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 bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:23
I use the common definition.  I give away a binary.  ANYBODY can convert to asm.  If they start adding comments, or back-track to C, and publish that, it might be an issue if both of the following are true:

(1) the code I distribute is copyrighted/patented by me.  It was not copied from anybody else where they have a valid copyright on the code; (document r1x64.eval.txt is rybka 1.0 beta, the code given certainly matches Fruit in too many places; r230eval.txt has zero comments or C.  ANYONE can obtain that from the free download of the binary and then using the freely available objdump in the gnu binutils software package;  the third file has comments for the "fruity matches", most has no comments.)

(2) releasing that information damages me in some form or fashion.  Rybka 2.3.2 is WAY below the current crop of chess engines.  There's not likely any "secrets" that have not already been discovered.  Since the program is given away for free, it is hard to imagine any "damage" being done.  Note also that there is ZERO EULA for this binary.  If you download the thing, you get a 32 bit and 64 bit binary, no license, no EULA, no restrictions, etc. 

So no, I do not believe any useful information has been distributed.  If you think raw asm an issue, should be easy enough to get a court to listen?  I WAS thinking more of de-compiled stuff, which has a much higher utility to everyone.  But that's not been done EXCEPT for what Richard provided regarding the hash stuff, and what I provided regarding the rotated bitboard code, ALL of which can be traced back to either Crafty or Fruit as the original source.
Parent - - By cipri (**) [de] Date 2013-10-17 10:13
i guess you must be a judge, or how else do you know what is illegal or not?
Why not go to court, and then get the exact answer if it is illegal or not.
When you see something illegal happening, you should call the police. :-)

It's nice to see how honest your are. First you shout: prove, show us proofs that vas copied.  After efforts have been done, you come and complain why they show their findings.

Since you have contact to vas please remind him, that he said he will open-source rybka (when it is not anymore relevant to business, or something like that) like fabien did.  At least rybka2 and rybka3 are not relevant for business anymore.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-17 14:12 Upvotes 1
Although it seems absurd, even publication of a security exploit can be illegal:
http://www.zdnet.com/publishing-exploit-code-ruled-illegal-in-france-1139183862/

Whether a process is legal or not is quite important.

An honest person will admit that both sides of the debate have valid points.

Robert Hyatt has valid points.
Ed Schroder has valid points.
Other contributors to the discussion have valid points.

When the opposite sides dismiss these valid points out of hand, it simply shows that nobody is listening very hard.

Personally, I think the following:
1.  Everyone has been wronged (Fabian has been wronged, Bob has been wronged, Vas has been wronged).  All of the wrongs are terrible.  Some of them may or may not be legal wrongs.  Some of the wrongs are only moral wrongs and possibly only according to my opinion and therefore others will clearly see them differently.
2.  The process to convict Vas was terrible beyond belief.  If people think that this does not matter, that is the greatest wrong of all, well above all the petty arguments by a landslide and it is not even close.
3.  Justice will never be achieved in this case.

As a result of these things, we all spend a lot of energy shouting into the wind, and passers-by give us all lots of puzzled looks.  These passers-by are the most sensible ones.

IMO-YMMV

P.S.
To me, the biggest problem of all is the ICGA, the second biggest problem is the hypocrisy of the chess programmers and the third biggest problem is refusing to admit that all sides have a point.

P.P.S.
If we weren't all a bunch of petty, whinging jerks, this entire mess would have been settled to everyone's satisfaction long ago.  Too bad.
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-17 14:45
+100

I like the voice of reason.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-17 15:28
Please cite examples of this "hypocrisy".  And do NOT use the word "idea" anywhere in the discussion, because ICGA rules do NOT mention ideas.  Do NOT mention "original" in the context of ideas, because ICGA rules do NOT mention ideas.  The ICGA rules address code copied from program a and used in program b.  Which is perfectly acceptable if the author of A approves AND the author of A does not enter the same event.  So where is this hypocrisy, precisely, besides in your imagination and based on "ideas" as opposed to code.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-17 20:29
Person A goes forwards and backwards through other people's code and uses their excellent ideas.
Person B goes forwards and backwards through other people's code and uses their excellent ideas.
One is acclaimed for his originality, and the other is labeled a cheater.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-17 22:30
Sorry.  You can keep repeating that nonsense ad nauseum, but it is NOT what happened.

Person "B" went through fruit and crafty and COPIED code.  Not ideas.  Time to get off of that horse.  It's dead.  There is a difference between copying code and using ideas created by others.  A BIG difference.  A difference specified in the ICGA rules, which do NOT mention ideas anywhere in them.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-17 22:47
Your two investigators, Zach and Watkins, are both on record saying there is NO copied code.

I went through their documents backwards and forwards and couldn't find any either. Only some ideas and formulas and those were all differently implemented.

You've got a couple of suggestive clues, like 0.0, either you were able then to connect the gaps between those clues with some actual "copied" code, or you weren't. As it happens there wasn't anything in the gaps, just some generally used ideas and formulas, so the suggestive clues led you nowhere, they drew a blank.

At this point you went into a massive lying mode and tried to persuade everybody that totally different code using totally different algorithms was "copied", like the mobility code. hahaha.

In reality, you needed SUBSTANTIAL amounts of copied code to justify those PR releases and your accusations. You don't even have INSUBSTANTIAL amounts.

The copy and modify scenario is real nonsense.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 00:27
Let's keep looking.  Look at the 1.4-1.6.1 evidence that is part of the stuff on the wiki.  Does THAT show verbatim copying or not?  Look at the 2.3.2 hash store code Richard provided.  I put it up side by side with fruit.  Dead ringer.  Rotated bitboard code from Crafty?  dead ringer.  go_parse() almost a perfect dead ringer.  More to come, BTW.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-18 09:33
your usual mish-mash of non-proofs, quirks that aren't quirks, very old code from the crafty test versions that were not released by test beds, bitboard untruths and go-parse (hahaha) again. And eight years later, the alleged "more". Ridiculous nonsense. Your intention is t argue this forever and ever.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 16:45
I think the trans_store code found in Fruit 2.1 and the code Richard provided says all that is needed about this "non-proofs, quirks that aren't quirks, bitboard untruths, and such.  It is 100% convincing to ANYONE that looks at it.  And the uniqueness of the fruit code only makes it more convincing.

As far as "bitboard untruths" I assume you are talking about the crafty bitboard code which has been shown with 100% accuracy to be present in Rybka 1.0 beta and Rybka 2.3.2, not to mention the 1.4-1.6.1 versions.  Your definition of "untruth" must be "anything I don't like and can't refute with solid evidence."  I don't think MOST subscribe to that definition however.

Keep trying, you look nonsensical.  And for the record, _I_ am not the one that keeps this story alive.  I only respond to stuff you and/or ed post.  Look in a mirror.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-17 23:06
The assembly experts said that no code was copied.
So the panel decided to prove "non-literal copying" took place.
Unfortunately, they did not follow any of the procedures used to prove non-literal copying.

While it is possible that Vas did copy code, it has not been proven.

I realize that you think it was proven.  My opinion (that it has not been proven) is no better than yours.  It is also no worse than yours and I am not the only one that thinks it.

As far as "non-literal copying" goes, in some abstract sense that is what is going on when you take someone else's idea.
So to prove real "non-literal copying" has taken place {which implies wrongdoing}, I think that you should actually demonstrate it and not just make up your own silly procedures with no factual basis.

IMO-YMMV
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 00:25
Let's back up JUST A MOMENT.

In the EVALUATION, we took the non-literal copying approach, because that is what was done.  But that is not ALL of the evidence, you realize?  The early crafty versions were literal copies, not non-literal copies.  The Rybka 2.3.2 hashing code is a literal copy of Fruit's code, not a non-literal copy.  The bitboard code is a literal copy of Crafty's rotated bitboard code, not a non-literal copy.  The go_parse() code is a literal copy with a couple of minor changes, but inadvertently including some floating point constants that are a dead giveaway.

You do not buy the rybka 1.4-1.6.1 evidence that shows verbatim copying of MAJOR pieces of code?  You did not examine the RE'ed hash store code that Richard provided and compare it to Fruit to see it is a dead ringer?  There is plenty of both types of copying and the evidence is growing.  It is not done yet...

non-literal copying is not copying ideas.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-18 02:20 Upvotes 1
1.  The ICGA can penalize a program for playing in its event if it plays in its event.
So, while the crafty evidence may be compelling and even be evidence of wrongdoing, it has nothing to do with the ICGA contest.

The documents for the ICGA decision all say that there is no literal copying.

I do not agree that there is proof of literal copying in Rybka 2.3.2.
Non literal copying has a very specific legal meaning.
Non literal copying has a very specific method of proof.
You did not follow even one single step of the very specific method of proof, therefore you have not proven non-literal copying.

Here is what I have seen.
It is likely that Crafty code was directly used in the program sent to the beta tester.  I have not verified this for myself, but I trust the person who told me it seems likely.  But that version never played in any ICGA event.  So the ICGA cannot penalize for that.  You, on the other hand, could likely go after Vas for copyright infringement in that case.
For the Rybka 1.0 beta, it is very clear that some Fruit evaluation terms are highly similar to what appears in Fruit.  Ed has shown in painstaking detail that there are minor differences in each and every case.
Again, in the case of Rybka 1.0 beta, it never participated in any ICGA event.  So even if it were a direct copy of fruit with strings edited, the ICGA has no jurisdiction over what happens outside of their events.  The rebuttals by Ed are enough to show that code copying is inconclusive.

As for Rybka 2.3.2, which is the only version that matters, I saw some interesting stuff about the hash table and nothing else.  But I have seen many programs that have extremely similar hash tables.  And nobody kicks them out of tournaments, let alone publishes their name earth-wide as cheaters.

Here is my take on it:
Everyone who is a chess programmer and writes a strong program analyzes the ideas of other programmers.  That includes Bob Hyatt, Fabien Letouzey, Vas Rajlich etc.
It is clear that Vas did something that no chess programmer likes:
He took a lot of good ideas out of one program Fruit.
He probably took more ideas out of fruit than other programmers have done, but every good chess programmer has taken some ideas out of fruit.
I am able to separate this doing of something I do not like from doing something that is wrong.  And I am also able to see that the thing Vas did is the same thing that everyone else does.  He received persecution for it to such an absurd level that it seems monstrous to me.  What Vas did was nothing like the Voyager or Bionic or Lion teams did.  That is what I think the ICGA rule was written for.  If someone takes someone else's program, twists  a few knobs and dials, and then pastes his name on it then they have done something shameful.

What I see is that Vas did what everyone else does.  He did it a lot, and he did it a lot from a single specific program.

If, for instance, the committee had simply said, "We feel that Rybka is too similar to Fruit for our originality constraint" and then took away his trophy I would not have had a big problem with that.

On the other hand, the rip off programs that are direct copies never got any lifetime ban.  They never got their names put into the newspaper as liars and cheats.  So Vas was singled out very unfairly.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 03:20
You do realize I showed everyone here that the rotated bit board code from Crafty was in 2.3.2?  You do realize that 2.3.2 played in an ICGA ever?

As far as copying goes, you are simply out of touch.  There is a perfect 1:1 correspondence between the hashing code in Rybka 2.3.2 and Fruit 2.1..  I posted the code here as a comparison after Richard posted the RE'ed code from Rybka.  It was clear.

Please show ANY program that has hashing that looks like Fruit.  I was unable to find one.  Note this is not talking about the simple idea of storing two bounds for mtd(f) (which Rybka did not use).  This is about an exactly identical implementation, same two-bound approach, same 4 draft (beyond unusual, by the way) approach.  Same exact aging.  Same replacement.  Same broken alignment problem. 

That is NOT "an idea".
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-18 03:33
You do realize I showed everyone here that the rotated bit board code from Crafty was in 2.3.2?  You do realize that 2.3.2 played in an ICGA ever?

It's not convincing.  I am not convinced that the named beta was ever released to the public.  I also find it strange that Vas would copy a version that does not even play chess (while I admit that it is possible).
It seems entirely possible to me that Vas made the same table by himself.

There is no perfect correspondence. Even identical assembly code can be generated from non-identical source and the neither the code nor the table are identical.  What has been demonstrated is that the hashing algorithm is the same.  You have not shown that Vas took it from Fabian or that Fabian took it from Vas or that both took it from some other source.  That is part of the required steps for showing non literal copying.

I did not say that I have seen many programs that have an identical hashing scheme to fruit.  I said that I have seen many programs that have near identical hashing schemes and none of them have been penalized.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 16:58
Believe what you want.  To me, the coincidence is too strong.  Everyone at the time was using 64 x 256 attack tables.  I changed to 64x64 in 19.7 beta, and then formally in 19.9 and beyond.  It was not documented in the original paper.

If you want to hang your hat on the "OK, the asm matches perfectly, but that doesn't mean the original C matches" that's up to you.  I don't buy it.  Neither does anyone working on this kind of stuff (asm, compilers, C, translation, optimization, etc).  No way to prove it was copied to your level of confidence, because two people COULD write a 50K line program using the exact same statements, names, characters, and such.  Not very bloody likely, but there IS a chance since a program is clearly enumerable, given enough time.  If 99.9% is not good enough for you, fine.  FORTUNATELY, even in criminal jury cases, >99.9% is NOT required.  "Beyond reasonable doubt" does the job quite nicely, and this is well beyond "reasonable doubt".
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-18 17:10
The asm does not match perfectly.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 17:13
Right.  Yet we can somehow magically convert it to C AND make it match perfectly.  Try looking, first.

And don't give me the "but the addresses are different" nonsense as an explanation, either.
Parent - - By Nick (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-18 17:27 Edited 2013-10-18 17:51

> The asm does not match perfectly.


You're correct, the asm does not match perfectly and this is consistent with Vas' claim that he had written his own bitboard code in 2003.  When Hyatt says "my bitboard code is in Rybka 1.0 beta and later" it is a lie.  I'm sure that he knows he is lying too.

Beware.

I found that debating with Hyatt is like playing chess with a pigeon.  It knocks over the pieces, sh*ts on the board and then struts around like it won the game.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 20:29
Why don't you cite EXACTLY WHERE the asm doesn't match perfectly.  For the record, one can't take two different asm programs, each of which updates the same data in the same way, same tests, same everything, and end up with two different C sources.  This code is too complex for that.  I've found that arguing with you is like arguing with with a pig.  You make lots of noise but offer absolutely nothing intelligible to support your argument.  The C code richard derived from rybka matches fruit to a T.  If you want to believe rybka's trans_store() code is original, that's your choice.  An illogical choice, but a choice.
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-18 23:17
I'm sure that he knows he is lying too.

When I asked him, how can you cooperate with the most famous cheater of the actual computerchess, Bob said that such guy knew all tricks at the base, also the FBI would work with such persons. You get the drift. Bob is acting in true crime scenario, you could only contradict him from a completely different angle. All the horror methods of self justice cannot be doubted in a tradition of lynch justice, but if you come from a different culture. Here I always thought that Bob would enjoy this community among friends beyond the sport challenges. But now Bob looks upon Vas as an alien. A foreigner. As not one of "our" kind. This is supported by the propaganda from the bureau of the ICGA President. "We gave him all he needed, but he simply ignored the "help". Neither Bob nor David have heard something of an obligation for a member or a friend. Irrelevant if he cooperated or not.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-18 03:41
By the way, thanks for the new crafty release.
Whatever was the problem with the previous iteration on my system, it has gone away with this version (tablebase access works fine now).

While I realize that I am probably on your doo-doo list, I have a request anyway.
It would be nice to be able to turn off "easy moves" for analysis purposes.
When analyzing a simple checkmate, (with epdpfga or with "go" or whatever) crafty will often stop after 2 plies because of the "easy move" and not resolve the checkmate.

For instance:
Black(1): new
parallel threads terminated.
White(1): post
White(1): setboard
k7/8/PK6/8/8/1P6/8/8 w - -

White(1): go
        time surplus   0.00  time limit 1:39 (+0.00) (1:39)
        depth     time       score   variation (1)
starting thread 1 2 3 4 5 <done>
          2->   0.02/1:39    10.38   1. b4 Kb8
         2   1038       2     51  1. b4 Kb8
        time=0.02  n=51  afhm=1.00  predicted=0  50move=0  nps=1.0M
        extended=0 qchks=6  reduced=0  pruned=0  evals=3
        EGTBprobes=0  hits=0  splits=0  aborts=0  data=0/2048
terminating SMP processes.
White(1): b4
              time used:   0.03

Compare with Yace:
white ( 1): setboard
k7/8/PK6/8/8/1P6/8/8 w - -

Stored 2 learned positions into hash table
white ( 1): go
tbscore = 32757
usetime = 19.93, mintime = 9.97 maxtime = 49.83 tl 598.00 ml 40
         1   0.004   3.80  1t  1.a7 {160}
         7   0.005   3.80  1.  1.a7 {160}
         8   0.006   0.00  2-- 1.a7 {EGTB} {160}
         9   0.008   0.00  2t  1.a7 {EGTB} {160}
        10   0.009  Mat10  2++ 1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        11   0.011  Mat10  2t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        16   0.012  Mat10  2.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        17   0.013  Mat10  3t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        23   0.014  Mat10  3.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        24   0.016  Mat10  4t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        30   0.017  Mat10  4.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        31   0.018  Mat10  5t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        37   0.019  Mat10  5.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        38   0.020  Mat10  6t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        44   0.021  Mat10  6.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        45   0.022  Mat10  7t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        51   0.024  Mat10  7.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        52   0.025  Mat10  8t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        58   0.027  Mat10  8.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        59   0.028  Mat10  9t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        65   0.029  Mat10  9.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        66   0.030  Mat10 10t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        72   0.031  Mat10 10.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        73   0.032  Mat10 11t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        79   0.033  Mat10 11.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        80   0.034  Mat10 12t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        86   0.035  Mat10 12.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        87   0.036  Mat10 13t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        93   0.037  Mat10 13.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
        94   0.039  Mat10 14t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       100   0.040  Mat10 14.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       101   0.041  Mat10 15t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       107   0.042  Mat10 15.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       108   0.043  Mat10 16t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       114   0.045  Mat10 16.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       115   0.046  Mat10 17t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       121   0.047  Mat10 17.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       122   0.048  Mat10 18t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       128   0.049  Mat10 18.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       129   0.050  Mat10 19t  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       135   0.051  Mat10 19.  1.b4 {EGTB} {160}
       135   0.052  Mat10 19f. 1.b4 {EGTB} 1...Kb8 2.Kc6! Kc8 3.a7! Kd8
                               4.a8=Q+ Ke7 5.Qh8 Kf7 6.Qh6 Ke7 7.Qg6! Kf8!
                               8.Qh7! Ke8 9.Qg7! Kd8 10.Qd7# {1081}
135 Nodes, 0.00% Leavenodes, 2596 Nodes/sec
15 eval, 100.00% score, 937 genmoves, 0.11% captures le 351/-231
ext: pawn 0, rcp 0, chk 0, repchk 0, null 0, prune 0
htable: 35 store, 0 rejected, 178 probe, 94.9% f/p, 482.9% f/s
entries 3333333 age 1 renew 0
egtb probes 219, found 219 max_depth 1
white ( 1): b4
black ( 1):
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-18 16:51
Crafty really doesn't have an "easy move" any more.  If it "locks in" on a move and doesn't change its mind during an iteration, it reduces the target time by 10% each time, to a floor of 60% of the original time.  If it does change its mind, it increases the time beyond 100% of the original target.  Is the output below from 23.7?  I tried your position here and got this:

Crafty v23.8 (1 cpus)

White(1): setb k7//PK///1P/ w
White(1): noise 0
noise level set to 0.
White(1): move
        time surplus   0.00  time limit 30.00 (+0.00) (3:00)
        depth     time       score   variation (1)
          1     0.02/30.00    9.92   1. b4
          1->   0.02/27.00    9.92   1. b4
          2     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.76)                 
          2     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.60)                 
          2     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.28)                 
          2     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+8.64)                 
          2     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.36)                 
          2     0.02/30.00      ++   1. b4! (>+10.08)                 
          2     0.02/30.00   10.38   1. b4 Kb8
          2->   0.02/27.00   10.38   1. b4 Kb8
          3     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+10.22)                 
          3     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+10.06)                 
          3     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.74)                 
          3     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.10)                 
          3     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.82)                 
          3     0.02/30.00   10.03   1. b4 Kb8 2. Kc6
          3->   0.02/27.00   10.03   1. b4 Kb8 2. Kc6
          4     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.87)                 
          4     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.71)                 
          4     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+9.39)                 
          4     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+8.75)                 
          4     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.47)                 
          4     0.02/30.00    9.14   1. b4 Kb8 2. Kc6 Ka7
          4->   0.02/27.00    9.14   1. b4 Kb8 2. Kc6 Ka7
          5     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+8.98)                 
          5     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+8.82)                 
          5     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+8.50)                 
          5     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.86)                 
          5     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+6.58)                 
          5     0.02/30.00    7.64   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Kc6 Kxa7
          5->   0.02/27.00    7.64   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Kc6 Kxa7
          6     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.48)                 
          6     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.32)                 
          6     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.00)                 
          6     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+6.36)                 
          6     0.02/30.00    7.46   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Kc5 Kxa7 4.
                                     Kd6
          6->   0.02/27.00    7.46   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Kc5 Kxa7 4.
                                     Kd6
          7     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.30)                 
          7     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.14)                 
          7     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+6.82)                 
          7     0.02/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+6.18)                 
          7     0.03/30.00    7.55   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Ka5 Kxa7 4.
                                     Kb5 Kb7
          7->   0.03/27.00    7.55   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Ka5 Kxa7 4.
                                     Kb5 Kb7
          8     0.03/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.39)                 
          8     0.03/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.23)                 
          8     0.03/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+6.91)                 
          8     0.03/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+6.27)                 
          8     0.03/30.00    6.00   1. b4 Kb8 2. Kc6 Ka8 3. Kc5 Ka7 4.
                                     b5 Ka8
          8->   0.03/27.00    6.00   1. b4 Kb8 2. Kc6 Ka8 3. Kc5 Ka7 4.
                                     b5 Ka8
          9     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+6.16)                 
          9     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+6.32)                 
          9     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+6.64)                 
          9     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+7.28)                 
          9     0.03/27.00    7.42   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Ka5 Kxa7 4.
                                     Kb5 Kb7 5. Kc5 Ka6
          9->   0.03/24.30    7.42   1. b4 Kb8 2. a7+ Ka8 3. Ka5 Kxa7 4.
                                     Kb5 Kb7 5. Kc5 Ka6
         10     0.03/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.26)                 
         10     0.03/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+7.10)                 
         10     0.03/30.00      --   1. b4? (<+6.78)                 
         10     0.03/30.00    6.68   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Ka5 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kb8 5. Kb5 Ka8 6. b7+ Kb8
         10->   0.03/27.00    6.68   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Ka5 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kb8 5. Kb5 Ka8 6. b7+ Kb8
         11     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+6.84)                 
         11     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+7.00)                 
         11     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+7.32)                 
         11     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+7.96)                 
         11     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+9.24)                 
         11     0.03/27.00      ++   1. b4! (>+11.80)                 
         11     0.03/27.00   12.84   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. b7 Kb5 6. b8=Q+ Kc4 7. Qg8+
                                     Kd3 8. Qg3+ Kd2
         11->   0.03/24.30   12.84   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. b7 Kb5 6. b8=Q+ Kc4 7. Qg8+
                                     Kd3 8. Qg3+ Kd2
         12     0.03/24.30   12.84   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. b7 Kb5 6. b8=Q+ Kc4 7. Qg8+
                                     Kd3 8. Qg3+ Kd2
         12->   0.03/21.60   12.84   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. b7 Kb5 6. b8=Q+ Kc4 7. Qg8+
                                     Kd3 8. Qg3+ Kd2
         13     0.03/21.60   12.94   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. Kc6 Ka5 6. b7 Kb4 7. b8=Q+
                                     Kc4 8. Qg8+ Kd3 9. Qg3+ Kd2
         13->   0.03/19.20   12.94   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. Kc6 Ka5 6. b7 Kb4 7. b8=Q+
                                     Kc4 8. Qg8+ Kd3 9. Qg3+ Kd2
         14     0.03/19.20   12.94   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. Kc6 Ka5 6. b7 Kb4 7. b8=Q+
                                     Kc4 8. Qg8+ Kd3 9. Qg3+ Kd2
         14->   0.03/18.00   12.94   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc7 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. Kc6 Ka5 6. b7 Kb4 7. b8=Q+
                                     Kc4 8. Qg8+ Kd3 9. Qg3+ Kd2
         15     0.04/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+13.10)                 
         15     0.04/18.00   13.24   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc6 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. b7 Ka7 6. Kc7 Ka6 7. b8=Q Ka5
                                     8. Kd6 Ka4
         15->   0.04/18.00   13.24   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Ka8 3. Kc6 Ka7 4. b6+
                                     Kxa6 5. b7 Ka7 6. Kc7 Ka6 7. b8=Q Ka5
                                     8. Kd6 Ka4
         16     0.04/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+13.40)                 
         16     0.04/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+13.56)                 
         16     0.04/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+13.88)                 
         16     0.04/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+14.52)                 
         16     0.04/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+15.80)                 
         16     0.06/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+18.36)                 
         16     0.17/18.00   23.44   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. Kc6 Kd8 4. b6
                                     Ke7 5. b7 Kf7 6. b8=Q Kf6 7. a7 Kf5
                                     8. a8=Q Ke4
         16->   0.17/18.00   23.44   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. Kc6 Kd8 4. b6
                                     Ke7 5. b7 Kf7 6. b8=Q Kf6 7. a7 Kf5
                                     8. a8=Q Ke4
         17     0.26/18.00   23.44   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. Kc6 Kd8 4. b6
                                     Ke7 5. b7 Ke6 6. a7 Kf5 7. a8=Q Ke4
                                     8. b8=Q Kd3 9. Qd6+ Ke4
         17->   0.26/18.00   23.44   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. Kc6 Kd8 4. b6
                                     Ke7 5. b7 Ke6 6. a7 Kf5 7. a8=Q Ke4
                                     8. b8=Q Kd3 9. Qd6+ Ke4
         18     0.27/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+23.60)                 
         18     0.33/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+23.76)                 
         18     0.44/18.00   23.94   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Kd6 5. Ka6 Ke5 6. b6 Kf4 7. b7 Ke3
                                     8. b8=Q Kd2 9. Qb4+ Kd1 10. Qf3+ Kc1
                                     11. Qbc3+ Kb1
         18->   0.44/18.00   23.94   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Kd6 5. Ka6 Ke5 6. b6 Kf4 7. b7 Ke3
                                     8. b8=Q Kd2 9. Qb4+ Kd1 10. Qf3+ Kc1
                                     11. Qbc3+ Kb1
         19     0.44/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+24.10)                 
         19     0.45/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+24.26)                 
         19     0.45/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+24.58)                 
         19     0.45/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+25.22)                 
         19     0.45/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+26.50)                 
         19     0.45/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+29.06)                 
         19     0.45/18.00      ++   1. b4! (>+34.18)                 
         19     1.19/18.00   Mat12   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Ke6 5. Ka6 Kd6 6. b6 Kc5 7. b7 Kd4
                                     8. b8=Q Ke3 9. Qg3+ Kd2 10. Qd5+ Kc2
                                     11. Qdb3+ Kc1 12. Qg5#
         19->   1.19/18.00   Mat12   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Ke6 5. Ka6 Kd6 6. b6 Kc5 7. b7 Kd4
                                     8. b8=Q Ke3 9. Qg3+ Kd2 10. Qd5+ Kc2
                                     11. Qdb3+ Kc1 12. Qg5#
         20     2.25/18.00   Mat11   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Ke6 5. Kc7 Kf5 6. Qf3+ Ke5 7. b6 Kd4
                                     8. b7 Kc4 9. b8=Q Kd4 10. Qb6+ Kc4
                                     11. Qfb3#
         20->   2.25/18.00   Mat11   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Ke6 5. Kc7 Kf5 6. Qf3+ Ke5 7. b6 Kd4
                                     8. b7 Kc4 9. b8=Q Kd4 10. Qb6+ Kc4
                                     11. Qfb3#
         21     4.27/18.00   Mat11   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Ke6 5. Kc7 Kf5 6. Qf3+ Ke5 7. b6 Kd4
                                     8. b7 Kc4 9. b8=Q Kd4 10. Qb6+ Kc4
                                     11. Qfb3#
         21->   4.28/18.00   Mat11   1. b4 Kb8 2. b5 Kc8 3. a7 Kd7 4. a8=Q
                                     Ke6 5. Kc7 Kf5 6. Qf3+ Ke5 7. b6 Kd4
                                     8. b7 Kc4 9. b8=Q Kd4 10. Qb6+ Kc4
                                     11. Qfb3#
        time=4.28  n=21865704  afhm=1.02  predicted=0  50move=0  nps=5.1M
        extended=2.4M qchks=2.9M  reduced=743K  pruned=10.7M  evals=110K
        EGTBprobes=0  hits=0  splits=0  aborts=0  data=0/128

BTW 23.8 is the same as 23.7 for the moment, so they should match exactly, except that I have not expanded the max PV length to 128 moves since the hash PV code works so well.
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2015-04-30 14:40 Edited 2015-04-30 14:47
Some years later, finally I saw someone out of the expert scene trying to explain what really had been going on in Vasiks laboratory. Since I'm certainly not allowed to give a complete quote, I dont even knoww the author of the lines that I found in the German CSS forum. I found a chapter that waS even clear to me without no even a small experience in computerchess programming or programming as such. Still that explanation was clear to a lay like me and I would like to ask all the experts here on RF and in special Ed, Trotsky and overall Bob Hyatt to take a look for themselves. Isnt this a total description of a NON cheating creation of RYBKA after Vas had looked through the code of FRUIT (what Vas has always pointed out and indeed never denied). Question is if this authout is right on the point here. Only experts could decide this. I mus ecxusee my premature translation into English. If however the decision should circle around a single vocabulary it should be possible to contact the original author.

I call the author B. who developped his view on the chess forum CSS. Here goes.

Tobegin with a preface:

RYBKA is 100% a complete original development with only public domain ideas.
The best machine Code C experts had to enforce a major attempt to put some few irreelevant bytes of RYBKA under suspicion of having been copied with copy/paste.
There are illminded purists who opine that if there is only a single letter created with copy/paste that then automatically the new program, no matter how big, must then be published along GNU liscence.

Let's take I would want to improve STOCKFISH with 150 ELO to make some money, how can I do this?

I program P which expects as input a STOCKFISH.exe version with specific compiler. wthout my additions, the output is schach.exe WITH my additions. processed with the minimally possible adds del or subst. Important was, in my P there is not a single byte from STOCKFISH. Now the three operations are done by P with input without a relation to the byte following of the inputprogram.

Now my question what is the legal position of P?

An abstract look upon the FRUIT/RYBKA case:

one high intelligent student of computer science in his 7th semester learns search tree operations. Parallel bitboarrds, quiet search, nullmove, plus Monte Carlo and endgame databases.

now he should program a chess engine especially in a BLACK BOX. after one year he achieves 1900 ELO. Explanation: GENIUS 7 got 2187 after 10 to 20 years.

Now it comes: FRUIT 2.1. had 2500 ELO ........  STOCKFISH 33200!!!!!

Now --

if the 1900 student reads the source code of FRUIT he will discover after intense studying that the main algorithms are also in his pogram, he already has realised the fast bitboards.... but -- he also sees many differences. now what are these differences all about?

it's the excellent 'projection' of chess strategy, the 'rightful' choice of terms that guide the search depending of the particular period of the game.

after a study of 2 years our student understands everything in FRUIT. Next he tries to fizzle elements out of FRUIT into his bitboard program. this isnt possible with copy/paste. however it requires the overview for his program and technical smartness to weaver the ideas of FRUIT into his own.

At the end his program is 2700 ELO strong due to his own ideas and the sensational balancing of FRUIT.

Student can sell his program and must not publish his source code. Of course he has been watching FRUIT, because his own engine in a Black Box after 10 years would have been 2187 ELO strong.

*****BUT*****

watching Letouzy has allowed without conditions if he had published all his chessic and algorithmic thoughts in simple English because C++ is a 100 % precise formula with only 40 words.

the author B. (for my mind it can only be no other than Chrilly Donninger but this is just my private guess as a complete lay but interdisciplinary expert) now makes clear that if someone as a lay would copy/past the program and then change a couple of variables and then called his program 'Donnerwetter' (sic) then he had to publish the source code etc.

I can only hope that the author tolerated my little translation of his text for no other purpose than that experts from the english speaking part of RF could make their own comments.

o I beg all for  comment and if they could follow the logic of this explanation that  should clear the good name of Vas.  Thanks you all.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-18 14:26 Edited 2013-10-18 14:40
923005, thanks for your participation. For what I want to mention it's irrelevant that I am a complete amateur regarding all the tech of computerchess programming, like you I see Vas singled out. How could that be communicated to someone like Bob? Someone who sends messages like "you are nuts" or "you're out of touch", someone who talks in highly agressive mode of hate but claims that he feels no hate towards noone. We could call it blindness but in this case we should realise that this is something needed if individuals or whole nations must be judged guilty, therefore allowed to be punished or better exterminated. We all saw this on international level up to the stages of the UN with fake evidence. Only years later after execution we know what and how it was distorted. I just want to show one single example. At the beginning there was the doubting of the moral integrity of Vas "it's impossible to be that good with allowed practice, because otherwise we all YXZ would be even better, but we are well educated guys and prefer to live with mediocre babies". That alone is hypocritical as I was informed because e.g. Tiger contained unallowed material what I cant judge but I trust the informant. Then the hunt began for a proof. What could be taken as evidence for unallowed practice or outright cheating? Already this leads to a degenerated research which is based on the assumption that we had a crime with bloodshed and hence if we could discover some DNS we had proven the crime, that was the illogicism. We had a perverted communication with examples like, "but Vas himself had admitted it, otherwise we wouldnt even know it, so nowhere any wrong on our sides". Our scene was filled with lies. Then came the moment of the spy among the testers, who allegedly had the proof for a Rybka that contained masses of DNA sent by Vas himself. That was the start of kindergarden logic. It went like this. If Vas sent something to be tested and it contained huge material from elsewhere we could conclude that Vas isnt even able to program his proper programs for himself, he was condemned to "steal" from other sources like the open source educational Hyatt stuff. Now we have a different crime in my eyes. If that tester 'thinks' he has found evidence, educated academics shouldnt take it as proof. For all if we are creative programmers ourselves. What speaks against the explanation that a programmer wants to test the tester or just to better understand the mechanism of testing? Why isnt it allowed to experiment with Crafty under name of a Rybka experimental version just to avoid too much alert for this allegedly neutral tester? Would that be the crime we had sought and now proven against Vas? That cant be true for any observer of such creative processes. Question is allowed why Vas didnt explain it all? Perhaps because he was prejudged right from the beginning and stamped as guilty? Such a lack of respect must cause trouble for us all, or not?

You made this crystal clear, the crime was by the ICGA proceeding where someone was prejudged, then humiliated by alleged politeness with invitations to participate and then the feeling being insulted by the culprit so that he was himself guilty for the earth-wide publication of his alleged evil. But beware, there was no conspiracy by Levy against his fellow member of the ICGA. No, why Vas had his own creative methods and why he wanted to become Wch at all when there existed enough former champions even like Hiarcs, lol?

I want to give another example out of science. Medical diagnoses depend on statistics. The longer we analyse the more also lethal processes we could find. Question might be allowed if we shouldnt grant a life span of seeming sanity without spoiling it by possible findings although it allowed higher profits if we can define almost all as patients? The same with the incredible idea of the NSA, if we Americans (or Brits too) could record each sigh of all living individuals for better preventing earthquakes, Fukushima or Teaparty Nonsense? One thing is clear. We in Europe dont want to hear of American lies for many decades to come. THe Obama hype is over, that's for sure. Also the allies in Britain must be stopped.

We want to live in peace and not continual wars. In computerchess we dont want to destroy our best athletes, and Presidents who humiliate their own members like Vas and Fritz must go.
Parent - - By cipri (**) [de] Date 2013-10-18 15:17
who is "we" ? Perhaps you can start talking for yourself, or you are something of  a  group leader? what is then the group?
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-18 15:50
no other idea concerning the topic? As to your question, yes, I read a lot and can remember that many here at least in Germany hate the NSA. NB. that the NSA collected more than 500000 emails in 1 month. They control SMS and phone calls. I admit, the involvement of the British SS is not so deeply discussed. Must have something to do with the EU. So, in sum, I am under the impression that many dislike the NSA, also when we are befriended with the USA. Feel free to ask or doubt, I have nothing to hide. Perhaps you saw a problem there, if I also pretended that I spoke in your name too, but that's not true. But I thought that this was trivial. So, why does it provoke your protest? :)
Parent - - By cipri (**) [de] Date 2013-10-18 17:49
ok, you in the end you spoke for yourself, good to know. So you didn't speak for germany? or for the rybka-fan-club? etc.. 
In general when you are speaking for yourself, it's better not to behave like you would talk for others too.

one remark to your earlier post: I guess it's a bad idea to compare the case vas with .. "science". I guess you also know that if you copy in science and you are not doing the  quoting right, you end up in the greatest troubles. You can not copy let's say from an article, and then just in the appendix mention between many others, also the person from which you copied.  I guess you know that you can be a great scientist, but if you copy or manipulate, you are getting the biggest troubles. If you are from germany, you should know this very clearly, since there has been a famous case in physics.

I don't know if vas copied, I even didn't make the effort, to try to check the "hints/evidence", but what you can notice is that he behaved like a very intelligent law braker. When you did something wrong, you say nothing, just wait to see what happens, and see what information the other part has. To me it seems that Ed is "testing the market", to see what happens, and trying to get any information the other part has.  The idea is simple, if you know the cards for the other, you have better chances to win, it's like poker.

For it's fine as long as Ed behaves as a chess programmer (since this is his expertise) , but when I see him trying to behave like a lawyer, checking all little back-doors, manipulating and taking quotes in bad way (also copy pasting what he needs, and sticking together)...

Vas was getting a lot of advantages from the icga , he could have collaborated with it, at least a simple chat. Yes he did a fake interview (related to the rybka case) , for that he had time. Doesn't hurt to use skype etc...   
It was said .. that vas has no interest in the case.. , that he doesn't care  etc....
So why is Ed then so upset  and insisting on the icga.

my deepest respect for the performance of vas, even if he copied it was still a great performance. He could have avoided a lot of efforts by collaborating with the icga...   If you quantify all the work, and time spent on this case by people, you will understand, that it's not that easy to step back.  If you are not collaborating with the police for example.., and they are forced to invest a lot of money on high-tech etc...   to find more hints, more evidence....     then of course then will be mad, that you created them so many discomfort by not collaborating.

So there is still the question.... .  What is position of Ed in all this game? Was he promised benefits, or did he get benefits? It's not a problem to get money etc...  , also a lawyer get's money/benefits, from their clients...  but he should be transparent   and tell us, so that we know the relationship. So in popular terms the question is: is ed snow white, or the advocate of the devil.
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-18 21:21
Ed is the moral conscience of computerchess, also one of the few World Champions. His engagement is for the best of computerchess in a longer perspective.
Parent - By siah (***) Date 2013-11-13 00:36
Always wrong quotations from my enemy to you from me.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2013-10-18 18:22
Excellent summary, I couldn't have said it better. It just shows the extreme hypocrisy in the computer chess world, with Bob Hyatt the most extreme example.
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2013-10-15 15:46
Your objective is (and always has been) to label someone a 'cheater' without any proof and then use a thousands lies to cover it up.

You are therefore the biggest crock in the history of computer chess, who still thinks his own creation matters much in the computer chess world.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 16:57

> the biggest crock in the history of computer chess


Indeed, he is a turd floating in the computer chess swimming pool.  The only reason I don't lay into him with quite the same vehemence as you is that he, like me, voted for Bush two times and still thinks he's a great guy.

Now, now, Jeroen.  Put that thing down.  Put it down, I say.
Parent - - By oudheusa (*****) [nl] Date 2013-10-15 17:52

> he, like me, voted for Bush two times and still thinks he's a great guy.


This clears up quite a bit.
Parent - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 18:09
:cool:
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2013-10-18 18:22
Yeah, if you voted for Bush, you must have some screws loose!
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-17 21:55

> and still thinks he's a great guy


I also think he's a great guy...just not a great president. :grin:  Fortunately for him, the Democrats never put out a viable candidate to run against him (not that this stopped people from voting for President Obama twice...).
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-10-15 19:03
I'm quite certain that in case Levy and his allies would be kicked out of office and Bob would become President of the ICGA, the death verdict against Vas would already have been reversed. This sentence is inhuman for Vas and our whole community and it was always not justified because basically all chess programmers are cheating because the basics of computerchess are defined by the parameters of chess. Bob himself is the best example for the fundamental misunderstand in our scene. He got support from all over the world but impostered as if he alone would be the master of his chess program, which is also ridiculous because Bob is incapable to follow the depths of his own program, since he's just an amateur player but even Crafty is better than 99% of all existing chessplayers on this Earth. In the old days the machines were investigated with the main question if they could play proper chess at all but now they dominate even the best human players whose Elo is mountains higher than the strength of e.g. Levy.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-15 19:10
Levy's presidential positon is as secure as was Kim il Sung's. He is president for life.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-15 13:42
The legal situation with an offer and acceptance is defined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance

Representatives of the ICGA (Hyatt, Williamson, Lefler=ICGA Secretariat) have all made the offer (if Vas appeals it will be accepted by the ICGA) many times, on many forums and recently.

Vas made an acceptance through his representative, and then, to remove any doubt, he made the acceptance in person.

The ICGA refused to honour the offer.

Offer and acceptance are elements required for the formation of a legally binding contract: the expression of an offer to contract on certain terms by one person (the "offeror") to another person (the "offeree"), and an indication by the offeree of its acceptance of those terms. The other elements traditionally required for a legally binding contract are (i) consideration and (ii) an intention to create legal relations.
Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law. The offer and acceptance formula, developed in the 19th century, identifies a moment of formation when the parties are of one mind.


This is not to say either that the agreement is a business contract with money involved or that it cannot break down in the future if the sides are unable to then agree on some important detail, but the agreement formed is certainly to move forward with a view to a full appeal. To refuse right at the start looks very much like the equivalent of a breach of contract. The computer chess community will have to decide for itself if it considers that an organisation that does not honour it's promises is an acceptable organisation to claim to represent it.
Parent - By The Mike Machine (**) [us] Date 2013-10-16 13:28
She offered her honor,
He honored her offer,
and all night long it was
Honor and offer.

Sorry...couldn't resist after all that talk about offer and honor...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 17:11
Sorry, but FALSE.  I have NEVER said "an appeal would be accepted."  I did say "if it were up to me, I would listen, assuming he has something useful to say."  I have NEVER spoken for the ICGA.  Neither has Mark or Harvey.  Feel free to dig up ANY post that states that.  Saying "I would listen" is NOT the same as saying "The ICGA board will listen."

There's no contract to breach here, except in your imagination.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-16 17:21 Upvotes 1
Bob - I have NEVER spoken for the ICGA.  Neither has Mark or Harvey.

Just 2 days ago you said:

Bob - I DO represent the ICGA, along with a group of others.

Misremembering so soon?
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:05
What are you talking about?  What IS the ICGA?  A group of people?  I am a member of that group.  I don't speak FOR the group.  I am one of three on the secretariat.  When I speak FOR the secretariat, I indicate that.  You DO like to cut and paste eliminating context, eh?

ie:

As to the validity of the appeal, were it me, I would have ALSO said no.  Ed has not been helpful.  He has distorted the truth.  Taken things out of context.  Argued points that have no relevance to the case.  Why on earth would David want to get involved with Ed again?  Simple answer:  He wouldn't.  Vas didn't appeal anything.  He did not say "I would like to appeal, I will answer all questions and provide whatever evidence I am asked for, if possible.  He said "I want Ed to handle this."  That is NOT an appeal.  I DO represent the ICGA, along with a group of others.  Sorry.  I've been a member since 1977.

"if it were me..."
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-16 18:23
You are not correct that you not are representing the ICGA. You are an appointed officer to the Secretariat, still in place, and supposedly investigating the LOOP case. As Ed points out in another post, you actually claimed to represent the ICGA. It is not reasonable to then deny that as it suits.

You are technically correct, you (and Williamson) have made many, many "suggestions" that Vas appeals, but have not specifically stated an appeal would be "accepted", but you have given the strong message that it would be, or at least, "considered" depending on evidence offered. Ed's and Vas's emails to Levy on the subject were specifically rejected at start (no consideration given, no reason why asked) on the grounds that Vas did 'not offer a defence' first time round. ICGA/Levy has already decided in 2011 that no appeal would be accepted in any case. Which makes your repeated "suggestions" both cruel and misleading. And, over the period of the last two years, somebody should have put out a disclaimer.

For example, Williamson, ICGA representative posted: "Maybe Vas will grow some balls and step up to the plate with an appeal which I am sure the ICGA would consider but they will not consider an appeal by proxy." Which comes across as a (rude) challenge and a strong indication of the result of putting forward an appeal, eg it being considered. But Levy's rejection reason made it clear an appeal was never going to be considered.

Your behaviour is just plain bad. No rules, no standards, just what you make up as you go along, flip-flopping around as it suits as Ed just pointed out. Gangsterism in effect.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 19:57
Sorry, you are simply nuts.

I speak for myself.  If I were to speak for the ICGA, I would CLEARLY say so.  On the contrary, I have CLEARLY stated that regarding the possibility of an appeal, I would PERSONALLY be willing to look at it, but I also SPECIFICALLY stated that I have no idea how the board will act.  Everything I say/write is not a binding contract on UAB, ICGA, USCF, IEEE, ACM, or any other organization I am a part of.  That's pure nonsense.

I've not given ANY indication as to whether it would be dealt with or simply ignored, because I do not know the board's intentions or thought processes.

"Which I am sure ..." is an OPINION.  NOT a "statement of fact."

This has been going on for over 2 years with no appeal.  EVERYTHING has a statute of limitations somewhere, regarding appeals.  In misdemeanor cases in Alabama, it is generally two weeks.  For felony convictions, 42 days.

The ICGA reacted quickly to form the panel and review the rybka evidence.  And in fact, David gave Vas 6 weeks to respond.  We submitted the final report on May 13, 2011.  The ICGA board rules on June 28.  6 weeks later.  With multiple prompts to Vas to respond.  He had plenty of time to reply.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-16 20:19
Unacceptable. You WROTE "I represent the ICGA", Ed just quoted it at you.

Quite apart from that FACT, you were and are an ICGA Secretariat Officer dealing with clone and Rybka/Fruit issues. If you were a mere panel member then you'ld be ok, but with you as Secretariat Member the rest of us are fully entitled to consider you speak as ICGA representative, just as much if Jaap or Levy wrote on forums about Rybka/Fruit.  If you make promises or suggestions concerning Rybka, then it is reasonable to assume, unless disclaimed, that these are ICGA offers, promises or suggestions. Just as a foolish shop assistant binds his shop if he makes ill advised promises that are not disclaimed, so does the foolish Secretariat member. Your promises and suggestions have not been disclaimed by your manager, you suggested them often enough, but your manager had already decided to the contrary without telling you. Well, that's tough. Your internal communication failures are your problem not ours. Go explain to your superior that you and the other Secretariat members screwed up and gave Vas all reason to believe an appeal was possible, that you are very sorry, but the honourable thing to do would be to agree consideration of the appeal.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-16 20:34
I am a member of the ICGA.  I would think EVERY member therefore represents the ICGA.  But that does NOT mean I speak for the board in this issue.  And in fact, I have been VERY clear in that each and every time the subject of an appeal comes up.

I made ZERO "promises".  And when I gave an opinion, I CLEARLY pointed out that it was my opinion and not that of the board.  Feel free to copy a post here that contradicts what I just wrote.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-17 19:35
ICGA is a hierarchy. You were appointed (foolishly) to a decision making position close to the top of that hierarchy. At that point you are no longer speaking as an ordinary member, you are speaking as a part of the hierarchy. If you don't realise that your utterances are capable of committing the organisation, then your appointment was even more stupid than anyone could possibly have imagined.

What you are really saying is that Levy decides everything. Everybody knows that already. What we thought, this time, was that you had been speaking with some kind of authority that was semi-trustable and could be followed up. Now we see how wrong we were, you weren't even in the loop, there is no loop, no communication. You didn't even know there had been an appeal application, nobody bothered to tell you and nobody was interested to know what you thought.
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