CB: Feedback on the ICGA/Rybka disqualification scandal

[bob]

I just don't see that Bob has an "evil" agenda. Sometimes Bob is too forceful or opinionated (as I can sometimes be too) which offends people who lack humility but he is basically a good guy. What would be his motivation for going after Vas? If it was for competitive reasons he would not publish his source code and be so helpful to anyone who asks questions and he doesn't make money from computer chess that I know of and even if he did how is Vas any kind of threat to him?

Off topic, but I don't think Bob would be allowed to profit from a chess engine, even if he wanted to, assuming he did his development at his University. I think the University would be the "owner" of the property,

I wonder if Chessbase has to pay somebody to be able to provide a Chessbase native version of Crafty?

No. The university doesn't work that way, at least not this one.

[bob]

Completely false. We went to the R1 binary because SEVERAL were saying "we don't know what strelka really is. We know it looks very fruit like. We have Vas' statement that strelka is Rybka 1.0 beta. But can we really trust that?" So there was a demand that we actually compare fruit and rybka 1.0 beta, most likely because those making the demand thought it would not happen. It did, and the rest is history. Only way to show that Rybka == fruit, taking Vas OUT of the equation since his honesty is not to be taken for granted, one HAS to look at Rybka directly. Our only choice was the ASM.

In one of his many answers this week, Vas replied on that alleged remark "oh, strelka? that's my own rybka" - or similar remark, he said "I dont remember having said that."

So, what was your judicially correct point, Bob?


What?

So there was a demand that we actually compare fruit and rybka 1.0 beta, most likely because those making the demand thought it would not happen. It did, and the rest is history.

Actually what has been proven now? fruit = rybka 1 ?? Excuse me if I laugh. Exactly this has NOT been proven, Sir Bob.

He seems to not remember saying a LOT of things. But he absolutely claimed strelka as his own, and was going to release it as his own, until he realized that it had some code that was NOT from rybka, and releasing that would be yet another copyright violation by him.

[Rebel]

No. No. No. Rajlich may have had all sorts of reasons for not involving himself in the process (including perhaps the belief that it was a witchhunt or possibly a belief that he did not have to justify himself to inferior programmers) but whatever his reasons nothing can be adduced from his silence. It is a fundamental principle of law (legal and moral) that a defendant does NOT have to prove himself innocent: it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, and not to come up with things you descrtibe as "quite strong".

Nice post, no surprise coming from me

Just in case you missed it, Vas gave a statement about that.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=23966

[bob]

wgarvin wrote:

We all looked at the evidence with a critical eye and found it to be quite strong. Its virtually certain that Vas did copy significant chunks of Fruit, such as almost the entire eval. Sure he tuned the weights in it, and sure he did lots of further work to improve Rybka in many ways, but it was NOT entirely his own work. These facts are not even in dispute -- Vas was given several chances to dispute them, and did not bother.

...It just pains me that so many people formed the wrong opinion that Vas is somehow the innocent victim here. Nothing could be further from the truth--the situation today is a direct result of Rajlich's own actions, and his refusal to acknowledge or try to explain those actions after he got caught and it was proven that he had copied critical chunks of first Crafty, and later Fruit into his own engine.

This is typical of such much of the combination of bluster, arrogance and innuendo that characterizes the anti-Rajlich brigade.

You start with an assertion that the evidence against Rajlich is "quite strong". Not "certain" or "proved" but merely quite strong. You then thrash around and in the next sentence decide to use the stronger phrase "virtually certain", which is still a very long way from proof. You then ackowledge Rajlich's great advances (something not done by many of Rajlich's detractors) but go on to declare that certain facts are not in dispute and along with most Rajlich opponents you immediately seek to justify that with the words "Vas was given several chances to dispute them, and did not bother", i.e. he must be guilty by definition. No. No. No. Rajlich may have had all sorts of reasons for not involving himself in the process (including perhaps the belief that it was a witchhunt or possibly a belief that he did not have to justify himself to inferior programmers) but whatever his reasons nothing can be adduced from his silence. It is a fundamental principle of law (legal and moral) that a defendant does NOT have to prove himself innocent: it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, and not to come up with things you descrtibe as "quite strong".

You then indlulge in the typical arrogance of group that acted as the prosecution/judge/jury by writing that it "pains" you that "so many people formed the wrong opinion" where the arrogant "wrong opinion" should have been replaced with the neutral "opinion differing from my own".

Finally, after starting with evidence that is merely "quite stong" and "virtually certain" you decide to go the whole hog and declare Rajlich guilty and to use the word "proven":

after he got caught and it was proven

As I say, a dog's dinner of bluster, innuendos, maybes, perhaps, definite, proven etc in a post that a lawyer would find risible and which will convince no neutrals here.

Sorry, but your elaboration has a major flaw. In a CIVIL action, one DOES have to prove himself innocent. The standard is "preponderance of the evidence". If I provide ANYTHING, and you provide NOTHING, you are going to lose such cases.

[dj]

No. No. No. Rajlich may have had all sorts of reasons for not involving himself in the process (including perhaps the belief that it was a witchhunt or possibly a belief that he did not have to justify himself to inferior programmers) but whatever his reasons nothing can be adduced from his silence. It is a fundamental principle of law (legal and moral) that a defendant does NOT have to prove himself innocent: it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, and not to come up with things you descrtibe as "quite strong".

Nice post, no surprise coming from me

Just in case you missed it, Vas gave a statement about that.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=23966

Thanks for that, Ed. I had indeed missed it.

[dj]

wgarvin wrote:

We all looked at the evidence with a critical eye and found it to be quite strong. Its virtually certain that Vas did copy significant chunks of Fruit, such as almost the entire eval. Sure he tuned the weights in it, and sure he did lots of further work to improve Rybka in many ways, but it was NOT entirely his own work. These facts are not even in dispute -- Vas was given several chances to dispute them, and did not bother.

...It just pains me that so many people formed the wrong opinion that Vas is somehow the innocent victim here. Nothing could be further from the truth--the situation today is a direct result of Rajlich's own actions, and his refusal to acknowledge or try to explain those actions after he got caught and it was proven that he had copied critical chunks of first Crafty, and later Fruit into his own engine.

This is typical of such much of the combination of bluster, arrogance and innuendo that characterizes the anti-Rajlich brigade.

You start with an assertion that the evidence against Rajlich is "quite strong". Not "certain" or "proved" but merely quite strong. You then thrash around and in the next sentence decide to use the stronger phrase "virtually certain", which is still a very long way from proof.

Have you ever been involved in a civil lawsuit? The standard of proof there is "balance of probabilities", in other words, "more likely to be guilty than to be innocent" (50% chance). The evidence against Vas is much stronger than that. I said "virtually certain" because that's how strong the evidence is: it shows at least a 99.99% chance that he's guilty.

You then ackowledge Rajlich's great advances (something not done by many of Rajlich's detractors) but go on to declare that certain facts are not in dispute and along with most Rajlich opponents you immediately seek to justify that with the words "Vas was given several chances to dispute them, and did not bother", i.e. he must be guilty by definition. No. No. No. Rajlich may have had all sorts of reasons for not involving himself in the process (including perhaps the belief that it was a witchhunt or possibly a belief that he did not have to justify himself to inferior programmers) but whatever his reasons nothing can be adduced from his silence.

Bullshit. Who cares why he didn't involve himself in the process. He was participating in ICGA tournaments, under ICGA rules, and got caught cheating. His ICGA titles were revoked by the ICGA Board, which also banned him from participating in any future ICGA tournaments. The ICGA is not a criminal court, its basically an international social club for chess programmers! His refusal to defend himself should absolutely be held against him when deciding if he should be allowed to participate in any more ICGA tournaments. He won't play by their rules, he won't even talk to them when there are serious accusations of cheating against him, accompanied by substantial amounts of very solid evidence. Of course they kicked him out!

It is a fundamental principle of law (legal and moral) that a defendant does NOT have to prove himself innocent: it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, and not to come up with things you descrtibe as "quite strong".

This is actually NOT TRUE for any kind of civil legal cases. It's only true for CRIMINAL cases, which involve serious crimes where the case is being prosecuted by the government. As far as we know, Vas didn't rape or murder anybody in the creation of Rybka.

But anyways, your "fundamental principle of law" is also irrelevant because the ICGA is not a court of law, its a private club/sports organization. Frankly, it can do whatever it wants. When the evidence surfaced, lots of members wanted the Fruit-Rybka situation investigated. So that was done, and the result was a clear picture of misbehaviour by Vas. He had a lot to answer for, but he hid himself away instead and ignored the repeated attempts to get his input. Instead, for the last 8 months, he's let his rabid fanboys (of which you and Rolf appear to be prime examples) fight his battles for him. But the main event is already over, the ICGA made its decision over 6 months ago and nothing is going to change it.

You then indlulge in the typical arrogance of group that acted as the prosecution/judge/jury by writing that it "pains" you that "so many people formed the wrong opinion" where the arrogant "wrong opinion" should have been replaced with the neutral "opinion differing from my own".

Hey, don't be an asshole, Derek. I wasn't indulging in any arrogance when I wrote that. I wrote it because its the truth. Everyone here on talkchess has opinions about this scandal, but most of those opinions are worthless because the people who hold them don't have a f***ing clue what happened because they either haven't read the evidence, aren't qualified to understand it, or (in a few pathetic cases) refuse to believe it and are now wilfully misrepresenting the facts of the case in an effort to persuade impressionable others to adopt their misguided point of view.

Okay, now you may accuse me of "typical arrogance". I'm really sick of reading the trollish bullshit you guys heap up on a near-daily basis. If people who don't know what they're talking about would just keep their damn mouths shut, the Internet would be a much nicer place.

Finally, after starting with evidence that is merely "quite stong" and "virtually certain" you decide to go the whole hog and declare Rajlich guilty and to use the word "proven":

after he got caught and it was proven

As I say, a dog's dinner of bluster, innuendos, maybes, perhaps, definite, proven etc in a post that a lawyer would find risible and which will convince no neutrals here.

By "proven" I meant that the ICGA Board, after receiving the report of the ICGA Panel, concluded that Vas had broke Rule 2. They made their ruling, so that is the reality now and forever about this issue. Occam's Razor, dude. If there was some (highly improbable) scenario in which Vas was innocent, he should have come forward and explained it. Too late now, the Board ruled against him and now it's all over and done with.

I don't believe there are any "neutrals" left in the computer chess community. There are only (1) people who read the evidence and understand the truth, (2) those who fanatically refuse to abandon Vas, and (3) people who are sick to death of the whole story and wish we could all just move on. As I said already: Everyone who cares about this issue has already made up their minds, and will justify their opinions however they want. No one who is susceptible to logic still believes Vas is innocent, so I'm not trying to convince anybody here. I'm just asking the trolls (such as yourself) to please shut up for a while. Thanks.

My bold. Actually I am one of the people in your third category - "people who are sick to death of the whole story and wish we could all just move on." If you were to look at my CCC posts this month you would see that approximately half of them make that very point. I happen to be as close as one can get to being a neutral. I replied to your post not because it was anti-Rajlich but because it was inconsistent (e.g. mixing "quite" strong with "proven"), shrill and very badly written . I would have happily responded to a pro-Rajlich post exhibiting such glaring faults, Your use of words such as "troll" and "asshole" says it all.

You again reveal your arrogance by making a simple division between those who are "susceptible to logic" and hence know Rajlich to be guilty, and those "who fanatically refuse to abandon Vas." As simple as that? You are, of course, right to note that many people take positions on the issue without expert knowledge (which you assume is all on your side). However, it seems to me that there are four categories of people capable of making relatively "expert" judgements (which does not , of course, mean they are necessarily right!). They are:

1. Commercial programmers with a track record of success.
2. A very small group of non-commercial engine authors who have produced strong engines and performed well in world in championships.
3. A very, very small group of people ackowledged as experts in the field by all and sundry without being engine authors.
4. Those who have actually worked on the Rykba project and know at least some versions from the inside.

Now you are obviously completely wrong in your implied assertion that all people with any expertise at all have condemned Rajlich. In addition you must divide that first category above into two groups: commercial programmers who are in competition with Rybka, and retired engine authors with no such vested interest. Now I am not saying that all commercial engine authors are involved in a conspiracy: merely that some may be seen by neutrals as subconsciously pre-disposed to finding Rajlich guilty because it is in their financial interest - giving the prosecution the benefit of any doubt. (In addition those in category 2 above may be seen by neutrals as willing to believe any possible anti-Rybka "evidence" because they may have become fed up with Rybka's overwhelming dominance) What of retired engine authors with no axe to grind - either financial or competitive? Well, we have Chris Whittington and Ed Schröder who have both had success as programmers before retirement and now doubt much of the evidence against Rybka. You may disagree with their views but you cannot simply contemptuously and unpleasantly rubbish their opinions as you do.

As for catgeory 4 above there is, I think, only Larry Kaufman who has spoken on the subject and he has suggested that it may be the case that Rybka 1.0 beta had some Fruit code but that later versions most certainly did not.

On the question of Rajlich not defending himself I simply do not accept that he was morally bound to do so. I could understand why Rajlich may have chosen not to involve himself even before I read his reasons, and his reasons given in answer to a question to Ed have merit. At any rate, I cannot as a neutral accept that Rajlich's non-participation is in itself proof of anything.

I repeat: I wish that all this nonsense would end. The ICGA has made its decision and that should be an end of it as far as those responsible for the verdict are concerned. Instead we have the Grand Inquisitor writing hundreds (thousands? ) of posts in favour of that decision and his acolytes such as you denigrating as "trolls" any neutral who wonders why there is the need for this constant repetition and denigration of opponents in a disatasteful manner? Why does not the Grand Inquisitor and people such as you simply shut up and say "What's done is done. We have given our reasons and our evidence. We will let that speak for us and say nothing further on the subject"?

That would be a consummation devoutly to be desired.

[towforce]

..it seems to me that there are four categories of people capable of making relatively "expert" judgements (which does not , of course, mean they are necessarily right!). They are:

1. Commercial programmers with a track record of success.
2. A very small group of non-commercial engine authors who have produced strong engines and performed well in world in championships.
3. A very, very small group of people ackowledged as experts in the field by all and sundry without being engine authors.
4. Those who have actually worked on the Rykba project and know at least some versions from the inside.

That's a little bit like saying that only those who have experience of killing people may judge a murder trial.

Well, we have Chris Whittington and Ed Schröder who have both had success as programmers before retirement...

Chris Whittington the Third... Person Singular?

[dj]

towforce wrote:

dj wrote:

..it seems to me that there are four categories of people capable of making relatively "expert" judgements (which does not , of course, mean they are necessarily right!). They are:

1. Commercial programmers with a track record of success.
2. A very small group of non-commercial engine authors who have produced strong engines and performed well in world in championships.
3. A very, very small group of people ackowledged as experts in the field by all and sundry without being engine authors.
4. Those who have actually worked on the Rykba project and know at least some versions from the inside.

That's a little bit like saying that only those who have experience of killing people may judge a murder trial.

If you had bothered to read the post to which I was replying you would have seen that Garvin had stated that only "experts" such as himself were able to judge the Rybka case. I was replying to that point and expanding.

Your suggestion that is comparable to allowing only murderers to judge murder trials is weird in the extreme - and, of course, totally wrong.

towforce wrote:

dj wrote:

Well, we have Chris Whittington and Ed Schröder who have both had success as programmers before retirement...

Chris Whittington the Third... Person Singular?

This is - if possible - even weirder. Perhaps you could explain the meaning - or rather lack of it. The emoticon at the end suggests you are going gaga. You might do well to remember the old adage

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

[towforce]

towforce wrote:

dj wrote:

..it seems to me that there are four categories of people capable of making relatively "expert" judgements (which does not , of course, mean they are necessarily right!). They are:

1. Commercial programmers with a track record of success.
2. A very small group of non-commercial engine authors who have produced strong engines and performed well in world in championships.
3. A very, very small group of people ackowledged as experts in the field by all and sundry without being engine authors.
4. Those who have actually worked on the Rykba project and know at least some versions from the inside.

That's a little bit like saying that only those who have experience of killing people may judge a murder trial.

If you had bothered to read the post to which I was replying you would have seen that Garvin had stated that only "experts" such as himself were able to judge the Rybka case. I was replying to that point and expanding.

That post is here. He never said or implied that such expertise could only come from a top chess programmer. Btw - you have quoted him, in quote marks, using the word "experts" - but he didn't use that word in his post - it's an invented quote.

Your suggestion that is comparable to allowing only murderers to judge murder trials is weird in the extreme - and, of course, totally wrong.

I didn't say "murderers" - I said people who have experience killing people.

towforce wrote:

dj wrote:

Well, we have Chris Whittington and Ed Schröder who have both had success as programmers before retirement...

Chris Whittington the Third... Person Singular?

This is - if possible - even weirder. Perhaps you could explain the meaning - or rather lack of it. The emoticon at the end suggests you are going gaga. You might do well to remember the old adage

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Jokes aren't funny when they have to be explained, so I won't elaborate.

[Rolf]

I repeat: I wish that all this nonsense would end. The ICGA has made its decision and that should be an end of it as far as those responsible for the verdict are concerned.

As a solution I would expect that the ICGA would write a self-correcting notion, saying that ouch they had applied the wrong logic which they thought would be the right one and that in that respect thex had to correct all their conclusions and that therefore Vas Rajlich plus Rybka are completely innocent again and of course with all their human and judicial rights.

The ICGA and Bob Hyatt would clarify the huge material losses for Vas and his wife.

ChessBase will negotiate it with the partners.