Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Apology to Vas (locked)
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-08-17 11:46
Vas,

Not sure if you ever are reading this but I feel obliged to offer you my sincere apologies for questioning the originality of your work in public, for instance the letter that I co-signed that eventually has given you so much trouble.

In retrospect I blame myself for losing my objectivity due to the volume of the alleged evidence initiated by that absurd and damning "0.0" thing which explanation on one good day you should whisper in my ear.

The out of proportion punishment and especially the false demonization in the mainstream media shocked me, the demonization in the CC fora even more as if you were the Ted Bundy of computer chess. And it changed my overall view.

I emptied my mind (not easy) and started to read the documents again, now not hindered by the VIG prejudice but from the VII (Vas is innocent) point of view. And an amazing new world opened. Long story short and to use your own famous words, I went through the documents forwards and backwards and rejected many things.

Apologies again, it was a learning experience and compliments for programmers like Chris and Miguel who were more critical and decided to stand up for justice.

Now, please, give us that Rybka 5 that takes every engine for breakfast and it will silence most of the voices.

Ed

-----------------------------------

People interested in the technical details follow the below links. As this classic greek drama has evolved itself it seemed to me the best place for the technical stuff is open-chess.

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1559

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1535&start=40  (and on)
Parent - - By Ray (****) Date 2011-08-17 13:04
For some reason I find this article a little relevant

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14490790
Parent - By Lusakan (*) Date 2011-08-17 14:10
A humbling development. This proves that there is still hope for mankind. They say all thats necessary for evil to prevail is for good people do nothing.

Thanks.:cool:
Parent - - By Dragon Mist (****) Date 2011-08-17 17:17

> Now, please, give us that Rybka 5 that takes every engine for breakfast and it will silence most of the voices.
>


+1
Parent - By yanquis1972 (****) Date 2011-08-19 17:47
+2

and thanks ed
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-08-17 19:22
Ed, thanks for having the presences of mind to be open minded enough to consider thinking outside the ICGA box.

“The world is full of people who have never, since childhood, met an open doorway with an open mind”

E. B. White quotes (American writer 1899-1985)

Also, with that comes another Albert quote-

A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
- Einstein

Or,

Experience is the name we give to our mistakes.
- Wilde Oscar
Parent - - By Nick (*****) Date 2011-08-17 23:08
That took some nuts, well done Ed.
Parent - By BigBen (****) Date 2011-08-18 06:54

>That took some nuts, well done Ed.


+1

Humans tend to find it very hard to change there mind and admit that they may be wrong especially in the heat of an on going argument

Of course it is better to correct all the time in the first place Like I always am :evil::grin::lol::twisted: THAT IS A JOKE EVERYONE!!! hahaha

Regards
Tony
Parent - By Ricky (***) Date 2011-08-18 14:49
Ed,

Well done and I hope Vas accept them.

Best regards,

Ricky
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-08-19 01:21

>The out of proportion punishment and especially the false demonization in the mainstream media shocked me, the demonization in the CC fora even more as if you were the Ted Bundy of computer chess. And it changed my overall view.


So nothing changes re: the evidence regarding Vas's copying of Crafty and Fruit...

But because you have heartburn over the resulting punishment, the treatment by the “media” and how others supposedly reacted, you decide you can no longer live with your initial decision.  Ok, I understand that.

It causes you pain to see it (as it does myself, I confess) yet so much so, you reject your initial conclusion in hopes it will bring some sort of "peace". 

Ok Ed... as I say, I can understand it... don't agree with it, as one lies to oneself... but I do understand it.  Pain is a very difficult thing to live with.

Btw you really feel the various forums made Vas out to be "the Ted Bundy of computer chess"??? Hiarcs forum did not do this... for the most part people like to "talk chess" there and avoid controversies.  There were some brief posts... no different really that those who have been caught cheating in OTB tourneys like those French nuts... it is what it is.

Seems way over the top to me (you call it a "ted bundy" thingy).  Sure... there were a couple voices I have seen... 2 or 3?  But their personal animosity toward Vas existed long before the ICGA ruling.

Also, I am quite surprised you came at this originally as a “Vas is guilty”.  I spent years believing Rybka was an original engine written “solely” by Vas.  And took years of discussion with various people… culminating with what respectable chess engine authors were discussing about Rybka on Talkchess.  Plus you have Rybka starting life really as Crafty.  Then the ~800 elo jump when Fruit is released open source… then all the work done by Zach, BB+, Mark L.

Miguel hasn’t really shown anything.  I think a 10 for 10 match for PSTs is of some informational value… but let’s say you have some trepidation about the value or significance of the PST stuff and you wish to discount it.  So toss it. “The material presented to ICGA contains _much_ better evidence of code copying (Fruit->Rybka)”… Richard Vida.

And just what precisely has Chris Whittington shown that somehow refutes what was presented to the ICGA?  The only thing I see him is doing is “essentially” calling day, night, and night, day.  This was the same person who could not find it within themselves to exercise a little common sense and decency to gain access to the ICGA panel wiki.  So having become an orphan, he has found a home here at RF… which itself should speak volumes to you.

I would like to hmmm… applaud? you for discussing this on open-chess.  I just hope that you would place “truth” above “feelings”, that you are really searching for “the truth of the matter” (not what you hope or do not hope to discover) and not involved in some “intellectual game”.
Parent - - By michiguel (***) Date 2011-08-19 03:32

> Miguel hasn’t really shown anything.  I think a 10 for 10 match for PSTs is of some informational value…


10 for 10?
One person from the secretariat was trying to convince you that the following tables were "identical", with great success.
You can look at them by yourself.

King opening
Fruit                    R1
  -40  -30  -50  -70     1407 1876  938    0
  -30  -20  -40  -60     1407 1876  938    0
  -20  -10  -30  -50     1407 1876  938    0
  -10    0  -20  -40     1407 1876  938    0
    0   10  -10  -30     1407 1876  938    0
   10   20    0  -20     1407 1876  938    0
   30   40   20    0     1407 1876  938    0
   40   50   30   10     1407 1876  938    0

Queen opening
Fruit                R1
    0   0   0   0    -588  -392  -294  -196
    0   0   0   0    -392  -196   -98     0
    0   0   0   0    -294   -98     0    98
    0   0   0   0    -196     0    98   196
    0   0   0   0    -196     0    98   196
    0   0   0   0    -294   -98     0    98
    0   0   0   0    -392  -196   -98     0
   -5  -5  -5  -5    -789  -593  -495  -397

Pawn endgame
Fruit                R1
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
  0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97

Miguel
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) Date 2011-08-19 06:16
If you look at a square long enough, and with the right bias and manipulation ... it can also look like a circle!
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-08-19 06:49



>>> Pawn endgame
>> Fruit                R1
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97
>>   0  0  0  0       291  97   0  -97




The third column was clearly stolen from Fruit! :lol:
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-08-19 08:38
Prof. Ballicora

What do you find inaccurate or "wrong" in Zach's analysis in the PST section of his document ZW_Rybka_Fruit.pdf?

Thanks...
Parent - - By michiguel (***) Date 2011-08-19 13:37

> Prof. Ballicora
>
> What do you find inaccurate or "wrong" in Zach's analysis in the PST section of his document ZW_Rybka_Fruit.pdf?
>
> Thanks...


The interpretation.

Miguel
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-08-20 00:08

>The interpretation


Aha...

So no... “he was wrong” here or there...

or a "his analysis so far off-base it looks like it was written by a monkey..."

Ok then... you think in terms of "evidence for incrimination" of Vas copying Fruit, you believe Zach's PST work to have "zero value".

-Based on "my interpretation" as a "lay" having read it several times...

-Zach's interpretation and his credibility as a person and chess engine author...

-Wylie Garvin's interpretation and his credibility.

-BB+'s interpretation and his credibility... for example, when you say: there is no list of 10 ramping arrays... BB+ states he thinks this is "misguided" (and explains why).

-Bob's interpretation and credibility as above PLUS the fact he has 40 some odd years experience and again, a father of modern chess computing (despite how there are some knuckle-dragging clowns here at RF who desire him to appear otherwise).

-And the several threads you and Bob going back and forth where it appeared (at least to me) seemed to have a chip on your shoulder, you did not understand his argument(s)... or were unwilling to read his replies:

>No, you keep patronizing me


>I stopped reading here. If you do not read my posts, I won't read yours. I already posted about stockfish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


>please, do not dare to challenge my honesty.


(this last one... someone find a tongue depressor and gag me with it)

You're a human being... and knowing human beings as I do... let's just say our species is "ethically challenged" in the realm of "honesty".  Credibility & Reputation is something earned... not assumed... you make it sound like you're a "Vulcan".

"Oh yeah, Miguel?  He's a Vulcan... and you know Vulcans... they cannot lie..."

There are people I know would "rather die" than tell a lie or knowingly deceive someone... impeccable reputation for telling the truth.  Again, that kind of trust is something that is earned.

So backed to my "based on"...

>One person from the secretariat was trying to convince you that the following tables were "identical", with great success.


So try four people... not "one"... although the "one" you refer to is plenty sufficient in my book.
Parent - - By michiguel (***) Date 2011-08-20 00:32

>> The interpretation
> Aha...
>
> So no... “he was wrong” here or there...


Did you realize after looking at the numbers that you were spreading wrong information? Not your fault, but it was needed to be corrected once.

>
> or a "his analysis so far off-base it looks like it was written by a monkey..."
>
> Ok then... you think in terms of "evidence for incrimination" of Vas copying Fruit, you believe Zach's PST work to have "zero value".


Correct. It has value, but not incriminatory, as I said before.


> -Based on "my interpretation" as a "lay" having read it several times...
>
> -Zach's interpretation and his credibility as a person and chess engine author...
>
> -Wylie Garvin's interpretation and his credibility.
>
> -BB+'s interpretation and his credibility... for example, when you say: there is no list of 10 ramping arrays... BB+ states he thinks this is "misguided" (and explains why).


And I replied.

>
> -Bob's interpretation and credibility as above PLUS the fact he has 40 some odd years experience and again, a father of modern chess computing (despite how there are some knuckle-dragging clowns here at RF who desire him to appear otherwise).


10 for 10 is incorrect, no matter who said that.


> -And the several threads you and Bob going back and forth where it appeared (at least to me) seemed to have a chip on your shoulder, you did not understand his argument(s)... or were unwilling to read his replies:
>
>> No, you keep patronizing me
>> I stopped reading here. If you do not read my posts, I won't read yours. I already posted about stockfish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> please, do not dare to challenge my honesty.
> (this last one... someone find a tongue depressor and gag me with it)


Correct. He was patronizing me (not unusual), he was ignoring what I wrote (not unusual), and he question my honesty (this was unusual) while he was ignoring that he asked me to do what he criticized me for.


> You're a human being... and knowing human beings as I do... let's just say our species is "ethically challenged" in the realm of "honesty".  Credibility & Reputation is something earned... not assumed... you make it sound like you're a "Vulcan".


> "Oh yeah, Miguel?  He's a Vulcan... and you know Vulcans... they cannot lie..."
>
> There are people I know would "rather die" than tell a lie or knowingly deceive someone... impeccable reputation for telling the truth.  Again, that kind of trust is something that is earned.
>
> So backed to my "based on"...
>
>> One person from the secretariat was trying to convince you that the following tables were "identical", with great success.
> So try four people... not "one"... although the "one" you refer to is plenty sufficient in my book.


Wrong. Mark Watkins already acknowledged Bob exaggerations. He said 7 out of 11.
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1535&start=60#p13557

"I would put this at 7 of 11 PSTs, but accountings vary. Pawn PST might be just ignored, and maybe also with Rooks. The KingRank question is another issue (in a related R3/IPPOLIT context, LK didn't think it was very notable). There is also the question of information content for some of the arrays (see the Endgame arrays, which are based on just 1 parameter)."

Ok, now you know it, it is not 10 for 10. Please, do not repeat it.

It was never my intentions to get involved in non-technical debates, but I made an exception here to correct an important point.

Miguel
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-08-20 03:16

>Wrong. Mark Watkins already acknowledged Bob exaggerations. He said 7 out of 11.
>http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1535&start=60#p13557


Wrong.

He said:

I would put this at 7 of 11 PSTs, but accountings vary. (emphasis mine)

>Ok, now you know it, it is not 10 for 10. Please, do not repeat it.


Since you were wrong... as demonstrated by leaving out certain facts:

-BB+'s reckoning.

-Him acknowledging accountings may vary.

-He never mentioned Bob exaggerating this.

-The one "exaggeration" Bob used that BB+ pointed out, the word "stole".. ok, so if it was technically incorrect, maybe… maybe a court will determine it was "theft". BB+ even says, "though I admit it would often be used in common parlance".  So what is the big deal?

Seems however you wish to use the "broad brush" to label every statement he makes “an exaggeration” to bolster your position.  Unethical... Irresponsible... tatty...

You’re not scoring any credibility points with me by the tactics you use.

>Ok, now you know it, it is not 10 for 10. Please, do not repeat it.


I think I'll stick with Bob's "10/10" until he modifies that statement.  Thank you very much!

>It was never my intentions to get involved in non-technical debates, but I made an exception here to correct an important point.


You mean... to put your slant on a particular point. Which I see you trying (yet failing) to do at open-chess.org.

Dunno why you "have to be right"... none of us are perfect.  Won't make me think less of you if you confess an error.  Might even garner you some respect. Alas... some have to "keep up appearances".

And fine... you enter into a "non-technical debate" with me when you think it suits you... but others spouting nonsense about the PST's (Uly's "1/3rd" the evidence :roll: )... or anything else inaccurate but promotes your "zero value" argument... that "stuff" is ok... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Besides Bob's main point (I think... please correct me Bob) that it just doesn't happen on the scale that it happened "by accident".  You want to argue it's no different if it was one or ten... like it was just some random event.  That to me makes "zero" sense.

Who cares if 7/11 or 9/10 or 10/10... the way I understand it, everyone on the panel put some sort of value to it (whether very low informational value not enough in and of itself to "convict" or very high value).  Evidence is evidence and should not be discounted just because "there is better evidence". And it sure seems it was of some sort of value to the panel members.

Rob
Parent - - By michiguel (***) Date 2011-08-20 03:31

>> Wrong. Mark Watkins already acknowledged Bob exaggerations. He said 7 out of 11.
>> http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1535&start=60#p13557
> Wrong.
>
> He said:
>
> I would put this at 7 of 11 PSTs, but accountings vary. (emphasis mine)


Yes, it could be 6, or 8, if you count partial matches or discard identical but trivial ones. The number is irrelevant, but it is not 100%, which means that you were citing people for the wrong reasons.

I gave you something you could judge by yourself (tables unrolled, side by side). But, you did not even read it or address it and you prefer to follow a wrong statement from someone else. That is your choice, but now you can't claim innocence.

I was not trying to debate with you, and I won't.

Miguel

>
>> Ok, now you know it, it is not 10 for 10. Please, do not repeat it.
> Since you were wrong... as demonstrated by leaving out certain facts:
>
> -BB+'s reckoning.
>
> -Him acknowledging accountings may vary.
>
> -He never mentioned Bob exaggerating this.
>
> -The one "exaggeration" Bob used that BB+ pointed out, the word "stole".. ok, so if it was technically incorrect, maybe… maybe a court will determine it was "theft". BB+ even says, "though I admit it would often be used in common parlance".  So what is the big deal?
>
> Seems however you wish to use the "broad brush" to label every statement he makes “an exaggeration” to bolster your position.  Unethical... Irresponsible... tatty...
>
> You’re not scoring any credibility points with me by the tactics you use.
>
>> Ok, now you know it, it is not 10 for 10. Please, do not repeat it.
> I think I'll stick with Bob's "10/10" until he modifies that statement.  Thank you very much!
>
>> It was never my intentions to get involved in non-technical debates, but I made an exception here to correct an important point.
> You mean... to put your slant on a particular point. Which I see you trying (yet failing) to do at open-chess.org.
>
> Dunno why you "have to be right"... none of us are perfect.  Won't make me think less of you if you confess an error.  Might even garner you some respect. Alas... some have to "keep up appearances".
>
> And fine... you enter into a "non-technical debate" with me when you think it suits you... but others spouting nonsense about the PST's (Uly's "1/3rd" the evidence :roll: )... or anything else inaccurate but promotes your "zero value" argument... that "stuff" is ok... :roll: :roll: :roll:
>
> Besides Bob's main point (I think... please correct me Bob) that it just doesn't happen on the scale that it happened "by accident".  You want to argue it's no different if it was one or ten... like it was just some random event.  That to me makes "zero" sense.
>
> Who cares if 7/11 or 9/10 or 10/10... the way I understand it, everyone on the panel put some sort of value to it (whether very low informational value not enough in and of itself to "convict" or very high value).  Evidence is evidence and should not be discounted just because "there is better evidence". And it sure seems it was of some sort of value to the panel members.
>
> Rob

Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-08-20 05:36

>I gave you something you could judge by yourself (tables unrolled, side by side). But, you did not even read it or address it


I did look at your testimony, sir.  I found it wanting.

EXCEPT for the Crafty Bishop "hit".  It was very interesting.  That was kind of bizarre and a good catch by you. 

Just wish you did not display so much animosity and bitterness toward the guy (Bob)... seems almost like some bitter jealousy. Like you have something to prove.

>The number is irrelevant, but it is not 100%, which means that you were citing people for the wrong reasons.


They found "value"... I found "value"... it is that simple.

They believe it demonstrates "to a degree" Vas copying Fruit.  I believe it demonstrates Vas copying Fruit.  If you do not believe that and think you see something that "everyone else" does not... fine.  That may be the case.  Then do what Richard said, toss out the PST stuff and (paraphrasing) go to the meaty stuff.

Wrong reason?  What wrong reason? Because "they" and I believe it is not mathematically trivial or insignificant? C'mon...

I sincerely hope you believe Vas totally clear of this "copying Fruit" thingy... otherwise I see it totally asinine to be discussing PSTs if in reality you believe Rybka started life as Fruit (well... Crafty, then... )

>I was not trying to debate with you, and I won't.


Don't look now, but you are. :razz:

Btw… I spent a minute or so wondering why in the heck someone would spend the time sticking a bunch of carets next to the majority of my post and paste that into their reply…

Then it occurred to me… is this your way of “saying” you are ignoring the rest of my post?  Hahahaha… well that got me to laugh!  For the love of St. Pete please tell me, “No… it is just some habit and it was just ‘stuck’ on there with the rest”  or some other excuse… as… I would have to say that looks very childish if that is the case. :lol:

Here’s to hoping! Wow still laughing! Sorry, I find the behaviour of humans (including myself :wink: ) terribly amusing at times! :lol:

Rob
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-08-20 06:56 Edited 2011-08-20 12:31
Hello Watchman,

I had decided not to write anymore, but after I read a few of your posts recently, I decided to just mention that a few weeks ago when I learned that your team Hiarcs was helping the world champion, I was so impressed that I decided to check out and purchase some of your products.   I think that same day you and Harvey decided to ridicule me ( you didn't believe that I had signed up under my real name, I should have picked a cool name like yours).    I was a potential customer but at any case as you can imagine, I decided not to purchase anything from Hiarcs.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-08-20 12:21

> I was so impressed that I decided to check out and purchase some of your products.


Did you buy Hiarcs 12? The Hiarcs Paderborn 2007 engine that is included in that package is great and must not be missed, some people call it the Hiarcs with the best playing style.
Parent - By George Speight (***) Date 2011-08-21 03:59

> Hello Watchman,
>
> I had decided not to write anymore, but after I read a few of your posts recently, I decided to just mention that a few weeks ago when I learned that your team Hiarcs was helping the world champion, I was so impressed that I decided to check out and purchase some of your products.   I think that same day you and Harvey decided to ridicule me ( you didn't believe that I had signed up under my real name, I should have picked a cool name like yours).    I was a potential customer but at any case as you can imagine, I decided not to purchase anything from Hiarcs.


I'm proud of you, Doc.

gts
Parent - - By michiguel (***) Date 2011-08-20 15:36

>> I gave you something you could judge by yourself (tables unrolled, side by side). But, you did not even read it or address it
> I did look at your testimony, sir.  I found it wanting.
>
> EXCEPT for the Crafty Bishop "hit".  It was very interesting.  That was kind of bizarre and a good catch by you. 
>
> Just wish you did not display so much animosity and bitterness toward the guy (Bob)... seems almost like some bitter jealousy. Like you have something to prove.


1) The one who stole my girlfriend Angelina, was Brad Pitt, not Bob.
2) This is a good opportunity to make something clear. If I had personal problems, I would not have included him in the acknowledgements for my engine the way I did
http://sites.google.com/site/gaviotachessengine/Home/acknowledgments

>> The number is irrelevant, but it is not 100%, which means that you were citing people for the wrong reasons.
> They found "value"... I found "value"... it is that simple.
>
> They believe it demonstrates "to a degree" Vas copying Fruit.  I believe it demonstrates Vas copying Fruit.  If you do not believe that and think you see something that "everyone else" does not... fine.  That may be the case.  Then do what Richard said, toss out the PST stuff and (paraphrasing) go to the meaty stuff.
>
> Wrong reason?  What wrong reason? Because "they" and I believe it is not mathematically trivial or insignificant? C'mon...
>
> I sincerely hope you believe Vas totally clear of this "copying Fruit" thingy... otherwise I see it totally asinine to be discussing PSTs if in reality you believe Rybka started life as Fruit (well... Crafty, then... )
>
>> I was not trying to debate with you, and I won't.
> Don't look now, but you are. :razz:


I said I have not intentions to get involved in an endless non-technical debate, not that I won't read you.


> Btw… I spent a minute or so wondering why in the heck someone would spend the time sticking a bunch of carets next to the majority of my post and paste that into their reply…


I paste the whole post and then I insert my comments (look at the bottom of the screen when you reply, if you select the whole text and click "", the whole thing is pasted with the '>' included). Sometimes you find an explanation for an outcome, but it may not be the only valid explanation.

Miguel


> Then it occurred to me… is this your way of “saying” you are ignoring the rest of my post?  Hahahaha… well that got me to laugh!  For the love of St. Pete please tell me, “No… it is just some habit and it was just ‘stuck’ on there with the rest”  or some other excuse… as… I would have to say that looks very childish if that is the case. :lol:
>
> Here’s to hoping! Wow still laughing! Sorry, I find the behaviour of humans (including myself :wink: ) terribly amusing at times! :lol:
>
> Rob

Parent - By zwegner (***) Date 2011-08-20 15:44
Yes, you have been one of the very few people (on either side) that has attempted to keep the debate sane. I disagree with you in some cases, sure, but I share many of your same concerns. I'm sorry that you've had to defend yourself to anyone.
Parent - - By Adam Hair (**) Date 2011-08-20 21:06
Miguel,

1, 2, 3, 4, ......... :wink:

Adam
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-08-21 00:23
Or start counting from -3 and skip -2. :lol:

~ message stolen from Fruit ~
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-08-19 10:29 Edited 2011-08-19 10:32

> But because you have heartburn over the resulting punishment, the treatment by the “media” and how others supposedly reacted, you decide you can no longer live with your initial decision.  Ok, I understand that.


That's not what I said huh ?

I said the event changed my overall view and forced me to look at things for a second time now without the prejudice of the VIG mantra. It took me about a month to change my mind.

As for psyching me :razz: check out the famous words of Bertrand Russell

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires - desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
-- Bertrand Russell, philosopher - "Roads to Freedom"

Objectivity is highly overrated.

Becoming aware of it is a first good step.
Parent - By Nick (*****) Date 2011-08-19 10:37
I love Russell. If you google Reith lecture archives there are recordings of his lectures from the 40's that one can listen too.
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-08-20 00:05
Russell may have had the "inside scoop" on some of humanity (many here at RF fall squarely within that observation)...

But not "all" and certainly not with me...

Before I exited my teens, I decided I wanted to follow "truth"... that meant despite my feelings / desires / wishes / hopes / dreams / instincts /  and the "beliefs" of others (e.g. “peer pressure”) I wanted the "truth of the matter" to dictate my beliefs.  That was my "Path to Freedom".  Still is.

All else is foolishness and fool's business.

It is unpleasant and many times painful... but it is far better than living in a stuporous cloud of deception.

>That's not what I said huh ?


If you say so... ok (was not trying to "psych" you).  But you did say:

I don't know and I don't care any longer.

And I find that type of apathy, given what you have posted, very unfortunate.

What I find even more unfortunate: this comes well after the end of the ICGA panel discussions where you and Miguel could have had something "positive" to contribute.
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-08-20 11:09
Funny how you are doing exactly what Bertrand Russell stated.

You know very well in what CONTEXT I said, I don't know and I don't care any longer.

But your instincts and dislike towards the subject prompted you to react out of context.
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2011-08-22 15:49

> I think a 10 for 10 match for PSTs is of some informational value…


I cannot believe that you're actually trying to repeat this "10 for 10" lie, and then state in other posts that your guiding philosophy is being on the side of truth, however painful.

> but let’s say you have some trepidation about the value or significance of the PST stuff and you wish to discount it.  So toss it. “The material presented to ICGA contains _much_ better evidence of code copying (Fruit->Rybka)”… Richard Vida.


Apparently Bob Hyatt didn't think so, as his focus has been on PSTs for quite a long time (other than when he likes to toss out the Rybka 1.6.1 strawman when the focus is on more relevant topics), particularly after the case for the evaluation terms fell apart due to lack of real evidence (and none whatsoever of actual copied code).
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-08-19 21:20
Very admirable, Ed.

As a non-programmer, I have nothing to go on but common sense.  My conclusions from the start were that these ICGA fellows were trying to bring something into crystal-clear guilty/not-guilty focus that is sometimes easy to identify but is often a muddled mess of subjective judgments.  As I said early on, sin is analog, not digital.

Common sense tells me that the ICGA investigators started with a preconceived conclusion and produced evidence to support it.  I am not condemning this procedure.  Had they not had a preconceived conclusion the investigation would not have occurred in the first place.  They had cause to think something untoward had happened.

Common sense also tells me that you cannot discard the entire body of evidence the ICGA panel produced.  There has not been a conclusive point-for-point refutation of their findings yet.  Intuition tells me that Vas did in fact take things from Fruit, perhaps more than Vas lets on in his interview with me. 

The point where I can no longer fly in formation with Bob and his crew is the entire prosecutorial aspect of their onslaught.  Not content to make some dry academic points, arch an eyebrow and a utter a lofty "tut-tut", they have been out for blood from the beginning, which any fair observer has to conclude is unseemly, overreaching, obsessive and lacking in any sense of proportion.  The sure "tell" is their universal lack of acknowledgement, diminution and scorn toward Vas's undeniable and very significant achievements over the years.  If you adopted their mind-set you would think all those accomplishments, all the work in the years since ought to be tossed out and never mentioned again.  A person cannot help but get the impression that they would dearly love to stick Vas and Rybka in some kind of memory hole, expunging them completely from our consciousness.

Finally we have to mention how much harm this whole matter has done to the hobby.  They say, "it was Vas who brought us to this point."  I say, "no, it was you vindictive wretches who pushed this witch-hunt to these ridiculous extremes."  To satisfy some inner craving to destroy the hobby's leading programmer they have fouled and brought discredit to the hobby, and done so cold-bloodedly and with a sense of overweening and dastardly self-satisfaction.
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2011-08-19 21:45

> Finally we have to mention how much harm this whole matter has done to the hobby.  They say, "it was Vas who brought us to this point."  I say, "no, it was you vindictive wretches who pushed this witch-hunt to these ridiculous extremes."  To satisfy some inner craving to destroy the hobby's leading programmer they have fouled and brought discredit to the hobby, and done so cold-bloodedly and with a sense of overweening and dastardly self-satisfaction.


Brilliant summary of the situation
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-08-19 21:58
To me, any credibility you had just went around the bowl and down the hole.  The person that perpetrated the crime is not the problem.  It is the judge, the jury, the prosecutors, the witnesses for the prosecution...  ALL of those are the real problem here?  :)

sheesh.  No wonder this argument doesn't go anywhere but 'round and 'round.

Your comments explain a lot about you...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-08-19 23:16
The problem is the whole mind-set of "the person that perpetrated the crime".  The crime.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-08-20 23:09
Let's see if FSF says this was a crime or not, what say???

Seems that wheels are in motion, so we might actually get a definitive answer to that question, rather than a bunch of nay-saying and little else.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-08-21 02:57
Zach, as you can see from Bob's comment, some people do not want peace at all.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-08-21 05:33
What is this "peace" issue?  I said, from the get-go, I was interested in the "truth".  Something we have not seen from the Rybka author since the beginning of Rybka.  Fabien felt as if his code was used against his GPL license requirements, the FSF is looking into it, so we will get the truth.  I mean, you guys have been _demanding_ this for months now.  You are getting what you asked for.  And the ICGA has nothing to to with that end of things...  So, are you happy that you may well get what you asked for (a legal opinion from a court) or do you wish it had stopped with the ICGA decision?  You DO have to pick a side on some issues...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-08-21 12:11
Don't lump us all together, Bob.  I haven't been demanding anything in court.  Personally, I don't think it should go to court.  I think ICGA should simply retract everything, restore titles and profusely apologize to Vas.  Not because the findings have been discredited.  Not because the investigation was a bad idea.  Only because the position we find ourselves in today is bad for the hobby no matter what his guilt or innocence.  It's a complete cul-de-sac.  But I guess you can't see that.
Parent - - By Mark (****) Date 2011-08-21 13:31
Another solution would be for Vas to fess up to past transgressions (or at least participate in the discussions) and agree to make a completely original Rybka 5. Problem solved!
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-08-21 14:29
Participation: solves nothing, big waste of time.

Confession: to what?
Parent - - By Mark (****) Date 2011-08-21 14:46

> Participation: solves nothing, big waste of time.


Don't you think this would answer some questions that everyone has?  Instead of speculation, we'd get the answers directly from the programmer.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-08-21 15:11
What would he say that he hasn't already?

In the Nelson interview he seemed willing to answer specific questions, so there's a chance he would answer some of them.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-08-21 15:19
Capital idea.  Mark, set up an interview with Vas asking the questions that everyone has.
Parent - - By Mark (****) Date 2011-08-21 15:59
Ok, could we use your living room and production facilities?  I live near you, so it wouldn't be any trouble for me.

Seriously, if you'd like to do a third interview with Vas, I'd be glad to help out.  I don't have any particular production or interview skills (to say the least), but I could offer ahand at setting things up, etc..
Parent - - By TheHug (Bronze) Date 2011-08-21 16:20
I think Nelson took the last interview as far as he wanted. Don't think he is interested in ask those type of questions.
Parent - - By Mark (****) Date 2011-08-21 16:27
Nelson enjoys the attention too much.  I wouldn't be surprised if he has already purchased professional quality filming equipment and a comfortable interview chair!
Parent - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-08-21 18:53
No, Mark.  I'm interested in news, not attention.  When Vas unexpectedly agreed to do the second interview a little voice inside of me said "oh, damn!" because I knew there would be a lot of work and technical challenges involved.  Glad you are seeing that when someone turns the camera on you it is not quite so easy!
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Apology to Vas (locked)
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill