It's really depressing seeing programmers quit and give their engines to people that just keep the engine private forever. It gives the illusion that the project is continuing, but if it happens like what is happening with Thinker and Fruit, it's as if the project was cancelled.
Private engines are a myth (it also applies to Cluster Rybka software).
> The denial is getting pretty pointless.
Then stop with the myopic vision -get beyond your own biases and prejudices and allow for the fact that Vas was "is" far beyond the mediocre programmer you would have him to be copying code like some second rate hack. That flies in the face of all that he is and has done to date. You are shoveling against the tide with your broad stroke assumptions imputing motives that are based on biases. They ring hollow and that is why we fall back to go. If the guy were a hack this case would have been a slam dunk for you and the ICGA -  ( after the fact of the ICGA 's rendered verdict -the arguments against continue -this is far from over! So who is in denial?! ).
> One moment, please. Vas sent out copies of Rybka 1.6.1. Volker received one as he was asked to include it in his testing/rating list.
I think you mean Olivier Deville?
> The ban of Chris W. from the panel.
This is the last email we sent Chris. He did not reply to it:
To chrisXXXX@yahoo.com, Ed, David Levy, Harvey Williamson, Bob Hyatt
I do not know what to say. I do not think we have been in any way "rude" to you. Yes, the approval process has been slow for you and others we do not know well. But since we have several examples of people falsely claiming to be others and in the process stealing source code, requesting extra information is totally reasonable. If anything, you have been rude. Just look at the snarky writing below! "wasting humiliation"? "occasional little hilter"? Do you really think acting like this is in your best interest?
David Levy and Harvey felt we should approve you. I have been waiting on Bob Hyatt's decision. I was going to approve you as well, but the histrionics of your emails and sheer paranoia suggest I should not decide in your favor. We need professional, reliable people on the panel. Are you willing to change and be more polite to serve there?
NOTE: Chris never answered this
> Yes, the approval process has been slow for you and others we do not know well.
If that alone isn't a telling statement I don't know what wouldn't be. Given the predilection for this kind of response - Lucky the feedback from Chris W wasn't a hell of a lot stronger.
You guys did not just a little baiting-didn't you!
Harvey another idea from my side. How should we treat talents not to speak of genius? Is this only about primitive rules like I tried to call the old paradigm of the ICGA? Why is so much hate against Vas in your allies? Are you all addicts of pure power games? Without the least sense for satirical aspects in this battle against Vas? Try to look at his second video again. Yes Harvey, you had the power to order Vas to wear only red flies during the next 10 years. The usual sadist feels better after such commands.
The danger is not from us humble readers but from site owners/administrators and the occasional little hitler tendency of "mods".
I may post the entire email exchange later but it is time to hit the Tel aviv nightlife again!
Making a joke out of computer chess as a whole. GG!
I don't know how to interpret this...
1) Perhaps Hans was getting a warning, as happened in the Godfather. This would be a more likely possibility if Anthony Cozzie was still competing (he's Italian American, right? So he must be a Mafioso!),
2) Perhaps Hans' girlfriend has certain equine characteristics, or
3) Perhaps the horses head was just a late night snack.
Let me know if I'm on to something, here.
You are a liar.
On CCC you published material that stated I called you (the secretariat panel) 'little hitlers'. That's a lie and a quite deliberate attempt at character assassination rather than engage on material issues. That you do it in the safe place of CCC where saying just about any slur against me is just fine is cowardice.
Which makes you both a liar and a coward.
Feel free to publish the ENTIRE email containing the quote you snipped.
>> Feel free to publish the ENTIRE email containing the quote you snipped.
You have it you publish it.
Your problem is poor education in reading coupled with bias. This meant that you when you saw the email from me, you did not actually read it, instead you skimmed it, looking for keywords to reinforce your prejudices. You did not read in order to get the meaning expressed by the writer, instead you read to get the meaning that you already have. There's no flow of information or content or meaning between you and the writer, you are actually just talking to yourself and learning nothing.
We also remember your final excuses for your dictatorial moderation practices at playchess, banning people, being rude, to such an extent that aggrieved end users came to these forums in numbers to protest, and the best you could do was to answer why perfectly reasonable people were being banned by you was "because I can".
It's a great wonder how someone of such pitiful calibre got himself onto the secretariat of an organisation charged with giving complex and potentially damaging judgement on another human being.
Postby BB+ » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:59 pm
My opinion (with some other background from the email exchanges) was that a (short) temporal ban was warranted, simply to defuse the situation. However, I'm not sure that MarkL's email response (quoted elsewhere) served to do this, and indeed its end effect appears to be to have alienated CW further. Perhaps I could have been more explicit to CW that my personal feeling was that he should re-apply in a week or so. But at this point, I'm not sure it is all worth revisiting the various recriminations, particularly as CW has said [if I am not mistaken] that in the end he was just as happy not having to chase the ICGA's "political" tails around in circles, just to join their Panel.
I hope there's more because these comments do not amount to anything that should lead the panel to disallowing of CW's entrance. As much as I disagree with his views on the particular subject of Rybka, the ICGA investigating board was wrong here, unless there's more. I happen to understand the context in which he speaks regarding mod behaviours.
by thorstenczub » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:03 am
his email is completely ok IMO.
Adam Hair» Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:02 pm
I have to agree with Franklin and Thorsten. It seems to me that the "little hitler" reference has been misrepresented in earlier accounts. It seems to be a general statement and not one that is directed specifically towards the Secretariat.
by veritas » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:47 pm
i see probable disrespect in use of surnames without title or christian name but its something certain" types" in the U.K. do ( gets right up my nose ) , but other than that i find his mail perfectly O.K , even reasonable
Just to remind you, Mr Williamson, you stated I called you and the secretariat "little hitler's". Your statement was a lie, based on biased reading and seeing what you wanted to see, not what was there.
Again, the question, how did someone of such low calibre as yourself get onto Secretariat charged with controlling the potential humiliation and defaming of another human being?
Bonjour and au revoir.
> I have signed that letter that triggered the IGCA tribunal to investigate the origins of Rybka. I did that because I believed (and still believe) Rybka started it's life as Fruit 2.1 and as such in that state was not allowed to participate in ICGA tournaments. In retrospect I regret that decision for various reasons:
Rebel (aka Ed Schroeder), it's obvious you're angry based on how you perceived you were treated. Evidence from Bob, Harvey etc shows you were treated civilly, except the investigation just didn't go as "fast" you wanted. The ID-authentication makes sense to me since the internet is a virtual world and hacking, ID-theft or cloning is a possibility. This is something you ought to know, even a 7-year old knows this.
It didn't end there. After the ICGA investigation, you then go on a rampage to accuse Crafty to be a Rybka clone. Problem is, Crafty has been open source and your lies against Crafty/Bob has been debunked in the OpenChess forum. Now you're over here in another forum stating another propaganda & your regrets. You also stated as a matter-of-fact that Strelka /Ippo are hacked Rybka. Yet Vas had retracted (as claimed by his supporters) the statement he made against Strelka as a Rybka engine. Or did you miss that retraction by Vas on this? He's made the same accusation against Ippo but to date, no prove to substantiate his "claim". If anything, numerous tests shows Ippo and Rybka are different in their evals, moves etc.
Since you're going to fight and sacrifice your reputation & life for Vas, wouldn't it make sense to have your facts correct? Wouldn't it make sense for Vas to equip you with evidence to support his accusations, since you're on the fore-front for him? If not, let the accuser who made these accusations fight for his/her self.
You may have programmed Rebel, Prodeo... but that don't give you license to slander another person's work without proof (Crafty) nor does it give you the means to claim Rybka was hacked...without proof.
Instead of letting reason, understanding, & wisdom dictate your decision, you're letting personal feelings and emotions to rule you instead. Now look!....your actions made your name and credibility questionable.
Ed Schroeder, when are you going to stop sowing these false childish gossips and discords? Grow up and wise up.
> Maybe you should start with writing his name correct...
I missed an "h". Thanks. Now what?
> Now, use a ö in stead of oe and you are getting close.
Still the same. "oe" (in English?) represent the ö. Many sites including Wiki uses both interchangeably
When I was in Prague, the PC in the executive lounge in the Hilton had about a gazillion characters on each key. I'm glad we have only one...
> After the ICGA investigation, you then go on a rampage to accuse Crafty to be a Rybka clone.
I beg your pardon ?
Never said that nor implied that, you also totally missed the meaning of the debate.
I said it's very likely there are fragments of ideas of Rybka in Crafty like there are fragments of Rybka in many other engines, perhaps even in my own. I also said there is nothing wrong in doing so since all of it is in the open and freeware. First the hacked Rybka 1.0 (the Strelka sources) then years later the hacked Rybka 3 (the ippo sources).
Since the beginning of CC times chess programmers talk, by phone, letters, fax etc. Nowadays by email, MSN, fora, chat on chess servers. As such idea's spread and this always has been the no.1 reason for general progress, talking chess programmers sharing their thoughts. And as a chess programmer when you hear a new idea in many cases you don't know the origin, you receive the information from second, third, fourth, fifth etc. hand. As such (and especially after the release of the Strelka sources which revealed the secrets of Rybka 1.0 beta) it is impossible for a programmer to judge if the origin of an idea you hear is does not origin from Strelka (=Rybka).
They are there, consciously or unconsciously. I guess they are even in mine although I haven't touched the stuff since years. It's the way this little world operates and has operated since the beginning of CC times and will operate in the future. It surprised me Hyatt made such a big deal about my initial teasing remark to remove all Rybka stuff from Crafty. There is absolutely nothing wrong taking Strelka and/or Ippo stuff. It's freeware.
PRIMA, are you a chess programmer? Do you understand the implications of the Strelka and Ippo source code?
>> Never said that nor implies that, you also totally missed the meaning of the debate.
> I said it's very likely there are fragments of ideas of Rybka in Crafty like there are fragments of Rybka in many other engines, perhaps even in my own. I also said there is nothing wrong in doing so since all of it is in the open and freeware. First the hacked Rybka 1.0 (the Strelka sources) then years later the hacked Rybka 3 (the ippo sources).
Quite different from what you stated or implied:
> Haven't said that. I asked you if you were going to remove any idea in Crafty that comes from Vas's legacy (his 300-400 elo contribution to Fruit 2.1). If you say there is none in Crafty then I don't believe you.
Found here: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1477#p12968
Also here too: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1471
And of course the defamatory and attack continues in each topic's subsequent pages.
This is a CCC thread discussing your outrageous claims against Crafty: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=413231&t=39597
The topic here is the moral and ethics of Hyatt and his aggressiveness towards Vas. And yet without shame he will use parts of the legacy of Vas 300-400 elo if that would improve Crafty.
Note what Hyatt posted a couple of hours ago on open-chess:
the _only_ "Rybka idea" I have tested was the tt-singular extension. Did not work for me in any form I tried.
Which proofs my initial teasing remark.
I mean if you're going to run off and go around creating topics to depict Bob/Crafty using things from Rybka, even as far as naming the versions in which such Rybka ideas were supposedly used, you should at least show the world where such Rybka-code is in Crafty code.
Again.....WHERE is the Rybka code in Crafty? WHERE?!!!!
Otherwise how 'bout this advise: Don't go around making false & defamatory accusations you can't substantiate.
[Deleted - I re-posted this part below...]
So I ask Ed; where is the Rybka code in Crafty?!! Note, unlike Rybka, Crafty is open source for all to see. In case you missed it, Fruit and Crafty code have been proven to be in Rybka and several individual & ICGA findings support this. The difference here is, those who want to excuse Rybka's/Vas behaviour try to find any excuse to pretend not see Fruit (and Crafty code in Rybka.
Better yet, like Bob has taken his time to show and refute the false claims of Rybka code in Crafty, made by Ed in the specified-Crafty version, let's see Vas do the same and refute the claims Fruit + Crafty are not in his Rybka versions.
> In case you missed it, Fruit and Crafty code have been proven to be in Rybka and several individual & ICGA findings support this.
For what I've seen, people can't find such code in the reports, and, despite all the arguments, people can't make something as simple as pasting a chunk of Fruit code, followed by a chunk of code of Rybka, that matches. They will always go "the matching code is out there, look for yourself!"
Well, people will see what they want to see or not to see. However, respectable programmers/computer code analysts saw these resemblance. Not one or two but several saw this.
Blindly believe based on hearsay? These are facts seen with the bare eyes. Anyone can also download and see the similarities. When Vas stated IppoLit was a Rybka clone, didn't you believe him even though he hasn't provided any basis for that claim?
> When Vas stated IppoLit was a Rybka clone, didn't you believe him even though he hasn't provided any basis for that claim?
I saw with my own eyes their similarities. And, anyway, now that you bring that up, Richard Vida just claimed that Ippolit is an original engine (that is, written from scratch) based on Rybka 3's ideas (from reverse engineered code). And he found out Rybka 4 is closer to Ippolit (that was released first) than Ippolit to Rybka 3. So, probably, everyone is innocent.
>These are facts seen with the bare eyes. Anyone can also download and see the similarities.
Similarities doesn't mean copied code, it can mean copied ideas.
The fact is, you haven't seen any code of Fruit in Rybka, otherwise you could copy and paste some chunk of code for comparison. It's only in your mind, so you can't copy it from your imagination and paste it into this thread.
> Richard Vida just claimed that Ippolit is an original engine (that is, written from scratch) based on Rybka 3's ideas (from reverse engineered code).
You're misquoting Richard Vida and this is incorrect. From the very link you provided, Richard Vida clearly states that "Ippo was indeed written from scratch - and is completely legal." NOT based on Rybka 3's idea. Nor from a RE of Rybka 3.
However, it is deductible from his post that since IppoLit predates Rybka 4 and Rybka 4 contains certain eval or search functions not found in Rybka 3 but present in IppoLit, it is possible Rybka 4 took some things from IppoLit. Please re-read his post.
> Similarities doesn't mean copied code, it can mean copied ideas.
Yet this was the very basis for some to claim IppoLit was a clone of Rybka 3. I guess when the "similarities doesn't mean copied code" is convenient, it's used in defense for Rybka. It figures.
> The fact is, you haven't seen any code of Fruit in Rybka, otherwise you could copy and paste some chunk of code for comparison. It's only in your mind, so you can't copy it from your imagination and paste it into this thread.
The fact is, lots of people have made comparisons and determine there are lots of Fruit code in Rybka. Are all these people wrong too, is it also in their minds & imaginations or is it just me?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill