Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-26 10:06
Chris, say something about originality in computerchess, after all ran after the mere hardware strength and nobody ever tried again to implement different approaches from their (of course inexisting) chess knowledge. Were you not probably the last who tried to save a rest of the dream to implementate a more human chess into cold code? No surprise because you knew something about chess. But alas, you also went down in flames of the brutal paradigm of hardware dominance. Since then the split between human chess and computerchess was if ever made smaller by a giant like Vas who brought back to mankind what machines could find out in servant mode. In your eyes is there any hope that humans master machines or is Levy winning with his madness of letting machines direct human life even by offerering sex? For me this is the philosophy behind the actual clash between hardware dumbness and the human genius of people like you and Vas.
Parent - - By SR (****) Date 2011-07-26 10:02
the cheating by Harvey Williamson with Hiarcs against another machine

As a moderator I have to ask you have to refrain from such inflammatory claims. What make you think your claim has any root in reality?
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-26 10:26
I followed the debate about it on the CCC General Forum, just take a look into the archive there. Harvey fiddled into the moveplaying mode of the machine by deciding for himself when to play the move. This is reality as it happened durin a tournament after the ICGA riles. And Harvey is still not banned for anything. Because Bob Hyatt decided that it wasnt a cheat. Just the same history as in 1997. Ok, this with Harvey is no murder case either, but if rules of the ICGA are holier than holy Harvey should no longer possess any kind of power jobs in the community, in special being a member of "a" secretariat to ban Vas. Of course all IMO. Have you anything substantial to contradict my opinion?
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-26 10:32
Rolf if you are going to tell stories get the facts right what you write above is completely wrong (as usual)

Several years ago i changed the contempt setting for the last game of an online tournament as it was a game we had to win. I discovered later this was not allowed and admitted I had done it. If I had not nobody would ever have known. The TD decided to take no action.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-26 10:40
How? So is it wrong that you interferred into the normal move playing mode of Hiarcs? That was reported this way. Anything to doctor there for you in the aftermath? Then tell me the news. After Hyatt you were excused because you did only cheat one time. But in German we have a saying *who is cheating or one time one doesnt believe him even if he then is acting according to the rules.*. I rely on Bob who stated that you cheated once.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-26 19:57
We have a saying here in America too Rofl... "Stupid is as stupid does".

You bring up such a stupid example citing Harvey over and over that it is plain for all to 
see you are trolling "as usual".

So let me play along for a moment since apparently you are too stupid to know what cheating 
is... It's DECEPTION... It's FRAUD... It's MISLEADING...

So what part about what Harvey actions (Notifying the Tournament Director of a Rule Violation) 
is Deceptive?  What kind of Fraud did he perpetrate?  Who did he Mislead?  WELL???

You are so well-known for citing Kasparov as someone who was supposedly cheated... then 
let me bring up an example of your hero.

Linares 1994... 5th round... Judit Polgar vs Kasparov. Kasparov plays 36...Nc5 
momentarily removes his hand and the takes it again moving it back to d7.

He says his hand never left the piece.  Spanish TV video tape of the game showed otherwise.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 20:05

> Several years ago i changed the contempt setting for the last game of an online tournament as it was a game we had to win.

It would have been better if you had started with,

"Once upon a time..." 

>I discovered later this was not allowed and admitted I had done it.

Because you were new to chess, and...?

> If I had not nobody would ever have known. The TD decided to take no action.

And, what a good boy you are!

If there is more can you wait-I want to make some popcorn - you are such a good spinner of tales.
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-26 20:10 Edited 2011-07-26 20:20
lol now go take your pills and crawl back into your pit. Or better still find some evidence rather than just posting bullshit 24/7
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 20:11
Oh! Harvey, Dear!

Your beside yourself! :yell::grin:
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-26 20:13
Just realising that some people I thought were decent, like you, are actually some of the biggest a____s I have ever met.

c'est la vie :)
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 20:50

> Just realising that some people I thought were decent, like you, are actually some of the biggest a____s I have ever met

Oh, my! Harvey you do like casting those aspersions when it gets hot in the kitchen, and still insisting on pissing on my back and telling me its raining out. :grin:
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-26 20:58
You are now the 1st person ever on my ignore list aurevoir and enjoy the rest of the nuts.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 21:39

> aurevoir

Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-26 21:46
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 22:05

> [vid=youtube][/vid]

Poor guy- you couldn't even get that one right!:yell::smile: You're a hoot!
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-26 20:17
Robert really is happy slinging manure for sure.

Reminds of the kid who was so happy to play in a room full of manure.

Psychologists couldn’t figure out why… when asked the boy says, “well with all this horse manure in here I figure there has to be a horse somewhere!”
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 15:05
First, nobody cheated in 1997.  The log files from Deep Blue showed no strangeness.  The move(s) Kasparov questioned were produced by other programs at the time, although some took a long time to find them since the computers were far slower.  Nothing unusual happened.  Kasparov just assumed that when the machine was out-playing him in some of the positions, that something fishy was going on, because his "associates" had told him that training against Fritz was equivalent to playing against Deep Blue.  He shouldn't have listened to them.  If there was any person to blame besides Kasparov himself, it was the very small group of people that were telling him how to prepare.  They were out of touch with reality and did not understand exactly what Deep Blue was capable of...

"lack of respect" is not "cheating"

cheating  present participle of cheat (Verb)
1. Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards".
2. Deceive or trick.

Neither of those describe what happened in the Kasparov / Deep Blue match.

Kasparov was out-played where he did not expect it, that caused him to completely fall apart, and he lost.  His fault and that of his advisors that poorly prepared him for the reality of Deep Blue.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-26 21:34
The log files from Deep Blue showed no strangeness.

Lack of respect is not cheating.

It's strange to get from you first sentence above because you told me that even if one tried one couldnt find out nor prevent a cheating with the output. So there you go with your idol Ken Thompson. He was staging against Kasparov.I dont say that they made up the output, but f they did in the aftermath nobody could have found out.

The second phrase is just showing that you again didnt get what this is all about. Cheating your object of the research that was intended to be the check for their own machine, is whatever you prefer for calling it, just preventing that you get a valid result. Look, you know something about chess. If you want to know how the machine could play against the best human, you must let him play his best chess. Ok, I told you that a human player cannot play without his psychology. But if you then cause him to psych out, THEN you get the result what he could do under these circumstances but not the one that were relevant. Is that too complicated for you? Nt for me, it's so basic in human science and its research.You can do many things but if you want to have a result how your machine plays chess against the chess of the best human, you should not embarrass the human player. However if you want to win by all means, this is what this was all about, typical for Americans, then you might get your result, but it doesnt say much about the real strength of your machine. As a last example. Say you put Kasparov underdrugs, would you then get a result about the true strength of Deep Blue. I dont think so. Ok, I have understood that you are arguing that Kasparov psyched himself out. But that doesnt fly. Simply because no matter who did it, it made further relevant results impossible. If we could agree on that at least, then you had understood what I was talking about. So, to sum this up. I the interest of sound research the IBM scientists should have told their sponsors that if they played dirty that then even if they won, the result would always be considered as rigged and cheated. And this is where we are. And you defended their cheating. And this is what I am telling you all the time. like Harvey who cheated only once, you are already the second member of the ICGA secretariat who isnt quite kosher because he once defended the cheating of his friends against Kasparov.

Please note, that what your claque is now trying to do, namely proving that Kasparov is a cheat in other places, is uninteresting. I never pretended that Kasparov were holy. He's just a human being and probably he is also socialized to win in chess by all means. So he even lost his temper against a woman, namely Judit Polgar. Ok, but that doesnt excuse the cheating that you have defended against Kasparov.

But what does this only say? That even you are a human being, Bob. You have also certain cheating intentions if it's about your friends. So, morally you might not be so far away from Vas, if all that is true what you have claimed all these years.

BTW I'm not pretending that I were holy myself. I just had no chance to make certain mistakes. At least this is how I am thinking. Because I dont want to be a hypocrit. But in your obsession against Vas you show a lot of that vice, Bob. Couldnt we come back to normal? Perhaps then Vas could also reconsider. Why not doing a first step from our side here in this debate? Would you lose anything of value? Nope. You would win a whole lot back of honesty. 

Typos excused.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 22:26
My last comment on this issue.  It is now 14 years old and well beyond its intended lifetime.

The DB team played the games fairly.  Kasparov got psyched out because of poor preparation, because he listened to people that didn't know what they were talking about.  He chose his "team".  He followed their recommendations.  It didn't work out.  ALL of that is independent of the DB guys...
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 00:43
This is obviously tangential to the anything being discussed here, but it is interesting that the logs were not allowed Kasparov - I find it interesting that your team decided to not comply.

The flick is composed of a great deal of hype but it does have some interesting content.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 03:26
They _did_ supply the logs.  Just not as quickly as he wanted.  In fact, they made the logs public.  I have 'em all on my office box in fact.  I wouldn't have given him _anything_ prior to the end of the match, because I doubt if when he played in a tournament if his rivals would provide Kasparov with _their_ analysis of openings and such, which would show up in the logs.  And after he accused them of cheating on a move that we know many other programs also found back then, I wouldn't blame them if they had told him "go piss up a rope..."

Kind of hard to insult someone, then come right back and ask them for something that the rules did not specify that they had to supply on demand.

Ken Thompson looked at the log file immediately and said that everything looked perfectly normal at that point in the game...  And Ken was one of the "neutral observers" both sides agreed on at the time.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 04:50
Well,  Kasparov was playing the tournament up as an "on going great experiment" indicating from his point of view a relatively innocuous request to see the logs. From what you are inferring showing him some of the logs would have given him some indication of programming strategy.  He apparently didn't like losing.:yell:
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 16:44
I don't believe he ever liked losing, in _any_ event.

I certainly don't.
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-27 05:02

> It is now 14 years old and well beyond its intended lifetime.

That's a good one. Interesting to note what your concept of actuality is; 14 years too long ago, 6-7 years still very current.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 16:42
Introduce a _real_ argument that DB cheated, taking their log files, the moves of the game, and anything else you can find as part of the evidence, and anyone would be willing to look at 14 year old stuff.  But not the "the DB guys psyched Kasparov out, which is cheating."  That argument holds no water.  Kasparov psyched himself out.  If there was any cheating done, he cheated himself with poor preparation, choosing a poor group to help him prepare - a group that knew _nothing_ about DB or technical computer chess issues, etc.
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-27 17:22
Hi Bob, good morning. Scientific chores finished? Wife sent you back to the study after breakfast?
I'll be upfront with you: I am not going to enter into any serious discussion with you. We disagree on all points. Imo you're a vindictive guy who never made it to the top. But I can't deny your ramblings here amuse me :-)
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 17:37
I don't follow "never made it to the top."  My program _was_ world champion twice, back when it was held every 3 years.  You did know that?  My program has won multiple CCT events, even with commercial program entered. You did know that as well?

The lack of information here is really quite amazing, when the knowledge gaps can be filled in so easily with just a small amount of web investigation.

And then there is the continual attempts at mind-reading, as if you can somehow discern my motives.  Is our court system "vindictive"?  The police?  The prosecutors?  The witnesses?   Or do we have a new definition of vindictive. 

"vindictive.  adjective.  describes anyone that doesn't agree with me, regardless of whether the evidence supports me or not."
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-27 18:04
Sure bob, _let's_get_back_to_the_facts!
You are the best!
Only cheaters could (temporarily) claim your throne!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 18:09
Sorry, but I have competed since 1976, won two WCCC titles, 2-3 ACM titles, and a few CCT titles.  There were a _ton_ of "other winners".  Chess 3.x, chess 4.x, Belle, Hitech, deep thought, fritz, shredder, Junior, Rybka.  Unfortunately only _one_ of those was a "cheater".  The last one.
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-27 18:23
Thanks for enlightening me Bob.
Ever considered becoming a wikipedia contributor?
You are so full of.... facts!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 18:50
Ever considered paying attention to facts???
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-27 22:29
Dr Hyatt does have an excellent program which I have used many times (and continue to use).   I don't know a thing about computer chess but I am trying to learn.   So far every single post that I have read from Dr Hyatt seems to be logical and reasonable.  I don't see any reasons for personal attacks on him.  There is NO DOUBT that he has paid his dues and that he should be treated respectfully at all times.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 22:51
It is a poor debate tactic.  Normally you argue the facts.  But if the facts are against you, then you try to discredit or attack your opponent instead, rather than attacking the facts which are unassailable...  It happens.  I'm a "big boy."  It doesn't bother me.  Because this is about the evidence, even though a few want to make it about anything or everything _but_ the evidence...
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-27 23:07
Dr Hyatt does have an excellent program which I have used many times (and continue to use).   I don't know a thing about computer chess but I am trying to learn.   So far every single post that I have read from Dr Hyatt seems to be logical and reasonable.  I don't see any reasons for personal attacks on him.  There is NO DOUBT that he has paid his dues and that he should be treated respectfully at all times.

Bob is in fact logical and uses facts in these discussions. Can't disagree with you on that.

The attacks on Bob and those upholding factual truth results when the Rybka proponents (those supporting the 'unethical' Rybka origins) twists the origin of Rybka in relation to Fruit-Crafty facts. When that doesn't work, they divert on to the "he increased ELO in Rybka" tactic. When this isn't viable, they demand facts that are actually already published and easily obtained. When the facts stare them hard in their faces, they want Bob or those who did read these facts to show them similarities. When this excuse fails to fly off, they then get personal. When 'getting personal' doesn't dissuade the truth, the name-calling & insults starts. If the name-calling fails to mute the truth, then their unbridled anger manifests. When anger-flaring and puffing doesn't change the facts surrounding Rybka, they resort to excommunicate that stubborn, unyielding but truthful person via their ignore lists. 

I know this for a fact because 2 people actually tried such childish approaches on me. Such emotions. Laughable though.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-28 08:45
Apart from a 5 to 6 years long character assassination quasi as lynch justice. Apart from that only about facts. Is there anybody here who wanted to pretend that this is about fair and legal justice? No, not in my books, I for one see lynch madness all over the place - from undemocratic egomanics who are hiding the basic truth in commercial competitors, nobody sane in his mind opens his sourcecode for the others. So either all open their sources or nobody. But this lynch justice must stop. Scapegoating a singular programmer, the yearlong winner, that is madness.
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-28 16:45
Hi AWRIST, how u doing.  I noticed that u make a lot of references to "lynching".  As you know, lynching generally refers to torture and murder of innocent blacks by racist whites.   I understand that u believe that ICGA treated Vas very unfairly, but being lynched is not synonymous to being treated unfairly.  Thousands of innocent blacks were lynched, that being one of the darkest hours of the history of mankind.  Are u calling the ICGA board racist criminals?  Are you equating the situation of a programmer being accused of cheating to that of thousands of people who were murdered because of the color of their skin?  Regards.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-28 16:54
In Europe we are aware of the sort of lynching that took place in some parts of the USA even as recently as the 1950s and that it manifested itself predominantly as a white on black event. But the word is more general that just white/black and we apply it to any form of mass injustice against any victim. Witches perhaps many years ago, pedophiles perhaps now. The principle is that the victim stands no chance because he is hated and condemned already. We need a word to describe this principle and "lynching" does the description job.

Wikipedia more or less confirms ...

Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. It is related to other means of social control that arise in communities, such as charivari, riding the rail, and tarring and feathering. Lynchings have been more frequent in times of social and economic tension, and have often been means used by the politically dominant population to oppress social challengers.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-28 17:01

> lynching generally refers to torture and murder of innocent blacks by racist whites.

Why do you think Lynchings were relegated strictly as southern justice- I got news for you. It was mob rule justice performed regularly in the old west as a matter of routine- if you need pictures - I'll provide them for you. If they didn't hang them they shot them so full of holes they didn't know where to bleed first. Then asked questions later.
Parent - By sockmonkey (***) Date 2011-07-28 17:02
Although in this case, questions were asked first, during and last. And no answers were forthcoming. Your analogies are deeply flawed, as is your argument.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-28 17:09
Lynchings, or Hang ‘Em High On The High Plains

August 3rd, 2009 in American History by Tom Goodrich

I was on the cell a few days ago with a friend who was driving to Kansas from Denver.  Not long after she had cleared Ft. Wallace in far western Kansas, I asked her to keep an eye out on the left for the Twin Mounds.  She did soon note this rather small but distinctive geological feature and asked what had happened there.  I mentioned that in 1868 Mexican bullwhackers were killed on the site by a Cheyenne war party.  The event was depicted in one of the illustrated journals of the time.  I added that near the Twin Mounds once situated the tent city of Sheridan.

For several months Sheridan served as the end-of-the-line for the Kansas Pacific Railroad.  Dodge?  Deadwood?  Tombstone?  Abilene?  For wildest, wickedest town in the West, my money is on Sheridan.  Now, every “Hell-On-Wheels” town (a sordid collection of canvass saloons and bordellos that packed it in when the rails moved west) was wild and wicked but Sheridan was way over the top.  The place was the worst of the worst.  Some have calculated that there were as many as two murders a day.  Not bad for a mote on the map that boasted maybe a thousand drunken, riotous souls.  But that stat takes into account only those poor chaps who were gunned down on Sheridan’s muddy streets or stabbed to death in the filthy “Hog Ranches” (brothels).  With no law west of Hays City, vigilantes added to the daily death toll.  As ever, hemp was the preferred method.
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-28 17:56
Hi guys.   Thank u so much for the information provided.   I was obviously ignorant about the European definition.  As I live in USA however, I can tell u that my general definition of lynching is absolutely right on as it applies to this country.  It is a very sensitive word here, loaded with racial and historical significance and in fact I very very seldom ever hear it being used.  Over here, it certainly won't be used in case of a computer programmer being accused of cheating.   The suffering of African Americans during the 1800's was enormous and they don't appreciate the word lynching being thrown around any time unfairness is implied.  Thank u again for your posts.   Regards.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-28 19:00 Edited 2011-07-28 19:21
I'm from NY! Born and raised! It is the way it was! No doubt southern bigotry still exists and thrives-but I'd hope to a far lesser extent than in the days when Dr. Hyatt and I were kids. But Lynch justices goes back in this country before the KKK came into being -it is not the soul product but a weapon it used as so many other vigilante groups.

If your intention is to turn this into a racial flame war- that is on you! [Edit] The clan went after anything that was perceived to upset their apple cart. You didn't need to African American to end up buried in the woods.
Parent - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-29 01:58
Ah, what a crazy day I had today -and I am on vacation!  Anyways, I have nothing more to say on this.   Thanks.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-29 07:35

> The suffering of African Americans during the 1800's was enormous and they don't appreciate the word lynching being thrown around any time unfairness is implied.  Thank u again for your posts.   Regards.

"The Tuskegee Institute has recorded 3,446 lynchings of blacks and 1,297 lynchings of whites between 1882 and 1968.[1] Southern states created new constitutions between 1890 and 1910, with provisions that effectively disfranchised most blacks, as well as many poor whites. People who did not vote were excluded from serving on juries, and most blacks were shut out of the official political system."

You need to re-examine your time line racial motivated lynchings didn't get started until after the war between the states. 

refer you to this article that covers the entire concept of mob lynch mentality.
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-29 14:06
Hi Arriere, how are you?   I had stopped talking about this topic and gave you the last word, but since you would like to talk about it a little more, I'll comply.   By the way, thanks for researching this on the internet.   I have to admit that I did not have to do any research on this topic, all my posts were from memory.

Let me continue with a brief example.   Let's say that you come to me with this statement, "Garry Kasparov is a great chess champion".  I then go and research the database and find hundreds of games where he lost and come back to you and say, "Garry Kasparov was no great chess champion!"    Then I go and research some more, I come up with several games that he lost in simuls, maybe to a 1900 rated guy, maybe I find a few friendly blitz games that he lost, etc, and I show you those and I say, "not only Kasparov wasn't a great chess champion, he wasn't even a very good chess player!"    Later I bring you a youtube recording of a Kasparov political speech and say "look, he wasn't even a chess player, he was a politician".  On the surface it would seem that I am right because I have shown you hundreds, if not thousands, of games where Kasparov lost, but in reality I have only shown you the EXCEPTIONS and demonstrated how little I know about chess.  

My original argument was that even if Vas is totally innocent (of copying code verbatim), that comparing the ICGA staff to a murderous racist lynch mob is offensive.   Does "Tuskegee Institute" have anything to do with that?   You are saying that my time line is wrong - I said that the "suffering of African Americans during the 1800's was enormous"- where is the error in that statement?  I repeat, where is the error here?   You are denying that they suffered in the 1800's?  Are you kidding me?

I said that lynching in United States is generally (and I put the word "generally" in both prior posts) considered a racist white on an innocent black crime.   That statement is of course still correct.    Are you going into all this trouble and research to show me that lynching was generally NOT a white against black crime?   You can't be serious about that, can you? 

Finally, you also mixed KKK in your arguments, saying that they were hateful not only of blacks but also of some other groups- which of course is correct but again showing that you are digging for EXCEPTIONS.   Again, KKK was generally (please note I said "generally") a white against black group and you can not seriously state otherwise. 

My friend, thank you for your research and your posts.   Let me tell you in the absolute gentlest and kindest and respectful fashion that you have missed the forest for the trees.   In your zeal to find EXCEPTIONS and to prove me wrong, you have actually shown that your knowledge on this subject is limited to what you read and you have no human understanding of it.   Garry Kasparov was indeed a great chess champion!  

Hey, this is the weekend and I am thankful for that.   At least the ICGA board can be thankful as well that so far no one has likened them to Nazi Germans killing jews in gas chambers.   

I'll get some tennis in this weekend and (hopefully) clean the house little.   Have a great one.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-29 15:38
You obviously are intent on  limiting the term "lynching" to the plight  of African Americans and by comparison delimit any other association with the term. In short you are using African American to make your case here by way of further exploitation. Great for you and your cause, bad for them and their desperate history -you fall right into the southern racist claims of exploiting blacks for your own cause.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-29 15:42
Remember you decided to elicit this association-not me- you!
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-28 20:11
Hi Doctor! I saw that others already explained a bit how Europeans use the term. I want to add something else. In my eyes the evil didnt begin with the ICGA. I see it in the 6 years long diffamation against Vas. It's unbelievable how Vas digested this of all these years. Because on the internet it would be very easy to strike back with some insults or such. But no, this guy, although present in this forum, never lost his temper and good manners. So, for me he's a role model for a really distinguished gentleman. NB he was several times World Champion, but he never appeared tp use it with arrogance. It was new to me, how Vas seems to plan everything in his life and like a programmer who is used to organize processes he plans his life. Well, at least the creation of his Rybka. One doesnt know much about his privae life. He always defended himself that everything were ok with his practice. Since others (especially Hyatt) are accusing him, I with my knowledge of methodology and science of science see only the possibility that this is a conflict with different definitions. It's impossible for me at least to assume that Vas would intentionally violate rules that are respted by all other peers in the group of programmers. And above all this isnt science. We are talking about sports competition. From his last interview I understood that Vas sees no obligation to behave like a maiden nun if there are simply no fair rules valid for everyone. But then a genius creates his own rules to reach his goals.

What we have in the scene, is a strange logic of expected honesty and cooperation, but could you tell me how one could feel at ease if right from the start 6 years ago other notable programmers publicly distribute the death verdict that if one would forget about moral that then all would become as strong as Vas? Isnt it madness pure? That was when there were no proofs at all that Fruit were all in Rybka. And Rybka was hundreds of points better than Fruit. So, in other words, this sort of charcter assassination even denied the indisputable effects of Vasik's programming. But dont forget these critics are all competitors in the tournaments. The critics preach honesty but they are hypocrits enough to argue alone with arguments of copying something that had no impact on the strength of the prog that Vas has created. So here is the lynching again in place. It is a form of racism, well metaphorically speaking. It's as if a certain cap must be worn by definition and then you have a champion who disagrees and he wears a woolen thing he got from his wife. Now these experts prove that a woolen thing could by no means be accepted as a cap. And therefore they are ready to vote for a life ban. But racism in the USA never was different. The Afro American slaves were not been hated for their characters. At least I dont think so. They had just the wrong color. Bear in mind, the Nazis killed Jews who formerly had been in the Prussian Army and who got there even medals of honor. That is it about ridiculous racism.

It's complete madness to argue that a newcomer should write from scratch if you have a genius who knows what he's doing and then is following the advice of Bob Hyatt and then takes his Crafty as a model before he then slowly is improving his own thing. Trotsky, who is a famous programmer himself who always was proud to do his own thing, even Trotsky saw the smartness in Vasik taking Crafty model as a start. Man, this isnt cheating, this is living like a genius. And the professor himself told his students to do so. Ahem, what a shit, then someone entered the thing into a tournament that was standing under the cappy rules of the ICGA. You know that is a crime? Sorry but such a programmewr must be ripped apart. He then must be banned for life. He's scum. If you know what I mean. He didnt ask daddy properly. Know what I mean? Because in a way we enjoy a genius but he must act like psychiatric patients under haloperidol.
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-29 02:10
Hi AWRIST, thanks for the detailed post.   GREAT post.   I can see that you have a lot of respect for Vas.   Unfortunately I don't know enough about this topic to be able to form an opinion one way or the other.   However, as I suggested on an earlier post on another topic, the forum members here can put some money together and hire a TOP INDEPENDENT EXPERT to try to confirm or refute the ICGA's assertions.  I pledge that I personally will contribute up to 2000 dollars.   It is a little unfortunate that neither Vas, nor Convekta nor Chessbase have tried to refute the specifics of the charges (as far as I am aware), but that doesn't matter, as I said, we can arrange for our own testing.   So we shall see if my proposal gets any traction or will be rejected.  Thanks again.
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-07-29 06:28
I think this idea is worthy of its own thread.

Thank you for your willingness to contribute.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill