"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!
If Komodo enters, they will be playing amongst the pygmies...
>> 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.
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.
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.
2. It was a long time ago and I can not remember. I have no intention of going through all the emails again.
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.
Unfortunately, we tend to put our own self-interest first, no matter what.
One of the many tragedies of the human condition.
> 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?
And when push comes to shove they are overruled
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.
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..."
> 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.
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?
-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...
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.
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...
> 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.
It wouldn't matter if Rybka contained Fruit code (which it doesn't), two wrongs do not make a right.
> 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.
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.
> Do you believe that Richard violated the law by RE'ing Rybka 2.3.2's hash store code
> and showing
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.
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.
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.
The act of RE is not illegal. It is the publication of the data that violates the law.
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.
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.
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.
>Not one scintilla of 2.3.2 has been disassembled and distributed to ANYBODY.
I count 3 illegal R23.x downloads.
>Not one scintilla of 2.3.2 has been disassembled and distributed to ANYBODY.
That was (is) an untruth.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill