> The more I read from you the more I am convinced that you have a secret agenda.
You are absolutely right! I am hoping that somewhere in all of this we can find the truth. As I see it, with all of the posturings and slanging words from both sides, fact seems to get sidelined all too often so important information can get lost very quickly within the emotions of what is being posted. I am still neutral in all of this but even so, I have probably made one or two emotionally driven posts too. Bob Hyatt has a knack of bringing that out in people! In my opinion, the ICGA handling of this was not the way it should have been by an authoritative and professional organisation. Consistent with my original post on this matter, my contention is the way the ICGA handled the affair and not specifically whether or not Rybka is a derivative of Fruit.
> You are not a CC expert but you claim something for the first time that also R3 is in a chain of the neighborhood of Fruit.
I thought I had explained my process there. An engine finding good moves is only doing what we would expect but an engine that makes a blunder and shows a totally erroneous evaluation that is then found in certain other engines in a time line chain points to certain similarities. Although I am quite proficient in certain aspects of programming by necessity having spent 44 years in measurement and control engineering and quality assurance, I have no expertise specifically in chess programming but my experience in my field of engineering enables me to measure performance in other ways than directly assessing the code. Therefore I have little doubt there are certain similarities between Crafty>Fruit and Rybka and in case you missed the relevance of that it is the Crafty>Fruit link that means Fruit may not be as original as certain people would like us to believe. So when it comes to copyright, how can something that is not original be copyrightable? So the FSF licence conditions may be null and void. Quite important for me in understanding all of this! I believe you are very much a 100% Rybka supporter here so there is risk of a blinkered view rather than an open view on much of this. Your prerogative but I see no reason to change my neutral position because we may disagree on certain issues.
> If this snippet or that code was from what is secondary for me. Because Vas was always the strongest.
I take the view that the failure to comply with ICGA rule 2 and the accusation of plagiarism are two completely seperate issues. There may be sufficient idea similarities that means yes, Rybka does fail the ICGA test on originality but as for the copyrightable issues between Rybka and Fruit, the boundaries are totally different and the two should not be confused or assessed as the same thing.
> I am not so sure that Vas has it wrong with his superior silence. Therefore it's suboptimal if we think it's better to keep quiet.
His decision for whatever way he feels most comfortable with is OK. However, as I previously mentioned, if Vas is not concerned by the implications of these events then we are all wasting our time debating the issue if the intention was to give support to Vas
> So this will be the end for all these impostering nonames who thought that they could dominate in human chess or change it into computerchess.
Don't understand what you mean by that?
> your question shows that you are not into CC. So let's skip that. But overall like so many in this topic you have no sense for the incredible evil that was done against Vas. There is blood on your hands and of many others.
I've been into computer chess since 1981, started to write a chess program in assembly language for the Z80 back then but got distracted by more interesting and beneficial projects and never got back to it. If you believe that someone who questions the accuracy of statements from both sides and that anyone who is not totally convinced that VII has blood on their hands then you fall into the same category as those on the other side who are not willing to consider anything other than VIG. In all probability the balance is somewhere between the two but the ICGA Rule 2 and plagiarism charge are two complete different issues and should be kept that way. In terms of purchasing Rybka 5 it probably will not make any difference whether VII or VIG. I just hope he gets a better balance to eradicate massive step changes in evaluation through missing knowledge or heavy pruning.
Given the content of most of my posts that have been focused around and critical of the indulgent ruling of the ICGA then just whose blood is it that is on my hands?
You seem to be just as proficient in making false statements as though they were fact as those you have been most critical of.
I guess that you with that long life experience know to differentiate seperate issues. As a programmer you are a potential diamond but this whole ICGA isnt just a technical question. In fact it's about the Law and justice. There is a problem because you run under a British nationality as if you came from Europe and I have no reason do doubt that.
However I have text examples from you where you clarify on judicial topics which undoubtedly shows that you cant live under British Law. You are talking like a typical American. The two examples I will show you speak exactly of the opposite than what the Law tells us in Europe, for sure in Germany. But you believe in just the contrary. So something seems to be wrong here and since this is exactlyx important for the case of the ICGA vs Vas I see that you are totally biased and off the road. Let me hammer this into a short message: "A defendent in Europe does NOT have to prove that he's innocent nor does he have to defend himself. He doesnt become guilty if he says not one single comment other than at the beginning !I am innocent PERIOD!"
Since you dont acceptz these basic truths I see no chance to talk with you on a rational level. You must have it all wrong. Excuse me.
Here are your quotes:
If someone is accused of something then a failure to defend through the appropriate process will almost certainly result in a guilty verdict unless a judge determines there are mitigating reasons not to do so.
The reference to what happens at court is a useful guideline to understand the ICGA process. Their process was accepted by Vas when he entered the WCCC competitions so little to complain about there.
In case of your opinion II let me clarify that of course Vas could not foresee that the ICGA suddenly would condemn him on the base of the unspecified rule 2. Nobody sane enough with normal intelligence would forsee that suddenly they would expect clarity when in their rules itself there is no clarity. That contradicts all known Law. Just like you cant be punished on a later reform of certain rules. The same you are innocent until proven guilty after a legal court of justice and no private lynch law.
’You do not have to say anything. However, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’
Court's don't have to worry about libeling people. The ICGA should worry about this, but clearly doesn't. Sooner or later they will go after the wrong person and regret it.
so, the questions are:
in what jurisdiction does the ICGA have its principal place of business?
how has it gained status as a "non-profit organisation"? Where is this status filed and in which jurisdiction?
why does it consider itself exempt from European-wide Value Added Tax on its invoices on the basis of "non-profit organisation"? Which jurisdiction has granted this exemption?
As you know, if an organization has indeed not filed in any country, it would be vulnerable in every country where it does business. This is the dumbest strategy that I can think of, and could only be explained by laziness and stupidity, or a calculated intention to avoid tax payments, either corporate or individual.
Extracts from: http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/set-aside-default-court-judgment.html
Definition of Default Judgment
Once a claim has been issued the defendant has 14 days in which to respond. If within that time they file an acknowledgement of service they are entitled to a further 14 days to return their defence. The law states that, if the defendant does not file an acknowledgment of service or defence, the claimant is entitled to ask the court for a default judgment. A default judgment is, therefore, a judgment entered without a trial after the defendant’s failure to defend the claim.
The Merits of the Defence
The defendant will also have to convince the judge that he has a defence that has a real prospect of succeeding. It is not enough for the defendant to show merely that he has a defence that would be arguable in law. The defendant should support their application with evidence.
Much clearer in U.S. : http://njiptrends.com/2011/05/27/failure-to-defend-in-copyright-or-trademark-infringement-cases/
So what is the difference between the U.S. and U.K. approach on failure to defend?
I cannot find my original post on this matter "Why the ICGA decision is flawed" seems to have been deleted.
As I have said on many occasions, my bone of contention is based on the actions after the ICGA decision. Everyone will have their own, sometimes strongly held opinion, on whether or not plagiarism is at stake here. Based on International Law I think it would be difficult to prove a breach of copyright but that is only my opinion and until a court rules on it, all of the opinions voiced here are speculative so it is not worth allowing the blood pressure to go too high in these discussions!
> of course Vas could not foresee that the ICGA suddenly would condemn him on the base of the unspecified rule 2
Well no and if he had, he probably would not have entered. Same goes for anyone else too I guess.
I did not see that the ICGA changed the rules and applied them retrospectively. When did they do that? As for restrospective application of law that can go back many years, dependant on limit for each national law that is being applied.
> Just like you cant be punished on a later reform of certain rules.
Perhaps you should read the various national laws on post facto application and then post again ... it is not consistent!
In this situation, Vas' mistake was not his failure to contest the charges. That was the smartest thing he did. His mistake was in joining the ICGA to begin with. He has learned from this mistake and moved on. Everyone else should too.
> downright silly
Why is it that when people have little argument they try to ridicule or belittle just like ... well you know who. If you join a club or organisation then there can be no complaints when those rules are applied. As much as we may criticise the post ICGA decision actions it really is down to Vas to do something about it. The ICGA comparison with a civil court seems a good model for that type of organisation.
> In this situation, Vas' mistake was not his failure to contest the charges. That was the smartest thing he did. His mistake was in joining the ICGA to begin with. He has learned from this mistake and moved on. Everyone else should too.
He joined the ICGA so what has all the fuss been about then?
I'll reiterate, comparing the ICGA incident to a court case of any kind is goofy. The only way to make it goofier would be to compare it to a murder case. And yes, Bob and friends have done this countless times.
If you join a club or organisation then there can be no complaints when those rules are applied.
Once again, this is analogous to being thrown out of a country club or chess club or church group. It's no big deal, and there is absolutely no requirement to raise any objections. The major difference is professional organizations are generally not run by people stupid enough to send out libelous press releases to the world.
The ICGA comparison with a civil court seems a good model for that type of organisation.
You're kidding right??? Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous. Courts have special powers as government organs. The ICGA is a two-bit organization that is likely to be running afoul of the laws of the countries in which it operates in an unregistered manner.
He joined the ICGA so what has all the fuss been about then?
If they just threw him out, there would have been no fuss at all. Vas didn't spend five minutes defending himself, and it is unlikely he would have spent five minutes complaining about the outcome, if not for the extremely unprofessional manner in which it was handled.
> If they just threw him out, there would have been no fuss at all. Vas didn't spend five minutes defending himself, and it is unlikely he would have spent five minutes complaining about the outcome, if not for the extremely unprofessional manner in which it was handled.
Then I don't know why we are having this banter! Seems to be exactly my starting position!?
Just in case you didn't know, you are talking to Harvey clone, which means any further discussion is going to be pointless.
> Just in case you didn't know, you are talking to Harvey clone
Thanks for that assessment. Better let Harvey know I'm now a beneficiary of his estate in the event of ...well ... just ... you know!
Harvey the 2nd, formerly PeterG.
Peter: He joined the ICGA so what has all the fuss been about then?
Banned: If they just threw him out, there would have been no fuss at all. Vas didn't spend five minutes defending himself, and it is unlikely he would have spent five minutes complaining about the outcome, if not for the extremely unprofessional manner in which it was handled.
I really think you are being disingenuous here. 'no fuss at all' "if they just thru him out?" Please! The would be throwing him out for a reason (the one they give). The 'manner' it was handled...well, if you are an impressionistic teenage girl who cares about how things appear, it may matter....but in the end, it either comes down to 'they are right' or 'Vas is innocent'. That is all that anyone should care about. It's not in the least about the 'manner' in which it was done. That really is irrelevant to the facts of the matter. The facts are all that matter.
....except for impressionistic teenage girls.
(Not to disparage teenage girls...not all are the same, it's just a playful stereotype).
Oh, and was the ICGA a "two-bit organization..." when Vas and Rybka was winning all those championships? Did Vas do something personally to Levy or someone else in the organization to make them hate him enough that they would trump up these charges? If not...did they just wake up one morning and decide they needed to get him? The conspiracy theorist in you can come out here and play...but logically, I don't see it. They were made aware that he may have violated the rules. That's it. If they interpret the rules a bit too harshly for your liking, fine, but if there is some conspiracy to 'get Vas' for some ungodly reason, please, lets see it.
I have a challenge for you. If you can convince Schroder, Whittington, Ballicora (all chess programmers), Free Software Foundation, Chessbase (need I go on?) to state VIG, then I'll be on your side. Meanwhile I found the people I just mentioned at least as credible as the Hyatts of the world. Best Regards.
But when people say things like "If they just threw him out, there would have been no fuss at all", that is plain silly. They have to spell out 'why' they threw him out. If they had not, people would (rightly) be complaining that they did not explain themselves, I guarantee you. I know I would be one of them. That puts them in a 'no-win' situation to anyone who does not want to buy what they have to sell. Which leads to posts just like the one I commented on.
I mean, seriously, was there some dark conspiracy to 'get Vas', that I have not heard about? If so, and it is true, I certainly apologize to one and all.
> But when people say things like "If they just threw him out, there would have been no fuss at all", that is plain silly. They have to spell out 'why' they threw him out.
The ICGA took it a lot farther than just voting him out of their club! They pursued him around the internet claiming he was guilty of unsubstantiated allegations. Allegations that even David Levy was careful to make clear were just that-assertions based on hypothetical associative data presumed factual but having no factual basis in reality.
> was there some dark conspiracy to 'get Vas', that I have not heard about?
There were a couple of posters recently (Peter and Graham) who seemed to suggest that the Fruit author was nudged into making a complaint even though he had been totally out of computer chess for a few years. Did you see their posts? Then Hyatt and Hiarcs took over the investigation. Hyatt gets to be in charge of investigating if Vas copied his program. So he is the plaintiff and investigator
All the commercial competitors (Hiarcs, Shredder, Junior and yes I am including Komodo too) are sitting at the table.
So yes, there was a push to get Vas out of there. Was it a "dark conspiracy"? I don't know what that means, but you could not have dreamed up a more unfair process in a million years. Like CB article said, a ridiculous process like that would have caused an instant mistrial in any court of law.
Anyways, Vas had the last word in all of this, being called a "star programmer" in the CB article.
I did not see the claim that "seemed to suggest the Fruit author was nudged....". I don't think anyone should put any stocks in mysterious ascertions. Now if the Fruit author actually said that somewhere, it would actually carry some weight. Has this happened? Of course, it could be that the author just does not care and they asked him to look at their evidence and make a response. I don't know, it's all just speculation at this point...would like to actually hear from him though.
Why would they want Vas out? Because he was successful? Because he said something 'bad' about another member? Anything other than violating the rules all in the events were supposed to live by - that's what I'm talking about when I say a conspiracy of some sort. I can't fathom that someone or group of people would wake up one morning and just decide to toss Vas out and revoke Rybka's titles...unless either they see what is by the letter of the law a 'volation' of a rule(s) all participants were supposed to operate under or that something has happened that would cause such bad blood that they took the underhanded path of either frameing him something to get back at him.
It just isn't adding up to me, so if you know anything, please do let me know.
> I did not see the claim that "seemed to suggest the Fruit author was nudged....". I don't think anyone should put any stocks in mysterious ascertions. Now if the Fruit author actually said that somewhere, it would actually carry some weight. Has this happened?
> Why would they want Vas out? Because he was successful? Because he said something 'bad' about another member? Anything other than violating the rules all in the events were supposed to live by - that's what I'm talking about when I say a conspiracy of some sort.
Some people are masterful manipulators and others are easily manipulated. Although I'm not qualified to comment on programming matters, I do have my suspicions about how things transpired.
> I mean, seriously, was there some dark conspiracy to 'get Vas', that I have not heard about? If so, and it is true, I certainly apologize to one and all.
No of course there wasn't
But during a 5 year long Rybka=Fruit campaign the minds were made ready for deceit. No joke, I have been in both camps, I can tell. As an analogy, when living in North Korea hearing day-in, day-out only one message you are going to believe it. The lack of an opposition is the key for success of every dictator. In this case the lack of a decent opposition the message could spread, find entrance and gradually evolved into convincing.
No, I'm not being disingenuous, you are being obtuse as well as misogynistic. Bob promised us "page after page" of copied code. The FSF was going to rule against Vas. Surely you remember this nonsense? You are obviously in denial.
was the ICGA a "two-bit organization..." when Vas and Rybka was winning all those championships?
Yes. If we are to believe David Levy, the ICGA is an unregistered organization that is pretending to be a non-profit organization. These two are inconsistent in the US, and I suspect in Europe and Japan as well. If the ICGA did business in the US, I would request their Form 990, which they don't have. I hope someone in the UK, or the Netherlands, or Japan will do their version of this so we can be spared their self righteousness in the future.
Did Vas do something personally to Levy or someone else in the organization to make them hate him enough that they would trump up these charges?
Don't know and don't care. They promised "page after page" of copied code, and delivered nothing. End of story.
> No, I'm not being disingenuous, you are being obtuse as well as misogynistic
You're being much to kind. I 'd settle for regarding him as nothing less than a complete asshole-and, I don't readily make it a habit to come out and say such things about anyone , but in his case I will make an exception.
Trolling: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I do not butt it with inflamitory, off-topic posts. Quite the contrary, as you can tell if you read my posts on this very thread, I encourage people to remain ON TOPIC andI take exception to people bringing up their favorite whipping boy "Bob" when I am in no way discussing him. Those how have done so could rightly be accused of 'trolling' according to the definition.
Misogyny ( /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of women or girls. According to feminist theory, misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women. Misogyny has been characterized as a prominent feature of the mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic
Please, if you want to respond to my initial comments, in a discussion, do so...otherwise, please just leave me alone.
My post wasn't about Bob. It was about what you said in your post - mainly that there would be "no fuss at all". Please stick to what I actually comment on in my posts if you wish to criticize me.
My criticism of your post was well founded. Bob was a prime instigator of the investigation and Vas didn't waste any time worrying about it. You foolishly took this as an admission of guilt, when in reality, it was the smartest way for him to handle the situation. It really doesn't matter why the ICGA decided to throw Vas out. People get thrown out of more important organizations, such as church groups and country clubs, all the time. The only difference is that these groups are generally smart enough not to advertise these events in the world press.
Please stop getting off topic! My only beef with you concerns your comment that there would be 'no fuss at all' "if they just thru him out" mostly; but also that people consider ICGA a "Two bit organization". That latter may be true and I was just pointing out that people who believe that NOW, probably did not just a couple of years ago when they were handing out awards to Vas an Rybka.
The main argument though being that there would have been no fuss at all. Of course there would have been. People would have had the same complaints they have now. One can quibble with the ICGA going out and and basically publicizing the fact of what they were doing and why, but had they not...had they just told Vas to take a hike, people would have been scratching their heads even more wondering just what the hell was going on. Therefore, I simply think your statement was wrong at best.
If you care to respond to that, please do...otherwise, please just keep extraneous (trolling??) comments to yourself. Homayoun Sohrabi is the only one of you three who can act like an adult it seems.
First, if you're going to quote somebody, you should copy the text, especially if you can't distinguish between threw and thru. Second, there are certainly a lot more people that recognize that the ICGA is a two-bit organization after seeing the way they handled the Rybka affair, and how it resulted in a WCCC being won by a third rate engine without anybody even realizing the event had been held until two weeks later.
Of course there would have been no fuss if they had quietly thrown Vas out. Vas probably wouldn't have mentioned it, and most other would be none the wiser. Instead, the ICGA decided to go to war with Vas and indirectly with Chessbase, and their future is now questionable at best. Why did they do this? Beats the hell out of me.
but had they not...had they just told Vas to take a hike, people would have been scratching their heads even more wondering just what the hell was going on.
It would have been much better for the ICGA to have people "scratching their heads even more wondering just what the hell was going on" rather than concluding that they had sanctioned a badly flawed investigation that has seriously hurt their reputation and their relationship with the largest chess business in the world.
please just keep extraneous (trolling??) comments to yourself
Sorry. Nobody died and left you in charge. No doubt you would be more comfortable spewing on one of the other forums where opposition views are censured.
Of course I would prefer if Vas would sue them.
> Also this is a strange opinion.
I surprised myself there too! I have never had a high opinion of David Levy for honesty when, being the book author, he endorsed the Chess Champion MkV dedicated machine as being of 1900 Elo playing strength that in the early 1980's was something of a major leap forward in playing strength to what was available. It turned out that this was a dishonest claim and its actual performance was around 1420 Elo, almost 500 Elo below his claim, little better than its predecessor. I wonder how many, including myself, had parted with their hard earned cash to purchase the machine based on his claims. So in terms of honesty, I had him pencilled in just below a used car salesman. I was amazed too that the righteous Bob Hyatt should hold him in such high esteem.
> ... Houdini, which experts say is a derivative of Ippolit, in turn a derivative of Rybka...
Absolutely unfounded claim. The first part is somewhat O.K., but the second part is pure nonsense, and to my knowledge no expert claimed that Ippolit has anything in common with Rybka codewise.
> The first part is somewhat O.K., but the second part is pure nonsense
Not a chess programming expert but I test by different approach. Looking at gross blunders made by engines there is a distinctive chain such as Crafty>Fruit>Rybka up to Rybka 3 in many cases but as yet have not traced any to the Ipollit line. However, what is interesting, some errors by Zappa MexicoII are certainly shown up in the Ipollit chain. Some attributes like not clearing hash between games are also present in ZMII and Robbo and IvanHoe versions and I have always suspected perhaps more of ZMII in Ipollit than perhaps Rybka. It would be interesting to compare overlap between Rybka and ZMII too.
Good moves are always the target of a programmer so can be difficult to prove as evidence of copying but why would two or more engines make the same blunder unless ... perhaps does not need too much thought! A little care though with that approach because missing knowledge e.g. code to address bad bishop endgame could be cause so absence of knowledge may not necessarily be evidence of copying.
Clearing or non clearing hash between games is in the UCI interface code. This is not a good way to compare engines...
> Clearing or non clearing hash between games is in the UCI interface code. This is not a good way to compare engines...
And now I am going to accuse you of being like Bob Hyatt ... you took this out of context of my post. If there is evidence of blunder moves and associated similar evaluation error coupled with other attributes that have similarities with the same engines being compared then accummulatively the observations point to a strong suggestion these similarities are more than mere coincidence. Comparing code does not necessarily give the clear cut information that is required. If the code seems significantly different but the output is the same then the story being told is the same. You may disagree but my opinion is that the story a chess engines tells is the game it plays not the individual lines of code.
I'm guessing the comparison with Bob Hyatt may be more painful than any comment of the chess content but don't take it too personally! :-;
Yes! That really hurt!
I don't have a problem with using blunder moves as indicators, or anything else that's done inside the engine, but interface code is treated differently (in the US, you're not supposed to protect yourself from competition with custom interfaces), so copying an interface is sometimes OK from a copyright standpoint.
The bigger problem with looking at behavior of the engine, is that this is really about algorithms rather than code. So you could have two programs that have exactly the same output with completely different code, or two programs with very different output sharing a high percentage of code...
Actually Vas did make the claim that he knew the ippo group was reverse engineering Rybka (even claiming to have received several sets of emailed questions). Of course a professional reverse engineering of Rybka could certainly result in a legitimate code base, and you are in a much better position than just about anybody else to confirm this.
The first part is somewhat O.K.
Didn't early versions Houdini contain substantial Ippo code? I'm not implying the current version isn't 100% legit...
What has changed ?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill