Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Asides and commentary on RV's decompilation and reports
1 211 12 13 Previous Next  
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 01:38
Why don't you simply email Fabien and ask him???

Much easier than casting aspersions, implying things that didn't happen, etc.

He's not exactly difficult to reach, you know?
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 00:43
Bob, this is the real mystery. All those programmers get on that petition but YOU! 

So the word was obviously out for programmers to sign up. But they never contact YOU!

That is really suspicious- every programmer on CCC is asked BUT YOU?

But you end up as a  Secretariat for the ICGA in their investigation. What a coup!

Stayed off of that list, knowing going on it  would  show  a conflict of interest.

This way you could claim impartiality while you likened Rajlich to a murderer , rapist , and code copying thief
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-25 07:01
Once again you go into defensive mode, agressively denying a very obvious fact. Your behaviour is not my opinion, it is simply as it is. And I can guarantee you that every psychology student, after doing some hours of research on your posts here, will have no difficulty to pinpoint what your problem is.

You have no clear conscience, that's the reason you attack everyone here who disagrees with you, in an agressive manner. It is time that you look into the mirror and ask yourself the question 'is it worth it to devote so much time in denying the truth?'.

Your claims about copied Crafty, copied rotated bitboard code, the 'might be' sentence: it is just repeating assumptions and the same stories over and over again. You should know by now, that nobody believes these stories anymore. Your stubborn habit to repeat these over and over again is another sign of not having a clear conscience.

If this case would go to court, there is no doubt in my mind that a psychologist will blow your accusations to pieces.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 00:38
There are NO assumptions in the assertion about copied crafty code.  It has been proven to a confidence of 100%.  No idea what you are talking about....

psychologists do NOT trump actual evidence, no matter what you think of yourselves...
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-26 15:07
'Might be' is the phrase you used. That is an assumption. Furthermore, you use phrases like 'most likely', 'more likely',  'beyond doubt', which are clearly assumptions.

It has been proven with 100% confidence that no Rybka version playing in an ICGA tournament contained Crafty code. As this was not examined, as you have explained yourself. Hence the ICGA verdict about Rybka plagiarizing Crafty in WCCC's is 100% false. It is no coincidence you didn't answer my posts in which I pointed this out to you.

Every mediocre psychologist will easily make the right diagnosis in your case. It is simply plain obvious. If mr Rajlich would sue you for libel and demand compensation, the chance is huge you will lose.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 15:09
Feel free to show the evidence that says "no crafty code in Rybka."

That remains an open question based on evidence so far that primarily focused on the Fruit/Rybka connection.

The chance he would win is zero.  Too much evidence showing he DID copy code, sorry...
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-26 15:19
Typically, you do not answer my statement. Which was:

"It has been proven with 100% confidence that no Rybka version playing in an ICGA tournament contained Crafty code. As this was not examined, as you have explained yourself. Hence the ICGA verdict about Rybka plagiarizing Crafty in WCCC's is 100% false. It is no coincidence you didn't answer my posts in which I pointed this out to you."

Marcelk even pointed out that the Crafty line in the verdict was not reviewed by the panel and they didn't know about it. As you are the only one interested in ancient Rybka versions, that haven't played in ICGA tournaments, it is rather clear and obvious who wrote that sentence in the verdict.

Mr Rajlich would have a huge chance to win a court case against you, as there is no copied code and you submit yourself to libel. Any psychologist will simply gather evidence in the form of your postings here, which leave no room for misinterpretation. After that, a good lawyer will do the rest. I have seen less clear court cases going into that direction.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 15:24
You say it has been proven with 100% confidence...  WHERE is that proof?  Where is ANY evidence to support that.  You don't get to make a statement and then claim it to be a fact, unless you offer evidence.  Where is yours...

As far as who wrote that line, I know.  It was not me.  It is NOT a statement as you want to frame it.  There was a ton of copying from both Crafty AND Fruit, and we have evidence that does prove that.
Parent - By John (**) Date 2013-08-26 15:35
You did not examine it, thus you have not proven any Crafty code in a Rybka version that played in an ICGA tournament. Someone is still 100% clean and innocent until the opposite has been proven. You have not done so, and all your accusations regarding Crafty code in Rybka versions playing in ICGA tournaments is just pure speculation. If not: show us the copied code in the Rybka versions that played in WCCC's.

Sorry, there was no copied code. 'Plagiarized Crafty and Fruit' is the verdict. Your phrase 'copied code' is 100% libel. If I were you, I would refrain from such statements. Any lawyer can use them against you.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-23 21:31
I have the report you and ML and HW wrote, it's public BTW. I also have the panel discussion.

There hardly is any mentioning regarding the pre-Rybka's let alone there was a voting.

Yet your report concludes guilt on behalf of the Panel members.

                          Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA
                    Mark Lefler, Robert Hyatt, Harvey Williamson and ICGA panel members  
                                                          12 May 2011

You misled the ICGA board.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-23 21:40
"Hardly any mention".  There is a thread.  There is a bunch of evidence.  There are 5-6 separate topics that Mark and I wrote there.  What on earth are you talking about?  BTW, you are really telling ME that the report is public?  :)  That is EXACTLY the reason we were asked to write a non-technical summary in the first place.  You say that like it should be a surprise?

BTW "summary of the findings by ..." does not mean nor imply the panel wrote the summary.  It directly states that the panel was involved in every aspect of the investigation.  Summary is just that.

Didn't mislead ANYBODY.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-23 22:08
I don't see the (your) report telling the truth, that the pre-Rybka's were private versions, were never released to the public, never played in ICGA tournaments and therefore can't be subject to plagiarism as the board so obviously states in the press release. What started as a Rybka vs Fruit investigation was contaminated by your personal interest and contempt towards Vas. Here are a few of your utterings:

1. My one and only complaint with Vas was that (a) he spent a couple of years asking all sorts of questions, which I and many others painstakingly answered, (b) then he ran away and decided to not reveal anything he found that was new.

2. OK, then what about the people that come here, ask questions, get lots of ideas and algorithms from active programmers, then they find a new idea, hide it and go commercial. I think they are "hooligans" just as much as this case.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 01:12
Why did it matter what they were.  What mattered was what Vas had claimed, and what the actual evidence showed...

Like it or not, the investigation is over, the board has ruled, the case is stamped "CLOSED".

I don't see any point in continuing unless something new comes to light.
Parent - By John (**) Date 2013-08-24 07:16
(1) As far as I am concerned, a lot of new things have come to light. Just a few examples: there was no Rybka version playing in ICGA tournaments that plagiarized Crafty; the panel was just there to make the verdict believable; you wrote the summary report and included the panel, which wasn't consulted. And there are many more.

(2) The case is not closed, as it has become clear that you have not been telling the truth to the ICGA. Also the panel has every reason to feel betrayed. That is quite a revelation and it shows you do not have high moral standards.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-24 07:47
Why did it matter what they were.

It matters because you were totally unfit for such a position of power.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 20:03
There was absolutely NO power in the secretariat or panel.  The "power" is in the ICGA board.  No idea WHAT you are talking about.  You should turn your imagination down about 10 levels...
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-24 07:33
The one who is misleading people, is clearly you:

1. You have been misleading the panel;
2. You have been misleading the ICGA;
3. You have been misleading the computer chess world in telling them mr Rajlich plagiarized Crafty in ICGA tournaments;
4. You have been misleading the computer chess world in telling them mr Rajlich copied Fruit code.

Someone who is misleading other people on such a grand scale, does not have high moral standards.

As far as I am concerned, the panel and the ICGA both start an internal investigation on what you have done. Ergo: case is not closed, it is just beginning.
Parent - - By Ray (****) Date 2013-08-24 08:06 Edited 2013-08-24 08:08
And let's not forget, Harvey Williamson. A member of the Hiarcs team, a good friend of David Levy for many years, with a known hatred of Rybka and a direct competitor, was right there alongside Bob. And indeed, Hiarcs inherited a World Championship as a result of Rybka's disqualification.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-08-24 08:16
I don't think we need to apply malice when it can be explained as simple incompetence.

For what it is worth, I think that all parties involved probably thought that they were doing the right thing.

I don't want to rake anyone over the coals until their kidneys detonate.  Actually, I am not sure what I am after because I doubt if very many people are even listening.  I guess I want justice, mercy and love.  But I know that is asking a lot.
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2013-08-24 08:23
Yes. The problem is, to admit they were wrong now would potentially expose them to a massive lawsuit, given the world-wide press release they issued, and its wording. As someone else said, a reversal of the verdict would need to be part of a negotiated deal for the ICGA to avoid that.
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-08-24 13:03
For what it is worth, I think that all parties involved probably thought that they were doing the right thing.

I beg to differ. They started with accusations, insults, frustrations, hate, anger. To satisfy those emotions and this behaviour, they needed a guilty verdict.

To me that is not doing the right thing.
Parent - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-08-24 17:36
I did not say that they were doing the right thing.  I said that they thought they were doing the right thing.
Not all parties involved were full of anger.  Only some of them.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-21 11:33
Yes, I agree with your points of view.

I also note that ICGA rules are not specific enough about what is allowed and what is not. It has become clear mr Rajlich has re-used a lot of Fruit ideas, but used his own code. That is fine and not violating ICGA rules as they are now (not even mentioning the Crafty plagiarizing claim in the ICGA verdict, which is outright wrong).

This all leaves me with a bitter after taste. I hope the ICGA investigation will be re-opened and that we will get a proper examination, without biased people and direct competitors. That should not have been allowed in the first place.
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2013-08-21 13:12

> This all leaves me with a bitter after taste. I hope the ICGA investigation will be re-opened and that we will get a proper examination, without biased people and direct competitors. That should not have been allowed in the first place.


I totally agree. I think the way the investigation was conducetd was a disgrace. But these guys have too much to lose to re-open it.
Parent - - By mjlef (***) Date 2013-08-20 19:42

>>But not in the UCI part of Fruit, same misunderstanding. My focus is on the code differences between R10b and Fruit in the UCI  parse_go part.


It is part of the UCI interface.  As Richard stated, this float was used as part of the trigger for sending updated information via the UCI interface every second.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-20 21:09
Heya Mark, welcome back.

I was just planning to leave the discussion because Richard finished his analysis and everything by now has been said about the new (good) RE stuff and as it seems we are back 2 years in time rehashing old cows of which I am not in the mood.

Now 2 years after there is a strong opposition against the verdict (at least 12 chess programmers) and so I am interested to know when you guys finally plan to move as it must be clear by now this subject is not going to die by itself.

Also I am interested how the Loop investigation is going, it has been a while since the Fabien complaint, 1½ year. In the Rybka case you were able to take action in a couple of months, so what happened?

Thanks.
Parent - - By mjlef (***) Date 2013-08-20 21:56

>> I was just planning to leave the discussion because Richard finished his analysis


I must have missed something.  Can you point me to a posting where Richard said he finished his analysis? I would certainly like to see more, like what he finds about evaluation and search.

I have seen no evidence so far that I think would sway the findings of the panel.  But as always, it is up to the ICGA Board to approve any reinvestigation.   I see nothing Richard has presented that contradicts what the panel found.  I do find a lot of meaningless rhetoric in the comments of Richard's work and elsewhere.  The panel found the investigated versions of Rybka to be derivatives and documented this.  Arguments here about copyright or code copying are sideshows.  We showed huge functional and algorithmic overlaps.  You can make a derivative without a single byte of source code being identical.  Vasik violated the ICGA rules.

I cannot comment on ongoing investigations.  We continue to seek contact with the Loop programmer.  Any help you can render in reacting him would be appreciated.

Mark
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-20 22:43
I have seen no evidence so far that I think would sway the findings of the panel.

Really? I think you must have meant to say "sway the findings of the secretariat". Because if you polled the panel again you would see a far different result, and might not even carry a majority. And this despite the fact that you stacked the panel with biased members.

Arguments here about copyright or code copying are sideshows.

These arguments were advanced by Bob Hyatt as a member of the Secretariat. They cannot be considered sideshows.

We showed huge functional and algorithmic overlaps.

Wow! Huge functional and algorithmic overlaps in top chess engines? Who would have thunk it? Are you serious? :lol:
Parent - - By mjlef (***) Date 2013-08-20 23:03

>>Really? I think you must have meant to say "sway the findings of the secretariat". Because if you polled the panel again you would see a far different result


Quite a claim.  Can you back it up with actual data, like a new poll? To save time, my votes have not changed.

>> And this despite the fact that you stacked the panel with biased members.


Anyone willing to follow the rules of the panel and with a modicum of expertise in computer chess or programming was allowed on the panel.  We also required people to verify they were who they said they were. It was not "stacked", so your claim is a lie.

>>Arguments here about copyright or code copying are sideshows.


These arguments were advanced by Bob Hyatt as a member of the Secretariat. They cannot be considered sideshows.

>>


copyright was discussed by the panel. We agreed that we were there to find if ICGA rules had been violated, not copyright.  This makes copyright a side show.  The panel was there to determine if Rybka was an undeclared derivative.  We said yes.

>We showed huge functional and algorithmic overlaps.


Wow! Huge functional and algorithmic overlaps in top chess engines? Who would have thunk it? Are you serious?

>>


Yes, I am serious.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-20 23:32
Can you back it up with actual data, like a new poll? To save time, my votes have not changed.

That's not a bad idea. Maybe Ed will be willing to perform this task after Richard completes his work.

Anyone willing to follow the rules of the panel and with a modicum of expertise in computer chess or programming was allowed on the panel.

Please! Don't insult us this way. Chris was not allowed on the panel. Harvey was chosen as a member of the Secretariat. Need I say more?

We also required people to verify they were who they said they were.

This rule was put in specifically to keep Chris off the panel! :lol:

It was not "stacked", so your claim is a lie.

Having three members of team Hiarcs on the panel, one on the Secretariat, and having Bob, who had declared Vas guilty long before the start of the investigation, was certainly stacking the panel.

We agreed that we were there to find if ICGA rules had been violated, not copyright.

David Levy's announcement claimed that Vasik Rajlich is guilty of plagiarizing the programs Crafty and Fruit, and has violated the ICGA’s tournament rules with respect to the World Computer Chess Championships in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Was there any evidence that any Rybka that participated in any ICGA event every plagiarized Crafty? How did that sneak in there?

Wow! Huge functional and algorithmic overlaps in top chess engines? Who would have thunk it? Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious.


You are seriously misguided. As Anthony Cozie stated after reviewing the code of a Rybka 1.0 Beta RE effort:

Anyway, in my professional opinion Strelka is basically Fritz5 + history reductions + bigger (but not more) mobility/passed pawn terms + super-vasik-material evaluation.  What's amazing to me is how well it works.  I don't know whether to laugh at the silliness of all the speculation surrounding Rybka and how horribly wrong it was, or congratulate you for taking a completely different path than everyone else.

From a functional and algorithmic sense, Rybka was certainly the most original of the engines, possibly excepting Dr. Muller's efforts which were not focused on performance.

But thanks for offering up your opinions here. It's always good to be able to gauge the caliber of your opposition.
Parent - - By mjlef (***) Date 2013-08-21 01:02 Edited 2013-08-21 01:16
First, could a moderator please move this discussion somewhere more appropriate.  It is cluttering Richard's work and this section of the thread is no longer related to that.

>>Anyone willing to follow the rules of the panel and with a modicum of expertise in computer chess or programming was allowed on the panel.


Please! Don't insult us this way. Chris was not allowed on the panel. Harvey was chosen as a member of the Secretariat. Need I say more?

>>


Chis would not follow the rules to prove who he was.  He was using a different email address.  When questioned to supply some proof, which was also done with other unknown members, he refused and got abusive in emails with name calling and other unsocial activities.  Once we had some reasonable proof of who he was we offered to let him on the panel if he agreed to follow the rules.  He never agreed.  A pity, since he is a smart guy.  But investigations need to be civil. Harvey was appointed by David Levy.  Although not a programmer, his knowledge of the history of computer chess is extensive. There were several other non-programmers on the board, but all had extensive knowledge of computer chess.

>>


We also required people to verify they were who they said they were.

This rule was put in specifically to keep Chris off the panel! :lol:

>>


Completely untrue.  We had several people on the panel we had never heard of and had to ask them for IDs and proof they were who they claimed.  And some likely impersonators we had to refuse, since they refused to provide the requested information.

>>Having three members of team Hiarcs on the panel, one on the Secretariat, and having Bob, who had declared Vas guilty long before the start of the investigation, was certainly stacking the panel.


No secretariat selections were made of members, other than asking them to prove who they were and some evidence they knew programming or computer chess.  Public announcements were made several times to encourage panel membership. There was no stacking.

>>David Levy's announcement claimed that Vasik Rajlich is guilty of plagiarizing the programs Crafty and Fruit, and has violated the ICGA’s tournament rules with respect to the World Computer Chess Championships in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Was there any evidence that any Rybka that participated in any ICGA event every plagiarized Crafty? How did that sneak in there?
>>


There appear to be some typos in there so I do not quite understand what you are saying.  David wrote the announcement, so perhaps you should ask him directly.  As for plagiarize, the definition is simply "Taken the work or an idea of someone else and pass it off as one's own".  I think the panel clearly showed this in the examination of the EXEs.  The Crafty plagiarism came up while examining earlier Rybkas, and merely show a trend, as well as discrediting Vasik's claims or originality. I think everyone was very surprised when this was found.  I certainly was.  I know of no claims these earlier versions of Rybka ever competed in ICGA events.  There is a large body of law allowing past crimes as "bad character" you can look up.  But the majority of the effort was spent analyzing versions of Rybka straddling the ones used in the earlier ICGA tournament.

Anthony Cozzie was making a simple argument not based on full information, and just trying to explain what Strelka was.  For example, I do not think he has access to Fritz code, so his reference to Fritz is merely to suggest it is a fast searcher. He was wrong in thinking Strelka used "history reductions"..it used simply LMR with no history in the reductions.  He only looked at the code for a short time where the panel examined Rybka binaries for weeks.  At the time, due to things like the masking of actual nodes searched, people though Rybka was a vastly different program.  It was not..just an optimized form of Fruit with a few additions and changes. You would have to ask Anthony if he has done a more in depth analysis.  When I first saw Strelka source code, I thought it was based on Fruit.  And even said so on the forums.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-21 02:26 Edited 2013-08-21 02:35
Chis would not follow the rules to prove who he was.  He was using a different email address.  When questioned to supply some proof, which was also done with other unknown members, he refused and got abusive in emails with name calling and other unsocial activities.  Once we had some reasonable proof of who he was we offered to let him on the panel if he agreed to follow the rules.  He never agreed.  A pity, since he is a smart guy.  But investigations need to be civil.

Investigations need to be honest and unbiased. Having a guy who declared Vas guilty hundreds of times prior to the start of the investigation heading up the investigation, and another angling to win the 2008 WCCC in 2011 as his assistant was neither.

We also required people to verify they were who they said they were.

This rule was put in specifically to keep Chris off the panel! :lol:

    >>

Completely untrue.  We had several people on the panel we had never heard of and had to ask them for IDs and proof they were who they claimed.  And some likely impersonators we had to refuse, since they refused to provide the requested information.


Chris was nice enough to show us the email record, so we know better.

There appear to be some typos in there so I do not quite understand what you are saying.

There is absolutely nothing suggesting any relationship between Crafty and any Rybka that competed in WCCC, but David Levy's statement claimed that "Vasik Rajlich is guilty of plagiarizing the programs Crafty and Fruit, and has violated the ICGA’s tournament rules with respect to the World Computer Chess Championships in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010." I think that's plain enough.

As for plagiarize, the definition is simply "Taken the work or an idea of someone else and pass it off as one's own".  I think the panel clearly showed this in the examination of the EXEs.

Your investigators were even less competent than we thought if they found any traces of Crafty in any Rybka that competed in a WCCC. At least with Fruit there are similarities one can grasp onto. There are absolutely no similarities to Crafty other than that Vas wrote his own rotated bitboard code (and I hope that Richard looks at that code since Bob has claimed over a thousand times that Vas used his code without permission). The pronouncement that Rybka plagiarized Crafty for the WCCC events is patent nonsense and you should be ashamed to be associated with it.

There is a large body of law allowing past crimes as "bad character" you can look up.

Crimes? What crimes? I'm not aware of any crimes that were committed.

But the majority of the effort was spent analyzing versions of Rybka straddling the ones used in the earlier ICGA tournament.

This isn't true. The investigation focused on Rybka 1.0 Beta, which never played in a WCCC. The first Rybka version that played in a WCCC was 2.3.2a, and this was the subject of a paper by Mr. Watkins which purported to show similarities in the evaluation functions of Rybka 2.3.2a and Fruit. The statistical analysis in this paper is deeply flawed and contains numerous errors. In just a few days, Richard has gone far past where the ICGA investigators went, and even pulled out the TT structure used in all of the engines that competed in WCCC, which looks nothing like the Fruit structure that Bob was making a big fuss over.

Anthony Cozzie was making a simple argument not based on full information, and just trying to explain what Strelka was.

Hardly. Anthony actually looked through Strelka carefully and noted the following:

Somehow, without ever caring about execution speed, you
have written an engine that searches more nodes per second than *any
other commercial engine*, including Fritz, the engine written by the
man you claim is an assembler god.  A casual observer might be quite
confused by this, but someone who read Strelka's source code somewhat
less so, because it contains hundreds of examples of ugly code chosen
because it runs damn fast.  Some easy ones:

Strelka's search contains completely separate routines for PV and
non-PV nodes, which requires writing most search code twice, but saves
a few brances and cycles.  This could be done by #including C files,
but this is also ugly.

Strelka's noncapture move generator scores each move from the history
table, as opposed to having a separate loop, which is what everyone
else does.  This is faster, since there are probably free slots in the
pipeline during move generation, but it is extremely ugly, since any
change to history code must be done in 15 different places, once for
each piece type.

Strelka's static exchange evaluator doesn't compute the actual score,
but only whether or not the capture is losing or not.  Of course, it
is lightning fast since there are millions of early termination cases.
But compare it to Crafty's swap() function and then talk to me about
elegance and simplicity.

I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point.


There is no doubt that Rybka was more original from a functional standpoint than any of the other top engines (once again making allowances for Dr. Muller's innovative engines that were not focused on performance). There is also little doubt that Vas would prevail in a well funded copyright action, or that the FSF action will go nowhere.

When I first saw Strelka source code, I thought it was based on Fruit.  And even said so on the forums.

When the panel was being put together for the investigation, I predicted that team Hiarcs would win the 2008 WCCC in 2011, and said so on the forum. I didn't consider this prediction prescient but rather the obvious outcome given the makeup of the panel.
Parent - - By mjlef (***) Date 2013-08-21 17:38
I simply do not have time to reply to all your nonsense.  You are making things up.  For example:

>>Completely untrue.  We had several people on the panel we had never heard of and had to ask them for IDs and proof they were who they claimed.  And some likely impersonators we had to refuse, since they refused to provide the requested information.


Chris was nice enough to show us the email record, so we know better.

>>


Either Chris did not give you the whole thread of emails or you did not read them.  I have them and they state just what I said.  Once someone starts calling others Nazis, it is hard to think they will act appropriately on a panel. But even after his rudeness we gave him another chance to join.  But he simply refused to reply.

I am going to stop responding here since it is all rhetoric and few or no facts.  I have no time to respond to things people fabricate.  If any time someone here can post facts, let me know.
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-21 18:06
I am going to stop responding here

This is completely understandable. If my arguments were as weak as yours, I'd stop responding too!

Either Chris did not give you the whole thread of emails or you did not read them.

The whole thread has been posted here, and it's clear that the Secretariat wasn't going to allow Chris on the panel. It's too bad you're not honest enough to cop to this.

Once someone starts calling others Nazis, it is hard to think they will act appropriately on a panel.

The ICGA chose a guy to lead the investigation who had declared Vas guilty hundreds of times prior to the start of the investigation. So if the shoe fits...
Parent - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-08-22 11:56
You are a liar.

Worse than that, your existence here is based on lying. You act as ICGA Customer Complaints Telephone Answering Machine. Your role is to patronisingly repeat the party line from a script. But you have no or little analytical power of your own. The script itself is a lie. You are a lying cog in a lying machine.

And hence you have nothing to say of any value to anyone except other liars. So stay away, that will be just fine.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-08-21 07:07
Anyone who is defending the ICGA process AND the members that have been 'appointed' is making a total fool of himself on this forum.

I thought Hyatt was the only one stupid enough as trying to defend this garbage, but apparently you fall into the same category.
Parent - - By marcelk (***) Date 2013-08-21 14:04
Once we had some reasonable proof of who he was we offered to let him on the panel if he agreed to follow the rules.  He never agreed.

This is a manufactured justification. A lot more people didn't follow the forum rules and that was just let go. Chris was excluded because he would undermine the purpose of the panel: to provide a case against Rybka.

One member announced preliminary findings in a public forum. One member leaked discussions on a public forum. Half of the panel was discussing things behind the backs of the rest, despite the rules forbidding this.

In retrospect, and from my point of view, that panel was just setup to lend credibility to the desired outcome, and nothing else.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-21 14:14
I understand that you have been on the panel, am I correct?

When I read your comments, it amazes me how the ICGA handled this case. If the panel was just a setup to 'help' the desired outcome become credible, this can't be right.

Shouldn't there be a re-opening of the Rybka matter, in your opinion? Thanks in advance for your reply.
Parent - By marcelk (***) Date 2013-08-21 14:25
That is up to VR to decide. My opinion is irrelevant in that.
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2013-08-21 05:20 Edited 2013-08-21 06:16

> We showed huge functional and algorithmic overlaps. 


Amazing ! That is not a crime, is not plagiarism, and is not code copying, and doesn't break anyone's rules.

If that is the interpretation you apply, you'd better disqualify every other engine that competed in ICGA events too for the last 8 years (except Crafty of course)
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-08-21 07:03
Repeating this crap is not going to work on this forum. You should know better.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-21 09:45
I have seen no evidence so far that I think would sway the findings of the panel.

Mark,

A lot of things happened during the last 2 years, in the meantime I am pretty sure the ICGA view is a minority one. If we would re-do the investigation (an appeal so so say) then I expect a total different outcome. And the ICGA correspondence with Vas David has made this comparison with a court case, I quote:

David Levy - The nearest analogy I can think of to the process that has now started is a trial in a court of law. There are some important similarities between the current process and a court case.

So I would say an appeal is in place. It's the natural thing to do now that a lot of contra evidence is gathered, loads of informations Zach and Watkins missed, errors in the RE, deliberately withheld informations from the documents, deliberately withheld informations to the Panel (Vas did offered defence!)

You can't ignore this.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-08-21 09:53
I don't mean to be rude, but basically, Ed, you are talking here to the Telephone Answering Machine at ICGA Customer Complaints Department.
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-21 11:43
It's okay to be rude with with me, I won't ban you :lol:
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Asides and commentary on RV's decompilation and reports
1 211 12 13 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill