Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / The difference Between Calling a Strike and a Ball!
1
2
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts during his confirmation hearing said, that " judges should be like umpires calling “balls and strikes.”
“Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”
As is noted on the ICGA Website, Rajlich, is accused of " plagiarizing ".
The word plagiarism can be defined as the act of taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.
Ideas are not copied code as has been made clear over and over- time, and again.
This has to be regarded as an ICGA self-declaration of admission of having propagated a coup against Vas Rajlich!
David Levy indirectly onerously admits to having called - Balls -not - Strikes against Vas Rajlich.
What we should take away from all of this is that the ICGA (David Levy) decided that, Computer Chess is of least importance when comes to his survival. It always seems to be the ICGA out in the fore and the games are just wallpaper.
“Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”
As is noted on the ICGA Website, Rajlich, is accused of " plagiarizing ".
The word plagiarism can be defined as the act of taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.
Ideas are not copied code as has been made clear over and over- time, and again.
This has to be regarded as an ICGA self-declaration of admission of having propagated a coup against Vas Rajlich!
David Levy indirectly onerously admits to having called - Balls -not - Strikes against Vas Rajlich.
What we should take away from all of this is that the ICGA (David Levy) decided that, Computer Chess is of least importance when comes to his survival. It always seems to be the ICGA out in the fore and the games are just wallpaper.
![[nl]](../../mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
Your 'reasoning' is in fact pure nonsense. For one, the definition of 'plagiarism' says 'words or ideas'. Copying words would be copying code. So where do you get the silly idea that the verdict of plagiarism is an admission that Vas copied no code? You are familiar with the meaning of the logical operator 'or'?
Also note that in the context of software 'ideas' can be distinguished in general ideas and specific algorithms, which time after time has been obfuscated by dishonest Vas defenders. And that the originality requirement of ICGA rule #2 allows the use of any general ideas (such as alpha-beta pruning, or that the use of search + evaluation), but outlaws copying of specific algorithms. To give an example: it is allowed for any Chess program to favor positions with a large number of moves ('mobility'), but it is suspect when a program uses exactly the same way to count the number of moves (e.g. whether it counts moves to squares covered by enemy Pawns, whether the count includes captures or not, how the number of moves is weighted for the various piece types).
As always, suspect similarity can be a consequence of independent development converging to the same fundametal truth ('convergent evolution'), as well as blatant copying. In general one catches cheaters on the cases where they copy each other's errors, as it is much more unlikely they will make both exactly the same error as that they both knew the correct answer.
Also note that in the context of software 'ideas' can be distinguished in general ideas and specific algorithms, which time after time has been obfuscated by dishonest Vas defenders. And that the originality requirement of ICGA rule #2 allows the use of any general ideas (such as alpha-beta pruning, or that the use of search + evaluation), but outlaws copying of specific algorithms. To give an example: it is allowed for any Chess program to favor positions with a large number of moves ('mobility'), but it is suspect when a program uses exactly the same way to count the number of moves (e.g. whether it counts moves to squares covered by enemy Pawns, whether the count includes captures or not, how the number of moves is weighted for the various piece types).
As always, suspect similarity can be a consequence of independent development converging to the same fundametal truth ('convergent evolution'), as well as blatant copying. In general one catches cheaters on the cases where they copy each other's errors, as it is much more unlikely they will make both exactly the same error as that they both knew the correct answer.
![[fr]](../../mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
There are no common errors. Robot icga investigators tried to suggest there were "quirks" but these didn't stand against investigation by non-robotic experts.
I agree with you about independent development converging on fundamental truth, but it is not logical nor acceptable to say this (which is actually what the robot icga investigators say):
Program A is similar, uses similar ideas to Program B. We (icga robots) accept that we cannot distinguish between the two cases
1. that A and B were independently developed, and
2. that program A copied B
because we can't find identical code to prove this. Well, apart from robot Hyatt, who is still pretending, or better lying, that there is identical code.
But, the robot icga investigators, use your illogical logic. They say because there are "quirks", this proves A copied B in all the areas that are similar, but we can't prove are copied. ie, they claim thye don't need to prove "copied", they just need to prove "similar" and point to some "quirks". This in fact is the silent Ken Thompson case. When asked afterwards, he said "0.0". As if this is enough!
Robot icga case therefore, depends entirely on the quirks. Without them, the similarities prove nothing.
BUT THERE ARE NO QUIRKS. Point 1.
Point 2. Suppose there are quirks. Or suppose there is a common error. But all the rest of the program is written such that no individual part of it can be proven copied. ie, it is not possible to distinguish A and B from independently developed or copied, could be either, but nobody can say for sure.
Well, we know many programs started off as Gnu, or Crafty or whatever, whatever. the chess wiki is full of them. Bruce Moreland is an example with Gnu. These are deemed to be ok by the robot icga, because of sufficient "differences" or "creative extra inputs" or "long enough development period". But what if there is just ONE quirk or error from GNU in Ferret? Possible, but would we care? We know robot Hyatt wouldn't care, or would find a reason for not caring.
It is very difficult not to draw the conclusion that Vas has been targeted for all the wrong reasons, and crucified for doing the same as everybody else. Rybka contians many many new creative ideas. No one part of it can be proven copied. The overall ideas-match with Fruit is nothing special. And there are no quirks, other than disproven ones, such as 0.0 or setjmp(). It was a setup to screw him put of computer chess for being too good, right from the start.
I agree with you about independent development converging on fundamental truth, but it is not logical nor acceptable to say this (which is actually what the robot icga investigators say):
Program A is similar, uses similar ideas to Program B. We (icga robots) accept that we cannot distinguish between the two cases
1. that A and B were independently developed, and
2. that program A copied B
because we can't find identical code to prove this. Well, apart from robot Hyatt, who is still pretending, or better lying, that there is identical code.
But, the robot icga investigators, use your illogical logic. They say because there are "quirks", this proves A copied B in all the areas that are similar, but we can't prove are copied. ie, they claim thye don't need to prove "copied", they just need to prove "similar" and point to some "quirks". This in fact is the silent Ken Thompson case. When asked afterwards, he said "0.0". As if this is enough!
Robot icga case therefore, depends entirely on the quirks. Without them, the similarities prove nothing.
BUT THERE ARE NO QUIRKS. Point 1.
Point 2. Suppose there are quirks. Or suppose there is a common error. But all the rest of the program is written such that no individual part of it can be proven copied. ie, it is not possible to distinguish A and B from independently developed or copied, could be either, but nobody can say for sure.
Well, we know many programs started off as Gnu, or Crafty or whatever, whatever. the chess wiki is full of them. Bruce Moreland is an example with Gnu. These are deemed to be ok by the robot icga, because of sufficient "differences" or "creative extra inputs" or "long enough development period". But what if there is just ONE quirk or error from GNU in Ferret? Possible, but would we care? We know robot Hyatt wouldn't care, or would find a reason for not caring.
It is very difficult not to draw the conclusion that Vas has been targeted for all the wrong reasons, and crucified for doing the same as everybody else. Rybka contians many many new creative ideas. No one part of it can be proven copied. The overall ideas-match with Fruit is nothing special. And there are no quirks, other than disproven ones, such as 0.0 or setjmp(). It was a setup to screw him put of computer chess for being too good, right from the start.
Well, that goes into the details of the Rybka case, which is a bit off-topic here. We were discussing whether a verdict of 'plagiarism' would exonerate Vas from the accusation of rule #2 violation, not whether he actually violated rule #2 or not.
And that is called "running away".
However: Rule 2 is a rule for TD's at the time of a tournament, where a decision has to be made quickly using whatever expertise is at hand. It is NOT a rule for difficult, obscure cases. It is a rule for: source code A = source code B pretty much and easy to see type decisions.
It is an unsuitable rule for use afterwards, especially five years afterwards, because the criteria are majorly undefined. Also as a statute, it doesn't allow for any sanction other than the one written "disqualification from the tournament". It ran the danger, because of the undefined nature of its terms, that, in the hands of a biased or partial "investigation team" that it could be used to mean whatever the team wanted. Thus your argument with AP over the fine detail of what words mean is pretty irrelevent. Rule 2 was distortable for any purpose, and was distorted. Period.
However: Rule 2 is a rule for TD's at the time of a tournament, where a decision has to be made quickly using whatever expertise is at hand. It is NOT a rule for difficult, obscure cases. It is a rule for: source code A = source code B pretty much and easy to see type decisions.
It is an unsuitable rule for use afterwards, especially five years afterwards, because the criteria are majorly undefined. Also as a statute, it doesn't allow for any sanction other than the one written "disqualification from the tournament". It ran the danger, because of the undefined nature of its terms, that, in the hands of a biased or partial "investigation team" that it could be used to mean whatever the team wanted. Thus your argument with AP over the fine detail of what words mean is pretty irrelevent. Rule 2 was distortable for any purpose, and was distorted. Period.
It is actually called "thread hijacking", to post about issues you are obsessed about in unrelated threads.
But I don't think there is much ambiguity in what "original work" means, either during a tourney, or 5 years after. Just like there is no ambiguity in what "performance enhancing drug" means in the rules for the tour de France, years after you have won it.
But I don't think there is much ambiguity in what "original work" means, either during a tourney, or 5 years after. Just like there is no ambiguity in what "performance enhancing drug" means in the rules for the tour de France, years after you have won it.
You have no arguments, do you?! And this from someone, on record as saying, he hadn't studied the Rybka-Fruit technicals.
Arguments for what? If you want to discuss the Fruit-Rybka case, start your own thread for it. I feel no obligation to provide any arguments on off-topic issues, just because you try to hijack a thread.
No wonder you can'tthink straight when it comes to the assessment of Rybka-Fruit-icga-plagiarism-rule2 bla bla.
off topic? hahahahahahaha! this thread is about icga, rybka, rule 2, plagiarism, levy. all mentioned in the opening post. Go read it, robot. Adjust your programming, then come back and apologise. Idiot. Or, more likely, you are just in denial over your icga-worship,a nd can't face that the truth is opposite. Idiot either way. Goodbye.
off topic? hahahahahahaha! this thread is about icga, rybka, rule 2, plagiarism, levy. all mentioned in the opening post. Go read it, robot. Adjust your programming, then come back and apologise. Idiot. Or, more likely, you are just in denial over your icga-worship,a nd can't face that the truth is opposite. Idiot either way. Goodbye.
You just failed the Turing test for passing as a civilized human.
You don't get your devious way, so you throw a tantrum and get on a name-calling binge. My nephew is very good at that too. But he, of course, is only 3 years old...
You don't get your devious way, so you throw a tantrum and get on a name-calling binge. My nephew is very good at that too. But he, of course, is only 3 years old...
I am my own person. I call it like I see it. I see an idiot without arguments with his head in icga posterior because he likes hierarchies, they are simple, they explain to him, he just "believes". When confronted he runs away and insults. You insulted me with the word "obsessive", extrapolating from almost zero data. I read that and I thought, ok, it's not yet lunchtime here, so far today, I have been swimming (twice), composed tracts about the Greek situation, posted about Greece and got deluged with "I like"s, carried on bullding a solar wax melter (almost finished), looked after the potager, made breakfast, inspected eleven bee colonies, walked the dog, been to the town market, bought the glass for the solar melter, been charmingto the wife. Is that it? Maybe some other things too. Oh, and informed you about the truth re icga, plgiarism, rybka since you are so confused. Sounds like a lot of very varied activities, some physical, some intellectual, as it should be. Obsessive? hahahaha!! More like butterly flitting with too much energy over multivarious activities, but you just carry on extrapolating from no data. Idiot. GOODBYE.
Interesting that you consider it an insult when I describe how one calls a particular behavior of obsessed persons, assuming it pertains to you. One wonders why...
Trolls can be best met by using the 'ignore' button
This seems pretty straight forward to me. Just answer -Yes or No! Please! Appreciate the conciseness of an answer. Was any copied Fruit code found. Plain and simple answer will do!
Don't give me the answer, "Well, that's impossible to show, but there are methods by which...."
I want a clean cut answer!
Don't give me the answer, "Well, that's impossible to show, but there are methods by which...."
I want a clean cut answer!
Well, you should not ask me, because Vas never showed me the Rybka code.
But if we are willing to take it on the authority of David Levy and the investigative panel he appointed, I think the anwer would be an unequivocal 'no', right?
But if we are willing to take it on the authority of David Levy and the investigative panel he appointed, I think the anwer would be an unequivocal 'no', right?
> But if we are willing to take it on the authority of David Levy
To take anything on his authority, I would give an equally unequivocal no!
and regarding the investigative panel , what they were given to look at may have been equally equivocating and misleading given no factual evidence was produced.
Well, then you would have to do your own investigation, obviously. In any case the consensus amongst the ICGA investigaors, as I understood it, was that either that there was no code copying, or that they had not investigated the question if there was. If you believe there was code copying, you'd better give the evidence.
Why should I do any investigating into a matter that needed no investigation to begin with. That was the presumption from the very start of the entire affair. No attempt was made to bring these parties to the table right from the outset in private discussion. The entire process was contrived to create a polarizing environment where divisions were created. David Levy should have his ass handed to him for total incompetence in the handling of this matter.
It is call negotiations. And only after those negotiations fail to materialize any cooperative reconciliations or agreed upon compromises where you get the results that is satisfactory to what you are looking for - do you then call for more stringent methods of inquiry.
It is call negotiations. And only after those negotiations fail to materialize any cooperative reconciliations or agreed upon compromises where you get the results that is satisfactory to what you are looking for - do you then call for more stringent methods of inquiry.
![[us]](../../mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
If you look back in time, this was initiated by a large group of programmers after looking at evidence produced by Zach and Christophe. Zach actually tried to ask Vas about the subject more than once and was simply "rebuffed" each time. During the panel discussions Vas was asked to join in. He could have offered explanations, or his interpretation of the rules, etc.
To characterize this as as a "witch hunt" or "attempt to exclude Rybka because it was so strong" is simply wrong. IE there are about a zillion people that believe O.J. was innocent, and an equal zillion that believed he was guilty. It all depends on how you look at and evaluate the evidence. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that the people involved that I know personally were not "out to get" anyone. They examined the evidence, they believe it supported how they voted, with absolutely no malice or anger involved. Not agreeing with the final decision is one thing, but trying to mischaracterize really good people is something entirely different, and completely uncalled for.
You can find groups of people that would fight to keep Obama in the white house for life if the constitution didn't have a term limit, you can find groups of people that would fight to get him out today if possible. All based on their belief that what they have seen is good or bad. Doesn't mean any of 'em are malicious.
To characterize this as as a "witch hunt" or "attempt to exclude Rybka because it was so strong" is simply wrong. IE there are about a zillion people that believe O.J. was innocent, and an equal zillion that believed he was guilty. It all depends on how you look at and evaluate the evidence. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that the people involved that I know personally were not "out to get" anyone. They examined the evidence, they believe it supported how they voted, with absolutely no malice or anger involved. Not agreeing with the final decision is one thing, but trying to mischaracterize really good people is something entirely different, and completely uncalled for.
You can find groups of people that would fight to keep Obama in the white house for life if the constitution didn't have a term limit, you can find groups of people that would fight to get him out today if possible. All based on their belief that what they have seen is good or bad. Doesn't mean any of 'em are malicious.
I don't care about what took place after David Levy successfully created a polarizing environment, Bob!
All that evidence you talk about and the large group of programmers with their concerns - does not in anyway dismiss bringing the issue first to table. Behind closed doors.
You used the word " Witch Hunt" I made no such use of that word- or accusation.
It was rather "incompetence" on the part of David Levy- that made a mocker of the ICGA process.
All that evidence you talk about and the large group of programmers with their concerns - does not in anyway dismiss bringing the issue first to table. Behind closed doors.
You used the word " Witch Hunt" I made no such use of that word- or accusation.
It was rather "incompetence" on the part of David Levy- that made a mocker of the ICGA process.
Didn't mean to imply you said "witch hunt". You know where that term comes from.
If you look at ALL of the major cases of rules being broken in public events, it is a public activity. It almost has to be.
If you look at ALL of the major cases of rules being broken in public events, it is a public activity. It almost has to be.
Note -I am not defending Rajlich! But I sure as hell am not supporting the methods used by the ICGA in judging him.
You told me Bob, that you weren't concerned over the "user" end of the spectrum. The fallacy of that notion I think ended after you expended your energy over some 12, 000 post ago.
It is the user you were vying to reach not anyone poster- don't tell me it was Alan you tried to win over?! To convince him that the ICGA was correct in its actions against Rajlich? I don't think so!
Run a pole and find out if your efforts were successful.
I double dog dare you!
It is the user you were vying to reach not anyone poster- don't tell me it was Alan you tried to win over?! To convince him that the ICGA was correct in its actions against Rajlich? I don't think so!
Run a pole and find out if your efforts were successful.
I double dog dare you!
I would not expect unanimous agreement. And I am 100% certain that there is not unanimous disagreement either. Some things will ALWAYS be decided by a "split decision". I know there are plenty that either (a) don't agree with the verdict or (b) agree with the verdict but not the penalty. There are also those in (c) that agree with everything (I am NOT one of the latter, but it seems moot since Vas doesn't appear to be planning a return to CC).
> Why should I do any investigating into a matter that needed no investigation to begin with.
Well, it was you who was asking the question. If you are not interested in the aswer, why ask it? If you on principle won't trust what anyone else has found investigated the matter, why ask it to anyone else?
You already answered it - there was not need for an investigation-no code was found. You only had assertions -yours. The other side came up with theirs. 6 of one half a dozen of the other. That is what you entered into this process with to begin with. The cart before the horse.
No code -no facts just assertions and that is what David Levy allowed the panel to consider and he to base his conclusion on.
Levy knew this going into the process what the end result would be. It was a sham.
And here you are defending this sham after openly admitting that there wasn't any Fruit code found. You are pretty much saying that everything was based on- here say- going it this process- and, that the data confirming the here say, was ambiguous-if not - biased -and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was unconsciously driven to reflect that bias!
Even Dr. Hyatt on Talkchess stated, I think it was around 2008 - that that type of data can be construed to be interpreted in many different ways.
No code -no facts just assertions and that is what David Levy allowed the panel to consider and he to base his conclusion on.
Levy knew this going into the process what the end result would be. It was a sham.
And here you are defending this sham after openly admitting that there wasn't any Fruit code found. You are pretty much saying that everything was based on- here say- going it this process- and, that the data confirming the here say, was ambiguous-if not - biased -and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was unconsciously driven to reflect that bias!
Even Dr. Hyatt on Talkchess stated, I think it was around 2008 - that that type of data can be construed to be interpreted in many different ways.
I don't want to re-open this debate for the n+1th time, but a couple of points.
There was a TON of code examined, the rebuke assembly language. It was compared to the fruit source. No assembly language is not the same as C. But yes, you actually can compare the two quite reliably. The only subjective point in this investigation is the "non-literal copying" which was explained over and over. If you don't believe in it, that's fine, but it can be recognized.
There were no "assertions" here. Zach took the rybka binary and matched it up with fruit. In a few places exact matches were found, one after the fact by Richard Vida. But in many places semantically equivalent blocks were found. Some want to argue that any single difference in a block negates that from being useful. However, there are MANY parts of Crafty that have slowly evolved over a long (or short) period of time. Yet the provenance is not in doubt, even when every other line is changed.
So no, there wasn't "very much exact fruit code" found although there was definitely too much of that, but it was all the semantically equivalent stuff or nearly semantically equivalent stuff that simply said "this is not even close to being original in these areas."
But the one thing that is WAY off base here is this stuff about "bias". There simply wasn't any. Otherwise I assume we should expect a major effort to DQ stockfish or Komodo next? Of course nobody tried to DQ deep Blue, or Cray Blitz, or Belle, or chess 4.x when they were on top for several years. I realize that some just want to win at all cost. And some want to win at all cost but against the best possible opponents.. I am among that latter group. If I win, I want it to mean something... MOST of the computer chess folks are in that same camp. Yes there are the cloners/copiers, but there are plenty of the "normal" folks around as well.
There was a TON of code examined, the rebuke assembly language. It was compared to the fruit source. No assembly language is not the same as C. But yes, you actually can compare the two quite reliably. The only subjective point in this investigation is the "non-literal copying" which was explained over and over. If you don't believe in it, that's fine, but it can be recognized.
There were no "assertions" here. Zach took the rybka binary and matched it up with fruit. In a few places exact matches were found, one after the fact by Richard Vida. But in many places semantically equivalent blocks were found. Some want to argue that any single difference in a block negates that from being useful. However, there are MANY parts of Crafty that have slowly evolved over a long (or short) period of time. Yet the provenance is not in doubt, even when every other line is changed.
So no, there wasn't "very much exact fruit code" found although there was definitely too much of that, but it was all the semantically equivalent stuff or nearly semantically equivalent stuff that simply said "this is not even close to being original in these areas."
But the one thing that is WAY off base here is this stuff about "bias". There simply wasn't any. Otherwise I assume we should expect a major effort to DQ stockfish or Komodo next? Of course nobody tried to DQ deep Blue, or Cray Blitz, or Belle, or chess 4.x when they were on top for several years. I realize that some just want to win at all cost. And some want to win at all cost but against the best possible opponents.. I am among that latter group. If I win, I want it to mean something... MOST of the computer chess folks are in that same camp. Yes there are the cloners/copiers, but there are plenty of the "normal" folks around as well.
You can throw data every which way you want and that doesn't change the fact that David Levy acted inappropriately and unprofessionally.
There is no getting around this-he eventually created more lasting problems for both the ICGA and the vast computer chess community then solved one-when he decided to act in a rash and ungovernable manner. Levy and the ICGA would have been better served, if he acting , out of the gate the dignity , with the reserve and dignity that his post demanded of him. Instead of being ruled and guided by a mob of testosterone angered programmers.
Vas was one of your own. Regardless of what you may have thought. Closed doors first ...how many times do I have to go over this????? It takes real men to admit where you went wrong.
The ICGA needs to clean house to get on with its business if it is going to have a future and be taken seriously. Levy needs to go!!!!
There is no getting around this-he eventually created more lasting problems for both the ICGA and the vast computer chess community then solved one-when he decided to act in a rash and ungovernable manner. Levy and the ICGA would have been better served, if he acting , out of the gate the dignity , with the reserve and dignity that his post demanded of him. Instead of being ruled and guided by a mob of testosterone angered programmers.
Vas was one of your own. Regardless of what you may have thought. Closed doors first ...how many times do I have to go over this????? It takes real men to admit where you went wrong.
The ICGA needs to clean house to get on with its business if it is going to have a future and be taken seriously. Levy needs to go!!!!
Nobody does "closed doors first" for publicly-held events. What about the humans getting caught cheating or supposedly cheating? Closed doors? Hardly. What would it have changed? Not a thing I can think of. The evidence was what it was. Many had looked at it and said it was convincing. A closed door meeting would only have delayed the public outcome...
This wasn't a "mob scene" irregardless. You want to imply it was a bunch of programmers that found a rope and now wanted to string someone up. All anyone wanted was to uphold the reputation of the ICGA events regarding rules and such. There is a good side to handling things publicly. Everyone sees the evidence, discusses it, and those that are exposed for violating rules go a long way to making it less likely that someone else will follow that path. It is much a deterrent as it is punishment. Nobody wants to do this investigatory stuff. It consumes a lot of time that could better be spent elsewhere. But by the same token, everyone wants to see a level playing field with everyone following the same set of rules...
David's one of the "good guys." I have known him since the middle-70's when he used to direct the annual ACM computer chess events before the ICCA/ICGA was formed in 1977. He really does have the best interests of computer chess firmly in his sight. The WCCC + all the other events (dozens of game tournaments) was once again a large success, partially due to David's efforts. All for no pay as all of the ICGA officers have done since it was founded.
This wasn't a "mob scene" irregardless. You want to imply it was a bunch of programmers that found a rope and now wanted to string someone up. All anyone wanted was to uphold the reputation of the ICGA events regarding rules and such. There is a good side to handling things publicly. Everyone sees the evidence, discusses it, and those that are exposed for violating rules go a long way to making it less likely that someone else will follow that path. It is much a deterrent as it is punishment. Nobody wants to do this investigatory stuff. It consumes a lot of time that could better be spent elsewhere. But by the same token, everyone wants to see a level playing field with everyone following the same set of rules...
David's one of the "good guys." I have known him since the middle-70's when he used to direct the annual ACM computer chess events before the ICCA/ICGA was formed in 1977. He really does have the best interests of computer chess firmly in his sight. The WCCC + all the other events (dozens of game tournaments) was once again a large success, partially due to David's efforts. All for no pay as all of the ICGA officers have done since it was founded.
So, Bob, you probably feel the same way as the other guy, h.g! eh!? None of this really concerns you either, right!
Well, you have a nice day as well. (this is as funny as hell! )
Best Regards
Robert
Well, you have a nice day as well.
(this is as funny as hell! )Best Regards
Robert
Does it concern me? Of course. But is there anything I can do beyond following the rules myself? Not so much. We've had cheating since the early years. Clone programs entered. Operators not following the rules, blatantly at times, but knowingly for certain. Etc.
Bob, this is not the first time I've seen this kind of politic in play. I've seen it on campus. In NY where the Theater Arts Directors who was bringing in professionals to direct plays and only scheduled prof's intermittently to do the same.
Unfortunately, the Theater Arts Directors wasn't tenured and got booted. No discussion -no nothing -and this guy was very popular with both facility and students.
The whole campus comes out in support of his reinstatement. There was a call for the department heads resignation and someone else be put in place that knew how to negotiate a more balanced agreement between grieving parties.
This chap might even have been right in his thinking -but oh so wrong in his handling of the situation.
Unfortunately, the Theater Arts Directors wasn't tenured and got booted. No discussion -no nothing -and this guy was very popular with both facility and students.
The whole campus comes out in support of his reinstatement. There was a call for the department heads resignation and someone else be put in place that knew how to negotiate a more balanced agreement between grieving parties.
This chap might even have been right in his thinking -but oh so wrong in his handling of the situation.
> You are pretty much saying that everything was based on- here say- going it this process- and, that the data confirming the here say, was ambiguous-if not - biased -and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was unconsciously driven to reflect that bias!
I was saying no such thing. Where do you get this nonsense from. The Rybka binary was investigated in detail, and enough similarity with Fruit at the algorithmic implementation level was found to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was not original in the sense of ICGA rule #2. According to those doing the investigation. They were actually unanimous about that.
Vas obviously had 'a case to answer', and he failed to answer it by submitting the source code that could have exonerated him. That means curtains.
You, said yourself, you had no copied Fruit code- what you did have was a consensus based on asserted assumptions-confidently declared by a presentation of data that had no bases in reality just an inherent biased partiality that prevented objective consideration of the fact that no code Fruit code was found.
[edit]
h.g. you can lay on me Zach and Vida and Watkins and, but as I recall there were a number of others who questioned the strength of their findings. Either you have copied code or you don't . What you did was struggle to meet the requirement and tried desperately to find that copied code and failed -so it turned into -What! "plagiarism". The ICGA got silly caught with its knickers down. Big Time.
[edit]
h.g. you can lay on me Zach and Vida and Watkins and, but as I recall there were a number of others who questioned the strength of their findings. Either you have copied code or you don't . What you did was struggle to meet the requirement and tried desperately to find that copied code and failed -so it turned into -What! "plagiarism". The ICGA got silly caught with its knickers down. Big Time.
Not sure what 'asserted assumptions' means. The investigators decompiled/disassembled the Rybka binary and found a similarity of the algorithm it used to that of Fruit to a degree that could not be explained by coincidence. Nothing was assumed. Isn't the report made public? If so, it is all verifyable, to anyone that is interested. That most certainly excludes me, but it seems to include you. So better do it. Meaningless babble like in the previous post only suggests you really have no clue what the issues are. E.g. you keep bringing up this matter of 'copied code', while it is utterly irrelevant. You can be in rule #2 violation with a program that does not contain a single line of copied code. The task of the investigators was not to demonstrate code copying, but rule #2 violation. This was known from the outset. What you say is totally off the mark, stuff you made up yourself.
> Not sure what 'asserted assumptions' means.
That is quite obvious!
[edit] I'm not ignoring you -I have to go!
> Meaningless babble like in the previous post only suggests you really have no clue what the issues are. E.g. you keep bringing up this matter of 'copied code', while it is utterly irrelevant. You can be in rule #2 violation with a program that does not contain a single line of copied code. The task of the investigators was not to demonstrate code copying, but rule #2 violation. This was known from the outset. What you say is totally off the mark, stuff you made up yourself.
h.g. Please don't practice "Deliberate Ignorance" otherwise regarded as "willful ignorance" at the heart of which lies-
Confirmation bias!
"The tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them, both positive and negative. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism and in science in general. This is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis."
Attack of the clones
By David Levy
The Rybka-Fruit Case
How to investigate such allegations and deal with cloning?
The ICGA intends to set up a forum for investigating prima facia claims of cloning in the world of computer strategy games. Claims that are proven to the satisfaction of the ICGA will result in sanctions being imposed by the ICGA on the offending persons, who will be named and shamed on the Internet.
Setting up such a forum for chess will require the support of leading members of the computer chess fraternity. We will need people willing to examine and compare source codes and to write reports on what they discover. The ICGA does not have a source of funds to pay for any such work, so anyone helping us will be a volunteer. Our current thinking is to make this chess forum open only to those who have already participated with their own chess program in an ICGA event. Anyone who comes into this category will be most welcome as a founder member of the group.
The first thing we need is someone willing to set up and operate a bulletin board where members of the forum can “meet” and exchange views. Will someone volunteer to do this to help the ICGA on its way to stamping out these insidious practices?
Update Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011: David Levy announced the establishment of the ICGA Clone and Derivative Investigation Panel. See the comment below.
Indeed, Levy announced in advance what was at stake. So what is your pioint, exactly? That the word 'cloning' is a layman's term that is ill-defined? Are you suggesting that if a participant is found in violation of rule #2, he should not be punished when he can show he is not guilty of what YOU think 'cloning' should mean?
>So what is your pioint, exactly?
Boy you do forget easily don't you!
Remember your earlier statement -
You can be in rule #2 violation with a program that does not contain a single line of copied code. The task of the investigators was not to demonstrate code copying, but rule #2 violation. This was known from the outset. What you say is totally off the mark, stuff you made up yourself.
Remember that one? Umh!
So, you were just out to get the guy -eh! Is that what it boils down to?
Because the original purpose of Levy's announcement was to get him on cloning!
Here we are again! " Deliberate Ignorance" marked by - (I'll highlight for you this time for you!)
Confirmation bias:
"The tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them, both positive and negative. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism and in science in general. This is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis."
Well, they did get him on 'cloning', didn't they? He was found to have cloned large parts of Fruit's evaluation.
> Well, they did get him on 'cloning', didn't they? He was found to have cloned large parts of Fruit's evaluation.
Reminds me of that scene in the Unforgiven!
Yeah! You sure did get him h.g!
What is truly weird is that you associate me with the Rybka affair. I did not get anyone: I was no co-signee to the original letter of accusation, I was not a member the investigative committee, I never examined the Rybka binary before that to start the case rolling. I don't even have had a Rybka binary on any of my computers, ever. Not even the free version. I could not care less if Rybka participates in the WCCC or not, as I don't participate in it myself.
So where do you get this silly idea that I was in any way involved, and 'did get anyone'?
So where do you get this silly idea that I was in any way involved, and 'did get anyone'?
> What is truly weird is that you associate me with the Rybka affair.
You made your own associations- I didn't bring you here - you brought yourself here!
> I was no co-signee to the original letter of accusation, I was not a member the investigative committee, I never examined the Rybka binary before that to start the case rolling. I don't even have had a Rybka binary on any of my computers, ever. Not even the free version. I could not care less if Rybka participates in the WCCC or not, as I don't participate in it myself.
Okay, so you came here just to make an argument! :cool; however, that my be David Levy's incompetence in the handling of the Rybka matter remains unchanged.
[edit]
To expend this much energy on the topic, you obviously rallied yourself to come here believing it important enough an issue to interject and post your comments.
I came here to point out that your claim, as issued in the title of this thread, was non-sensical, based on wrong understanding of the word 'or'.
Just like your previous post is non-sensical: You were on this thread even before I was, you started it. So by your 'logic', it must have been you 'who got Vas'?
Obviously posting on this thread has nothing to do with being involved in the Rybka affair. You just seem to suffer from a pathetic lack of knowledge of it, (not knowing what he was accused of, not knowing what the investigators were supposed to look for, not knowing what they found...), and of things in general (what plagiarism or cloning means). I just put that straight to avoid others new to the case would be confused by it.
You should not forget that Bob and I have been professors for most of our live, and that it has been our vocation in live to educate even the most stupid of students to get a degree.
Just like your previous post is non-sensical: You were on this thread even before I was, you started it. So by your 'logic', it must have been you 'who got Vas'?
Obviously posting on this thread has nothing to do with being involved in the Rybka affair. You just seem to suffer from a pathetic lack of knowledge of it, (not knowing what he was accused of, not knowing what the investigators were supposed to look for, not knowing what they found...), and of things in general (what plagiarism or cloning means). I just put that straight to avoid others new to the case would be confused by it.
You should not forget that Bob and I have been professors for most of our live, and that it has been our vocation in live to educate even the most stupid of students to get a degree.
Why are you so worried that you find the need to continue to come back. There is really no reason to go on repeating yourself. There wasn't much you could do within the context of the issue you were trying so hard to debate.
Honestly, you gave it your best shot. David Levy is a sow's ear- you know what they say about trying to make something silky slick out of sow's ear-you can't.
Honestly, you gave it your best shot. David Levy is a sow's ear- you know what they say about trying to make something silky slick out of sow's ear-you can't.
> Why are you so worried that you find the need to continue to come back.
Well, the standard for a forum is to make it stand out beyond any doubt to >99.9% the uninitiated readers that the person withspeaking you is a retard. I think that you achieved that standard only with your latest flood of posts, so now the job is indeed done. Before some 1% of the readers might still have been in doubt.
:)
When people ask what I do, I always respond "I attempt to stamp out stupidity." Of course one can never be 100% successful at anything..
When people ask what I do, I always respond "I attempt to stamp out stupidity." Of course one can never be 100% successful at anything..
Nice try in attempting to remove this issue out of context.
[edit]
h.g's mind is a bag of cats!
[edit]
h.g's mind is a bag of cats!
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / The difference Between Calling a Strike and a Ball!
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill