the ICGA publicly calling Vas a cheat in their press release that led to the current situation. Vas may not have even noticed the actual decision...
I only agree with the last sentence. Courts don't libel people. The ICGA and its members can and likely did. I would not allow myself to be put in the position that Bob Hyatt put himself in for fear of a libel suit. It's very dangerous for organizations to compare themselves to the courts. This wouldn't look good if you ended up in a real court...
Then what is all of this about? Rybka will remain a commercial product but this was all about the ICGA decision.
I have to disagree. If the ICGA did their investigation and quietly came to the same conclusions and took the same actions without the public accusations, I don't think anyone, including Vas, would have really cared. It was the ICGA publicly calling Vas a cheat in their press release that led to the current situation. Vas may not have even noticed the actual decision...
> If the ICGA did their investigation and quietly came to the same conclusions and took the same actions without the public accusations, I don't think anyone, including Vas, would have really cared. It was the ICGA publicly calling Vas a cheat in their press release that led to the current situation. Vas may not have even noticed the actual decision...
That has been my line pretty much from my first post on the matter, so really we don't disagree!
PeterG
Perhaps the FSF reviewed Fabien's case against Vas as frivolous and gave it the heave ho! That would leave the door open for a libel suit against the lot of them.
"Vas not defending himself doesn't give the ICGA free reign to libel him"
For the sake of argument, what do you consider libellous in the ICGA's press release?
For the sake of argument, what do you consider libellous in the ICGA's press release?
I spot 3 lies to begin with.
1. The evidence supporting VII only materialised post ban decision but Vas declined to defend himself for reasons we suppose that were it was a hostile investigation team. Not sure if Vas actually gave the reasons why not? However, in that instance, when comparing to say a court, if the defendant offers no defence then guilty as charged! Don't think there can be much complaint about that.
The ICGA is not a court and the discussion is not advanced by pretending that they have this stature. The ICGA is perfectly in its right to throw Vas out for any reason, or no reason at all. He is not obligated in any way to defend himself to this organization, and he is free to go after any libelous statements that is made by the ICGA (which would not be the case in a court action).
To date Vas has done nothing. Remember it was not the third party supporters who were accused. Any evidence needs to be sent to the ICGA for consideration. Don't expect them to pay attention to what is posted here.
There is no reason to believe that Vas has any interest in getting back into the good graces of the ICGA. In fact, this is highly unlikely. There is therefor absolutely no reason for Vas to send anything to the ICGA with the possible exception of service papers.
3. There is a difference between falling foul of the ICGA rule 2 and the accusation of plagiarism. There is no doubt there is significant traceability from Rybka back to Fruit 2.1 and still back to Crafty up to Rybka 3.
What??? Rybka and Fruit used similar features, so there is at least something to point at. But if you are aware of any influence from Crafty at all in any released Rybka you should advance the discussion by pointing it out. Bob did assert many times that Rybka used his rotated bitboard code, but this was shown to be false for all released Rybka engines.
4. The main contention that made most people anti-ICGA was what happened post decision with what seemed to be an attempt to publicly humiliate Vas and pillory him. Whether or not that was successful will be determined by the sales of the next Rybka release.
This is also not correct. In theory, the ICGA could be found guilty of libeling Vas, even if there is no obvious reduction in Rybka sales.
Although the posts on the events on this site made interesting reading it is unlikely they will have any influence wih the ICGA. More direct action is required.
Once again, you are misinterpreting the desired action from the ICGA.
Is it likely that Vas will take any action against the ICGA? Of course not. This nebulous organization has no identifiable assets to go after, and Vas isn't in a position to spend a lot of money on something like this with no possibility of even breaking even. But that's neither here nor there.
The ICGA is not a court and the discussion is not advanced by pretending that they have this stature. The ICGA is perfectly in its right to throw Vas out for any reason, or no reason at all. He is not obligated in any way to defend himself to this organization, and he is free to go after any libelous statements that is made by the ICGA (which would not be the case in a court action).
To date Vas has done nothing. Remember it was not the third party supporters who were accused. Any evidence needs to be sent to the ICGA for consideration. Don't expect them to pay attention to what is posted here.
There is no reason to believe that Vas has any interest in getting back into the good graces of the ICGA. In fact, this is highly unlikely. There is therefor absolutely no reason for Vas to send anything to the ICGA with the possible exception of service papers.
3. There is a difference between falling foul of the ICGA rule 2 and the accusation of plagiarism. There is no doubt there is significant traceability from Rybka back to Fruit 2.1 and still back to Crafty up to Rybka 3.
What??? Rybka and Fruit used similar features, so there is at least something to point at. But if you are aware of any influence from Crafty at all in any released Rybka you should advance the discussion by pointing it out. Bob did assert many times that Rybka used his rotated bitboard code, but this was shown to be false for all released Rybka engines.
4. The main contention that made most people anti-ICGA was what happened post decision with what seemed to be an attempt to publicly humiliate Vas and pillory him. Whether or not that was successful will be determined by the sales of the next Rybka release.
This is also not correct. In theory, the ICGA could be found guilty of libeling Vas, even if there is no obvious reduction in Rybka sales.
Although the posts on the events on this site made interesting reading it is unlikely they will have any influence wih the ICGA. More direct action is required.
Once again, you are misinterpreting the desired action from the ICGA.
Is it likely that Vas will take any action against the ICGA? Of course not. This nebulous organization has no identifiable assets to go after, and Vas isn't in a position to spend a lot of money on something like this with no possibility of even breaking even. But that's neither here nor there.
> Bob did assert many times that Rybka used his rotated bitboard code, but this was shown to be false for all released Rybka engines.
This was? Can you point to where? I had assumed that this was something that was true (taking rotated bitboard code), and that there was no problem with this because Bob generally allowed people to do this.
> Can you point to where?
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=390661#pid390661
and
"I had my own bitboard code since 2003. I'm pretty sure that will be obvious from the executables." - Vas to Riis team on 23 Dec 2011.
I see--before seeing Vas's 12/23 statement, I just assumed that he was saying that the second part of Bob's statement was false.
> I just assumed that he was saying that the second part of Bob's statement was false.
No, Vas wouldn't have included the first part in that case. Ed has called Hyatt on this numerous times and Hyatt is unable to show where his bitboard code is in *any* version of Rybka (private or otherwise). So we assume that even Hyatt accepts that his bitboard code is not in any version of Rybka and that the numerous times he lied about it are in fact lies.
So we assume that even Hyatt accepts that his bitboard code is not in any version of Rybka and that the numerous times he lied about it are in fact lies.
After repeating the lie that Vas was using his rotated bitboard code hundreds of time, Bob never acknowledged that he had been wrong the entire time. First he claimed it was really the same, then he said he would go away and prove it. He went away (thank God!), but never acknowledged that he has been wrong on this matter for many years. Of course the reason for not acknowledging this is obvious. If he can't identify whether his most well known contribution to computer chess is being used in another engine, what chance does he have of finding out whether it contains another persons code?
My prediction is that Bob will be quiet about this for a few months, and then will start repeating the same lie again. This is his modus operandi.
After repeating the lie that Vas was using his rotated bitboard code hundreds of time, Bob never acknowledged that he had been wrong the entire time. First he claimed it was really the same, then he said he would go away and prove it. He went away (thank God!), but never acknowledged that he has been wrong on this matter for many years. Of course the reason for not acknowledging this is obvious. If he can't identify whether his most well known contribution to computer chess is being used in another engine, what chance does he have of finding out whether it contains another persons code?
My prediction is that Bob will be quiet about this for a few months, and then will start repeating the same lie again. This is his modus operandi.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
>My prediction is that Bob will be quiet about this for a few months, and then will start repeating the same lie again. This is his modus operandi.
This is likely to happen, but usually it only takes a few days
> If he can't identify whether his most well known contribution to computer chess is being used in another engine, what chance does he have of finding out whether it contains another persons code?
Is this the same Bob who was proclaiming it was easy to reverse engineer the Rybka assembled code and he had no doubt about the Crafty code that was in Rybka? I think my VII - VIG swingometer just took a massive movement towards the VII side from the neutral position.
PeterG
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
What I've seen is people swinging from the VIG side to the VII side (myself included) and people going from neutral to VII, but I have yet to see people swinging to the VIG side.
This could change if Bob became a proponent of VII...
> This could change if Bob became a proponent of VII...
That eureka moment would undoubtedly be the shock that would drop him where he stood with a sudden cardiac arrest! No doubt the last word on his lips would not be "rosebud" but "Rybka".
I don't think Levy gave honest answers. For 8 months we have been asking why Mr Williamson (who works with Vas's direct commercial competitor) was a part of the secretariat. Why were Vas's direct commercial competitors sitting on that panel? Did you see a good answer to those questions because I certainly did not. As a private organization, they can put Buggs Bunny on their panel for all I care, but once they publicize their verdict and bring it to the general population, they have to be ready for tough questions. Of course, it was very interesting to note that Mr Levy said he won't be taking any questions from the readers on this matter.
Every question that is put to Mr Levy, the answer is "oh, this all came from the internet forums....this is all from Rybka forum". They have simply dismissed every opposing view as coming from "Rybka fanboys". I am not a Rybka fanboy, I could careless about Rybka, Vas, etc, but please don't lie to me. Don't tell me there were only 3 (and that's 3 too many by the way) commercial competitors when I know that's a lie. Don't tell me that 3 or 5 INDEPENDENT computer/programming experts could not have written up a good report on this topic. Don't tell me that the vote was 16-0 when I know that's a lie too.
Chessbase continually called Vas a "star programmer", I didn't see the same accolades being given to the ICGA people. People can draw whatever conclusion they like from that.
Every question that is put to Mr Levy, the answer is "oh, this all came from the internet forums....this is all from Rybka forum". They have simply dismissed every opposing view as coming from "Rybka fanboys". I am not a Rybka fanboy, I could careless about Rybka, Vas, etc, but please don't lie to me. Don't tell me there were only 3 (and that's 3 too many by the way) commercial competitors when I know that's a lie. Don't tell me that 3 or 5 INDEPENDENT computer/programming experts could not have written up a good report on this topic. Don't tell me that the vote was 16-0 when I know that's a lie too.
Chessbase continually called Vas a "star programmer", I didn't see the same accolades being given to the ICGA people. People can draw whatever conclusion they like from that.
Out of interest, how much of the discussion and evidence for VII has formally been posted in a constructive document to the ICGA? See my post above because if the intention is to try and overturn the ICGA ban then it seems to be that nothing has been formally done to start that process rolling. Don't expect the ICGA to act on people's posts on these types of Websites or Chessbase for that matter. A formal document countering the VIG evidence should be sent to to the ICGA.
PeterG
PeterG
Vas can make an appeal if he is so inclined. The rest of us are just voicing our opinions on this public forum.
Personally, I have some concerns about those early Rybkas, looks like Vas did not exercise the best judgement there. I have concerns about all this source code which seems to have vanished. However all of that pales in comparison to my concerns about the bias of some of the panel members. A man absolutely is entitled to a fair process.
Personally, I have some concerns about those early Rybkas, looks like Vas did not exercise the best judgement there. I have concerns about all this source code which seems to have vanished. However all of that pales in comparison to my concerns about the bias of some of the panel members. A man absolutely is entitled to a fair process.
> A man absolutely is entitled to a fair process.
Could not agree more and I suppose this is what much of this case is about. Was it fair or was it the subject of a certain individual's unrelenting persecution? The more I have seen of it the less I am convinced this was driven by Fabien Letouzey.
PeterG
![[nz]](/mwf/v12/flags/nz.png "New Zealand")
> The more I have seen of it the less I am convinced this was driven by Fabien Letouzey.
I agree with this 100%.
Why Graham / Peter ?
You make me curious.
You make me curious.
> Why Graham / Peter ?
Ed, taking into account the evidence providers, the post-ICGA decision postings attempting to support the ICGA decison, how much of this is attributable to Fabien Letouzey? All I have seen is his name at the start of a letter of complaint that kicked off all of this with the ICGA, many years after he announced on Talkchess that there was little originality in Fruit and he did not see any copyrightable issues during the Strelka/Rybka/Fruit similarity implications when they were first raised. It almost begs the question "How are we certain that he actually signed that letter?". After doing so he seemed to fade out of the proceedings just as he did so many years ago. Must admit I missed a big chunk of this earlier in 2011 when I was hospitalised for some time and in trying to catch up I may have missed something of relevance. However, if anyone was pursuing this with vigour, I would have expected it to be Fabien Letouzey and not Bob Hyatt.
Regards,
Peter
> "How are we certain that he actually signed that letter?".
100%.
Fabien contacted me to sign the letter.
But at that time I do remember I wondered about his quick judgement (VIG) time wise and in retrospect I now think he was lured into it. The evidence is too easy to believe because of its presentation and it takes an enormous time and energy to spot the holes and slowly come to a different conclusion.
In the meantime it's known now that days after the Rybka verdict (now 8 months ago) Fabien filed another complaint to the ICGA, this time about LOOP that was sold commercially to Nintendo with the help of ICGA official Jaap v/d Herik. And likely he is right this time.
> 100%.
>
> Fabien contacted me to sign the letter.
Thanks for that Ed. At least that makes me feel more comfortable about the authenticity of the letter.
> The evidence is too easy to believe because of its presentation and it takes an enormous time and energy to spot the holes and slowly come to a different conclusion.
Because of that I also think the "experts" would not have expected their reports to have been questioned or examined in such detail by anyone other than Vas. It is always good to get an alternative appraisal. The problem with many experts is that they do not want to be wrong (understandably) but then they can enter into argument where they with-hold or manipulate the information to align it with their "expert opinion". In many cases, such as here, it is only an opinion with much of that opinion being subject to the accuracy of the interpretation of the RE of the Rybka assembled code.
> In the meantime it's known now that days after the Rybka verdict (now 8 months ago) Fabien filed another complaint to the ICGA, this time about LOOP that was sold commercially to Nintendo with the help of ICGA official Jaap v/d Herik. And likely he is right this time.
Could the ICGA investigate and claim there is no vested interest in the outcome?
Regards,
Peter
> Could the ICGA investigate and claim there is no vested interest in the outcome?
It's already decided the ICGA is going to investigate the ICGA, no voyeurs allowed.
> Why Graham / Peter ?
>
> You make me curious.
Just a hunch. I wonder who it was that pointed out their concerns to Fabien and got him all worked up and brought him back. Whoever it was is the one (or the ones) behind the whole affair. I have my suspicions about the culprits and it would seem quite obvious that they were ringleaders from the start.
The ringleaders were not the main problem, the lack of a decent opposition was. It's present now but the train has left the station. And as for typical human behaviour, once a decision is taken it takes a 10+ earthquake to trigger a new process to look at the evidence one more time again. For me that earthquake was the life-time ban, the horrifying Levy press release and the farce the mainstream media made out of it. All out of proportion.
Ed, there was nothing "horrifying" about the press release. You were appalled by essentially one story that was published in a throw-away tabloid newspaper, which you mistakenly blamed on the ICGA. Your reaction was out of all proportion, and appears to have fuelled your desire to find any possible arguments, however weak, to claim Vas is "innocent".
> any possible arguments, however weak, to claim Vas is "innocent".
Chessbase seems to be buying Ed's "weak" arguments.
In what sense is ChessBase a moral arbiter? They have a commercial interest in Rybka and have risked their reputation by publishing an almost comically biased interview on the topic (plus Riis' article).
Vesuvio,
I'll give u that CB may have a commercial interest if you agree that at least a couple of people on the ICGA panel had the same. Do we agree on that?
Let me use an analogy: ICGA is selling us a bottle of water, let's say it has a little contamination in it. You say "this contamination is essentially benign bacteria, it's not gonna hurt me, I know the water is good and I know the folks who purified the water are good hard working people. I don't have a problem, I am gonna drink that water". I say "I don't want contaminated water, I am gonna pass, I am gonna throw out the bottle and be done with it and I am not gonna buy any more water from these guys". I think we both have a point there, it's just a matter of opinion.
Now Hyatt enters and says "you don't know the first thing about purifying water, you need to shut up". I say ok, I am still not drinking the water though. He says "this water is only for a select few in my family, I don't really give a damn if you drink it or not". I say ok, my mistake, it's just that you had put the water in the store shelf for public consumption, and I am still not drinking it!
Silly example, but this is basically the way I look at it. Best Regards.
I'll give u that CB may have a commercial interest if you agree that at least a couple of people on the ICGA panel had the same. Do we agree on that?
Let me use an analogy: ICGA is selling us a bottle of water, let's say it has a little contamination in it. You say "this contamination is essentially benign bacteria, it's not gonna hurt me, I know the water is good and I know the folks who purified the water are good hard working people. I don't have a problem, I am gonna drink that water". I say "I don't want contaminated water, I am gonna pass, I am gonna throw out the bottle and be done with it and I am not gonna buy any more water from these guys". I think we both have a point there, it's just a matter of opinion.
Now Hyatt enters and says "you don't know the first thing about purifying water, you need to shut up". I say ok, I am still not drinking the water though. He says "this water is only for a select few in my family, I don't really give a damn if you drink it or not". I say ok, my mistake, it's just that you had put the water in the store shelf for public consumption, and I am still not drinking it!
Silly example, but this is basically the way I look at it. Best Regards.
> You were appalled by essentially one story that was published in a throw-away tabloid newspaper, which you mistakenly blamed on the ICGA.
That's a false accusation. Are we going the Hyatt way now? Then we are pretty much done with each other. You don't have his status. Clear ?
> and appears to have fuelled your desire to find any possible arguments, however weak, to claim Vas is "innocent".
At least I am in the position to judge the technical material and have done so accordingly. But who are you ?
Here's a quote from Chris about that story: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=393988#pid393988
"I think you can assume HW came up with the headline "Czech Mate You Cheat", since the play on words and knowledge of nationality would be too much to expect from a Metro journalist, and he would also have come up with the family photographs of Vas. All in all it shows the process for what it really was, no sober fact finding panel - rather a venomous, witchhunting, rabid mob desperate to inflict maximum humiliation whilst pretending fine motives. Why else would Vas's WIFE be visually dragged into the humiliation process? Psychopathic."
Here's your reply: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=394047#pid394047
"The cynical reality for me is that the wedding picture plus the Levy life-time ban plus Bob's argumentation here are the base of my change of heart in the matter. Normally I can see the humor of that, but I like to pass this time."
No, I could never dream of having Bob's status in computer chess, and I've got no interest in regularly posting here either. In fact one of my resolutions (along with not playing bullet chess!) is to stop asap.
On arguments - that's largely based on the non-technical arguments you've resorted to, which have been very weak. On more technical matters - sure, I don't consider myself competent to judge, though I do think you can get some idea from listening to both sides (as I've spent more time at the Rybka forum than elsewhere I've probably heard more of your arguments than the ICGA's). Plus there's also the matter of what even you, or Chris, or Banned for Life (who's happy to accept "plagiarism") concede. That alone strikes me as sufficient to contravene the loosely worded Rule 2. Copyright is a whole different technical and legal matter.
"I think you can assume HW came up with the headline "Czech Mate You Cheat", since the play on words and knowledge of nationality would be too much to expect from a Metro journalist, and he would also have come up with the family photographs of Vas. All in all it shows the process for what it really was, no sober fact finding panel - rather a venomous, witchhunting, rabid mob desperate to inflict maximum humiliation whilst pretending fine motives. Why else would Vas's WIFE be visually dragged into the humiliation process? Psychopathic."
Here's your reply: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=394047#pid394047
"The cynical reality for me is that the wedding picture plus the Levy life-time ban plus Bob's argumentation here are the base of my change of heart in the matter. Normally I can see the humor of that, but I like to pass this time."
No, I could never dream of having Bob's status in computer chess, and I've got no interest in regularly posting here either. In fact one of my resolutions (along with not playing bullet chess!) is to stop asap.
On arguments - that's largely based on the non-technical arguments you've resorted to, which have been very weak. On more technical matters - sure, I don't consider myself competent to judge, though I do think you can get some idea from listening to both sides (as I've spent more time at the Rybka forum than elsewhere I've probably heard more of your arguments than the ICGA's). Plus there's also the matter of what even you, or Chris, or Banned for Life (who's happy to accept "plagiarism") concede. That alone strikes me as sufficient to contravene the loosely worded Rule 2. Copyright is a whole different technical and legal matter.
And how are my words connected that I blame the ICGA for supplying Vas' wedding picture ?
What I said back then became the start of going one more time through the documents. It took me 5 weeks to change my mind.
What I said back then became the start of going one more time through the documents. It took me 5 weeks to change my mind.
I said you "blamed the ICGA" for the story. Would you prefer "hold the ICGA responsible"? Probably you've been more specific in other quotes (and you were certainly keen on the idea that the ICGA sent the pictures on that thread I quoted), but I don't have time to have a look (football beckons!).
Bad arguments - that story, Bob, the life-time ban (not saying it is/isn't excessive, but it's not a reason to question whether Rule 2 was broken) - could lead to the truth, but they could also give you a powerful motivation to deceive yourself and pursue an extreme case. But ok, everyone has motivations. I still think Rule 2 being broken isn't really in doubt, or if it is Vas should appeal. The rest is hot air until any copyright proceedings take place.
Bad arguments - that story, Bob, the life-time ban (not saying it is/isn't excessive, but it's not a reason to question whether Rule 2 was broken) - could lead to the truth, but they could also give you a powerful motivation to deceive yourself and pursue an extreme case. But ok, everyone has motivations. I still think Rule 2 being broken isn't really in doubt, or if it is Vas should appeal. The rest is hot air until any copyright proceedings take place.
You write about a "life time ban".
I'm quite sure you know that there is no life time ban. He just have to fullfill some conditions. So i guess your reasons for saying that is:
1) you want to manipulate
or
2) you have a very short-time memory
or
3) something else (like: you are forced, or it's your job)
perhaps it would be a good idea, in future they would allow just open source engines to participate. It would make "anti doping" tests easier and faster.th
I'm sure that as developer you know very well the "copying tentation", and i'm quite sure that that you consider it also likely that vas took something that he shouldnt have. Not only him, I'm quite sure that a very large number of people took at least little pieces of code that were useful for them.
Especially if you dont write open source code, you are more tentated to copy and not admit it. Or even more you consider it your own code.
Question:
Do you intend to release one of your older versions of your chess engine as open source?
Since all the engine are far above, I dont see many reasons not to open source it. Or do you think it could bring you a financiar damage?
I'm quite sure you know that there is no life time ban. He just have to fullfill some conditions. So i guess your reasons for saying that is:
1) you want to manipulate
or
2) you have a very short-time memory
or
3) something else (like: you are forced, or it's your job)
perhaps it would be a good idea, in future they would allow just open source engines to participate. It would make "anti doping" tests easier and faster.th
I'm sure that as developer you know very well the "copying tentation", and i'm quite sure that that you consider it also likely that vas took something that he shouldnt have. Not only him, I'm quite sure that a very large number of people took at least little pieces of code that were useful for them.
Especially if you dont write open source code, you are more tentated to copy and not admit it. Or even more you consider it your own code.
Question:
Do you intend to release one of your older versions of your chess engine as open source?
Since all the engine are far above, I dont see many reasons not to open source it. Or do you think it could bring you a financiar damage?
> I'm quite sure you know that there is no life time ban.
Where have you been living? This was the official ICGA decision, and it is documented without any doubt. David Levy also makes it clear in the interview in explaining the disqualification of Rybka 2008-2011 and in dismissing the importance of Rybka 3 and 4 that there is no way to reverse this life ban.
> So i guess your reasons for saying that is:
> 1) you want to manipulate
> or
> 2) you have a very short-time memory
> or
> 3) something else (like: you are forced, or it's your job)
Aha, another mind reader
> perhaps it would be a good idea, in future they would allow just open source engines to participate. It would make "anti doping" tests easier and faster.
That would cause a main obstacle for many competing programmers. Besides, there is a better way, stay tuned it will be presented soon.
> Do you intend to release one of your older versions of your chess engine as open source?
Nobody is interested in my spaghetti assembler code, instead I have documented Rebel in readable pseudo code after my retirement from the competition back in 2004.
The lack of decent opposition was one of the problems (by intent of course). The other problem was that the principals were not the type that can acknowledge a mistake has been made after the fact. It takes a big man to admit that an initial impression that seemed obvious at one point, was not correct. Bob, Mark, and David didn't make the grade...
The more I read from you the more I am convinced that you have a secret agenda. You are not a CC expert but you claim something for the first time that also R3 is in a chain of the neighborhood of Fruit. IMO this is crap without proof. Now we are at the point who could have interest in thw smear against Vas and you come quickly with the opinion that certainly Letoutzey isnt the evil man. I oppose that by naming the shitters in my eyes. Theron, Hyatt, Kranium = Norman Schmidt, perhaps the most obscure guy in the scene, then I have Fabien on the list, he was IMO paid for lancing all the protests because without him others couldnt have whined about Fruit.
I judge the whole from a perspective of doubting that the whole process was based on legal justice, it wasnt IMO. If this snippet or that code was from what is secondary for me. Because Vas was always the strongest. Since this is a sport It's beyond me why the strength isnt seen as a dominating factor. Something that is way stronger than something else cant be the copy of that entity. By definition.
The whole Hyatt smear campaign is something out of some Alabama slaughter house because Hyatt is seeking some smell in the fifth power to reveil a capital crime like homicide. It's like crazy. He is totally confused and obsessed. But remember, you can talk with him while all the sissies are autistic whiners.
I am not so sure that Vas has it wrong with his superior silence. Therefore it's suboptimal if we think it's better to keep quiet. I doubt that organizers who want to present money are happy with the open wound. Therefore normally the Levy clan must have interest in solving this case for good. Perhaps by leaving Vas free after two years penalty. He doesnt want to participate anymore since all others are only waiting to copy his new inventions. Vas will become the top adviser for the human chessplayers but that will take time. Then the offer will be extended for the amateurs too. A normal chessplayer will always seek the help from higher best players or tools so that they then could profit in their own games. Of course the whole baby testing crap will go down in flames and with it all the former competitors of Vas. So they basically have digged their own graves.
So this will be the end for all these impostering nonames who thought that they could dominate in human chess or change it into computerchess. What a hoax!
I judge the whole from a perspective of doubting that the whole process was based on legal justice, it wasnt IMO. If this snippet or that code was from what is secondary for me. Because Vas was always the strongest. Since this is a sport It's beyond me why the strength isnt seen as a dominating factor. Something that is way stronger than something else cant be the copy of that entity. By definition.
The whole Hyatt smear campaign is something out of some Alabama slaughter house because Hyatt is seeking some smell in the fifth power to reveil a capital crime like homicide. It's like crazy. He is totally confused and obsessed. But remember, you can talk with him while all the sissies are autistic whiners.
I am not so sure that Vas has it wrong with his superior silence. Therefore it's suboptimal if we think it's better to keep quiet. I doubt that organizers who want to present money are happy with the open wound. Therefore normally the Levy clan must have interest in solving this case for good. Perhaps by leaving Vas free after two years penalty. He doesnt want to participate anymore since all others are only waiting to copy his new inventions. Vas will become the top adviser for the human chessplayers but that will take time. Then the offer will be extended for the amateurs too. A normal chessplayer will always seek the help from higher best players or tools so that they then could profit in their own games. Of course the whole baby testing crap will go down in flames and with it all the former competitors of Vas. So they basically have digged their own graves.
So this will be the end for all these impostering nonames who thought that they could dominate in human chess or change it into computerchess. What a hoax!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill