I very seldom post on computer chess forums ... but back Monday, Sep 01, 2008, at 12:20 am I posted this to talkchess.com:
This ignited considerable discussion on the talkchess forum ... in particular, Bob Hyatt posted more than thirty responses.
It is a very regrettable circumstance that (apparently) the ICGA in general, and Prof. Hyatt in particular, subsequently saw fit to ignore this advice. By what process, and upon what grounds, was this decision made?
> A principle well-known to both medical researchers and stage magicians is that "People see what they expect to see."
> That is why criteria and methods for evaluating the similarity of codes must be publicly specified in advance, and subsequent evaluation must be blinded.
> Departing from these standards leads swiftly to pseudo-science.
> It is dismayingly commonplace for people to ignore these principles. The reason is that pretty much everyone---scientists and lay-people alike---places great faith in their own rationality. Yet experience has shown over and over that this faith is utterly misguided, even among the most senior and experienced investigators.
This ignited considerable discussion on the talkchess forum ... in particular, Bob Hyatt posted more than thirty responses.
It is a very regrettable circumstance that (apparently) the ICGA in general, and Prof. Hyatt in particular, subsequently saw fit to ignore this advice. By what process, and upon what grounds, was this decision made?
Hmmm ... I just tried to post the above on the TalkChess Forum ... only to find that my (seldom-used) account there has been inactivated.
That's annoying ... and so anyone who cares to "clone" the above post to the TalkChess Forum, has my permission to do so.
Please sure to clone it without changes, and include the archive link, so folks can read for themselves what was said back at the beginning of this process.
URL:
That's annoying ... and so anyone who cares to "clone" the above post to the TalkChess Forum, has my permission to do so.
Please sure to clone it without changes, and include the archive link, so folks can read for themselves what was said back at the beginning of this process.
URL:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=214268&t=23424
i dont agree with you,and i still think that vas used in fraudulent form fruit's code,and he lied all the people hidding it,but i dont like when a person is silenced and dont allow him to speak,so i will clone the post and put in talkchess.com still i have your permission?
A remarkable contribution to this calamitous discussion. And I have to agree totally. Thanks for sharing it again.
Ciao
Achim
Ciao
Achim
It is quite evident that he doesn't like his authority questioned. When he senses he might be wrong he derails the focus of the conversation takes it somewhere else. If that fails he gets nasty. I wonder how many students Hyatt might have blamed for something they didn't do- and the students knowing his penchant for needing to be always right- just bit the bullet and took the easy way out. This guys ego is so huge-you'd have to be masochist to be a student and argue a fairness issue with him.
Addendum:
This Talkchess thread sheds a great deal of light on how monomaniacally obsessed Hyatt was even back then at branding Vas- and so quick to disregard anything out of hand- any indications that may prove otherwise-without consideration.
Addendum:
This Talkchess thread sheds a great deal of light on how monomaniacally obsessed Hyatt was even back then at branding Vas- and so quick to disregard anything out of hand- any indications that may prove otherwise-without consideration.
As a geologist, I don't have the technical expertise or background to fully understand the evidence presented against Rybka. That said, when I read the report I was shocked to discover just how one-sided it was and disappointed that the panel didn't seem to give Vas any credit for the contributions that allowed him to completely dominate the competition for five plus years. In my opinion, the most striking aspect of the report was the total absence of any kind of dissenting opinion or exculpatory evidence. I understand that the ICGA gave Vas the opportunity to defend himself, and that he declined to do so, but it's still incumbent upon the ICGA to take an honest look at the issue from both sides. If nothing else, it at least protects the organization from the appearance of impropriety. I've read my share of evidentiary findings over the years and I honestly can't recall ever reading anything that was so one-sided. Frankly, the report reeks of a kangaroo court.
As a private organization, the ICGA is certainly free to do as they please, but the thing that really sticks in my craw is the way that the ICGA handled the press after the report was issued. In the immortal words of Léon The Professional, "No women. No kids. That's the rules." The panel members are fortunate that Vas doesn't seem to be a litigious guy. If I were in his position and a professional organization orchestrated a hit piece that involved my wife, I'd have been hunting for favorable jurisdictions and letting the subpoenas fly within hours.
As a private organization, the ICGA is certainly free to do as they please, but the thing that really sticks in my craw is the way that the ICGA handled the press after the report was issued. In the immortal words of Léon The Professional, "No women. No kids. That's the rules." The panel members are fortunate that Vas doesn't seem to be a litigious guy. If I were in his position and a professional organization orchestrated a hit piece that involved my wife, I'd have been hunting for favorable jurisdictions and letting the subpoenas fly within hours.
>the thing that really sticks in my craw is the way that the ICGA handled the press after the report was issued. In the immortal words of Léon The Professional, "No women. No kids.
Moz,
Where.... where, where, where.... where, where, where in the world did you see the ICGA press release involve anyone but Vas?
> where in the world did you see the ICGA press release involve anyone but Vas?
I didn't say the ICGA mentioned anyone other than Vas. I'm talking about the way the ICGA pushed the press release into the mainstream media which in turn led to several articles that included unnecessary photos of Vas with his wife. Computer chess doesn't get that much press coverage unless there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to get the story out there. Defamation is no joke.
>I'm talking about the way the ICGA pushed the press release into the mainstream media
ok fine... then can you tell me in "what way" ICGA pushed the press release? I am aware of them "pushing it" (poor word choice on my part) to one writer on one chess site.
>Computer chess doesn't get that much press coverage unless there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to get the story out there
iwo just curious how you know this.
Thanks...
There is no place for "credit". This was about the question of copying only.
That has been crystal clear from the beginning. It doesn't matter what you do with the money you steal. You go to jail for stealing. Even if you donate it to a worthy cause...
Same principle applies here.
That has been crystal clear from the beginning. It doesn't matter what you do with the money you steal. You go to jail for stealing. Even if you donate it to a worthy cause...
Same principle applies here.
impossible be more clear...
Bob, there is a very nice essay by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz that explains why your post, and the ICGA's judicial procedures, are wrong.
The title of the essay is "The Criminal Trial Is Not About Justice for the Victim." This essay explains why in all judicial proceedings (both civil and criminal, both formal and informal) the quality of the process has precedence over the quality of the justice.
That is the common-sense reason why arguments of the form "our procedures were flawed, but there's no problem, because justice was done" are completely and utterly wrong.
Persons and organization who lack understanding of the process-before-justice principle, have no business passing judgment ... for the simple reason that they do not understand what justice is about, or how it works.
The title of the essay is "The Criminal Trial Is Not About Justice for the Victim." This essay explains why in all judicial proceedings (both civil and criminal, both formal and informal) the quality of the process has precedence over the quality of the justice.
That is the common-sense reason why arguments of the form "our procedures were flawed, but there's no problem, because justice was done" are completely and utterly wrong.
Persons and organization who lack understanding of the process-before-justice principle, have no business passing judgment ... for the simple reason that they do not understand what justice is about, or how it works.
I have not seen anyone from the ICGA say "our procedures were flawed." Vas' procedures were flawed since he chose to not respond in any way... but that is a bit beyond the ICGA's ability to correct.
"I have not seen anyone from the ICGA say "our procedures were flawed." "
were they able to get a word in edgeways?
were they able to get a word in edgeways?
Mark Lefler has posted here and elsewhere. Mark Watkins has posted _many_ times to clarify his ideas.
So, in your usual level of "thoroughness" I guess we have to spoon-feed you once again and point them out???
Remember, I only _respond_ to posts. I have not originated one single thread on this process since the ICGA ruled. If you look at the threads here, I have not responded to every post. So _way_ less than 50% of the total posts are mine... food for thought, eh?
So, in your usual level of "thoroughness" I guess we have to spoon-feed you once again and point them out???
Remember, I only _respond_ to posts. I have not originated one single thread on this process since the ICGA ruled. If you look at the threads here, I have not responded to every post. So _way_ less than 50% of the total posts are mine... food for thought, eh?
Has the ICGA sought outside review of its evidentiary and judicial procedures?
Were they even designed with the help of outside review?
No to both? No to either?
Then the procedures were flawed, Bob.
Because without review, science and justice equally are fatally flawed.
Were they even designed with the help of outside review?
No to both? No to either?
Then the procedures were flawed, Bob.
Because without review, science and justice equally are fatally flawed.
Give me some citations for where NASCAR has an outside review on their tech inspections after a race, where the various sporting organizations have an outside review of their performance-enhancing drug testing procedures. These are _private_ organizations. When you create a panel with a bunch of people with expertise in doing what the panel was charged to do, and when you include others that are non-technical so that they can critique the report for clarity or confusing parts, and when you ask the accused to provide any information he chooses, I do not see how things could be much fairer without a jury and judge from outside the ICGA, which is obviously impractical for a private organization.
In my opinion, an outside judge and jury would have reached _exactly_ the same verdict, and most likely the same penalties, in light of no defense...
In my opinion, an outside judge and jury would have reached _exactly_ the same verdict, and most likely the same penalties, in light of no defense...
Bob, the rigid belief that "an outside judge and jury would have reached _exactly_ the same verdict and most likely the same penalties", which rests on no evidence whatsoever, has often been the target of satire ... for example Solzhenitsyn's paired novellas We Never Make Mistakes.
You can keep saying "no evidence whatsoever" until you convince yourself it is true. But that won't make it true for everyone else, sorry...
If you want to say that you don't understand the evidence, that is fine. But an experienced chess programmer will _not_ come to the same conclusion you are espousing, unless he has some hidden agenda and is not being truthful in his comments...
Have you _read_ Mark Watkin's analysis, the one signed by him at the bottom???
If you want to say that you don't understand the evidence, that is fine. But an experienced chess programmer will _not_ come to the same conclusion you are espousing, unless he has some hidden agenda and is not being truthful in his comments...
Have you _read_ Mark Watkin's analysis, the one signed by him at the bottom???
>there is a very nice essay by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz
For the love of Pete... John.
I thought you were pointing us to some scholarly work, instead it's some intro law ideas (law 101) that could be presented to a class of high schoolers.
(edit: which obviously has not been done in most high schools when you see all the media talking heads and most people's reaction)John your statement:
>That is the common-sense reason why arguments of the form "our procedures were flawed, but there's no problem, because justice was done"
demonstrates your understanding is "completely and utterly wrong".
>for the simple reason that they do not understand what justice is about, or how it works.
What are you? Capt. America?
Or is this an episode of Superman? (truth, justice and the american way...)
>ICGA's judicial procedures
Everyone and their brother here wants to turn ICGA proceedings into some sort of civil or criminal trial. Well... once ICGA finds a plot of land, sets up a Constitution, a Government, and a set of laws... then y'all can jump in here with your Huff Post law 101 articles and say how screwed up they are.
Until then, you ought to be using your noodle to think about what this really is. As I said, your post clearly demonstrates you have no understanding of what took place. (which leaves me utterly flabbergasted, but that is "neither here, nor there").
Very nice comment. I 100% agree with everything you just said.
i like moz,i have to play him shortly taking white on Cochrane gambit which i dont believe is any good.just won as black on corr thread as you may have noticed.i will do my best to get a draw as white,but dont hold your horses.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill