Vas, Hyatt, Levy, ICGA, WCCC, Confusion and Nausea

[Don]

Peter,

There is no point trying to reason with people about this. People very often make an emotional decision, then make whatever irrational arguments they need to in order support their decision. For example in the Kennedy rape case, the OJ Siimpson trial and a million other cases, for most people it's about who you like or relate to, or how good looking or charismatic they are or they are not. It's like that with voting for presidents too - only a fraction of the people are making their very best efforts to be objective - the rest just believe they are being objective.

In this case it does not matter that Vas copied code verbatim that was buggy - that issue does not resonate with them. I think that was true with OJ too, I think a non-trivial percentage who supported him did not care if he actually committed the crime, they were going to be behind him regardless. It's probably also true that a percentage that wanted to hang him also did not care about the evidence, they had already decided. Most made up their minds very quickly and then went with that.

I think the real issue to most people here, even though nobody is saying it, is that they don't believe there should be any restrictions at all on copying. I think some are in the closet so to speak on this issue so they have to talk around the real issue. Probably another group of people believe the evidence (which is really quite clear) but think that the ICCA was too heavy handed - and there are few who actually believe every program author is doing the same thing but just didn't get caught. I know that is ridiculous, but it's difficult to convince someone who is burdened with trying to rationalize irrational feelings.

For The Last Time: either reverse the decision against Vas, or force every commercial programmer in the "Top 12" or maybe "Top 15" to have their code go thru the same scrutiny that Vas' did. Which will create huge problems for ICGA and WCCC, and it does not bother me in the least if anyone agrees with me or not. There is not a commercial programmer out there who did not take AT LEAST as much from Fruit as Vas admitted taking. And very likely more than 50% took substantially more than Vas did. If any say they did not, it is simple- They are lying thru their teeth. If you wonder, it can easily be proven. If you yourself want to know if a particular commercial programmer is lying about this, it's a dead giveaway: Just watch and see if his lips are moving.

You could take the top 15 programs in the World and I _guarantee_ that they will not have have the verbatim code copying that Rybka was found to have. If any. Why you ask? Because none of the top programs have went through a complete rewrite in the past 8 years to my knowledge. They had code bases that went back _years_ and no one throws it all away when they can look at something better, take an idea, and tailor it to their program. I will go as far to state they _have_ looked at the Fruit source and probably the Ippolit code to see where they maybe lacking, taken ideas from it, then implemented those ideas in their own code. Why not? Isn't that what open source is all about? Can't anyone look at TSCP, Crafty, Stockfish and literally hundreds of other open source programs and build a program based on the ideas from one or all of them?

Taking ideas isn't the issue. Copying code verbatim is.

Now I am throwing out a couple things. 1. Anything at all found in Vas' version 1.6.1- If it sat there for 6 to 8 years and most people either never heard of it or don't give a shit about it, the hell with it. It is so far removed from any Rybka version that means anything, I don't even want to hear anymore silly bullshit about it. 2. Also disregarding, short of some bombshell discovery that might rear its ugly head, which I am not betting on, any of this back and forth between Ed and Bob. At its very best, it's big-time headache material. Not interested.

Here is something you don't quite understand. There was code from Crafty is Rybka 1.6.1. Code that had errors, copied verbatim. That is a real issue.

So throw out the verdict against Vas and give him a written public apology. Based on what everyone else has done, Vas is innocent. Get used to it. Or, leave as is, and give all the other commercial programmers the same "going-over" you gave Vas. Problem is, when you get thru and line all the rest of the crooks up, who plays in WCCC tourneys? Or junk the WCCC tourneys. All you will be junking is junk anyway. . And remember when it is all said and done, Vas will only be guilty of taking what he thought it was ok to take. And it probably was ok based on the fact no one really knows where ok stops- and bullshit starts.

Once again, you can't throw out the verdict. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

If you want to give the top programs the same going over, that's fine. Suggest it to the ICGA. A complaint was brought forward based on _evidence_ that yielded results of an infraction. It can't be ignored.

I know where "ok" stops and "bullshit" starts. Vas far exceeded that line. If he didn't, why not take part in the investigation and provide proof of no wrong doing? Why be silent and offer nothing?

Quite frankly I don't understand this level of loyalty towards Vas from you George. He cheated, got caught, and offers no excuse or apology. That isn't something I would go out of my way to defend or support.

Confused regards,

Peter

[Peter Skinner]

In this case it does not matter that Vas copied code verbatim that was buggy - that issue does not resonate with them. I think that was true with OJ too, I think a non-trivial percentage who supported him did not care if he actually committed the crime, they were going to be behind him regardless. It's probably also true that a percentage that wanted to hang him also did not care about the evidence, they had already decided. Most made up their minds very quickly and then went with that.

In my life I have had many "heros" that have been caught cheating, and instead of defending these people or rationalizing their actions, I chose people who preferred to play by the rules.

Ben Johnson
Roger Clemons
Mark McGuire

Three people that had tremendous amounts of success in Canada that served as role models only to be found as cheats. I didn't defend them. They were proven guilty with _evidence_ and I moved on.

I think the real issue to most people here, even though nobody is saying it, is that they don't believe there should be any restrictions at all on copying. I think some are in the closet so to speak on this issue so they have to talk around the real issue. Probably another group of people believe the evidence (which is really quite clear) but think that the ICCA was too heavy handed - and there are few who actually believe every program author is doing the same thing but just didn't get caught. I know that is ridiculous, but it's difficult to convince someone who is burdened with trying to rationalize irrational feelings.

There should be restrictions on copying code verbatim. That isn't taking an idea and forming your own implementation of it. That is simply taking someone's idea and using it just how they would.

Someone once designed a running shoe. We now have a million companies designing shoes, but with their own concepts at making them better. They took an idea and ran with it. They invested time, money, and above all energy to make their changes. You can't reinvent the wheel, but you sure can make it better as technology makes materials more durable.

I have _zero_ issue with someone that looks at something and says to himself "That's pretty good, but I think I can do better" and does. Ideas make this world go round. Without them we would still be in the Stone Age. I _do_ have issue with someone taking an idea and copying it verbatim.

Personally, I don't feel the ICGA was too harsh. They did what _any_ organizational body would do when a participant is caught cheating. They take away their medals, get the prize monies returned (Marion Jones anyone?), and ban them from the sport. Perfect punishment for those not wanting to participate in fair competition.

Peter

[Rolf]

The ICGA shouldnt care about copying at all. Simply because it makes no sense in computerchess. Why observing it? Nobody could make a winner out of mere copies. So in the end the better programmer is still winning. Take the model Fruit. Everybody read back and thru it but only Vasik profited the most because he wasnt just copying but had many new ideas of his own.

NB he only copied public domain! Like Crafty's table base implementation. Of course Bob is angry if such a programmer then has a stronger program, but it's not stronger through this tech code. So, there is no reason to complain. BTW Vas thanked Bob and Crafty! What else should he have done?

[jdart]

You could take the top 15 programs in the World and I _guarantee_ that they will not have have the verbatim code copying that Rybka was found to have. If any. Why you ask? Because none of the top programs have went through a complete rewrite in the past 8 years to my knowledge.

How can you "guarantee" this not having knowledge of their internals?

Certainly most programs have gone through a fairly significant evolution in 8 years.

[Peter Skinner]

How can you "guarantee" this not having knowledge of their internals?

Certainly most programs have gone through a fairly significant evolution in 8 years.

I stated that I would _guarantee_ that the top 15 programs didn't copy the code they have looked at _verbatim_. Taking ideas from it is another issue entirely.

[jdart]

I stated that I would _guarantee_ that the top 15 programs didn't copy the code they have looked at _verbatim_. Taking ideas from it is another issue entirely.

This guarantee is meaningless. I don't know anything about closed-source programs (other than Rybka, whose internals were exposed), so I guarantee nothing about them.

[bob]

The ICGA shouldnt care about copying at all. Simply because it makes no sense in computerchess. Why observing it? Nobody could make a winner out of mere copies. So in the end the better programmer is still winning. Take the model Fruit. Everybody read back and thru it but only Vasik profited the most because he wasnt just copying but had many new ideas of his own.

NB he only copied public domain! Like Crafty's table base implementation. Of course Bob is angry if such a programmer then has a stronger program, but it's not stronger through this tech code. So, there is no reason to complain. BTW Vas thanked Bob and Crafty! What else should he have done?

Simple reason why it matters. Let's take Rybka 5, and assume it is 50 Elo stronger than Houdini or any of the other robo* derivatives. Rybka can't win a world championship again. Why? Because if you allow all the copies of robo, even though they are 50 elo weaker, each one has a pretty fair chance of beating Rybka. And with so many chances, Rybka will lose games and we have a crap-shoot for first place. We don't want "clone wars". We want "original program wars." Those are fun. Clone wars are not, at least to authors.
Real authors.

BTW, the endgame code in Crafty is _not_ "public domain". I have already posted the relevant notice at the top of egtb.cpp, but here it is again:

Code: Select all

/* -------------------------------------------------------------------- */
/*                                                                      */
/*              Probe chess endgame database ("tablebase")              */
/*                                                                      */
/*               Copyright (c) 1998--2001 Eugene Nalimov                */
/*                                                                      */
/* The code listed below should not be used in any product (software or */
/* hardware,  commercial or not,  and so on) without written permission */
/* from the author.                                                     */

So that "public domain" comment won't fly. In 19.x versions, the _only_ public domain code I remember is the Random32() function from Knuth's book, which is cited in the Crafty source. I don't think he copied just that...

What else should have been done? He should have written his own code, to abide by the ICGA tournament rules he agreed to when he entered.

[Don]

The ICGA shouldnt care about copying at all. Simply because it makes no sense in computerchess. Why observing it? Nobody could make a winner out of mere copies.

The ICGA tournaments are programming contests between humans, not a contest specifically of programs. That is why the author brings home to trophy and the prize money.

A non-programmer could compile the sources of Stockfish, then add his OWN opening book and win a tournament. Now how do you think the Stockfish team would feel about this? The Stockfish team has put years into this program and thousands of man hours. Don't you have any compassion whatsoever for the hard work of others and does the concept of theft not bother you at all?

I don't think this concept is that hard to understand. It's like the proverbial office position where you work like a dog on some project, then the new guy steps in and takes the credit. It's offensive, disrespectful and just plain selfish.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that that Vas DID in fact contribute some original work and that he worked very hard at it. The ICGA knows this too. But that is not the issue and I don't see why you keep harping on it. Do you think the ICGA or anyone else should be in business of making exceptions because of ELO gain? What should the standard be? Should it be that if you gain at least 50 ELO it's ok to steal?

It's pretty clear from all the arguments that you have presented that your beef is with the rules. You should get the rules changed if you don't like them. You seem to be arguing that the ICGA should not enforce their rules because you don't like them.

So in the end the better programmer is still winning. Take the model Fruit. Everybody read back and thru it but only Vasik profited the most because he wasnt just copying but had many new ideas of his own.

This is an example of what I'm saying. You admit that Vas did some copying which is clearly against the ICGA rule on this.

Since Vas DID copy substantial pieces of code, it is not relevant that he added ideas. If I do a lot of good thing in my life, but then rob a bank, I get convicted for robbing the bank. The judge does not try to determine if I have done enough good to offset this crime.

If you think that rule is too strict, you should try to get it changed, or else not participate in ICGA events. This ruling ONLY affects ICGA and whether you like it or not, they are the governing body for those events. Get involved, join their membership and go to their meetings and run for office to have those rules changed if you don't like them.

NB he only copied public domain! Like Crafty's table base implementation. Of course Bob is angry if such a programmer then has a stronger program, but it's not stronger through this tech code. So, there is no reason to complain. BTW Vas thanked Bob and Crafty! What else should he have done?

He should have given Bob some of the prize money since Bob worked on the code of the winning entry.

[Rolf]

Don, you are wrong IMO. I wished Vas were here to talk to you.I'm not his representative although I've once made the remark in jest. Because I thought that everybody knew the realm of my expertise in CC programming.

Just in his latest interview Vas made a couple of interesting comments or statements. I'm not against rules nor Vas is it. But he said this. What concerns originality they had two lines. The one went all are accepted except in 5 to 10 minutes it is clear that there is a hoax. Which buries you example with the strawman who copied Stockfish and then won the title. There is a way to find this in minutes. For all with a complete unknown person. But the other line ist better. The ICGA has no clear definition of originality at all! So that they certainly cannot take away something because on what grounds.

More good news for you. Vas didnt get any price money at all for his titles. So, how could he spread somne towards Bob or who else?

Don, you know me a bit from my messages and you might have noticed that I'm an observer, not an expert in CC. I am a player against the machines like Fern a bit. But I dont understand the intestines of a program. I never claimed expertise. But as an average academic I am trying to have an interdisciplinary look on everything that happens here. I'm still no Chomsky but I'm enough educated to be a better observer than the average operator like Harvey just to give you an example.

That having said, I am not against a side or for another one. I am trying to support fair justice and a debate without wordplays. That would already be something.

I am a little bit deveived by your latest turnarounds. Since you were such a cool thinker in the past years. And now you condemn Vas without having consulted him.

Why not giving him the benefit of a doubt in the line of the best American tradition? Is he a murderer, a convicted stealer? Nope. There wasnt even a legal court case.

I dont say that there never was something but you are too smart to forget that having done something is not exactly what a real court trial in the end will hold against you. It's always about details. Like in science. And Here I know a bit what others perhaps dont.

In the train of a survey it is possible that your perception becomes biased because you are so certain that you already know the truth. So called blindness of professionals.

If you had respected all this already then fine by me. But perhaps you might admit that the public campaign as such cannot cause a perfect verdict. Because otherwise we could ask Bob Hyatt to tell us his position and in that line we could condemn people. We could do that, but do you think we should also do it?? Dont forget that Bob has no problem to utilize someone like kranium a condemned cheat and fraud. That is something I dont digest so easily. So judge my choice wouldnt be for Bob.

I think that our experts like you should be careful in such a hysterical situation and delay their verdict against a collegue to the time of a real court case. We dont have a lynch court where we now elect the verdict that gets the most votes.

Just consider for a moment that you were in Vasik's shoes, wouldnt you hope that people wouldnt condemn you on prejudicial evidence, but in a fair court trial?

[Don]

Don, you are wrong IMO. I wished Vas were here to talk to you.I'm not his representative although I've once made the remark in jest. Because I thought that everybody knew the realm of my expertise in CC programming.

Just in his latest interview Vas made a couple of interesting comments or statements. I'm not against rules nor Vas is it. But he said this. What concerns originality they had two lines. The one went all are accepted except in 5 to 10 minutes it is clear that there is a hoax. Which buries you example with the strawman who copied Stockfish and then won the title. There is a way to find this in minutes. For all with a complete unknown person. But the other line ist better. The ICGA has no clear definition of originality at all! So that they certainly cannot take away something because on what grounds.

More good news for you. Vas didnt get any price money at all for his titles. So, how could he spread somne towards Bob or who else?

Don, you know me a bit from my messages and you might have noticed that I'm an observer, not an expert in CC. I am a player against the machines like Fern a bit. But I dont understand the intestines of a program. I never claimed expertise. But as an average academic I am trying to have an interdisciplinary look on everything that happens here. I'm still no Chomsky but I'm enough educated to be a better observer than the average operator like Harvey just to give you an example.

That having said, I am not against a side or for another one. I am trying to support fair justice and a debate without wordplays. That would already be something.

I am a little bit deveived by your latest turnarounds. Since you were such a cool thinker in the past years. And now you condemn Vas without having consulted him.

Why not giving him the benefit of a doubt in the line of the best American tradition? Is he a murderer, a convicted stealer? Nope. There wasnt even a legal court case.

I dont say that there never was something but you are too smart to forget that having done something is not exactly what a real court trial in the end will hold against you. It's always about details. Like in science. And Here I know a bit what others perhaps dont.

In the train of a survey it is possible that your perception becomes biased because you are so certain that you already know the truth. So called blindness of professionals.

If you had respected all this already then fine by me. But perhaps you might admit that the public campaign as such cannot cause a perfect verdict. Because otherwise we could ask Bob Hyatt to tell us his position and in that line we could condemn people. We could do that, but do you think we should also do it?? Dont forget that Bob has no problem to utilize someone like kranium a condemned cheat and fraud. That is something I dont digest so easily. So judge my choice wouldnt be for Bob.

I think that our experts like you should be careful in such a hysterical situation and delay their verdict against a collegue to the time of a real court case. We dont have a lynch court where we now elect the verdict that gets the most votes.

Just consider for a moment that you were in Vasik's shoes, wouldnt you hope that people wouldnt condemn you on prejudicial evidence, but in a fair court trial?

This is nonsense. There is no question about what happened, the evidence is clear as a bell and several experts looked at it and agreed that sections of code were copied verbatim. There is nothing to discuss concerning this - the only interesting thing left to discussed is whether the rules are good or not or whether Vas should be pardoned for improving fruit by 200 ELO.

But since we don't make these rules for the ICGA it doesn't matter what we think. If we don't like that we can just decide not to support the ICGA. You don't have to be a part of ICGA or have a subscription or go to their tournaments.