Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[BubbaTough]

In particular, the more I think about it, the less I think a lifetime ban for Rybka is justifiable, even if you grant all the allegations about it were true.
--Jon

The whole idea of a retroactive investigation is just crazy in my mind, though I have seen many proponents of it in sports over steroids and such. If it was me, I would say you have a year to file your complaint, then its over. The idea you can file a complaint about something that happened 5 or 10 years ago or whatever is just crazy to me. I would say that part bothers me more than anything about methods and such. Of course, once you go back that far, you kind of have to do a lifetime ban, if it had been say a five year ban for Rybka 1 activities it would have been already over by the time it was announced. What seemed to happen in my mind is

1. Some folks discovered something wrong probably took place with Rybka.
2. They realized checking the next upcoming Rybka version was not going to catch anything.
3. They decided proving the wrong-doing was worth a retroactive investigation and punishment.
4. To have any teeth, the punishment had to be extremely long.
5. To be consistent, they had to pursue other wrong-doers as well.

An easy road to go down once you hit step 1. (I don't have a strong opinion on whether they are right or wrong about 1., but I believe they believe, and are not in it for revenge or whatever). To me, though, the big problem is step 3. Just because you think someone did something wrong does not mean you should throw everything into turmoil blindly pursuing justice. The proper thing in my mind was to publish results, require a source code submission or other means of validation for participation in the next event (for any accused, not just Rybka), and then enforce the rules. Its likely Rybka would have not participated, or if it did, that the code would be sparkling clean. Problem solved. Maybe it would not have felt like justice, but it would have been better in my opinion than this whole bull-in-a-china-shop type approach.

-Sam

[jdart]

I don't want to personally attack anyone. And I tend to believe that people's motives are what they say they are.

Maybe I should have said: it has, in effect, become a small and rather closed group that participates in ICGA events. And IMO if they set the bar of originality very high, that group will remain small. That may be an undesired effect of ICGA policy but I think it is a real one.

[Don]

I don't want to personally attack anyone. And I tend to believe that people's motives are what they say they are.

Maybe I should have said: it has, in effect, become a small and rather closed group that participates in ICGA events. And IMO if they set the bar of originality very high, that group will remain small. That may be an undesired effect of ICGA policy but I think it is a real one.

I think the ICGA suffers for other reasons. People prefer to stay home much more than they used to, we would rather use email and watch a match on line or just watch television or browse the web instead of interacting with real people face to face and the economy is not that great.

I have heard people make statements such as, "why would I want to travel all the way to Europe with all the expenses and such when I can play these matches at home?" Many years ago it was not so simple to get exposure to many programs and authors, now we can.

I seriously doubt that ANYONE on either side of this issue is a really bad person. I have sometimes over-reacted and implied differently but that was something I usually regretted. It has been talked to death but the primary argument against the ICGA seems to come down to an ad hominem attack. I have always been taught that this generally tells you who the loser is, although in this case arguing about what was done, how it developed and so on didn't really accomplish anything useful, it just tore a lot of people down for no reason.

[BubbaTough]

I hope you are not letting yourself be swayed by all the propaganda, but I think this is totally unfair and off base. You are just echoing what you have been taught to say. If you look you will see that the ICGA has actually bent over backwards to welcome new blood into the ICGA, even to the point where they almost let in a obvious plagiarist of Mark Leflers "Now" program, even to the point of helping him financially. My very first tournament was payed for by the ICGA and that is when I had the weakest program in the tournament, they had never even heard of me before this. They payed for my trip to Europe and my accommodations in 1986.

I know the "boys club" sound bite sounds good on paper but it's just hyperbole to a ridiculous degree.

Jon's a pretty darn pleasant guy, I doubt he meant "boys club" in the same way it sounds coming from some other participants in these discussions. It is my belief that all the controversy makes it seem much less pleasant to invest ones holiday for such gatherings, where the impression one is getting is the tournament will be full of suspicion and accusation not camaraderie and sharing ideas. One certainly has seen the field get smaller and more exclusive, not larger and more inclusive. Perhaps that is what Jon was alluding to.

-Sam

[Rebel]

But they have alienated a lot of people by their actions. In particular, the more I think about it, the less I think a lifetime ban for Rybka is justifiable, even if you grant all the allegations about it were true.

Exactly Jon. What pissed off many is the whole procedure from the beginning to the end. The ICGA is a FIDE affiliated organization and are not even allowed to punish more than 3 years to begin with. An organization that punishes when someone break their rules but break the FIDE rules themselves they signed for.

3.2 Anyone acting in contravention of this code can be excluded from participation in all FIDE tournaments or from specific types of tournaments for a period of up to 3 years. Weight shall be given to the type of violation and to any previous violations in decided upon the length of the exclusion period.

[bob]

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

"I would not be surprised . . ." is not an allegation.

Best
Dan H.

Casts a slur of suspicion though.

"On WHO?"

On most or all of the participants of CCT 12. According to you, 1/4 of these people are may be using derivative engines. Which begs the question "Which of these authors may be dishonest?". You say the the "gut" is rarely wrong in these situations. That means you feel strongly that some of these authors are breaking the rules:

Almond/AlmondX Richard Hall
Amyan Antonio Dieguez
Berta/BertaCCT Felix Schmenger
Butcher/ButcherX Marek Kolacz
Deep Junior Amir Ban, Shay Busihnsky
Daydreamer Aaron Becker
Deuterium/DeuteriumCCT Ferdinand Mosca
Diep Vincent Diepeveen/Brian Fraiser
Dirty/DirtyChess Pradu Kannan & Andres Valverde
Gaviota Miguel A. Ballicora
Hannibal Sam Hamilton/Edsel Apostol/Audy Arandela(Book)
Hiarcs Mark Uniacke/Robert G. Osborne
Ikarus Muntsin & Munjong Kolss TBD
Jabba/JabbaChess Richard Allbert
Komodo Don Dailey and GM Larry Kaufman
Ktulu Rahman Paidar/Edwin Dabbaghyan
mathmoi/ChessPlusPlus Mathieu Pagé
Scorpio Daniel Shawul / Book. Salvo Spitaleri
Shredder/ShredderX Stefan Meyer Kahlen / C. Keck
Sjeng/SjengX Gian Carlo Pascutto/Sujay Jagannathan
Spark Allard Siemelink
Telepath/TelepathX Charles Roberson
The Baron Richard Pijl/Arturo Ochoa
Thinker/Thinkerdev Kerwin Medina
Tinker/TinkerFICS Brian Richardson

The fact of the matter is that your statements are strong enough to come close to being an allegation. Some may not interpret your statements quite that way. But others do. There is some ambiguity in the English language, and not everybody has a copy of the Bob Hyatt lexicon. Many times I have seen people interpret your statements in a way that did not match exactly what you meant. Too many times I have then seen you accuse that person of a lack of understanding on the topic of discussion, or accuse them of twisting your words, when you could have simply acknowledged there may be a misunderstanding and then attempt to clarify.

Adam

Please...

"It wouldn't surprise me if ..."

as opposed to

"A, B and C are derivative programs"

Give me a break.

For the record, since you seem to think I use a different dictionary:

allegation: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

So, who EXACTLY is this "someone"? To allege that someone has done something illegal or wrong, one has to identify "someone."

I am not inclined to give you a break on this. You are too important and valuable of a person to CCC. It is important that you realize your role in the dissension and acrimony that exists in the community.

For the record, the Bob Hyatt lexicon does not contain meanings that are non-existent in other dictionaries. However, it tends to ignore alternative meanings found in other dictionaries and in common usage.

For example, you say that you made no allegations since you did not specify any persons in particular. To back this up, you give a definition (easily seen when you google 'allegation') that says an allegation is made against someone. Of course, if we take this definition strictly literal, an allegation could never be made against a group but only against individuals.

Also, I have checked multiple definitions for the word 'allegation'. The common theme is "to assert something is true; to assert without proof". No mention of the need to specify individuals in order to make an allegation. Of course, an allegation has to be made against something. Such as a subgroup of people, say about one quarter of the participants of CCT 12.

What you said was short of an incrimination, but it definitely was a slur directed towards your competitors at CCT 12. There is a difference between expressing a lack of surprise if some competitors were using derivatives and expressing your "gut" feeling that approximately one quarter of them were using derivatives.

I assume that you are a Southerner, as I am. If someone said that they would not be surprised that some Southerners were uneducated bigots, neither one of us would object very much, because we know it to be true. However, if someone said that they felt strongly that a quarter of all Southerners were uneducated bigots, that affects you and me also. If they can prove it, then we have to accept it. But if they do not offer any proof, then that would piss me off, even if I am not an uneducated bigot. I would hope you would feel the same, because it is an untrue statement that makes many people worldwide look at an American from the South with contempt.

Adam

OK, ANYONE that has commented about the proliferation of clones/derivatives should have recused? No Zach? He started the evidence gathering. No Theron? No Fadden? No Watkins? No Levy (he wrote the attack of the clones story). Etc? Who is left? Just the Rybka supporters? That would be a fact-finding panel for sure.

An allegation is generally tied to a specific person, otherwise what sense does "I believe someone is guilty of murder" make?

ALSO, more importantly, No names were given. So exactly WHY would any participant feel insulted unless he knew he had violated the originality rule? I'd like to hear some explanation for that one... If I had named a specific program, and that program was guilty, would it have been better? If I had named a specific program and later found I was wrong, would that be worse?

I don't see this big "hang-up" on my statement, any more than I would expect to see any "hang-up" on David's "Attack of the Clones" article...

Next, you mis-quote me BADLY. I did not say "my gut feeling is that 1/4 of the programs are derivatives." I said "I would not be surprised." There IS a difference.

I am a Southerner and I would not give a second thought to the "I would not be surprised if 1/4 of all southerners are bigots" or something similar. I am not. I would let the ones that are be insulted and not think about it any further... I would not care if "all but a few southerners are bigots" was the statement. I am one of the few.

[bob]

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

"I would not be surprised . . ." is not an allegation.

Best
Dan H.

Casts a slur of suspicion though.

"On WHO?"

On most or all of the participants of CCT 12. According to you, 1/4 of these people are may be using derivative engines. Which begs the question "Which of these authors may be dishonest?". You say the the "gut" is rarely wrong in these situations. That means you feel strongly that some of these authors are breaking the rules:

Almond/AlmondX Richard Hall
Amyan Antonio Dieguez
Berta/BertaCCT Felix Schmenger
Butcher/ButcherX Marek Kolacz
Deep Junior Amir Ban, Shay Busihnsky
Daydreamer Aaron Becker
Deuterium/DeuteriumCCT Ferdinand Mosca
Diep Vincent Diepeveen/Brian Fraiser
Dirty/DirtyChess Pradu Kannan & Andres Valverde
Gaviota Miguel A. Ballicora
Hannibal Sam Hamilton/Edsel Apostol/Audy Arandela(Book)
Hiarcs Mark Uniacke/Robert G. Osborne
Ikarus Muntsin & Munjong Kolss TBD
Jabba/JabbaChess Richard Allbert
Komodo Don Dailey and GM Larry Kaufman
Ktulu Rahman Paidar/Edwin Dabbaghyan
mathmoi/ChessPlusPlus Mathieu Pagé
Scorpio Daniel Shawul / Book. Salvo Spitaleri
Shredder/ShredderX Stefan Meyer Kahlen / C. Keck
Sjeng/SjengX Gian Carlo Pascutto/Sujay Jagannathan
Spark Allard Siemelink
Telepath/TelepathX Charles Roberson
The Baron Richard Pijl/Arturo Ochoa
Thinker/Thinkerdev Kerwin Medina
Tinker/TinkerFICS Brian Richardson

The fact of the matter is that your statements are strong enough to come close to being an allegation. Some may not interpret your statements quite that way. But others do. There is some ambiguity in the English language, and not everybody has a copy of the Bob Hyatt lexicon. Many times I have seen people interpret your statements in a way that did not match exactly what you meant. Too many times I have then seen you accuse that person of a lack of understanding on the topic of discussion, or accuse them of twisting your words, when you could have simply acknowledged there may be a misunderstanding and then attempt to clarify.

Adam

Please...

"It wouldn't surprise me if ..."

as opposed to

"A, B and C are derivative programs"

Give me a break.

For the record, since you seem to think I use a different dictionary:

allegation: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

So, who EXACTLY is this "someone"? To allege that someone has done something illegal or wrong, one has to identify "someone."

Bob, you are just *horrible* in admitting to have made a mistake, as minor as it may be!

Let's have a look: of this list Amyan, Butcher, Junior, Diep, Gaviota, Hiarcs, Ikarus, Shredder, Sjeng, Telepath, The Baron, Thinker and Tinker should be out of doubt, as you have known and competed against them for years.

Now if 1/4 of the field are expected to be cheaters according to you, how would you feel yourself if you were one of the remaining entries ?

1. I didn't make a mistake. We find out that more and more "robolito derivatives" are playing.

Why are you picking out a specific group? I didn't name them. So what does that have to do with the discussion?

[jdart]

I continue to have a bad feeling about the result, if not the process.

One of ICGA's core problems now is that maybe once it was representative of the community of people who are hands-on engaged with computer chess. But that ceased to be true quite a long time ago. How many in this forum are members? Then, it is not surprising that their tournaments don't reflect the full spectrum of computer chess activity. (I am not talking here about the clones of questionable legality but all the activity and innovation that hundreds of programmers have done in the past 10 years). And now the recent investigation and banning have turned off some who might have participated.

--Jon

[bob]

So, Mr Lefler without allegedly knowing or thinking gave the source of his program away to a 3rd party, and hereby increased the number of clones..
I suppose we should thank him for his contribution.

I can not help but think that Vasik story is similar as his. He too gave an engine to a supposed tester whom he thought he could trust. That tester gave the engine Vas entrusted to him to others, and what we now have is an allegation that Rybka is a clone of not just one but several other engines.

PS: Why is Mr lefler on ICGA panel ?

Who would want to reply to such a twisted distortion of facts??? As far as Rybka being a derivative, it is NOT an allegation. It is a FACT.

[bob]

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=36

You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.

Confirmed.

Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.

waiting...

For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...

Totally irrelevant. You said that "guts are rarely wrong in these cases" (fact), and you accused me of lying twice because I said you said "guts are good to detect clones". "good" == "rarely wrong". I believe that a person who think this way and declares it publicly is not fit for leading an investigation of this kind. And it was not just a phrase written carelessly with a bit of exaggeration. You stood by it and that is clear from the rest of the thread I linked.

Now you are trying to derail the whole thing discussing side issues and accusing who disagree with you of dishonesty.

Miguel

My last reply to pure stupidity, which certainly describes this particular subject.

"gut feeling" won't convict ANYBODY. Evidence will. I did not accuse ANY specific person. I did not mention ANY specific program by name. Feel free to continue this nonsense. You can do so by yourself...

I gave a direct link, so the people can go read and formed their own opinion, compare with what I said, and verified if I lied or not.

I am going to be a moderator very soon, so I will try to stay away from controversial discussions. You had the last word.

Miguel

And for the record, I voted for you. And I think you will be a good one. But we do not agree on this point, obviously. This is similar to saying "It would not surprise me if there are several million dishonest people in the US." Does NOT insult everyone. Nor does it impugn everyone's character. The ones that "are" know who they are, the rest know they are not...

Good choice. I think that all three moderators will do as good a job as you did. And you are a great moderator.

I actually won't vote for those I don't think will do the right thing...