Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Asides and commentary on RV's decompilation and reports
1 210 11 12 13 Previous Next  
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-23 18:00
And an outright lie.  Do you still have the wiki data?  You can discover who added what to the report...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-08-23 18:19
Are you trying to disclaim responsibility for the report written by the Secretariat?

You were boss of the Secretariat, you were responsible for the report, alongside the other two, but in leadership role. Anything that is in that report is YOUR responsibility. Material in the report that was not as a result of the panel discussions was added. If not you, who? How does something get added without you knowing? Did you not prove it before sending out? We know it was sent without being proofed back to the panel. Was it sent out without being proofed back to you?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-23 18:24
No.  You said, SPECIFICALLY "Hyatt added that" and then "deceived the ICGA board".  That was simply a lie.

The statement is perfectly OK, our evidence shows that he DID plagiarize both Crafty and Rybka.  Whether Crafty code is in later versions of Rybka is unknown, so far.  Perhaps more info might show up sooner or later...

Make statements that are accurate.  When you claimed "Hyatt added it" that is simply false.  "Hyatt read it and didn't object" would have been true.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-23 18:36
In which ICGA tournament did a Rybka version participate that plagiarized Crafty?
Parent - By Kappatoo (*****) Date 2013-08-23 19:02
There's an even better question: When did Vas plagiarize Rybka?
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-08-23 19:36
It was NOT from the panel. Even though the panel was credited with authorship, alongside you, HW and ML. You were in charge of the last three. It was written by you three and material added over and above the panel discussions. Overall you are responsible for discrepancies, adds, that should not have been there and, because they purport to be from the panel when they are not, mislead both the ICGA and then later readers as to their providence.

The buck stopped with you and it is cowardly to decline the responsibility. In my opinion, the ICGA board has a case against you for deliberate misrepresentation and consequent events. Should they so need it.
Parent - By marcelk (***) Date 2013-08-23 19:41 Edited 2013-08-24 05:04
The defense against this one has always been "the board had access to the prior forum discussions, so they could have checked in case of doubt". Mutual plausible deniability.

EDIT: Didn't have to wait very long.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-23 19:44
I didn't decline responsibility.  You made a statement that was an outright lie, because you claimed that I had added that.  I had done so to deceive the ICGA board.  Pure lies.  I did read it, and did not notice anything untoward, particularly since as I had stated, I had found bits and pieces of my rotated bitmap tables included. 

There is no "deliberate misrepresentation" whatsoever, other than in your purely false accusations...

You'd have a lot more to worry about legally than I do...

I have a lot of evidence backing up my statements.  You have nada, just an intent to defame...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-08-23 20:01 Upvotes 1
Something happened, panel discussions and votes. You, as leader of the secretariat of three wrote a summary of the thing that happened, and you, personally and legally are responsible for every word in that summary. The summary, we are informed, contains material that was NOT part of what happened. You are responsible for that additional material, it was under your watch, you proofed the document, you authored it. The document says you wrote it, although it also says the panel wrote it, which is another untruth, especially since they were not given the opportunity to see or proof it before it was published.

If the ICGA needed to, they coudl simply say thta they entrusted you with summarising the panel happenstances, that you were responsible for the addition of extra material, that they were misled with all the consequences that entailed. The buck for the accuracy of the summary stopped with you.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-23 20:11
What is "not a part of what happened?"  The "summary" was not the only thing the ICGA board looked at.  They had access to the entire wiki, including the discussions, the evidence, the votes, most of which was NOT in the summary report.

Please grow up and stop trying to act like an attorney...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-08-23 20:59
Since you are likening the process to a court case, the summary would be a legal document. It is unlawful to doctor, add to or misrepresent in such a document. The expression "pervert the course of justice" is the term used in English law. If you engage in this criminal act with others, then it is termed "conspiracy".

The material about Crafty was entered over and above the heads of the panel, falsely purporting to be from the panel. That's just for starters.

The ICGA board asked you for a summary of the panel discussions and votes. You provided them with the thoughts of Chairman Bob. And then added the panel as authors.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-23 21:33
Nothing was entered "over and above the heads of the panel."  It was actually first discovered because the PANEL raised the issue about early versions.  Again, you really ought to stop making up statements where you have no idea what actually went on.

"Bob" was NOT the primary author of the final report.  Mark Lefler wrote most of the text and sort of took the position of "summary writer" voluntarily.

Yet again, you have no idea, but you are willing to offer tons of opinion, even if it is totally wrong.

The board asked us to produce a report they could release publicly, something that would be easier for the layperson to read than to sift through all the wiki evidence, much of which is well beyond the understanding of non-computer folks.  Third time you have provided an opinion that was COMPLETELY wrong...
Parent - - By marcelk (***) Date 2013-08-24 05:04
The panel did not discuss any Crafty code in ICGA playing Rybka, unlike the summary report's statement. The summary report was not written by the panel, nor reviewed within the panel. So Chris is correct and you are not.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 23:51
You can read the ICGA summary any way you won't.  I don't read it as saying "there is crafty code in the versions that played in ICGA events."  I read it as "Vas plagiarized Crafty AND Fruit to create rybka versions.

Is that REALLY such a big deal?  Clearly he copied Crafty code right and left.  That appears to be ok, somehow?
Parent - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-08-25 00:26
If he violated the license agreement of crafty, then he should be punished for it.
However, if that violation had nothing to do with the ICGA event, then the ICGA should not punish him for it.  The ICGA should punish Vas for breaking ICGA rules in their tournaments.  They should not punish Vas for things he did elsewhere that had nothing to do with the ICGA.

That punishments should be separate.

If there was no crafty code in the version of Rybka that played in the ICGA event, then it is absurd to punish him for what happened in that event in regards to the crafty license agreement.
If there was actual fruit code beyond fair use in the copy of Rybka that played in ICGA events, then it makes sense to punish him for that.

On the other hand, if he has engaged in wrongdoing, and if you are the wronged party, then you have every right to pursue legal action against Vas for wrongdoing that allegedly took place.

Of course, I am not a lawyer.  But, I think common sense can prevail here.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-24 07:58 Edited 2013-08-24 08:11
Having some backgrounds in psychology, it is quite clear to me now, after reading many of your posts in this forum, what your problems are:

Your main emotion in this Rybka case is fear. Fear that misleading others (panel, ICGA, computer chess world) will be uncovered and you will be blamed. That's why you are defending like a Tiger here, because every revelation is a threat to you. You also try to agressively convince people that you are the only one who is right and the rest is wrong. This is all connected to fear.

There are also a strong indications of cognitive dissonance in your posts. Let me give an example:

1. A smoker knows that smoking is bad.
2. The smoker keeps smoking.

#2 is in contradiction with #1, he should stop smoking. Instead the smoker will defend #2 with arguments like 'my mother smoked and she became 90 years old' and 'I don't see people dying from smoking'.

Taking the analogy to the Rybka case:

1. You know that mr Rajlich hasn't copied code, nor plagiarized Crafty in ICGA tournaments and you know that you have been misleading the ICGA about this.
2. You keep telling everybody that mr Rajlich is guilty of everything you claimed earlier on.

#2 is in contradiction with #1, the truth is that your earlier claim was wrong (and you know this). Instead you will defend #2 with arguments like 'what other intelligent people say in this case doesn't matter, is not true or is just a plain lie'.

Keeping smoking is not going to help the smoker, likewise it is not going to help you to keep denying the truth.

Ergo: someone with a clear consience never would act like you do, namely reacting to all counter evidence and people disagreeing with you in such an agressive way.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 20:02
I have no fear about misleading others.  First, "others" discovered most of the evidence.  "others" filed the formal protest with the ICGA.  "others" made up the panel.  I'd suggest returning that degree if that is the best you can do...

You, I might diagnose as "in denial".  IE "yes, he copied crafty, violated copyright, violated EULA, violated tournament participation rules, but that is not important since that specific set of versions did not participate in ICGA events.  "yes, there is evidence of crafty's rotated bitboards in 1.0 beta, but that doesn't count because that version did not participate in ICGA events."  "it might even be that 2.3.2 has that rotated bitboard code, but the ICGA doesn't know EXACTLY which version participated, other than the statement by Lukas here."

Other new evidence has been shown as Richard continues to RE 1.0 beta.  Some examples.  Hash store/probe uses the same approach of storing 2 bounds, even though neither use mtd(f) where that is usually seen.  The hashing approach is identical.  The code matches fruit, with the exception that vas took the fruit hash store code and broke it up into distinct procedures, one to store LOWER, one to store UPPER, One for EXACT.  But what is done inside those is an exact match.  I think it was Richard that mentioned pawn hashing being somewhat different in that Rybka stores the king-safety values in the pawn hash (king-side pawn shelter, queen-side shelter, and center shelter.  I've seen that before:  Check any crafty version.  I've always used this approach to deal with evaluating the loss of castling rights...  Did his code come from Crafty?  Haven't looked...

I have perfectly polite discussions with some.  But you can't expect discussions to remain polite when one side intentionally distorts, resorts to name-calling, and such...
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 20:55

> "others" filed the formal protest with the ICGA; "others" made up the panel.


You keep saying "others"  filed the formal protest.

What part did you play in formulating the protest?  Were you contacted and did you advise them from the "side lines"?  Perhaps, giving them to understand that your role would be expanded later, knowing your connections with David Levy and affiliations to the  ICGA? Did you have them understand that you could better serve their cause acting from a position of authority within the ICGA?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 23:49
None.  Zero.  Nada.  I had no idea there WOULD be a formal protest until news of it broke.  Sorry to burst yet another bubble...

Feel free to contact Fabien and ask, I assume he was the primary "mover and shaker" since it was his program.

No discussions whatsoever, regardless of what you might imagine...
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 23:51 Edited 2013-08-24 23:53
You had to be contacted -or how did you come to know about? You didn't just drop from the sky and learn about it.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 01:41
Er, David???

Or did you forget about that???

He asked Mark L, Harvey and myself if we would be willing to sort of "chair" this and any future investigations that would be necessary
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 02:17
Back it up! CCC  -Richard got the petition, Don got the petition...Ed got the petition... miraculously!!!! YOU didn't?
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 05:24
Back it up how?  I simply was not involved.  I was asked at one point if I would be willing to review their protest.  I declined.  I never saw it until it came through David.  I don't see how it can be more directly explained than that...
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 02:20
Back it up! CCC  -Richard got the petition, Don got the petition...Ed got the petition... miraculously!!!! YOU didn't?

Bob you say , you were never were asked to sign the petition?

And you say Rajlich copied code?

I see a trend here Bob! A very real pattern of behavior.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 05:23
I believe I was asked to sign at some point, yes.  You asked if I was consulted to assist with the protest.  Answer:  NO.  You asked if I had started the process.  Answer:  NO.  You asked if I had encouraged or helped or whatever.  Answer:  No.

David started thinking about the secretariat before there was any formal protest.  He could see the writing on the wall since we had seen robo* and such already, with more than one attempting to enter an ICGA event.

I simply declined to sign, and I replied that I might well end up doing the investigation.

Simple enough?  I knew NOTHING other than I had seen Fabien's "open letter" as published on CCC.

Here's the text of the email I received, with names redacted:

> Fabien, XXXX, Zach and I have been working on an open-letter to send to
> the ICGA about the Fruit-Rybka issue.
>
> I am aware you have been involved for sometime in uncovering the Rybka-Fruit
> origins. Mark Watkins has kindly been working on a document (attached)
> bringing evidence together. We wish to submit this and the open-letter to
> the ICGA once we have approached other programmers, however we would first
> like to get your views on this information as you are a highly respected
> author and expert who has already looked at the Fruit-Rybka issue.
>
> Please find the proposed open-letter below. Would you agree to put your name
> to this letter with us and other programmers in due course?


As I mentioned, David had already talked with Mark L, Harvey and myself, I think right after his "attack of the clones" article he wrote.  Here's my response, short and sweet:

I had better not try to review this.  David Levy has asked me to serve on
the 3-member committee that will review these issues, which would make
this a potential conflict of interest for me, obviously...

Does that seem simple enough for you?  I had nothing to do with the protest, just the initial investigation, and then the panel.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 05:51 Edited 2013-08-25 05:57

> I believe I was asked to sign at some point, yes.


Finally you get around to answering the question   only to give an incomplete answer,  and then try and lead me off into another direction with a lot of unrelated bullshit to the question I asked.

I'm beginning to think that you don't have the capacity to be real with anyone on any level.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 00:47
Then stop asking questions that are "hidden".  I did my best to answer EXACTLY what you asked.  If it was not complete, continue asking.  I've never tried to hide a single thing here...

That answer was as complete as I know how to make it.  I was asked in advance of that email if I would consider being on the initial group of 3 people to be responsible for investigating ICGA cases where someone was accused of having a non-original question.  It had happened several times prior to that already.  I had said yes.

I was asked to review the protest document and assist with making changes.  I declined and never received a copy of the protest itself, just a notice that one was coming based on Zach's reverse-engineering...

What more can one say.  That's not incomplete.  It is ALL there is, period...

When the official protest was filed, we were notified, and started the process of forming the panel.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 04:24

> I was asked to review the protest document and assist with making changes.  I declined and never received a copy of the protest itself...



Of course you declined -how would that look revising both the protest document and the closing summary to the ICGA Investigation. That would clearly show you had an ax to grind.

Regardless, above and beyond  the verdict, you , Williamson and Levy shamefully  managed to  turned this entire ICGA  investigation into a  debacle.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 13:41
No...  Vas quite competently did THAT all by himself...  Had he followed the rules, this would have never happened.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 21:23
First I asked-

What part did you play in formulating the protest?  Were you contacted and did you advise them from the "side lines"?  Perhaps, giving them to understand that your role would be expanded later, knowing your connections with David Levy and affiliations to the  ICGA? Did you have them understand that you could better serve their cause acting from a position of authority within the ICGA?

Your answer-

>None.  Zero.  Nada. I had no idea there WOULD be a formal protest until news of it broke.


Next I asked you-

You had to be contacted -or how did you come to know about?

>Er, David???           Or did you forget about that???            He asked Mark L, Harvey and myself if we would be willing to sort of "chair" this and any future investigations that would be necessary


A smart ass response indicating that you got word after the petition went to Levy and he was considering an investigation.

My response-

Back it up! CCC  -Richard got the petition, Don got the petition...Ed got the petition... miraculously!!!! YOU didn't?


Then you completely change up and admit having been approached to sign and  "review" the petition before it went to Levy. Review means consult upon its content. But the important point is this all took place before it went into circulation. One doesn't review anything while it is in circulation and signatures are already appended.

Your response-

>  I was asked at one point if I would be willing to review their protest.  I declined.


Then you produce an email showing that you did have knowledge before hand - you contradicted yourself in spades.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 23:49
I thought I explained in small enough words that we would not have to go over and over it.  Alas, not..

I was contacted by David FIRST, and asked to be a member of a 3-person group that would investigate protests.

I accepted.

I was at some point later asked to review the protest and sign.  I declined.  I did not review anything, revise anything, or even read anything.  Until...
Later the official protest was filed, and sent to the what-we-now-called "the secretariat".

the investigation started.

What is so hard about that time-line?  What seems wrong.  I send you most of the email asking me if I would be willing to assist in writing the protest and then sign it.  I clearly responded "no because I had already been asked to review such protests."

Nothing contradicts anything else.  I don't know what more I can say.

Believe what you want, I REALLY don't care.  I know what happened, and that's more than good enough for me.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 22:46
So, David Levy contacted you or you contacted him.

Either way you got in touch with each other when the petition was in formalization, agreeing that as a  Secretariat you would be in an excellent position of power to make sure that  Rajlich received a verdict of guiltily by hook or by crook.

And a reminder of your penchant for arranging data to spell out what you want it to say!
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 23:27
David contacted me in early 2011, before I had heard about the protest being filed, obviously.  Otherwise I would not have responded as I did, telling them that I did not feel comfortable reviewing or signing the protest since I would be asked to help with the investigation.  I did not contact david, he asked me directly, prior to the protest being filed and prior to my hearing about it.

There was no "make sure that Rajlich received a verdict of guilty" period...

And a reminder for your penchant to hyperbole, distortion, and sideways implications...  None of which are or were true...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-25 06:42

> Fabien, XXXX, Zach and I have been working on an open-letter to send to
> the ICGA about the Fruit-Rybka issue.


It's not so hard to guess the XXXX and author itself of that particular email :wink:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 00:43
Guess away.  Doesn't matter to me at all...

You obviously got the request, I would assume you know who wrote it and who XXX was.  Reveal if you want.  I choose to leave it anonymous since it was in an email...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-26 07:27
Amusing to see you play Mr. Innocent, since you posted a private email from Watkins.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 13:38
What private email from Watkins?  The email I just posted was not from him...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-26 17:38
Don't lie now.

I have the email right in front of me.

Sender is Watkins, receiver you.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 20:55
I'm not lying whatsoever.  I asked a question.  What email?  About the two different versions of Rybka?  I suppose I could dig up the email where I asked him if it was ok to publish that if it will make you feel all bubbly inside...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-26 22:08 Edited 2013-08-26 22:16 Upvotes 1
I'm not lying whatsoever.

You just did not expect me to have that Watkins email from which you quoted and you thought you could get away with a lie. Well, Fabien included a copy.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:12:23 +0000
From: Fabien Letouzey
Subject: FW: Fruit-Rybka issue
To: Ed Schroder

Hi Ed, long time no see!!!

I am taking a new start in life and it is unfortunate that I have to take care of this Rybka mess instead of enjoying life.

BB+ is the person who wrote the PDF document on the OpenChess forum.
He and Zach are the ones who had the deepest look at the Rybka code.

The letter is from Mark Uniacke and SMK.
Here's a forward of an email they sent to Bob.

You might or might not be interested in an official complaint to the ICGA.
I was actually the one to suggest we also ask Chrilly and you.

Fabien.

Forwarded

From: Mark Watkins
To: Robert Hyatt
CC: SMK; Fabien; Zach;
Subject: Fruit-Rybka issue
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:59:03 +0000

Hi Bob,

Fabien, Stefan, Zach and I have been working on an open-letter to send to
the ICGA about the Fruit-Rybka issue.

I am aware you have been involved for sometime in uncovering the Rybka-Fruit
origins. Mark Watkins has kindly been working on a document (attached)
bringing evidence together. We wish to submit this and the open-letter to
the ICGA once we have approached other programmers, however we would first
like to get your views on this information as you are a highly respected
author and expert who has already looked at the Fruit-Rybka issue.

Please find the proposed open-letter below. Would you agree to put your name
to this letter with us and other programmers in due course?

If you have any feedback on the document or letter, or have any further
evidence that could be included in this document please let us know.

Best wishes,
Mark

>
> Dear David Levy, Jaap van den Herik and the ICGA Board,
>
> Recently the author of Fruit, Fabien Letouzey, wrote an open letter to the
> computer chess community where he raised the concern that Rybka 1.0 beta may
> be a derivative of Fruit 2.1 in this public post:
> http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37762


...........

skipped the rest as it is known.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 23:39 Edited 2013-08-26 23:41 Upvotes 1
I don't see the big deal, other than YOU are lying with the source.  hint:  see my other post.  It was NOT from Mark Watkins.  That is purely your dishonesty at work, although I am sure you will eventually explain it away as a harmless mistake once you contact Watkins to ask if he wrote that to me...

BTW the lines right above the header say it came from Uniacke.  Why did you edit the name to be watkins in the From: line?

In any case, your attempted point is exactly what???
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-08-27 00:08
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=480290#pid480290

It's no lie, but a mistake.

And when I make them, I admit and apologize.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 00:39
As do I.  WHEN I make a mistake.

You call me a liar, when you are posting busted info...
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-08-27 15:56
I have never seen you apologizing for the huge number of lies and mistakes you have posted on the Rybka case in the past few years.

F.e. we are awaiting your apologies for your mistake in the ICGA verdict of claiming 'Vas plagiarized Crafty in ICGA tournaments'.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 21:11 Edited 2013-08-24 21:19
I've already heard countless times the EULA crap and what follows in the litany of your rant. I'd rather hear about your connection with those who formulated the protest and requested the investigation.

I'm sure you were informed and more than likely contacted for advice. Who better then you! Dr. Rober Hyatt 43 years in the field.  CCC's most notable computer scientist! And you're about to tell me you were not privy to anything concerning this protest?!!!

[edit]

I just had to putt a couple exclamation marks after that question mark!
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2013-08-24 22:12

>  I'd rather hear about your connection with those who formulated the protest and requested the investigation.


And Harvey Williamson's too ?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 23:46
No I wasn't "contacted".  I didn't have any influence on the original protest.  I didn't suggest it.  I had nothing to do with it whatsoever.  I assume Fabien was the original author, and that others signed on with him.  You'd have to ask them...

So yes, that is correct.  I did not know it was coming.  I assume SOMEONE had discussions about it.  Not me.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-24 23:59 Edited 2013-08-25 00:01
I'm not suggesting that you started it, Bob, I'm asking if you were consulted once , say Fabien -if you will got the ball rolling. You aren't trying to tell me that no one contacted you at all to get guidance form you? From you long history and expertise in the field? Come on!

No one contacted you to let you know what they were about to do????:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::grin::grin::grin::grin::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 01:39
Nobody contacted me for any guidance, no one contacted me to ask for help writing the protest, no one contacted me to ask for help of any kind.  Remember, however, that I had been involved in the early investigation, so one could assume that I knew a lot about what had happened, already.  I mean, they were members of CCC, they could read/write...
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2013-08-25 00:07
CCC 's resident  expert computer chess scientist gets entirely left out of the LOOP!  I might be slow -but not that damned slow.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Asides and commentary on RV's decompilation and reports
1 210 11 12 13 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill