Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / ICGA denial of appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-03 20:14
Let's see what Marco Costalba had to say:

"I have always written all the worst that is possible to write about igca and the farce they call world  championship, you can find my comments with broad explanations everywhere, just Google for it.

Now I stay consistent with that : I don't want to endorse them, I don't want they use  SF to advertise themselves and their void tournament. "


Let's take that as a firm no! :lol:
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 20:15
So that leaves 1 and also the possibility of Komodo entering.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-03 20:22
The chance of an official SF entry is close to zero. If it is entered by other than the principal authors, an extended sheet will be needed to list all of the authors, and there may even be authors that are on other teams.

If Komodo enters, they will be playing amongst the pygmies...
Parent - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 20:23

>> If Komodo enters, they will be playing amongst the pygmies


Am glad you did not say the pygfarmers I would not want to run into Chris.
Parent - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 20:26
On a serious note I agree that 1 of the 3 principal authors must be directly involved with an entry.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-03 20:11
I think I like this Lukas Braesch guy. Says it like it is. No bullshit.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2015-05-04 14:49
He couldn't have said it any better!
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2015-05-04 14:47
"Maybe things were different in the 80s, but today in 2015, ICGA is useless, irrelevant, and incredibly arrogant. We do not need the ICGA. It's the ICGA needs SF desperately to save their pathetic tournament from falling into oblivion."

Good to read that team Stockfish has the same opinion as we have. The statement leaves no room for ANY discussion where they stand and I fully agree with them. EVERY word of it.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2015-05-03 21:04
Harvey, I have 2 questions for you and/or Bob.

1. Will the ICGA (with respect to transparency) publish the program details as given on the participant entry form? Would be interesting with the updated rule #2.

2. I am still curious what motivated you (and/or Bob and/or Mark) to keep the silence for 2 days before responding on Chris entry application for the Panel. Please answer this - did you (or Bob or Mark) consult (or contacted) (or talked to) David regarding Chris wish to participate?

I ask, because I was accepted promptly and could see others approved while Chris entry was stalled for at least for 2 days.
Parent - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-04 09:22
1. I don't know you would have to ask the ICGA what their plans are.

2. It was a long time ago and I can not remember. I have no intention of going through all the emails again.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2013-10-14 21:58
The ICGA is caught in a double bind.

The summary of the ICGA verdict against Vas, clearly shows the ICGA's intent to go beyond their organizational boundaries- to hunt and keep tabs on Vas. It is a clear case of intent to do malice-and,  Dr. Bob, with is 8,640 posts substantiates that  intent par excellence. 

They are damned if they do and certainly damned if they don't.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2013-10-14 22:36
Perhaps they have a chance to change the course of computer chess history for the better!
Parent - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-14 23:44
Everyone always has a chance to make things better for all involved by making good decisions.
Unfortunately, we tend to put our own self-interest first, no matter what.
One of the many tragedies of the human condition.
Parent - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2013-10-17 20:36

> Perhaps they have a chance to change the course of computer chess history for the better!


I think they lost whatever chance they may have had when David Levy allowed the ICGA to make a public exhibition out of the investigation. Compounded with  the Secretariat making public statements denouncing Rajlich as each piece of data was leaked publicly by Watkins via another, public,  forum-spread throughout the internet before anyone had a chance to refute his findings.

What's  David Levy to say, that he was not informed that his Secretariat had mislead him and completely run amuck and that only now he was finding all this out?
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-15 11:44
Hyatt has repeately offered Vas an appeal if he asks for one. Recently. Many times. Hyatt represents the ICGA. Lefler and Wiliamson, also Secretariat and also representatives, have also made the same offer.

Indeed.

And when push comes to shove they are overruled :wink:
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-15 13:25
In life it's very normal to appoint someone to represent you.

I'm buying a house at the moment and of course we have a solicitor. If the seller turned round and said, "I'm not taking your offer seriously - it was made by your solicitor, not by you", we'd all think the seller was loopy.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-15 13:49
Hyatt's objective is to get Vas in a room and metaphorically beat him up. The verbal violence being a substitute for the real violence Hyatt has been taught by his upbringing to mete out to persons who offend him. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the basis of the demand that Vas appear in person, and the basis of the anger that Vas unsurprisingly has declined to do so.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 15:23
I don't have any objective at all other that to prevent cheaters from playing in events I participate in.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-15 15:43
Your 8700 posts in two or so years on Rybka Forum alone suggest otherwise. That's what, ten "I hate Vas and want to destroy him" posts every day on average, on Vas's own forum alone. Some people say you're obsessed, others that you suffer from Narcissistic Personaility Disorder, I think you have a God Complex, but whatever, you certainly were the most unsuitable person possible to have chosen to lead the "investigation" of Vas and Rybka. Obvious from the previous three years anti-Vas campaign of yours when you repeatedly called him liar, hooligan and thief. Has a day gone past in the last five years when you took a holiday from the Vas hate postings? Don't think so. What was Levy thinking when he appointed you?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 15:47
My posts are not "I hate Vas and want to destroy him."  My posts are "I don't like cheating."

Here's an idea I posted on CCC this morning.

Supposedly the 2.3.2n source is magically available.  Since 2.3.2 is a free download from the Rybka web site, why not post the 2.3.2n source code there.  EVERYONE can look at it and compare to fruit.  If it is as clean as you guys claim, would that not create a groundswell demanding another look?  Of course, it MIGHT produce a groundswell in the other direction, which is why I doubt this would ever happen.

Claiming "secrets" is nonsense.  Many programs are stronger than 2.3.2 now, including several open-source programs.  So that excuse doesn't cut it.  Vas claimed he lost the source way back in the early days of this fruit/rybka discussion, making it impossible to reveal.  Apparently that is no longer the case.  So, source code, please?  Then we can put this to rest for all time, EASILY. 

You have a viable solution, let's see if it happens...

sort of "put up or shut up..."
Parent - - By Ray (****) Date 2013-10-15 18:23

> Supposedly the 2.3.2n source is magically available.  Since 2.3.2 is a free download from the Rybka web site, why not post the 2.3.2n source code there.  EVERYONE can look at it and compare to fruit.  If it is as clean as you guys claim, would that not create a groundswell demanding another look?  Of course, it MIGHT produce a groundswell in the other direction, which is why I doubt this would ever happen.


Wrong, it was 2.2n2 wasn't it ?

And why should any commercial author post their source code for all to see ? Submit to independent experts yes, under a confidentiality agreement. Or maybe that is your agenda  - ALL commercial authors should post their code and share it.
Parent - - By cipri (**) [de] Date 2013-10-15 18:44
Submit to independent experts yes, under a confidentiality agreement.

If I remember correctly, he was offered this option too. But what can you do if the cat [or ed]   was eating the source code?
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2013-10-15 18:53
Yes, he never had the source. Now it has been found at a different location, just like those Doctor Who episodes recently discovered after 35 years !!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 23:27
What was 2.3.2n?  Supposedly the recently discovered source is that version.  The versions distributed are:

-rw-r--r--@ 1 hyatt  staff   3821568 Jun  4  2010 Rybkav2.3.2a.mp.w32.exe
-rw-r--r--@ 1 hyatt  staff   4328960 Jun  4  2010 Rybkav2.3.2a.mp.x64.exe

Which seems to correspond with Lukas' comments during that ICGA event that he was running 2.3.2a...
Parent - - By Ray (****) Date 2013-10-16 00:55

> What was 2.3.2n


I have never heard of it. Is it an unreleased later version than 2.3.2a ?

I must have misread things, I thought it was 2.2n2 that was found.
Parent - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2013-10-16 03:42
There was a Rybka 1.2n But like you I only remember and have Rybka 2.2n2 MP
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-15 18:59
You mean the 2.3.2 that has has been already raped and pillaged, with the help of your disassembly btw, it's ideas are now in all or most "top" programs, so Vas may as well just give the rest away to all the charming people who are content to see him rot in a hole? Not up to me, but I rather doubt he wants to do you and your kind any favours with what's left of his ideas. If, of course, this 2.3n actually exists, which is by no means clear at the moment. Just rumours, nothing solid.

Meanwhile, back to the topic of this particular thread.

The supposed "cheating" was "stopped" in May 2011 but that didn't seem enough foryou. If that was all you were interested in, why the 8700 "I hate Vas and want to destroy him" posts on Vas's forum after May 2011 and continuing? Nobody invited you here.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 23:23
Not one scintilla of 2.3.2 has been disassembled and distributed to ANYBODY.  1.0 beta has been published in its hex-rays entirety by Ed.  There are excerpts in the ICGA report for parts that match fruit closely.  But not 2.3.2...

As far as "why did I come here?"  Because I WAS asked, in fact.  My only posts here have been REPLIES to posts by others either (a) answering questions;  (b) correcting false statements;  (c) explaining the actual reason the rules exist as they do today...

You won't find a SINGLE post by me addressing the word "hate" toward ANYBODY.  Sorry.  Another false statement, which seems to be the norm here.  I've not tried to destroy anybody.  Vas wrecked his credibility all by himself, I didn't force him to copy old crafty versions or old fruit versions and call that "original programming."

As to the existence of an old source version, it seems shaky at best.  Harvey has already noted that they didn't need to send Hiarcs source to have it tested by this mystery guy, so who knows what to believe...
Parent - - By Nick (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-16 15:23

> Not one scintilla of 2.3.2 has been disassembled and distributed to ANYBODY.


Huh?  Another one of your incorrect statements.  You published a file called Rybka232eval.txt which contained disassembly with comments.  That was an illegal action.  It's interesting that a tenured associate professor allegedly involved with computing, would support an illegal action, but there you go.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 17:15
If something matches fruit, it is perfectly legal to post it according to GPL.  The stuff I published from 2.3.2 was the rotated bitboard stuff, richard added the copied hash code.
Parent - - By Nick (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-16 18:05
It's the publishing of the results (not the disassembling itself) of a commercial product which is illegal in many countries.  The only way to prove that the ICGA's actions in this case are illegal is to sue Levy, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen in this matter (which is fortunate for you).

It wouldn't matter if Rybka contained Fruit code (which it doesn't), two wrongs do not make a right.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-16 18:21

> but it doesn't look like that is going to happen in this matter (which is fortunate for you).


I would not be so sure of that, with the appeal denial David burnt all bridges.
Parent - By Nick (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-16 18:35
Ed, you know my view.  On the publishing of the disassembled Rybka 2.3.2 I believe that Vas has an open-and-shut won case, but IANAL.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:01
It is absolutely permissible to use re'ed evidence to prove someone violated copyright or patent law.  That is entered into court, and is public unless the organization that was harmed wishes the details to remain private, since THAT organization is the one that actually owns that which was illegally copied.   What was released was that which was necessary to show that Rybka is unoriginal in many places.  One example:  Do you believe that Richard violated the law by RE'ing Rybka 2.3.2's hash store code and showing that it EXACTLY matches Fruit except for a couple of values moved around in a structure?  That code was Fabien's.  It was originally published under the GPL.  That trumps any copyright Vas would try to assert on that code because it is clearly a copy from Fruit.

Rybka DOES contain fruit code.  There is no better example than (a) the ttable stuff;  (b) the rotated bitboard stuff;  The evaluation evidence is simply adding to the pile.
Parent - - By Nick (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-16 20:09

> Do you believe that Richard violated the law by RE'ing Rybka 2.3.2's hash store code


No

> and showing


Yes.

It's the publishing of it which is most probably illegal.  I know a lot of this goes on in the relatively small world of computer chess programming, but that still doesn't make it legal.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:30
In your world there would be no way to pursue copyright infringement actions.  It is a civil action for the most part, although parts of it can be criminalized.  The tt code richard posted was copied from Fruit, clearly.  Fruit tt code is GPL, which gives ANYONE the right to publish it in public.  Copying it into another program does not circumvent that right.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:10
Do you think that they would publish the reverse engineering evidence if a formal verdict of guilty is not achieved?
Do you think that they will collect evidence without warrants?
The differences between a private citizen doing it and a court doing it are obvious.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:28
What are you talking about?  When FSF jumped on the GPL bandwagon regarding CISCO, WHO did the RE work?  Answer:  FSF. They were not court-appointed investigators.  They investigated and THEN initiated the court case for copyright infringement.  There were no warrants.  The court heard the evidence.  This was a civil trial.  There was no "prosecutor".  Just a plaintiff and a defendant.  Cisco was the latter.

So what's with this warrant nonsense and such?  FSF examined the devices in question, looked inside, and provided evidence showing copyright infringement.  Which they then won.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:40
Did they publish the re data to the public before a rendering of guilty?

The act of RE is not illegal.  It is the publication of the data that violates the law.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 22:38
The only data that was published prior to the verdict was what Zach did on his own.
Parent - - By Adam Hair (**) [us] Date 2013-10-16 22:48
The ICGA does not have the legal authority to determine if copyright law has been broken.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-17 00:44
The infamous circular argument.  Vas is not guilty because you are not allowed to show the evidence that shows he is guilty, and without any evidence, he is innocent...

repeated ad nauseum.

Fortunately, if someone wants to challenge this stuff legally, it will all be resolved.  All the crafty code certainly has a copyright that was violated.  The Fruit tt code has a copyright that was violated.  I believe it is a can of worms no rational person would choose to open.
Parent - - By Adam Hair (**) [us] Date 2013-10-17 03:12
What circular argument? The ICGA was perfectly within their rights to privately review the evidence and make a decision. I believe that the verdict was probably correct. However, that still does not mean that the evidence developed during the investigation can legally be made public. The ICGA has the right to make judgments that relate to their rules, but they have no authority in regards to copyright.

You have been trying to weasel around this fact. Sure, Rybka 2.3.2a is freely available from this site, has no EULA bundled with it, and is 6 to 7 years old. That does not necessarily mean that it is open game to expose its code to the public because you are certain it contains code from Crafty and Fruit and you want to prove it to the general computer chess community. Prove it to a judge first, to somebody with the legal authority to make that determination.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-17 15:21
Please explain exactly what protection 2.3.2 has under copyright law.  It is given away freely.  US law (and international law) makes it legal to RE anything UNLESS there is a specific clause in the license agreement to prevent this, and even with such a law, there's plenty of case law around where RE was STILL allowed.  There's no such restriction on 2.3.2.  2.3.2 is far behind the leaders today, making it highly unlikely there are any "trade secrets" that are unknown to others.   I don't understand why you guys want to NOW hang your hats on this specious argument.  IE my argument with you on CCC, as an example.  Apparently you have the perspective that if I say "I re'ed this program" that is bad.

As far as the ICGA goes, I think they feel safe enough due to the GPL nature of Fruit, and the specific EULA in Crafty, to not be concerned.  The evidence is strong enough to show that ALL of the Crafty stuff published is a clear copyright violation, and it is strong enough to show that much fruit code was also infringed and making that public does not violate any sort of copyright since the GPL code came first.
Parent - - By Adam Hair (**) [us] Date 2013-10-16 16:06 Edited 2013-10-16 16:24
Ryb232eval.txt and RybkaEvalCompare.pdf are available at ChessVibes and the Computer Chess Wiki. Rybka 2.3.2a was definitely disassembled and distributed, at least in part.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 17:14
Running something through objdump is not RE'ing anything.  It shows nothing that is not available to anyone that buys the product and does this for themselves.  Hex-rays output would be somewhat different.  Hand-reverse-engineering as done by Zach shows what is going on and would certainly be not allowable.  However, for this to be an issue, one does have to show that they were damaged.  Hard to say that it will damage sales of a free product.  The asm I saw for 2.3.2 had no comments or variable names.  Just a raw "objdump -d rybka.exe".
Parent - By Adam Hair (**) [us] Date 2013-10-16 22:43
RybkaEvalCompare.pdf contains more than just ASM dump.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-16 16:45

>Not one scintilla of 2.3.2 has been disassembled and distributed to ANYBODY.


http://icga.wikispaces.com/Rybka-Fruit+Controversy

I count 3 illegal R23.x downloads.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 17:09
Where?  I don't see ANY 2.3.2 stuff EXCEPT for raw asm without comments or variable names.  that is certainly not illegal.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-16 17:15
Aside from the legal issue, you said:

>Not one scintilla of 2.3.2 has been disassembled and distributed to ANYBODY.


That was (is) an untruth.

Misremembering?
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / ICGA denial of appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill