Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / RRR - Rybka Reloaded / Revolutions
1 2 3 Previous Next  
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-03 16:11 Edited 2012-10-03 16:18

> Funny.


That was my intent. Glad you liked it! :-)

> So do we follow rules or not?


Common sense must prevail over "rules" IMHO.  A balanced approach seems more appropriate. An "all or nothing" approach does not appeal to me.

> I enjoy drag racing.


That is very interesting.  Many people enjoy it but most only as a spectator.

> Do you REALLY want a "no rules" society?


Of course not. But blind adherence to and enforcement of rules and laws is not sensible either, IMHO. In the final analysis, common sense should prevail.

Games (including car racing games) are a special case. The participants agree to a set of rules. Then they "play." This is fun. When one or more of the participants deliberately and outrageously violate the rules, then the game becomes no fun for anybody. Most people who play games want to have fun. When a "spoil-sport" messes up the game then everybody becomes ill. It is to be expected that the offender would be kicked out of the game.

There is more to life than just playing games. Or, at least, this is true for most people.

"Tarring and Feathering" someone who spoils your game seems a bit extreme to me.

Incidentally, people who make Gods out of their rules can appropriately be called "Rules Worshipers."

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 16:58
I do not consider "rules" to be "Gods".  I consider a rule as something to be followed, PERIOD.  There is no such thing as a "small, unimportant non-compliance".  Rules should be clearly stated, read before competition starts, and they should be objectively enforced.  If you limit some piece of equipment to "no more than 15.5 oz", then if someone shows up with something that is 15.6oz, they should be DQ'ed. 

That's exactly what happened in the Rybka case.  Except that it happened more than once, over several years.

If a rule is not enforced objectively, it is not a rule.

For example, in a "common game" like chess, can I move a piece while it is your turn?  When you are away from the board?  Can I take one of my pieces you have captured and replace it on the board while you are gone (not talking about bughouse/crazyhouse either).  Etc.  Can I castle after I have moved my king?  Can I make an enpassant capture two moves after you moved the pawn two squares?  Or do we simply follow the rules as they are written, PERIOD?

I don't see that as being dogmatic.  And I'd bet you don't either.  You just don't like the fact that the ICGA enforced a rule you don't like against an author you do like.  Likes and dislikes don't come into play when discussing "following the rules".  You do or you don't.  A classic "binary" condition.
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-03 17:54
Actually, I am past the debate about ICCA/ICGA. That is history. In my mind it is dead and buried.

I am, however, interested in the social aspects of the ideas surrounding rules.

Moving on . . .

Rules do not just appear out of nowhere. In a game, someone comes up with those rules. The rules are only as good as those who make them just as a computer program is only as good as the programmer, IMHO.

Sometimes you see devious people trying to get rules established which serve those people to the disadvantage of the others "in the game." Tournament organizers can adopt the standard set of rules, if there is a standard, but may also throw in additional self-serving rules.  In this way it is the creator of the offensive rule who is being "bad."  People contemplating entering a tournament should beware such bad behaviors.

It is cute to say "All is fair in love and war" but I, personally, don't buy it.

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 21:37
These rules did not pop up overnight.  They evolved from the time the first computer chess tournament was held in 1970.  They have been discussed, modified, refined, tweaked, many times since.  Nothing new overnight that changed the playing field.  Is the (NC) rule for USCF tournaments bad?  I get excluded by it all the time but do NOT consider it bad.   Humans SHOULD have the opportunity to avoid playing against computers if they so choose.  30 years ago they welcomed the opportunity because computers were so weak.  Today they avoid it at every opportunity since computers are so strong.  And not once have I accused them of trying to do anything other than offer up a set of rules that the MAJORITY of USCF members demanded.  Ditto for ICGA rules.  You can try to cast it in a bad light all you want.  But the rules were developed for a specific set of reasons, none of which were spur-of-the-moment nor "self-serving to the disadvantage of others".  The ICGA MEMBERSHIP dictates the rules.  Just like the USCF does.  The two cases are absolutely identical.
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-03 22:14
I agree 100%.

Here is an interesting story:

In Huntsville, AL, USA, in the mid-70s, there was an OTB chess tournament in which the participants were mostly Huntsville Chess Club members. I owned a dedicated chess playing machine (12" x 12" x 1"). I asked the tournament director if it could be entered into the tournament as a one-time-only experiment. His answer, and the answer of the HCC officers, was that if the other participants agreed to it then the 'lil critter could play. Rating points were not won or lost by the machine. Before the tournament, there was a discussion among the contestants and they agreed to let it play. My son operated the machine and it was set to silent mode. I played in the tournament as a regular participant.

It worked out well, but some of the humans that the computer beat were not too happy.

Keep in mind that this dedicated chess computer was before the time of PCs and it was not very strong by today's standards.

It was an interesting experiment but the "lesson learned" was that computers and humans should not be mixed in an OTB tournament.

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-04 17:00
I played in MANY USCF events.  The last was in 1981, where the first version of Cray Blitz won the "Mississippi Closed State Championship" with zero losses or draws.  We had played in several successive events starting around 1975 or so, and were actually invited to participate, rather than asking to participate.  But when we won that event (That event saw the first USCF master fall to a computer, it was published in Chess Life and Review early in 1982 (this event was Labor Day weekend I believe).  And it was the last time we were invited to participate in that event.  :)  Even though we had agreed (1) to take no prize money or prizes of any kind (books, a clock or two, etc, were given away);  (2) to take no title or trophy if we won.  But in winning all the games, played under USCF rules which allowed ANY participant to elect, before the first round, to NEVER be paired against the computer, we influenced the overall outcome.  The expected winner, Joe Sentef, USCF master, had won it the previous 2 years.  Had he won this year, he would have retired the trophy permanently.  He felt as a two-time champion he was unwilling to say "don't pair me against the computer" (unfortunately, no one knew how strong it was, as we had just moved to the Cray from a machine 100x slower).  He played us and lost.  The winner of the tournament had exercised his right to not be paired against a "bloody machine" and as a result, he had one less loss than Joe (they drew their game). 

There's nothing wrong with computers playing.  We attracted more news coverage than they had ever had at these events.  The event was written up in Chess Life with a multi-page story about the game I mentioned.  Lots of "upside".  But one unhappy participant was a significant downside.  We had to deal with complaints like "hey, this is for mississippi residents only, this computer is located in Minneapolis" and such nonsense.  Bottom line was, it was welcome when it was losing, it was unwelcome when it became a real USCF master-level player...

I've played in a few since.  Crafty was invited to participate in a Pan American event years ago where it went through the field like a hot knife through butter, but no complaints that I heard...
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-04 17:09
Very interesting!

I guess human nature will never change. Chess players do not like losing!

:-)

Bob Durrett
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-04 21:24
That was my conclusion.  "You are welcome until you become almost impossible to beat.  Then get lost..."  :)
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2012-10-03 15:46
I don't see why it offends you personally though.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-03 17:01
???

I competed in events where he was using my code.  I followed the rules and did not use anyone else's code.  He copied code _I_ wrote and then purported it to be 100% original and written by him.  And you don't see why that would offend me or any other participant in such events?  REALLY????

Would it offend you if you played in a real tournament and discovered you were beaten by someone that was cheating, using outside help over a cell-phone?  I mean, you COULD say "shoot, just an entry-fee down the bowl, with no chance of winning a prize.  So what?"  REALLY?
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2012-10-04 02:43

>I competed in events where he was using my code.


His versions were no threat though.

CCT6 which Crafty won, he placed 48-50th.

Rybka 1.5 was 23rd in ChessWar V, no Crafty.
Rybka 1.5.32 was 71st in that French Swiss system tourney, no Crafty.
Rybka 1.6.1 was 42nd in D division Chess War VI, no Crafty.
Rybka 1.6.1 was 48th in C division Chess War VII, no Crafty.

Had you heard about him using Crafty code then you would have laughed.

>He copied code _I_ wrote and then purported it to be 100% original and written by him.  And you don't see why that would offend me or any other participant in such events?  REALLY????
>Would it offend you if you played in a real tournament and discovered you were beaten by someone that was cheating, using outside help over a cell-phone?  I mean, you COULD say "shoot, just an entry-fee down the bowl, with no chance of winning a prize.  So what?"  REALLY?


Cheating is wrong to prevent an unfair advantage. If you play terribly nobody cares much if you're cheating. Of course they will point it out if it's obvious, but otherwise it goes unnoticed.

The whole point to cheating is to win, or at least increase your chances of winning. Besides, how many engine authors started out with an open source program? We have no idea how many of those weak engines contained code from such programs, and really nobody cares.

Like I said, if I made my engine open source, and code from it was used by many aspiring chess programmers I'd be honored, especially if one of them went on to create such a successful engine as Rybka.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-04 16:52
Had you heard about him using Crafty code then you would have laughed.

No, I would have pointed out that he had violated the rules and ask that he be removed from the event.  The rule does not say "you can copy the code of others if the resulting program is weaker than most of the competitors".  It just says "you can not copy the code of others" period.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-04 18:27
No, I would have pointed out that he had violated the rules and ask that he be removed from the event.

Bob, what is for you the difference between a housewarden and a professor like you? Are you busy with higher level topics or with the quality of the toilet paper in the building? Dont you know the term relevant?

I ask because I think I understood a bit why the panelist hunters and you are so obsessed by rules and such. Because it's a tool to cheat fair competition because these rules guarantee that always the usual figures win. It's almost impossible for a strong newcomer to enter at all.

Just one example. If he says he has started with Fruit then you come running like the toilet cleaner and propose that Fabien should enter his Fruit just to see what happens. And Shredder or Junior are winning again. The new talent wont come back again.

Do you think that this is a fair sport? I dont. It's very corrupted.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-04 21:22
Rules for a competition are ALWAYS relevant.  If you let the lower-level players cheat, it won't be long before they are higher-level.  We saw someone win a marathon by riding in a taxi a few years back.  We've seen doping.  Computer assists in chess tournaments.  Illegal parts in auto races.  Illegal equipment in many sports events.  The list goes on and on.  The idea is to follow the rules.  Not just follow the rules when you are near the top.

Let's examine that "no newcomer can win nonsense to see how silly it looks."

From the period 1970 to roughly 1980, Northwestern chess programs won nearly every ACM and WCCC event.  Belle took one in 1978 I recall, but in 1980 Belle was suddenly the clear best program around.  Along comes Cray Blitz in 1981, and suddenly it was winning ACM and WCCCs through the later 80's, until a brand new program came along, deep thought.  And in the middle of that, we had a year or so where HiTech was the best.  Then along came Fritz, Shredder, Rebel won one, etc.  Then Rybka.  So a "newcomer" can enter and win.  And can also get caught for not following the rules.  To date, I've only seen ONE WINNER that was protested and then caught red-handed.  There have been some non-winners caught, of course.

So exactly where do you get your crap that the rules are made to exclude newcomers and ensure that they never win?  It is not "almost impossible" for a strong newcomer to enter at all.  In fact, it is trivially easy for him to do so, IF his program is original and not a clone of an existing engine.

There's no corruption whatsoever, except for those so corrupt they feel they are above the rules and can do what they want, regardless of the rules.  That's pretty sad, of course.  But then I don't cheat so I can't say how that might feel...  I don't see how one can think "Jeez, I did a nice job here" if all they did was copy the work of someone else and make a few changes.  Sort of like having someone else build you a house, but you nail up the last few pieces of siding and then proclaim to the world, "Look what I fine house I built all by myself..."  Seems a bit shallow or hollow to me.  Perhaps not to you.  But definitely, to me.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-05 13:32 Edited 2012-10-05 13:53
Rules for a competition are ALWAYS relevant.  If you let the lower-level players cheat, it won't be long before they are higher-level.  We saw someone win a marathon by riding in a taxi a few years back.  We've seen doping.  Computer assists in chess tournaments.  Illegal parts in auto races.  Illegal equipment in many sports events.  The list goes on and on.  The idea is to follow the rules.  Not just follow the rules when you are near the top.

Let's examine that "no newcomer can win nonsense to see how silly it looks."

From the period 1970 to roughly 1980, Northwestern chess programs won nearly every ACM and WCCC event.  Belle took one in 1978 I recall, but in 1980 Belle was suddenly the clear best program around.  Along comes Cray Blitz in 1981, and suddenly it was winning ACM and WCCCs through the later 80's, until a brand new program came along, deep thought.  And in the middle of that, we had a year or so where HiTech was the best.  Then along came Fritz, Shredder, Rebel won one, etc.  Then Rybka.  So a "newcomer" can enter and win.  And can also get caught for not following the rules.  To date, I've only seen ONE WINNER that was protested and then caught red-handed.  There have been some non-winners caught, of course.

So exactly where do you get your crap that the rules are made to exclude newcomers and ensure that they never win?  It is not "almost impossible" for a strong newcomer to enter at all.  In fact, it is trivially easy for him to do so, IF his program is original and not a clone of an existing engine.

There's no corruption whatsoever, except for those so corrupt they feel they are above the rules and can do what they want, regardless of the rules.  That's pretty sad, of course.  But then I don't cheat so I can't say how that might feel...  I don't see how one can think "Jeez, I did a nice job here" if all they did was copy the work of someone else and make a few changes.  Sort of like having someone else build you a house, but you nail up the last few pieces of siding and then proclaim to the world, "Look what I fine house I built all by myself..."  Seems a bit shallow or hollow to me.  Perhaps not to you.  But definitely, to me.


Thanks for the detailed reply. Probably you are really innocent out of a lack of knowledge in philosophy, ethics and science of science. All your points are reasonable in your realm, but I must excuse myself, your historical description has a principle fallacy or error, the term doesnt matter.

It's not easy to explain this to someone who is obsessed by rules and by their validity without any possible doubt. In that moment you literally dont *see* how things could be interpreted differently. Although it's very easy if once you have understood that it's not about a refutation of rules in general. Who could be so stupid to try such a nonsense. Rules are easy to understand, everybody knows them and they make life a lot better. Well, except in some respects. And from a professor with this level I would expect that he had at least heard of the reasons why a fixation on naked rules could become suboptimal. Please check out the literature about that. Here I must keep it short, well my sort of short, with my bad language skills.

Your whole reasoning is closed style not open. If I argue that Vas no matter what he violated in your eyes on Crafty, he created something new that was 300 plus more Elo stronger than you and everybody else. Now I dont argue that therefore something wrong would be called holy for a change. I argue that from the perspective of a really loving staff the energy of someone new should be supported without calling him a cheater. For general ethical reasons and knowledge that all new developments started from others and for all from a level of general knowledge that was in the air at a certain time. So, a loving and caring board had no other chance if they want to support progress instead of manipulated security for old outburnt figures, than by applauding any newcomer.

We see actually on CCC how rotten the whole community is wrong. Vas is discriminated and hidden in a closed forum, while a proven cheater, liar, fraud who sold stolen material, under anonymous hiding, is declaiming his propaganda in the General Forum.

Vas created something new, basing on forerunners, but his strength is alone his own merit. The other criminals took his novelties and made a couple of changes and proudly proclaimed that they are happy for their revenge on Vas. This put everything around from feet to head. Vas has not dissassembled other programs to create his own, but you like to let him stand under that suspicion.

I begged you already for years that you cant tolerate such criminals and their offers if you dont want to destroy the usual computerchess competition. These criminal products are also strong but not 300 points above their exploited source. They rise with steps of 10 Elo, not some 100. So also this argument doesnt hold water, that allegedly in Rybkas case only strength should justify something. With 300 up to 500 Elo points its not just strength, this is a revolution. and that can by no means exist with copied code. Because the more you copy the more you weaken the program down on the level of the copied model.

So, it is people like you who are comparing apples and oranges if they say that the Rybka supporters are dishonest if they deny that Rybka has the same heritage as say the hippo criminals.

Right here you could clarify your honesty if you would outcast the anon criminals but not the revolutionary Rybka. Where is the problem?

The failures of the ICGA staff are much more relevant in their preventing that other absolute newcomers tried to enter the field if they must fear that they are landing on the terror list of the FBI, only because they had tried to write a chess program.

That is the conflict I see and why I would hold back such "panel clarifications" in the style of the Inquisition. Not because I argue that such a panel were rotten dirty from the ground basis.

If you had treated Vas with respect, I wouldnt care but this sort of evil campaign over years, that is what makes the whole affair stink so much. Are we living in 2012 or are we still living in autocratic past? Why a Levy is tolerated in abusing Vas with refusing to talk to him on the phone and then to claim 'Vas has refused to communicate with me, the President'. Reminds me of Nixons criminal tricky Dick mind. It's a complete abuse of power what Levy did there.

That is also an example for what I call relevance. Newcomers who see that, must fear that by entering our community they are not welcomed but mistreated by some dickheaded autist.

In a modernized computerchess home not fraud would be applauded, negligencies of rules wouldnt be ignored either, but everybody from the outside would smell that when he could enter with something all would encourage him but not check him out as if he wanted to get a top job in the administration.

My critic is directed against exaggerated application of rules in an area of creativity that must find its own paths for a new development. Alone the idea that you had to consult lawyers before daring to enter a tournament of the ICGA is absurd.

I accuse you and your allies of applicating ethical norms in the totally wrong way by putting everybody under the suspicion of being a criminal against what the individual had to defend himself to get a free entry pass.

It's always very telling when you are justifying every bit of what you did although we are criticising you but the other way round you dont give others like Vas the benefit of a doubt. And I repeat from above, it's not about justifying clear rule violations it's about how a creative development could be possible in computerchess where almost everything is foundated on former performances. If the chief people here are always taking peanuts to blame newcomers but in their own affairs they deminor the same peanuts, then something is very wrong in such a field.

It would be nice if you could tell us more about the early developments in computerchess. Just what I would ask here is the question, how you could control such newbis at all who came with thue top hardware from a billion dollar enterprise and how and who decided if all were kosher. You wrote something for Cray. Where is the principal difference to say the writing of Belle? What could you have wanted to copy if you ever wanted it?  I mean, it's a very different situation today if all are writing on a 32 bit SP version for windows. It would be highly interesting to read more from your side. Always with my mention in mind of the real relevance of the debated details for the overall well of computerchess with view on the future.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-05 14:32
In those days, MANY of us exchanged source.  Many times.  We discussed new ideas.  Many times.  We presented papers that described new ideas.  Many times.  Otherwise, there was nothing to copy.  public-source programs were around.  Anyone that asked for a copy of my code always received it.  But then I had an idea about any new people that might have suddenly jumped into competition with a strong program right after they had asked me for my source.  So this never happened.  In all the "source exchanges" I did, such as with Ed Kozdrowicki (Coko) or Tom Truscott (Duchess) or Fred Schwartz (chaos) and such, there was never even a hint that one of us copied the code of another.  We freely used each other's ideas, however, just not the code.  Never occurred to me to copy the work of someone else and then purport that to be my original work.

What do I have to do with the ippo* programs?  They don't enter ICGA events.  One person tried to enter a robolito clone and it was rejected.  That's as far as the ICGA influence goes.  Your "fan base" here seems to be all over the map on this one.  They originally were outraged when ippolit first showed up.  Now they praise Houdart and Houdini daily as though it were the "second-coming".  You need to convince the people HERE that ippo* is a problem, if you want to make any progress.  You won't see it in any ICGA event.  You won't see it in any CCT event, otherwise you won't see me (and several others) in the same event.  Beyond that, I have no influence over what they do, and really do not care...

For the record, everyone is NOT treated as "suspicious".  For us to look at a program, we require (a) a formal protest against the program citing specific concerns and (b) credible evidence that such a protest has some technical merit and is not just an irritant.

Your last question is unanswerable.  I have simply never had the inclination to copy something someone else wrote.  Part of my upbringing and academic exposure to ethics that is taught in CS programs.  Someone explains a new idea, my first thought is always "Is that something I can use that will make my program better?" immediately followed by "Is there any way to improve that idea to make it even better?"  I've even done this to my own ideas.  See the two ICGA papers "Using time wisely" and then a couple of years later "Using time wisely - revisited" where I explained some enhancements that had helped Cray Blitz significantly.  Copying the work of someone else verbatim is not only a lazy / unethical way of doing things, most would consider it a very unsatisfying way of making progress.  I most appreciate those things I create myself, because I know the level of work (and detail) I put into them.  Slovenly copying the work of someone else verbatim is not exactly a challenging task...  Pride in something comes from within, not by copying.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2012-10-05 00:26
..but this still doesn't answer my question. Why does it offend you personally?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-05 14:34
We ALL agree to abide by a set of rules when we enter an event.  It offends me when someone then intentionally violates a rule (or rules) that they agreed they would follow.  If I tell you I am going to do something, I am going to do it unless it is physically impossible for me to do so.  I expect the same from you.

Simple enough?

You are not offended if someone lies to you?  Or promises to do something for you and then they decide "nah, too much trouble, forget it..."???
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-05 16:06

> We ALL agree to abide by a set of rules when we enter an event.  It offends me when someone then intentionally violates a rule (or rules) that they agreed they would follow.  If I tell you I am going to do something, I am going to do it unless it is physically impossible for me to do so


I agree with everything you said above and, in fact, it seems too obvious to state. Everybody should understand this.

There is another issue:

When one steps back and looks at the World of Computer Chess, as the lunar astronauts did when they looked at Earth and saw it as a ball, you see much more than just game events or individual organizations such as ICGA.

There is the world-wide process of technology development which began with the early beginnings and, hopefully, will lead to a bright future in which chess software will be much better than today's stuff.

One of the many questions is: "What is the best way to promote this technology development process?"

The exchange of ideas, algorithms, and even code is something that should be considered objectively from a "big picture" perspective.

My first impression is that you really do want people building on the foundations of earlier programmers!!!!! Is that wrong?

When you take a truly "big picture" perspective, it is necessary to look beyond current rules and see what is really needed. If something (including rules) needs changing, then it/they should be changed.

If one is motivated to serve humanity, then unwillingness to change is inappropriate.

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-05 17:04
First, yes I agree about the concept of reusing ideas and such.  Never disagreed with that.  The ICGA journal is a perfect example to prove that.

But one thing one needs with a set of rules, is a set of rules that are clear, concise, and most importantly, a set of rules that can be enforced.  Programmers seem to agree, almost universally, that originality should continue to be a requirement.  No one would want to enter an event where there were 30 different versions of robolito, for example.  One of 'em is almost guaranteed to win when you think about probabilities.  And what does that show, exactly?  Is someone that copied a robolito version, and tweaked a few scoring terms, and produced a program that won, REALLY better or more creative or more inventive than someone that wrote their own code?

Nothing wrong with having a "calling all clones" event, as I have repeatedly said.  But those interested in engine development, and improving computer chess at a basic research level, don't see any benefit to becoming involved in such an event.

You talk like this can't be "both".  It can.  The ICGA is likely not going to do both, because the ICGA members are those that are more likely to be really research driven in what they do, and they publish their results in the journal when they discover something that works.  So trying to force the ICGA to do something that is effectively counter to its most basic goals is not going to succeed.  Anyone can do a "calling all clones" event.  Peter just tried and no one was interested.  No way to make anyone participate, just as surely as no one is going to force me to participate in an event full of clones.  Therefore, I don't see what would change the ICGA's perspective, since regardless of all the things written here, the actual engine developers are simply not interested in a clones-are-welcome event, as has become pretty clear.  If you think the idea has merit, make it happen, and make it successful, then you might get someone's attention.  But at the moment, what has been working for computer chess since the first event in 1970 is not going to change just because a group "outside" the organization want to see something different.  The organization is (and should) only going to do those things that are supported by the majority of the members.  I am just one member.  There are many others.  If the majority disagreed with me, the ICGA events would have already changed to welcome all non-original programs.  But that has not happened.  And contrary to popular opinion HERE, it is not being done just because a very few of us "old-timers" don't want it to change.  That's the distortion most promulgated.  And it is distortion.  No, I don't want to see clones/derivatives allowed.  But neither do the majority of the other developers.  In fact, the only developers likely to want to see such is the group that are actually copying helter-skelter rather than doing original work...
Parent - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-05 18:00
After posting my previous bulletin it occurred to me that I had left out something important.  That is the role of "specialization."

Especially in the biological and physical sciences, there is too much for one individual to emcompass. Specialization is necessary if the researchers are to get deep enough into their chosen topic to do something worthwhile.

Specialization is good.

You have specialized and that is good too.

It is not necessary that an individual encompass all of any broad field.

Perhaps "development of chess software" is too broad and some specialization may be necessary if there is to be progress.

My perception is that you have devoted a lot of your time to game events and their regulation. That is a specialization. Since specialization is, IMHO, good, then your choice makes sense.

I would not ask you or anybody else to walk away from their chosen specialty.

Best wishes,

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-05 17:32
Bob, short of time, so only a joke for now but with some acid:

In your country people say hi, how are you, long time no see, please come to meet me, I'll give you a call. Ant all this is not real, not serious, not truthfully intended. How come that you who is living in that land, you are still almost obsessed by rules not only to keep them by yourself but also expected that others behave like you? Isnt it a bit strange? Different people have different priorities. I could well guess that Vas is absoluter tru with his promisses, but that programming is not so important because the strength is much more important in computerchess. You have that historic tic that you want everybody to do what you are teaching in xour classes IMO.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-06 03:45
Strange to follow rules?  Which is not related to dealing with speech idioms and such...

And you are correct in one regard.  I do NOT teach students to steal the work of others and then call it their original work...
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-06 19:05
Bob, you are so mediocre. If for you the term originality in ICGA is completely exhausting defined then you are just misinformed or uneducated. Also, if you call the creative start of a genius stealing when he is trying to grasp all the known features then you are just misleaden. But the main difference is, that you were always a lower order chessplayer while Vas is a master internationally and I suspect that he's eidetic. I'm not sure but at least he's better than you in that regard. So, this is the reason, already two in sum, that are responsible for your misunderstandings. Alone the stupid insinuation as if I had propagated stealing in classes as important. Not at all. For your classes there is a different situation than for business professionals, but you will also deny this like everything. Keep digging that hole. For me it's just sad to see you in that mess.  - If tomorrow you would announce that you would reverse your verdict and that you would start to support Vas, then all that is forgotten because we all make mistakes. That's life.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-06 19:22
I am digging no hole, I am in no "mess".  Computer ethics is a REQUIRED topic for accreditation in following the ACM computer science curriculum.  Just because YOU don't believe in ethics when talking about programmers, does NOT mean that the topic is stupid, or unimportant.

For eidetic, I can't answer for Vas.  I can play a single game of chess blindfolded, without any problems.  Not sure what that has to do with ethics, programming skill, or anything else being discussed.  I don't have a photo memory.  I do have a good memory for numbers.  I can give you the VIN for every vehicle I have ever owned, if that were important, dating back to my original 1968 Plymouth roadrunner.  Does a good memory mean better ethics?  Hardly.  Does a worse memory mean worse ethics?  Hardly.  The two are completely unrelated, in fact...

BTW, WHY do you think we teach computer science?  To prepare students for careers in computer science?  Which for many would be exactly where?  Oh, yes.  "In business".  Do you have ANY idea of what you are talking about?  From the outside looking in, it seems "no" would be the answer.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-06 20:35
I talked eidetics because you thought it would be impossible to read a source and then writing your own code and still have some identical code bits . You claimed that that is impossible. I contradicted from the start when you had made the statement. In your strange method (or in Zach) you tried to create certain parts of the code by analysing the binary. And then you found some identities but not literally but by semantical similarity. My newest theory is that if Vas had some code in the mentioned manner then by chance you might have found some examples. But it doesnt prove copypasting. Could you refutate my newest theory? BTW you own memory isnt bad. Just what one would expect from an academic like you.

Did you forget the Harvey case? Would be unusual for you since you always answer such questions. Again, why is Vas so evil if Harvey is clearly a fair sport in your eyes? Why defending Harvey with so many words while leaving Vas without your assistance in the dark? You are so prejudiced towards Vas. Not your style in general.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-07 00:24
Rolf, what are you talking about?  If you are talking about the mistake Harvey made during the CCT event, I pointed it out to him.  He recognized it as a mistake and never tried to claim he didn't take that action.  He recognized the rules forbade any operator assistance of any kind after it was pointed out, said he was not going to do it again, and to me, the story ended at that point. 

Vas has NEVER recognized that he violated ICGA rules, has never owned up to copying anything.  Even when he magically appeared here earlier this year and I asked him about Rybka 1.4 - 1.6.1 his response was the lame "that discussion is not for today..." and he refused further comment.  Accepting responsibility for one's mistakes is a necessary step mending fences.  So far, he has accepted absolutely nothing. 

The two cases are completely different, as a result...  People make mistakes.  People move on.  How many times have you and I had a major falling out and stopped communicating, yet I have come back to the table every time you raise an issue or ask a question.  One can get past anything, IF both sides work at it.  But with Vas, "both sides" are not doing anything, just one side.

If Vas wants to claim this "memory copy" stuff, I am sure he can demonstrate that to someone by reading a couple of thousand lines of C and reproducing a couple of parts identically, right?  So we don't have to speculate about whether he could do that or not.  He could demonstrate.  You DO realize that such an action is STILL copying, of course?  I had to memorize several things going through school.  Lincoln's gettysburg address, preamble to the US constitution, part of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" and the like.  Can I then rewrite them exactly, from memory, and then call them my original work???  Of course not.
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-07 01:09
I have a problem with your cruelty, it's as if a pitbull wouldnt let lose... Are you so bad, Bob? Again, we are innocent until a legal court says we are guilty, but not if you say that. All IMO of course. With growing older you might get wiser, who knows? Also, I see that you are always hunting for a word or something what then proves for you something. What if on the net it's all written in the sand? How does it mean so much to you? I told you that even in a legal cort case in EU the defendant must not accuse himself, you must prove every single bit. You, if you were the attorney, but you are not. SO, why cant we totally change this into a friendly talk about the term original and all the practice of tthe ICGA in the past, only as an example, but if you really think that you are accusing someone, then this is untrue. All we can do is talking in as if style. That would also take out all the character assassinating. Why must we be so harsh and brutal?
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-06 20:41
BTW, WHY do you think we teach computer science?  To prepare students for careers in computer science?  Which for many would be exactly where?  Oh, yes.  "In business".  Do you have ANY idea of what you are talking about?

Sure. I'm talking about business professional sport competition not just business. Know what I mean? If you want to obey the rules like nuns do it in their closet, then we have a misunderstanding.:wink:
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2012-10-06 01:07

>We ALL agree to abide by a set of rules when we enter an event.  It offends me when someone then intentionally violates a rule (or rules) that they agreed they would follow.  If I tell you I am going to do something, I am going to do it unless it is physically impossible for me to do so.  I expect the same from you.


I think this is dodging the question.

According to this, if someone goes 45 in a 35, you're offended by them since they are breaking the rules, whether it occurred in Tuscaloosa or Los Angeles.

I get it that you don't agree with rule breaking, but this is something different than being personally offended by it. How does it affect you? If something doesn't affect you or someone you care about, you wouldn't be affected directly by it and in my opinion it doesn't make sense to be personally offended.

You indicated by previous posts in this thread that you were upset Vas used some of your code in these pre-1.0b rybka releases. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't affect you directly (his performances were miserable), yet you appear by all signs to be personally offended. Why?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-06 03:42
How can I be "personally offended" by something I don't even know happens (your 45 in a 35).  But if I am doing the speed limit, and you break the law and endanger myself, or others, then it is definitely "personally offensive".  As I have REPEATEDLY said, I don't care what Houdart and other "authors" of that ilk do.  So long as it doesn't affect me.  So long as  they don't apply to an event I am participating in or directing, agreeing to follow a published set of rules, and then violate them.  That's the key.  I find lying to be offensive.  And when someone agrees to follow a set of rules, KNOWING they did (and will) not do so, then that is offensive.

Does it matter whether a cheater wins or loses?  Is he not STILL a cheater?  Did he not create a program that was clearly derived directly from Fruit, and then make it better.  That also affects me (and many others).  I've NEVER had a problem with getting beat.  Happened MANY times over the years.  It might well drive me to work harder to improve whatever it is I was beaten at, but I don't feel any anger or dislike for the person that beat me.  IF he beats me fairly.  If he violates the rules to do so, that's a different issue.  Hope that makes this a bit clearer...

Maybe a different explanation.  I am JUST as pissed if you shoot at me and hit me, as I would be if you shot at me and missed.  Your success or failure is not the only issue involved...
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2012-10-06 07:07

>How can I be "personally offended" by something I don't even know happens (your 45 in a 35).  But if I am doing the speed limit, and you break the law and endanger myself, or others, then it is definitely "personally offensive".  As I have REPEATEDLY said, I don't care what Houdart and other "authors" of that ilk do.  So long as it doesn't affect me.


The pre-Rybka 1.0b engines did not affect you is my point.

>So long as  they don't apply to an event I am participating in or directing, agreeing to follow a published set of rules, and then violate them.


Even if they place 9999th and you place 1st? And you don't find out about it until years later? Still personally offended?

>Does it matter whether a cheater wins or loses?  Is he not STILL a cheater?


It does because a cheater's offense will be seen as more severe the better they place in an event.

The players who did worse than the player who cheated could understandably be personally offended.

>Did he not create a program that was clearly derived directly from Fruit, and then make it better.  That also affects me (and many others).


How does it affect you?

>Happened MANY times over the years.  It might well drive me to work harder to improve whatever it is I was beaten at, but I don't feel any anger or dislike for the person that beat me.  IF he beats me fairly.  If he violates the rules to do so, that's a different issue.  Hope that makes this a bit clearer...


I didn't think this because you were nowhere near threatened game-wise by the Pre-Rybka 1.0b versions. If you had been beaten, it would make more sense.

>Maybe a different explanation.  I am JUST as pissed if you shoot at me and hit me, as I would be if you shot at me and missed.  Your success or failure is not the only issue involved...


To fit the analogy in this case, they'd have to be using a musket and shooting in the wrong direction 10 miles away.. and missing by an enormous distance of course.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-06 15:49
The pre-Rybka 1.0b engines did not affect you is my point.

I suppose you want to use the definition of "did not influence my final result?"  Did it win ANY games?  Did you go back through the round-by-round crosstables to see if any game it won or lost resulted in DIFFERENT pairings than what was done with Rybka included?  There's almost a 100% certainty that there was some "influence" on who played who, myself included.  So it almost certainly did "affect me" albeit in an indirect way.  Should not have happened, period.  It drew three games, and only beat the last place finisher.  But it did perturb the pairings...

Even if they place 9999th and you place 1st? And you don't find out about it until years later? Still personally offended?

Someone LIES to you.  You don't find out for a few years.  Offended?  Or "too long ago, never happened.."??  A group of us get together to hold a tournament.  We discussed the rules at length before the first CCT event.  Participants chose to use the ICGA rules + some additions that the ICGA didn't cover, since ICGA events are not automated and require human operators, while we did the opposite and only allowed automated interfaces to get the human out of the loop.  Once we all agreed to the rules, we all agreed to play by them.  Except, apparently, Vas.  I'd imagine that offends everyone that participated.

You have this REALLY WARPED definition of offended.  Not only does it have to be a direct affront to something you believe in (the rules) but it also has to directly affect you by altering your final result in some way.  If you lie to me, you offend me, period.  I'd expect you to feel exactly the same way.  Whether my lie caused you to lose money, a friend, or had no effect on you at all other than being a lie.

How does it affect you?

See above.  By participating, he agreed, along with all other participants, to follow a set of rules we all adopted.  He said he would, by applying.  He did not.  Lies are offensive, period.  Your son walks in the door and says "Dad, I'm going to the library for a couple of hours to study for exams."  A week later, a friend tells you "Saw your son last week at the local sports bar, drunk out of his mind."  Are YOU offended by the lie?  Didn't affect you at all...  But of course you REALLY understand this already, and are just trying to argue from an untenable position.

To fit the analogy in this case, they'd have to be using a musket and shooting in the wrong direction 10 miles away.. and missing by an enormous distance of course.

Nope.  He was DEFINITELY "shooting at me".  He was in the SAME event, trying to win.  The muzzle was definitely pointed directly at me and everyone else in the tournament, he was just a lousy shot for that event.
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-06 16:06 Edited 2012-10-06 16:11

> Someone LIES to you.


Try to remember that chess is just a game.

Ordinary everyday life can be somewhat of a game too until something really serious happens such as loss of income, and many other examples.

People lie to you all the time. No one is excluded. Even your children, spouse, siblings, parents, uncles and aunts, grandparents, neices and nephews, friends, students and co-workers do it. If you must become all bent out of shape everytime someone tries to deceive you, you will never be happy. Also, you may never enjoy Poker.

Be like the duck who ignores the rain.  Lies are like rain. Learn to ignore them the way ducks do.

:-)

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-06 16:10
I don't get "all bent out of shape".  But I don't like lies. Really don't know anyone who does, except, perhaps, for a pathological liar.
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-06 16:13
Focus not on what you don't like but instead on what you do like!

(Sage wisdom paraphrased)

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-06 17:58
If you ignore things that you don't like or disapprove of, where, exactly does the world end up?  I don't like rule-breakers.  But let it go on, anyway?  I don't like people stealing money or property from me, but ignore it anyway?  Etc...
Parent - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-06 19:08
There is more than one way to live a life. My way is not the only way.

My way is to identify and follow my priorities. To identify the right priorities it is necessary to be able to distinguish what is important and what is not.

If you witnessed a murder being committed and you knew you could stop it, I am sure you would. But, the little issues that come up in life are not always so easy to decide. Obviously.

Speaking personally, I am not always able to distinguish what is most important and what is less important. Also, I do not always get my priorities straight.

Furthermore, I do not always practice what I should, but I try.

Sadly, I am human and that implies that mistakes will be made.

If your way is not the same as mine, that is OK. I will respect you anyway.

Bob Durrett
Parent - Date 2012-10-06 19:55
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-06 19:24
since ICGA events are not automated and require human operators, while we (CCT) did the opposite and only allowed automated interfaces to get the human out of the loop.  Once we all agreed to the rules, we all agreed to play by them.  Except, apparently, Vas.

Bob, I beg you to hold on, please stop it, you are such a dirty liar in that point because when Harvey cheated with his Hiarcs you even excused his crime by elaborating that this didnt mean a thing, so you do it always in your way, how you need it. That is dishonest in highest degree. You are lying against all the evidence that is well known and documented. That example shows beyond doubt that you are biased and evil in your hate against Vas. But cheater Harvey Williamson of course is one of your good friends. Hahaha.

And another thing. That you feel like Vas had aimed exactly at you, is if one examines the relevance that is lacking really illminded. I cant hold back my evaluation, this is ill and that is just something that reveils again the prejudice against Vas. Bobm IMO there must be something in your relation to Vas that happened years ago, that brought you into such a paranoid state. Bob, he took your Crafty because he knew you wanted everybody to take your model. He didnt take you for evil second thoughts. It was just a practical choice. Please tryx to get rid of such nonsense.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-07 00:30 Edited 2012-10-07 00:35
harvey didn't commit a crime.  He broke one part of this rule:

6. All monitors must be positioned so that the operator’s activities are clearly visible to the opponent. An operator may only: [1] enter moves, [2] respond to a request from the computer for clock information, and [3] synchronize the computer clock to the normal chess clock. Misuse of this rule will be punished by the Tournament Director. If an operator needs to enter other information, it must be approved ahead of time by the Tournament Director. The operator may not query the system to see if it is alive without the permission of the Tournament Director.

Harvey said he was not aware of the complete explanation of the rule.  He did not change a move or anything other than say "move now" on one move.  One move in one game out of 7-8 (I don't remember how many rounds on that specific CCT).  Not a big deal, particularly when it seemed to be a simple mistake - misunderstanding.  So what?  But Vas violated rule 2 for SEVERAL events, each event having SEVERAL games, each game having MANY moves.  A much greater transgression.  And he has never admitted his poor behavior. 

What do you think is even REMOTELY similar to the two circumstances?

As far as Vas goes, personally, I have never met him, never talked with him, never had any negative interaction with him.  In short, no personal opinion about him based on experience.  Only based on his actions...
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-07 01:27 Edited 2012-10-07 01:31
Thanks for the long reply on Harvey. I dont agree because Harvey is known as a guy washed with all fluids of chess operations. He is running from job to job and it's literally impossible that he didnt know the rule number one for operaters "dont tell move to the machine!"

As far as Vas goes, personally, I have never met him, never talked with him, never had any negative interaction with him.  In short, no personal opinion about him based on experience.  Only based on his actions...

That's what I supposed too as a theory but then question remains why you cant understand that a human being who is chased for several years stands under horrible stress. And the pitbull doesnt let lose!

Bob may I ask you a friendly question? Were you ever accused of something for such a long time and you felt innocent all the time? Say, your wife accused you that you betrayed her. Wouldnt that cause stress? As you know even in chess defending is not so nice while attacking is fun. Dont you see such aspects of human life? Is that all for you just a theoretical game? All peers on one individual? For me Ed has proven that the panel had many things wrong. But that means not a thing to you? Bob, I appeal to you, come back to a nice guy attitude. You are not in war. No jury to guide. Please be nice again.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-07 05:01
I was accused of cheating after the 1986 tournament.  It went on for several months before it was resolved.  Didn't stress me much at all since I KNEW we had not cheated.  Never had a moment's doubt of the outcome, because I knew the people involved were fair.  Beyond that, it has not happened to me, but then again, I haven't done anything quite like this copying example either...
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2012-10-07 02:01

>so it almost certainly did "affect me" albeit in an indirect way.  Should not have happened, period.  It drew three games, and only beat the last place finisher.  But it did perturb the pairings...


This is very very minor. Nothing worth getting so upset over.

>Once we all agreed to the rules, we all agreed to play by them.  Except, apparently, Vas.  I'd imagine that offends everyone that participated.


Not necessarily, since we don't know how much open source code found its way into engines that participated in the event.

>You have this REALLY WARPED definition of offended.  Not only does it have to be a direct affront to something you believe in (the rules) but it also has to directly affect you by altering your final result in some way.  If you lie to me, you offend me, period.  I'd expect you to feel exactly the same way.  Whether my lie caused you to lose money, a friend, or had no effect on you at all other than being a lie.


I think there are levels of offense is all.

I wouldn't be nearly as offended as you are in the same situation.

If I was in 1st place with Labyrinth.uci, and some guy named "Zas" was using a modified version of my engine and placed 50th I'd just be like "It's not as easy as it looks is it Mr. Zas!". Yeah I might report him for breaking the rules, or even bring it up in one or two forum posts, but that's about it. Why do more? Why appear to be offended, or be offended at all? It isn't logical.

>See above.  By participating, he agreed, along with all other participants, to follow a set of rules we all adopted.  He said he would, by applying.  He did not.  Lies are offensive, period.  Your son walks in the door and says "Dad, I'm going to the library for a couple of hours to study for exams."  A week later, a friend tells you "Saw your son last week at the local sports bar, drunk out of his mind."  Are YOU offended by the lie?  Didn't affect you at all...


This is a really poor analogy. I said it had to affect you, or someone you cared about. In the case of a son doing this, depending on their age you'd be responsible for their well-being and it would be very upsetting to have them not cooperate. If he was older I would confront him about it, and just be like it's cool if you want to hit up the bar, of course I worry about your drinking but it's nothing worth lying to me over.

Really, this does affect you though. It's personal.

>But of course you REALLY understand this already, and are just trying to argue from an untenable position.


I'm not arguing at all, just trying to understand something that I perceive as being very strange.

>Nope.  He was DEFINITELY "shooting at me".  He was in the SAME event, trying to win.  The muzzle was definitely pointed directly at me and everyone else in the tournament, he was just a lousy shot for that event.


Well, I disagree. This even hits me as being a bit I don't know, psychotically paranoid? Can you be a "bit" of that? If so then yeah.

Reminds me of this scene from Buffalo 66 (Great movie):

http://movieclips.com/7CvfE-buffalo-66-movie-at-the-dinner-table/

I suppose the knife in the silverware was pointed just a little too far in the direction of Billy's father..
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-10-07 01:41
I like Labyrinth!
Parent - - By Wayne Lowrance (***) Date 2012-10-07 19:12
Bob, I try very hard to respect everyone. I would like everyone I know to be a friend of mine
including you.
I am very tired of all this cheating talk by you and everyone. 
I think you have accomplished what you wanted. Vas is in the background now. Please let it
go now. Your throwing rocks in a Rybka forum and the folks here will respond in
like kind. I do not see any need for you to continue your issue with Vas here any longer.
Carry on in other places.
With respect
Wayne
Parent - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-07 19:37 Edited 2012-10-07 19:41
Bob Hyatt is responding to negative allegations about his character and his past behaviors.

Surely he has a right to defend himself!

Have you read any of Rolf's bulletins addressed to Bob Hyatt? Rolf just won't quit!

Maybe it is time to admonish all of them.

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-07 21:32
I have ONLY responded to queries/posts here originated by others.  Not once have I started a thread, or jumped into a thread and brought up the rybka / icga investigation, unless the subject was raised by someone else...
Parent - - By Bob Durrett (***) Date 2012-10-07 22:33
I bet you could start some very interesting threads here associated with chess, programming and other topics!

The question is whether or not the other Rybka Forum contributers would bring up the "now taboo" topics in those threads.

Bob Durrett
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-10-08 02:32
What do you think?  :)
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / RRR - Rybka Reloaded / Revolutions
1 2 3 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill