![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
Thank you! And, the Hyatt squad have no answer. Their argument is demolished.
And, rather unbelievably, BB-Watkins in his document that finds a total average 74% overlap between Fruit and Rybka scores the pair as follows:
Knight mobility 80% overlap!!!!!
Bishop mobility 80% overlap!!!!
Rook mobility 80% overlap!!!!!
Queen mobility 80% overlap!!!!!
and adds all four of these into his total!!!
Hard to believe huh?! The Watkins document is just nonsense, I mean just what is it that gives 4 x 80% matching here? Nothing, just nothing matches. No code, no source, no implementation. What a fraud was that ICGA material against Vas and Rybka.
And, rather unbelievably, BB-Watkins in his document that finds a total average 74% overlap between Fruit and Rybka scores the pair as follows:
Knight mobility 80% overlap!!!!!
Bishop mobility 80% overlap!!!!
Rook mobility 80% overlap!!!!!
Queen mobility 80% overlap!!!!!
and adds all four of these into his total!!!
Hard to believe huh?! The Watkins document is just nonsense, I mean just what is it that gives 4 x 80% matching here? Nothing, just nothing matches. No code, no source, no implementation. What a fraud was that ICGA material against Vas and Rybka.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
The Watkins document is just nonsense, I mean just what is it that gives 4 x 80% matching here? Nothing, just nothing matches. No code, no source, no implementation. What a fraud was that ICGA material against Vas and Rybka.
+15 trillion. Amen.
+15 trillion. Amen.
I'm flabbergasted. I mean if he really insisted on this daft mobility non-comparison, he could have put it in once, but FOUR times? Quite a contribution to the final score. And if this kind of bollocks non-comparison scores 80%, what does that say about the quality of the supposed 74% average?
Come on, programmers. Open your mouths for once. Stand up and be counted. This "mobility comparison" is total bullshit, no?
Come on, programmers. Open your mouths for once. Stand up and be counted. This "mobility comparison" is total bullshit, no?
I rejected the eval_compare_feature document the moment I realized its goal. And back then I was VIG. It's totally lacking any insight in modern chess programming among other things.
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
On your "differences in block yellow" - you do realise lots of the text is exactly the same, so you could have used a little less yellow.
And if someone wanted to they could claim the text is basically identical: i.e.
initialise the bishop mobility score to a constant
mobility = constant;
add in the legal move count
mobility = mobility + [sum of pseudo-legal moves];
multiply by a weighting factor
mobility = mobility * [weighting factor];
Only constants seem to be changed (tuning) except for the parenthetical "captures and non-captures are hard coded to be treated the same way" - though Bob argued that was totally insignificant: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=397807;hl=hard%20coded (don't ask me, I'm just in the gallery throwing popcorn...)
Anyway, your hyperbole's obvious. It's also a bit tedious for you all to celebrate Bob's absence (you got what you'd been asking for) and then use that absence to pretend there's no answer to your claims.
And if someone wanted to they could claim the text is basically identical: i.e.
initialise the bishop mobility score to a constant
mobility = constant;
add in the legal move count
mobility = mobility + [sum of pseudo-legal moves];
multiply by a weighting factor
mobility = mobility * [weighting factor];
Only constants seem to be changed (tuning) except for the parenthetical "captures and non-captures are hard coded to be treated the same way" - though Bob argued that was totally insignificant: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=397807;hl=hard%20coded (don't ask me, I'm just in the gallery throwing popcorn...)
Anyway, your hyperbole's obvious. It's also a bit tedious for you all to celebrate Bob's absence (you got what you'd been asking for) and then use that absence to pretend there's no answer to your claims.
Your further abstraction, for that is what you have done, takes the freedom of expression of the code to 1 (uniqueness), for how else will a programmer implement simple mobility, as defined in the chess programming wiki btw, in any other way? You abstracted so far you are into ideas-land. The idea is the same (but hardly original since the wiki defines it already) but the implementation is wildly different.
A total non-comparison. I would put $1000 that a sizeable chunk of the set (Crafty, Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior etc) do pretty much the same. And if I were to write another chess program, it is what I would do too.
Bob Hyatt has run away. His cause is lost.
A total non-comparison. I would put $1000 that a sizeable chunk of the set (Crafty, Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior etc) do pretty much the same. And if I were to write another chess program, it is what I would do too.
Bob Hyatt has run away. His cause is lost.
The argument as I see it is: there are other ways of implementing mobility, you don't need to implement it for all the pieces Fruit does, and different approaches to evaluation are used by other programs. Nobody has claimed either 1) the particular bishop mobility evaluation is identical, or 2) that by itself it proves anything. Still, it certainly doesn't harm the overall case for Fruit and Rybka having similar evaluation functions. My impression is that you haven't found a way to dispute the overall picture which is why you're focussing on isolated fragments, pointing out that they're not sufficient as proof on their own, and then claiming it's an obvious extrapolation to say that the overall proof isn't sufficient. But that doesn't follow.
Again, posting nonsense about Hyatt doesn't help your argument - and it's only at the Rybka forum that anyone seems to think general opinion has shifted.
Again, posting nonsense about Hyatt doesn't help your argument - and it's only at the Rybka forum that anyone seems to think general opinion has shifted.
If you think the Hyatt/ICGA case is still standing then you've not been reading. Their case is wrecked. Some people see this faster than others.
As to the overall picture: there's use of overlapping ideas. There's use of original ideas. There's use of ideas from other places. And so what? Ideas are free to use. There is no metric which compares modern strong programs to get an idea of general overlap. Comparing ponder hit rates shows Rybka and Fruit are from different families.
There's no case at all for the slurs on Vas and Rybka. Period.
As to the overall picture: there's use of overlapping ideas. There's use of original ideas. There's use of ideas from other places. And so what? Ideas are free to use. There is no metric which compares modern strong programs to get an idea of general overlap. Comparing ponder hit rates shows Rybka and Fruit are from different families.
There's no case at all for the slurs on Vas and Rybka. Period.
Again, posting nonsense about Hyatt doesn't help your argument
Hyatt has been caught posting an incredible amount of lies, so if he is the one pushing the VIG myth, everybody understands that the credibility of this case is down the drain. That you still believe in a case full of lies, backed up by fraudulent ICGA/Hyatt/Watkins behaviour is your problem.
and it's only at the Rybka forum that anyone seems to think general opinion has shifted.
The shift is much bigger than you think. I have spoken to many chess players who have read the ChessBase article and they think the whole ICGA case has been about jealousy of a few frustrated programmers.
Hyatt has been caught posting an incredible amount of lies, so if he is the one pushing the VIG myth, everybody understands that the credibility of this case is down the drain. That you still believe in a case full of lies, backed up by fraudulent ICGA/Hyatt/Watkins behaviour is your problem.
and it's only at the Rybka forum that anyone seems to think general opinion has shifted.
The shift is much bigger than you think. I have spoken to many chess players who have read the ChessBase article and they think the whole ICGA case has been about jealousy of a few frustrated programmers.
Again, you're not helping your case.
"Incredible amount of lies" is rubbish (certainly in the couple of months I've been reading this forum).
"VIG myth" is rubbish - it was a verdict reached by a large group of people after a painstaking investigation. Your case is, for now, the "conspiracy theory" or "myth". Let Vas appeal if he thinks he has something more concrete.
"Everybody understands" is idiotic hyperbole. You haven't the slightest evidence a majority (or even more than a handful) of people agree with your view. "Everybody" is a falsehood, lie, or whatever word you prefer.
"fraudulent" - not a word that should be used lightly, and certainly not by people claiming they're suffering from defamation and accusations made without sufficient evidence.
"I have spoken to many chess players who have read the ChessBase article and they think the whole ICGA case has been about jealousy of a few frustrated programmers."
So some people bought the purely emotional case that was shamelessly pedalled at ChessBase? Great.
"Incredible amount of lies" is rubbish (certainly in the couple of months I've been reading this forum).
"VIG myth" is rubbish - it was a verdict reached by a large group of people after a painstaking investigation. Your case is, for now, the "conspiracy theory" or "myth". Let Vas appeal if he thinks he has something more concrete.
"Everybody understands" is idiotic hyperbole. You haven't the slightest evidence a majority (or even more than a handful) of people agree with your view. "Everybody" is a falsehood, lie, or whatever word you prefer.
"fraudulent" - not a word that should be used lightly, and certainly not by people claiming they're suffering from defamation and accusations made without sufficient evidence.
"I have spoken to many chess players who have read the ChessBase article and they think the whole ICGA case has been about jealousy of a few frustrated programmers."
So some people bought the purely emotional case that was shamelessly pedalled at ChessBase? Great.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
> So some people bought the purely emotional case that was shamelessly pedalled at ChessBase?
With all due respect sir, I'll take what Friedel, Silver, etc (Chessbase) think over your opinion any time, especially since we have no idea who you are or what your credentials are. It's no coincidence that once Chessbase put the hammer down, (you know who) ran with his tail between his legs.
The article was written by Riis, not Friedel or Silver. I do think it's a little embarrassing to publish such a poorly argued piece but (absurdly biased questions aside) it was to their credit that they also published the interview with Levy. I'm not sure what you mean about anyone running away. You might need to check your chronology.
Please list the errors in the Riis article.
It's all been done before, and in great detail, so there's really no point repeating it. Using weak arguments like "everybody does it", "Rule 2 should be changed", "Rybka is x points better therefore it must be original" or "Robert Hyatt posts a lot at the Rybka forum" [not direct quotes!] simply undermine Rajlich's position and certainly don't even begin to provide a defence against breaking Rule 2, never mind demonstrate a "gross miscarriage of justice". Various other problems like unattributed quotes and data don't help matters. It was a poor effort. Maybe a convincing case can be made, but you'd have to cut out all of that and adopt a proper neutral tone (or at least one that wasn't blatantly biased). It would also help to decide exactly what you want to defend Rajlich against - the ICGA verdict or possible copyright issues - as it seems to me that the defence against copyright issues tends to concede the ICGA verdict was correct.
I'll just respond to one of your points
that's a very valid criticism. It shows that the investigation was run by someone so obsessed by this issue that he posted 10000 times across the forums AFTER it was already over. Certainly not normal human behavior.
Contrast Chessbase portraying Hyatt as a lunatic and Vas as a "star programmer". Why do you think Hyatt's handlers have asked him to put a sock in it?
> "Robert Hyatt posts a lot at the Rybka forum
that's a very valid criticism. It shows that the investigation was run by someone so obsessed by this issue that he posted 10000 times across the forums AFTER it was already over. Certainly not normal human behavior.
Contrast Chessbase portraying Hyatt as a lunatic and Vas as a "star programmer". Why do you think Hyatt's handlers have asked him to put a sock in it?
It really isn't a valid criticism, I'm afraid. The only thing I'd concede is that it wasn't a good use of Bob's time to respond here, but doing so was to his credit. I've already noted the biased wording at ChessBase and that doesn't work in your (or their) favour.
> It really isn't a valid criticism, I'm afraid.
It's a valid point once you recognize and contemplate the obsessive aggression that is the cause of such a posting pattern and how such traits will taint processes spearheaded by such a person. Of course, it's your own decision if you want to recognize this point or stay in denial of simple facts ("only thing I'd concede"...).
> I've already noted the biased wording at ChessBase and that doesn't work in your (or their) favour.
You are arguing beside the point. Some simple questions: Has Bob's behaviour been that of a lunatic, yes or no? Is it telling that many people have observed this fact and spoke up about it, yes or no? Do you believe Bob's workplace appreciates the energy spent on the Rybka forum, minutes before delivering classes or refereeing Ph.D. defenses, yes or no?
I know it's an impossible thought experiment, but it would really be helpful if a handful of the regular posters on this forum could come to it for the first time with no pre-conceived ideas. You'd read the posts and see instantly that, at the very least (and that's putting it politely), obsessive and aggressive behaviour is more characteristic of the people responding to Bob than to Bob himself.
"You are arguing beside the point"
Yes, but that was inescapable if I responded to Homayoun's point.
"Some simple questions: Has Bob's behaviour been that of a lunatic, yes or no?" No. Is it telling that many people have observed this fact and spoke up about it, yes or no? No, considering they've all been Rybka forum regulars engaged in an argument with him. Do you believe Bob's workplace appreciates the energy spent on the Rybka forum, minutes before delivering classes or refereeing Ph.D. defenses, yes or no? Why should they care as long as he's doing his job?"
"You are arguing beside the point"
Yes, but that was inescapable if I responded to Homayoun's point.
"Some simple questions: Has Bob's behaviour been that of a lunatic, yes or no?" No. Is it telling that many people have observed this fact and spoke up about it, yes or no? No, considering they've all been Rybka forum regulars engaged in an argument with him. Do you believe Bob's workplace appreciates the energy spent on the Rybka forum, minutes before delivering classes or refereeing Ph.D. defenses, yes or no? Why should they care as long as he's doing his job?"
> I know it's an impossible thought experiment, ...
There's no such thing as an impossible thought experiment.
> ..., but it would really be helpful if a handful of the regular posters on this forum could come to it for the first time with no pre-conceived ideas.
You are implying a falsehood. In fact, practically everyone of the "regular posters" in this debate in this forum "sat on their hands" for months before making up their mind. If you don't believe me, then just point out ONE of the "regular posters" who could be said to come to this discussion with "pre-conceived" ideas. Your credibility is at stake here.
> Yes, but that [That you argued beside the point.] was inescapable if I responded to Homayoun's point.
No, on the contrary, Homayoun made a very succinct point which you completely sidestepped by making a "popularity" argument about the influence of perceived bias on the public's perception of the Chessbase article. Bottom line, you failed to address his point.
> No, considering they've all been Rybka forum regulars engaged in an argument with him.
This is a falsehood. For instance, Søren Riis has been mostly mute in discussions on this forum. Not to say, the Chessbase people choosing to run his article has never posted here. Also, the fact that people have engaged in discussions with Bob does not excempt them from forming an accurate opinion on Bob's behaviour. On the contrary, for instance, BFL is one of the most qualified people around to draw conclusions on Bob's state of mind.
> Why should they care as long as he's doing his job?
Do you find it unlikely that Bob has been told to quit posting here or lose the respect of his peers, not to say lose his job?
> The only thing I'd concede is that it wasn't a good use of Bob's time to respond here, but doing so was to his credit.
Serial killers would certainly appreciate your kudos in crediting the same for their focused obsessive compulsive behavior- even if they don't necessarily acknowledge that it was the best way that they could have used their time and energies
On the contrary, it was extremely useful to have Bob responding here. How else would we have known that after the investigation was over, the leader of the investigation still believed that versions of Rybka that competed in ICGA events contained "page after page" of copied Crafty and Fruit code, including the rotated bitboard code from Crafty and the PST generation code from Fruit? Vas really owes Bob a big thank you for exposing the substandard work done by the panel.
And what about the good points ?
They'd take rather longer to find, if they exist :)
You sound like David.
Thanks :) The problem is when almost every sentence is loaded with obvious distortions it's hard-to-impossible to trawl for something that might be relevant and work in Vas' favour.
Eventually this case is decided on code level, something you said you have zero knowledge.
And it's not so hard to hide one's identity. I suddenly find myself in the US. By magic. Like the fantasy code in the documents.
Ed
Ed
David, pretending to be some Polish guy, hiding his true identity and the first one to publish 'Levy speaks part two'.
My oh my, it is even more sad than we thought.
My oh my, it is even more sad than we thought.
> the ICGA verdict or possible copyright issues - as it seems to me that the defence against copyright issues tends to concede the ICGA verdict was correct.
What copyright issues? No charges of copyright infringement have been leveled at Rajilich to date! The ICGA and its verdict? Was nothing less than a group of hobbyists getting ahead of themselves in allowing their entrenched beliefs to take the field without due consideration of the facts.
When the facts finally did take to the field - conflict arose between accepting knowledge over entrenched beliefs- it is a lot easier to refuse proffered knowledge over maintained entrenched beliefs. eh! Some of this is very easy to understand. Peer pressure, where your side has vilified the other as evil- stepping out of ones comfort zone and shaking free of that belief system is scary stuff and takes balls.
Some will put a three ring circus into their head just to avoid looking at the facts-then it is just a matter of flight.
"It would also help to decide exactly what you want to defend Rajlich against - the ICGA verdict or possible copyright issues - as it seems to me that the defence against copyright issues tends to concede the ICGA verdict was correct."
There are no copyright issues.
There is no copied code. Else there would be side by side matches and there are not.
No non-literal copied code. The definition includes that the underlying structure is copied. Since the most important underlying structure is the data structure, presumably even you can see that bitboards are fundamentally different to mailbox. Very different underlying structure. Non-literal copying is a dead duck.
There are no Rule #2 issues. Vas gave as much if not more credit to others in many statements in many places than anyone else entering an ICGA tourney. Therefore the charge of "plagiarism" is defective before we even begin to look at codings. ICGA has to go by its precedents for Rule #2 and the precedent is that many if not most or all programs have relied on statements elsewhere rather than the entry form.
If you think ICGA has caught Vas on some "technical" breach of Rule #2 then how do you account for the vicious Levy press releasing and repeated statements of copy/plagiarism. And a technical breach could not possibly justify the investigation on a proportionality basis.
So, to repeat: no copying, non-literal or otherwise; no plagiarism; and no breach or Rule #2.
I look forward to your next over-generalised, cliche-ed, condescending responses with the usual zero information content .......
There are no copyright issues.
There is no copied code. Else there would be side by side matches and there are not.
No non-literal copied code. The definition includes that the underlying structure is copied. Since the most important underlying structure is the data structure, presumably even you can see that bitboards are fundamentally different to mailbox. Very different underlying structure. Non-literal copying is a dead duck.
There are no Rule #2 issues. Vas gave as much if not more credit to others in many statements in many places than anyone else entering an ICGA tourney. Therefore the charge of "plagiarism" is defective before we even begin to look at codings. ICGA has to go by its precedents for Rule #2 and the precedent is that many if not most or all programs have relied on statements elsewhere rather than the entry form.
If you think ICGA has caught Vas on some "technical" breach of Rule #2 then how do you account for the vicious Levy press releasing and repeated statements of copy/plagiarism. And a technical breach could not possibly justify the investigation on a proportionality basis.
So, to repeat: no copying, non-literal or otherwise; no plagiarism; and no breach or Rule #2.
I look forward to your next over-generalised, cliche-ed, condescending responses with the usual zero information content .......
"No non-literal copied code. The definition includes that the underlying structure is copied. Since the most important underlying structure is the data structure, presumably even you can see that bitboards are fundamentally different to mailbox. Very different underlying structure. Non-literal copying is a dead duck."
I seriously assumed this was just a joke argument when you first published it. So you really think it's fine to copy another program as long as you convert it from mailbox to bitboards? That's interesting, at least, and does fit well with Vas' comment that it's ok if something was typed by yourself (and before anyone complains he didn't mean that - yes he did, he made it crystal clear a few posts later).
"Vas gave as much if not more credit to others in many statements in many places than anyone else entering an ICGA tourney."
And Fruit was worth 20 Elo points for him... Anyway, as has been said, it's not sufficient to have mentioned Fruit while making various deliberately deceptive statements in interviews somewhere.
"Therefore the charge of "plagiarism" is defective before we even begin to look at codings."
I don't see the logic there. How does whether something is plagiarism or not depend on whether you mention what you did?
"If you think ICGA has caught Vas on some "technical" breach of Rule #2 then how do you account for the vicious Levy press releasing and repeated statements of copy/plagiarism. And a technical breach could not possibly justify the investigation on a proportionality basis. "
I'd almost agree with your point, except I think exactly the opposite. It was a flagrant breach of the spirit of Rule 2 as Rybka was heavily derived from Fruit. You're the one trying to put forward technical arguments for innocence. "A gross miscarriage of justice" would be an example of a total lack of proportionality.
"I look forward to your next over-generalised, cliche-ed, condescending responses with the usual zero information content ......."
Pre-emptive insults. Nice :)
Anyway, I may as well imitate my betters by also bowing out of this deeply unpleasant "debate". I reserve the right to reply to any posts made since I've been typing this :)
I seriously assumed this was just a joke argument when you first published it. So you really think it's fine to copy another program as long as you convert it from mailbox to bitboards? That's interesting, at least, and does fit well with Vas' comment that it's ok if something was typed by yourself (and before anyone complains he didn't mean that - yes he did, he made it crystal clear a few posts later).
"Vas gave as much if not more credit to others in many statements in many places than anyone else entering an ICGA tourney."
And Fruit was worth 20 Elo points for him... Anyway, as has been said, it's not sufficient to have mentioned Fruit while making various deliberately deceptive statements in interviews somewhere.
"Therefore the charge of "plagiarism" is defective before we even begin to look at codings."
I don't see the logic there. How does whether something is plagiarism or not depend on whether you mention what you did?
"If you think ICGA has caught Vas on some "technical" breach of Rule #2 then how do you account for the vicious Levy press releasing and repeated statements of copy/plagiarism. And a technical breach could not possibly justify the investigation on a proportionality basis. "
I'd almost agree with your point, except I think exactly the opposite. It was a flagrant breach of the spirit of Rule 2 as Rybka was heavily derived from Fruit. You're the one trying to put forward technical arguments for innocence. "A gross miscarriage of justice" would be an example of a total lack of proportionality.
"I look forward to your next over-generalised, cliche-ed, condescending responses with the usual zero information content ......."
Pre-emptive insults. Nice :)
Anyway, I may as well imitate my betters by also bowing out of this deeply unpleasant "debate". I reserve the right to reply to any posts made since I've been typing this :)
Trotsky - No non-literal copied code. The definition includes that the underlying structure is copied. Since the most important underlying structure is the data structure, presumably even you can see that bitboards are fundamentally different to mailbox. Very different underlying structure. Non-literal copying is a dead duck.
Levy echo - I seriously assumed this was just a joke argument when you first published it. So you really think it's fine to copy another program as long as you convert it from mailbox to bitboards? That's interesting, at least, and does fit well with Vas' comment that it's ok if something was typed by yourself (and before anyone complains he didn't mean that - yes he did, he made it crystal clear a few posts later).
Wishful interpretation. Vasik stated:
Vasik - In the context of source code, original means that the author either typed his own code or typed the code which generated his own code.
Missed that 3 letter word - OWN ?
Now listen and learn, the Rybka investigators were able to undermine Rybka's MAIN unburden evidence (a bit-board engine) into a disadvantage that greatly worked against Vas. If there is a difference between Fruit and Rybka blame it on the bit-boards and the difference magically disappears. Enough code examples of that but since you by your own wordings understand zero code I suggest that you forward this to chess programmers who do understand and that you don't get involved in issues you don't understand yourself.
Levy echo - Anyway, I may as well imitate my betters by also bowing out of this deeply unpleasant "debate". I reserve the right to reply to any posts made since I've been typing this :)
Your farewell is appreciated because you are here in disguise. You are a known figure and but decided to hide your identity and argue here with a closed visor. How un-British. I suggest you to mobilize some real experts for us to debate. People like, Gerd Isenberg, Zach Wegner, Mark Watkins. And tell Bob to stay away, he greatly harmed the ICGA case.
Levy echo - I seriously assumed this was just a joke argument when you first published it. So you really think it's fine to copy another program as long as you convert it from mailbox to bitboards? That's interesting, at least, and does fit well with Vas' comment that it's ok if something was typed by yourself (and before anyone complains he didn't mean that - yes he did, he made it crystal clear a few posts later).
Wishful interpretation. Vasik stated:
Vasik - In the context of source code, original means that the author either typed his own code or typed the code which generated his own code.
Missed that 3 letter word - OWN ?
Now listen and learn, the Rybka investigators were able to undermine Rybka's MAIN unburden evidence (a bit-board engine) into a disadvantage that greatly worked against Vas. If there is a difference between Fruit and Rybka blame it on the bit-boards and the difference magically disappears. Enough code examples of that but since you by your own wordings understand zero code I suggest that you forward this to chess programmers who do understand and that you don't get involved in issues you don't understand yourself.
Levy echo - Anyway, I may as well imitate my betters by also bowing out of this deeply unpleasant "debate". I reserve the right to reply to any posts made since I've been typing this :)
Your farewell is appreciated because you are here in disguise. You are a known figure and but decided to hide your identity and argue here with a closed visor. How un-British. I suggest you to mobilize some real experts for us to debate. People like, Gerd Isenberg, Zach Wegner, Mark Watkins. And tell Bob to stay away, he greatly harmed the ICGA case.
If this is, in fact, accurate-then the poster is just attempting to fill the forum with more of entrenched beliefs based on biased opinions- preconceived prejudices, which would account for the unwillingness to practice critical thinking.
Anyone who can't name (and/or refuses) to name just one good point in the Riis article is biased beyond hope and automatically loses the right the call others biased.
Traits of a Critical Thinker!
What in these can be attributed to Hyatt and your poster-which are inherently wanting in their argument?
"The positive habits of mind that characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a courageous desire to follow reason and evidence wherever they may lead, open-mindedness, foresight attention to the possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness and maturity of judgment, and confidence in reasoning.
When individuals possess intellectual skills alone, without the intellectual traits of mind, weak sense critical thinking results. Fair-minded or strong sense critical thinking requires intellectual humility, empathy, integrity, perseverance, courage, autonomy, confidence in reason, and other intellectual traits. Thus, critical thinking without essential intellectual traits often results in clever, but manipulative and often unethical or subjective thought."
What in these can be attributed to Hyatt and your poster-which are inherently wanting in their argument?
"The positive habits of mind that characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a courageous desire to follow reason and evidence wherever they may lead, open-mindedness, foresight attention to the possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness and maturity of judgment, and confidence in reasoning.
When individuals possess intellectual skills alone, without the intellectual traits of mind, weak sense critical thinking results. Fair-minded or strong sense critical thinking requires intellectual humility, empathy, integrity, perseverance, courage, autonomy, confidence in reason, and other intellectual traits. Thus, critical thinking without essential intellectual traits often results in clever, but manipulative and often unethical or subjective thought."
> What in these can be attributed to Hyatt and your poster-which are inherently wanting in their argument?
Our Bob is a special case. He honestly believes Vas copied. I know Bob since 1995 RGCC times and know him better than some of my neigbours, as if he is sitting right in front of me. I never saw him to give in one point or to give up an issue. The moment Rolf dares to name the Deep Blue - Kasparov match again Bob will oppose Rolf although the issue is 15 years ago. In this respect it's quite remarkable Bob left Rybka forum, this is not the Bob I know for so many years, the Bob I know never gives up let alone surrender. Things become even more interesting as his departure is connected with the arrival of someone else who obviously is a known figure but decided to hide his identity, a person Bob would listen to. If my theory is correct Bob will return the moment the vesuvio guy leaves.
Not sure if I want to be right or wrong here
Ed, one can honestly believe in ones biases and prejudices without being aware that they are such!
Given that, and lacking the essential intellectual traits (open-mindedness, foresight attention to the possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness and maturity of judgment, and confidence in reasoning.) the sheer emotive force behind their need to win ends with their using "... clever , manipulative and often unethical or subjective thought."
Given that, and lacking the essential intellectual traits (open-mindedness, foresight attention to the possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness and maturity of judgment, and confidence in reasoning.) the sheer emotive force behind their need to win ends with their using "... clever , manipulative and often unethical or subjective thought."
> Ed, one can honestly believe in ones biases and prejudices without being aware that they are such!
Absolutely!
Every Time I wanted to call Bob dishonest in return I most of the time didn't because of that awareness.
But the dishonesty lies in his unwillingness to see his biases and prejudices. On one level or another we all are aware of our biases and prejudices-believing in them doesn't make them right! They are usually based in a hatred of one kind or another.
P.S.
In this case it is casting Vas as evil!
P.S.
In this case it is casting Vas as evil!
Absolutely! This kind of thinking creates an us against them mentality!
> But the dishonesty lies in his unwillingness to see his biases and prejudices. On one level or another we all are aware of our biases and prejudices-believing in them doesn't make them right!
+1
I can not agree more.
I think Nietzsche said it best.
It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
> They are usually based in a hatred of one kind or another.
Yep. Add-up pride, loss of face, unpleasant real life consequences, economic loss etc. Speaking in general here, certainly not Bob.
Add yet I can mention real life examples that makes all of the above questionable in the sense there are always the usual exceptions to the rule. One example, a women conversation which (still) are long time friends.
woman-1 : my marriage isn't going well... blah blah blah
woman-2 : oh, how can I help? blah blah blah
woman-2 leaves and tells other friends the marriage of woman-1 is in trouble.
woman-1 hears about it and is pissed off, that information was confidential.
woman-1 confronted woman-2 : how on earth could you do that?
woman-2 : you did not say it was to be meant a secret!
woman-1 : that should be self-understood!
woman-2 : no, next time you must say!
My wife and I talked for hours with woman-2 because she is a good friend of ours and she did not get it!
How do you deal with that? I think it's just fascinating
That comes with knowing who it is you are dealing with! There are people I can trust implicitly and then there are those I am taking a risk with and leaving myself open to the chance that I am missing something in their character that might betray my confidence-in these cases I have to share the blame.
Good point. I agree.
So now to Bob, how on earth did he not get it his way of arguing here worked counter productive? Bewilderment....
So now to Bob, how on earth did he not get it his way of arguing here worked counter productive? Bewilderment....
Because nothing was based on fact from the outset!
It was easy for him to conclude that his assertions, even though hypothetical, were closer to the truth and reality -which was his biased opinion!
Remember, he perceived the data presented to be construed as "circumstantial evidence" and from there took the leap of faith concluding it to be factual evidence. Anything you might say he could easily dismiss in his mind as your biased opinion.
[edit] Not unlike arguing with someone who is proselytizing certain religious dogma. Good luck!
At least that is my impression.
It was easy for him to conclude that his assertions, even though hypothetical, were closer to the truth and reality -which was his biased opinion!
Remember, he perceived the data presented to be construed as "circumstantial evidence" and from there took the leap of faith concluding it to be factual evidence. Anything you might say he could easily dismiss in his mind as your biased opinion.
[edit] Not unlike arguing with someone who is proselytizing certain religious dogma. Good luck!
At least that is my impression.
Unless I'm completely out of touch with this issue- it would seem to me that one side -took a set of data and stated that it was hypothetically the closest thing to representing reality. While another side is saying your process of analysis was faulty and conclusions all wrong.
The ensuing arguments presented on this forum should have been enough to give the ICGA pause in understanding that their determination was a hasty one and that they need seriously to reconsider taking another look at the entire affair. The fact that they haven't leads me to believe that the ICGA had dubious intentions to begin with.
The ensuing arguments presented on this forum should have been enough to give the ICGA pause in understanding that their determination was a hasty one and that they need seriously to reconsider taking another look at the entire affair. The fact that they haven't leads me to believe that the ICGA had dubious intentions to begin with.
I only partly agree with your analysis.
Yep.
But too late, the train already left the station. There never was a decent opposition during the 5 year anti-Rybka campaign. The opposition was formed AFTER the verdict and eventually gathered here. It's my strong opinion with the same opposition and knowledge of today there never would have been a case.
But that's not the way of the human race. We can take weeks, months before we make a hard decision, but once made, we stick to it and it needs a sudden earthquake or a long process of counter arguments before we are even willing to reconsider. I think that's normal. And I think that's the situation we are in, a long process of good counter arguments.
Not my view. David when the Fabien mail signed by 16 prominent chess programmers dropped in his mail-box had no choice then to act. A refusal to act would immediately lead to a boycott of the programmers as we have seen in the CSVN case. End of the WCCC. Now hear me, defending Levy
> Unless I'm completely out of touch with this issue- it would seem to me that one side -took a set of data and stated that it was hypothetically the closest thing to representing reality.
Yep.
> While another side is saying your process of analysis was faulty and conclusions all wrong.
But too late, the train already left the station. There never was a decent opposition during the 5 year anti-Rybka campaign. The opposition was formed AFTER the verdict and eventually gathered here. It's my strong opinion with the same opposition and knowledge of today there never would have been a case.
> The ensuing arguments presented on this forum should have been enough to give the ICGA pause in understanding that their determination was a hasty one and that they need seriously to reconsider taking another look at the entire affair.
But that's not the way of the human race. We can take weeks, months before we make a hard decision, but once made, we stick to it and it needs a sudden earthquake or a long process of counter arguments before we are even willing to reconsider. I think that's normal. And I think that's the situation we are in, a long process of good counter arguments.
> The fact that they haven't leads me to believe that the ICGA had dubious intentions to begin with.
Not my view. David when the Fabien mail signed by 16 prominent chess programmers dropped in his mail-box had no choice then to act. A refusal to act would immediately lead to a boycott of the programmers as we have seen in the CSVN case. End of the WCCC. Now hear me, defending Levy
I agree about Levy. No choice. He could have chosen a better Secretariat though. Or invited a pause and think but hyatt and co were not for thinking.
Actually, I rephrase that. If he had chosen a better Secretariat, the "programmers" would have seen to the end of the WCCC and ICGA anyway. Double bind.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill