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

[bob]

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.

Vas did not say what you are claiming. And the ICGA has never operated in the mode you are claiming (if a protest can't be resolved in 5-10 minutes, it is tossed out.) Some have been obvious. Some took a day or two (I don't remember the program, maybe Lion or something, where the author did not submit source in a timely manner and the program was ejected). My protest (by Berliner) took 6 months to handle. Just like this one, from the day the protest was made until a decision was reached. So this 5-10 minute thing is a complete crock.

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?

He did sell code that was not his and made money from that. Same thing.

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?

The ICGA can't wait for a court case. They have no standing to bring a copyright or GPL infringement, only Fabien/FSF can do that. And they might. Or might not. So the ICGA has to wait? That's nonsense. Was there a court case when Ben Johnson was DQ'ed from the olympics, after the fact? This kind of thing happens _all_ the time. Saw a PGA DQ last year where (I believe) a player simply forgot to sign his score card. He was booted from the tournament, and accepted it with an apology for being forgetful.

It happens.

[Rolf]

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.

Fine, if it's all nonsense what I write, I can delete it. But I'm not impressed by your statements either.

Question isnt if code was copied. It was copied, but it was public domain. (says Vas)

That is to be clarified in a legal case during a court trial. As far as experts agree you could always find some who disagree, so what could this mean without the clarity of a court case?

The only thing I say is that it's not the business of the community to agree on a lynch verdict without any legal relevance. There's a huge difference between what people and experts agree on and what a court in the end will publish as its verdict.

Also I warned against hysterical movements. Look already more than 5 years ago, without any evidence from experts we had a campaign here in CCC mainly by Ch. Theron, who was again a member of the panel now, when Vas was pre-judged on "moral" character deficiences. So that was the beginning that cummulated now into the ICGA speaking. Without any legal proof. And you think that there is nothing to discuss?

It's also a good tradition to insinuate that the "fanboys" of Vasik would slowly step by step adapt to every new situation of a proven wrong. This is not what I am doing for years now.

Right from the beginning of the campaign here in CCC I tried to argue for carefulness and judicial relevance of the public allegations. Instead one collaborated with fraudguys and totally anonymous figures who boasted themselves with their stealing of closed code that they published and so tried to harm the interests of Vas.

Basically you are saying, that this was all ok like the ICGA conclusion and now it should be examined if the rules were exact and processable enough. Eh, so that is always done after a public character assassination has been done?

How could we heal the damages of Vasik's good name, if we now would find out that on the bases of the given rules it's less probable that Vas did something wrong?

But that's not the whole story. What happens if we could find out that what Vas forgot to do to be absolutely kosher in questions of the licence, also many others did in a similar way? Would it make sense to ban the elite of the computerchess programmers so that basically Harm Geert Muller were the new World Champion in Canberra (Australia) in Sept. 2015? Second place were Turing&Thompson&Levy&Friedel with their open sourced Enigma. Number of players N=2, officials at least 35 VIP known from the famous panel in 2011.

[Don]

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.

Fine, if it's all nonsense what I write, I can delete it. But I'm not impressed by your statements either.

Question isnt if code was copied. It was copied, but it was public domain. (says Vas)

It's not relevant where it's public domain or not, this is not a legal decision, it's an ICGA rules issue.

Whether Rybka is legal is an entirely different issue which would need to be settled in court. I'm not sure how it would come out and I think even the GPL issue is fairly untested but I might be wrong on that.

That is to be clarified in a legal case during a court trial. As far as experts agree you could always find some who disagree, so what could this mean without the clarity of a court case?

This is really silly. This is an ICGA ruling only and has nothing to do with whether Rybka is legal or not.

If you an I set down to play a game of chess and one of us castles and the other claims it is illegal, we don't take each other to court because it's out of context. It's not a legal issue. If it's in a tournament, the tournament director will resolve the issue and make a ruling. Even if he makes the wrong ruling we have to use the appeals process that most tournaments set up, or else we have agreed beforehand that the TD ruling is final and we live with it.

The only thing I say is that it's not the business of the community to agree on a lynch verdict without any legal relevance. There's a huge difference between what people and experts agree on and what a court in the end will publish as its verdict.

It would make no sense for the ICGA to take Vas to court. In this case it would make more sense for Vas to go to take the ICGA to court if he perceives that he was treated unfairly. But since Vas does not seem interested in defending himself he would find this distasteful since the ICGA is going to show that Vas violated the ICGA rules and Vas will have to show that he did not. He cannot show that because he DID violate the rules.

BB on the Rybka forum showed pretty convincingly that the majority of the panel had no obvious vested interest in the outcome. If this was all about lynching Vas in a kangaroo court out of insane jealousy and pettiness you might want to check your facts.

I really wish people would have a cooler head about this, because to make your point you have to make wild accusations that are not reasonable.

Also I warned against hysterical movements. Look already more than 5 years ago, without any evidence from experts we had a campaign here in CCC mainly by Ch. Theron, who was again a member of the panel now, when Vas was pre-judged on "moral" character deficiences. So that was the beginning that cummulated now into the ICGA speaking. Without any legal proof. And you think that there is nothing to discuss?

I don't know anything about that as I was not involved in computer chess 5 years ago.

I agree about hysterical movements but that advice should apply to you too. You are taking up an unreasonable defensive posture talking about going to court over a non-legal issue and yet admitting that Vas violated the rules but that it's a travesty that they enforce their own rules and that it's a lynching. Calling this a lynching is way over the top and hysterical.

It's also a good tradition to insinuate that the "fanboys" of Vasik would slowly step by step adapt to every new situation of a proven wrong. This is not what I am doing for years now.

Right from the beginning of the campaign here in CCC I tried to argue for carefulness and judicial relevance of the public allegations. Instead one collaborated with fraudguys and totally anonymous figures who boasted themselves with their stealing of closed code that they published and so tried to harm the interests of Vas.

Basically you are saying, that this was all ok like the ICGA conclusion and now it should be examined if the rules were exact and processable enough. Eh, so that is always done after a public character assassination has been done?

The ICGA used a very deliberate and careful process. It is clear that this is not relevant to you, only if the result was complete exoneration for Vas would you think the process was fair.

How could we heal the damages of Vasik's good name, if we now would find out that on the bases of the given rules it's less probable that Vas did something wrong?

Could you at least consider the possibility that what Vas did was slightly wrong? You have chosen what to believe and not open to any other possibility.

I saw a high profile crime in the USA which was resolved without debate, the person was found and it was proved that he was guilty without reservation. But a few months later his parents were interviewed and proclaimed his innocence and they did were completely ridiculous, claiming that evidence was manufactured, "he coun't have been there (because he said he was somewhere else) and so on. It was obvious that the parents were not prepared to accept the truth.

But that's not the whole story. What happens if we could find out that what Vas forgot to do to be absolutely kosher in questions of the licence, also many others did in a similar way?

I am now pretty confident that the ICGA would make the same ruling in each case. But how is this relevant? Are you saying that if others do this it's ok for Vas to do it? It's possible that someone else will be found doing this at some point but it's a real stretch to believe everyone is doing it as you seem to be implying.

Would it make sense to ban the elite of the computerchess programmers so that basically Harm Geert Muller were the new World Champion in Canberra (Australia) in Sept. 2015? Second place were Turing&Thompson&Levy&Friedel with their open sourced Enigma. Number of players N=2, officials at least 35 VIP known from the famous panel in 2011.

[Rolf]

It's not relevant where it's public domain or not, this is not a legal decision, it's an ICGA rules issue.

Whether Rybka is legal is an entirely different issue which would need to be settled in court. I'm not sure how it would come out and I think even the GPL issue is fairly untested but I might be wrong on that.

Hi Don, I think this paragraphe brings us closer together. I see no more room for debates. I have thought that you and you all believed that the ICGA would be judging on a pre-legal level as organization as such. But if that isnt the case I now can understand the attitude of Vas even better. He just doesnt care but he cant do anything about it. If people in the ICGA want to ban him, he cant stop them. But he has no bad feelings towards Levy for example. Isnt he cool?

This is really silly. This is an ICGA ruling only and has nothing to do with whether Rybka is legal or not.

It would make no sense for the ICGA to take Vas to court. In this case it would make more sense for Vas to go to take the ICGA to court if he perceives that he was treated unfairly. But since Vas does not seem interested in defending himself he would find this distasteful since the ICGA is going to show that Vas violated the ICGA rules and Vas will have to show that he did not. He cannot show that because he DID violate the rules.

But we agree that this has NOT yet been judged by a legal court, it's just the opinion of programmers like you.

BB on the Rybka forum showed pretty convincingly that the majority of the panel had no obvious vested interest in the outcome. If this was all about lynching Vas in a kangaroo court out of insane jealousy and pettiness you might want to check your facts.

Well, that is a danger I see, I do not have evidence for such a process. But only in short between us. The obsession and endless time sacrificed to this job, it doesnt make you doubt the sane motivation of such people?

Please dont misunderstand me, Don. Also BB like Bob is a big expert. No doubt. Or better, how could I doubt it, but also if you dont like him what I dont know, Chris W is one programmer who sees some problems in what people like anonymous BB who is called Watkins in real found out. He doubts that they have proven what they think they had proven. But Chris isnt even welcomed here in CCC. So that is not a good or optimal situation.

So back to the main topic.

I for one couldnt decide on the details at all. But I see truely dissenting views and the case isnt so clear at all as it is presented by Bob, BB and then President Levy.

My single motif is that there is space left for a fair debate about the evidence and this under the inclusion of also critical spirits like Chris W. If everything is absolutely water tight. there should be no fear that critics like him should disturb the peaceful unity of the panel people. Wouldnt you agree?

So please dont misunderstand me. My wording of the lynch etc. is NOT related to my views on the results people like BB had found out. How could I judge that? The reason for the wording is my impression that it was somehow manipulated the result because now critics must be discarted. If one had nothing to fear because the results are so watertight, one would allow the critics to give their say.

I don't know anything about that as I was not involved in computer chess 5 years ago.

But you would agree that certain events might still have happened also if you were not there at the time? It's a fact that Theron insulted Vas on the basis of his suspicions because the evidence wasnt there at the time yet. I mention this because I want to explain how a certain reaction on Vasik's side might have begun. How would you react if people would insinuate such ad hominems about you?

I agree about hysterical movements but that advice should apply to you too. You are taking up an unreasonable defensive posture talking about going to court over a non-legal issue and yet admitting that Vas violated the rules but that it's a travesty that they enforce their own rules and that it's a lynching. Calling this a lynching is way over the top and hysterical.

I hope I could clarify this, Don. The reason for my position is the famous not guilty until proven guilty in a court trial. If this is just a technical debate about a reaction of a tournament director or a President of a private organization of some 40 people, then it would be ok for me. But if I were Vas I would keep a door open for a possible reaction in court because I would feel prejudiced for unfair reasons.

Let me make a serious outlook. I am pretty sure that in a couple of months the ICGA will correct its own decision because they might consider that much of what they see in Vas is daily business of many members. The key in my eyes is the public domain stuff. It doesnt make Rybka's strength and it's more a formalistic argument that should be reserved to justice experts but not computerchess programmers or ICGA Presidents. Perhaps Vas is realising that he might have done some formal third degree mistakes. But I am sure that he doesnt think that he betryed someone.

Only his collegues like you could explain how such mistakes could happen during the process of creating a new engine. And those who also have a top program might understand it even better.

The general question as a psychologist is, I would want to know, if it is possible that creative power leads people into a partial blindness of certain formal rules. And that such happens not by intentional malice but negligence for all too trivial petitesses. In other words that you have a certain desire to delve into a dream of greatness. Is that so seldom among good prgrammers in chess for all?

But more important than what I think is what you and your collegues are thinking about such ideas.

But please forget about me deliberately distributing silly stamps on people I dont even know. It was just a danger I tried to describe.

I am now pretty confident that the ICGA would make the same ruling in each case. But how is this relevant? Are you saying that if others do this it's ok for Vas to do it? It's possible that someone else will be found doing this at some point but it's a real stretch to believe everyone is doing it as you seem to be implying.

In such a case I would expect that the secret code would be made public just as it was with Vas. And yes, I am sure, I remember that you even wrote it yourself, that after the publication of the R family which was stolen code from Rybka, now all took a look, yes. Already with Strelka it was a fiesta for the programmer collegues. Suddenly they all could promote into a higher Elo league. Exception Bob of course. But he is no longer competing. Just kidding.

[bnemias]

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 agree with most of the rest of your post, but the above can't be accurate. Because those very people who don't have much problem with the proven copying that was done here, were the most vocal about ippolite stealing rybka code. They even took the additional step of referring to copying as stealing.

So, rather than taking the view that there shouldn't be restrictions on copying, they cherry pick what rules apply depending on who they are talking about.

[bob]

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.

Fine, if it's all nonsense what I write, I can delete it. But I'm not impressed by your statements either.

Question isnt if code was copied. It was copied, but it was public domain. (says Vas)

But Vas doesn't get to say so. Do a quick google for "public domain software". You get this:

Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, an author automatically obtains the exclusive copyright to anything they have written, and local law may similarly grant various other intellectual property rights by default. The Berne Convention also covers programs. Therefore, a program is automatically subject to a copyright, and if it is to be placed in the public domain, the author must explicitly disclaim the copyright and other rights on it in some way. In some regions, some rights (in particular moral rights) cannot be disclaimed.

Now show me _anywhere_ where you see me disclaim the copyright on Crafty. If you look at main.c, you find the _exact_ opposite, including an unnecessary statement of claim to the copyright, and then some conditions under which the code can be used, and how it can be used. Fruit was released under the GPL which _also_ does not disclaim the copyright, but which actually claims the copyright and then lays out circumstances and requirements for how the source code can be used.

this "vas said so" is irrelevant.

That is to be clarified in a legal case during a court trial. As far as experts agree you could always find some who disagree, so what could this mean without the clarity of a court case?

The only thing I say is that it's not the business of the community to agree on a lynch verdict without any legal relevance. There's a huge difference between what people and experts agree on and what a court in the end will publish as its verdict.

Also I warned against hysterical movements. Look already more than 5 years ago, without any evidence from experts we had a campaign here in CCC mainly by Ch. Theron, who was again a member of the panel now, when Vas was pre-judged on "moral" character deficiences. So that was the beginning that cummulated now into the ICGA speaking. Without any legal proof. And you think that there is nothing to discuss?

It's also a good tradition to insinuate that the "fanboys" of Vasik would slowly step by step adapt to every new situation of a proven wrong. This is not what I am doing for years now.

Right from the beginning of the campaign here in CCC I tried to argue for carefulness and judicial relevance of the public allegations. Instead one collaborated with fraudguys and totally anonymous figures who boasted themselves with their stealing of closed code that they published and so tried to harm the interests of Vas.

Basically you are saying, that this was all ok like the ICGA conclusion and now it should be examined if the rules were exact and processable enough. Eh, so that is always done after a public character assassination has been done?

How could we heal the damages of Vasik's good name, if we now would find out that on the bases of the given rules it's less probable that Vas did something wrong?

In light of evidence shown, there is no chance that will happen. It was too convincing.

But that's not the whole story. What happens if we could find out that what Vas forgot to do to be absolutely kosher in questions of the licence, also many others did in a similar way? Would it make sense to ban the elite of the computerchess programmers so that basically Harm Geert Muller were the new World Champion in Canberra (Australia) in Sept. 2015? Second place were Turing&Thompson&Levy&Friedel with their open sourced Enigma. Number of players N=2, officials at least 35 VIP known from the famous panel in 2011.

Whatever happens after cheating is discovered and penalized is of no real concern...

[Don]

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 agree with most of the rest of your post, but the above can't be accurate. Because those very people who don't have much problem with the proven copying that was done here, were the most vocal about ippolite stealing rybka code. They even took the additional step of referring to copying as stealing.

So, rather than taking the view that there shouldn't be restrictions on copying, they cherry pick what rules apply depending on who they are talking about.

Yes, but their cherry picking is usually just an argument and not understood to be how they really feel - although I agree some do what you say. For example Rolf says that ALL programs should be carefully inspected but he doesn't really mean it. That's his way of saying that he believed that everyone is doing this and that it's not bad. He thinks it proves that the world singled out Vas to pick on.

[Rolf]

Now show me _anywhere_ where you see me disclaim the copyright on Crafty. If you look at main.c, you find the _exact_ opposite, including an unnecessary statement of claim to the copyright, and then some conditions under which the code can be used, and how it can be used. Fruit was released under the GPL which _also_ does not disclaim the copyright, but which actually claims the copyright and then lays out circumstances and requirements for how the source code can be used.

this "vas said so" is irrelevant.

Let's try a quick look into the future. Generations after us will have a good laugh at the spooky traditions we processed in computerchess. Note that I dont want to talk about copyright and such in science or business. That is a completely different planet. We are talking about players in a sport.

And let me try to show you what I see.

It's like a sadomaso game where one side is publishing its tricks all in the open and then they say but this is not what you could use in your play. Or you ask me if I allow you to use it.

In future new generations will laugh about so much unfairness.

Hold in mind for a minute. You invent a better play routine but you renounce of playing it. You say no, I have enough of the game, here are my secrets, but pay attention you are not allowed to use these tricks. Except you ask and beg me and I perhaps allow you.

So, exactly the same individual that left this sport is now the guardian of the secrets he has found for a better play. He doesnt want to become champion nothing like that. He want only to humiliate other people who must ask for the permission to use something.

By nature this causes a game with much money for the inactive player who sells his tricks. Or do you want to claim that this is just a formal allowance which will be granted in all cases? That wouldnt be fun at all. It's in the nature of man that he wants to humiliate his competitors.


-----------------



So, after this look into our CC future I think that Vas Rajlich will be called and honored in future for being the champion who began a new era of fairness in sports. Through his negligence for these humiliating games of the old day doctors.

He gave his own titles for the benefit of mankind to realise that wrong and unfair scheme in sports (in CC to be exact).
He cured this sport of his poliomyelitis that slowed down progress for the young people and ate up their creative power.

Vas showed how young programmers could develop their true talent not by starting from scratch, inventing always the same basics, but creating new and elegant features that speeded up the process of chess played by machines.

For the same reason Vas optimalized the cluster philosophy in CC.

I'm sure that Vas has many more good ideas to improve computerchess, after the older generation has left their seats in the international restaurants.

[Rolf]

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 agree with most of the rest of your post, but the above can't be accurate. Because those very people who don't have much problem with the proven copying that was done here, were the most vocal about ippolite stealing rybka code. They even took the additional step of referring to copying as stealing.

So, rather than taking the view that there shouldn't be restrictions on copying, they cherry pick what rules apply depending on who they are talking about.

I think Eric is correct. From the Hippos which were tolerated by many in CCC it's just a small step to support full freedom for copying in computerchess. We see in Houdini that then there are still many possibilities to get better and better and winning the titles.

If here is anybody who knows a strong chessplayer who will prefer to buy Shredder or Junior and not Houdini or cluster Rybka analyses time if he is preparing for his tournaments?

You bet. I never saw such a player. I know for sure that chessplayers always want the best material and not third class players who were judged by the ICGA. I know that Kasparov is always checking the lines with Fritz but that is the exception.

If I want to visit the moon I will trust the Americans and not the Chinese or Japanese, that's for sure. That is probably a good example.

[bob]

Now show me _anywhere_ where you see me disclaim the copyright on Crafty. If you look at main.c, you find the _exact_ opposite, including an unnecessary statement of claim to the copyright, and then some conditions under which the code can be used, and how it can be used. Fruit was released under the GPL which _also_ does not disclaim the copyright, but which actually claims the copyright and then lays out circumstances and requirements for how the source code can be used.

this "vas said so" is irrelevant.

Let's try a quick look into the future. Generations after us will have a good laugh at the spooky traditions we processed in computerchess. Note that I dont want to talk about copyright and such in science or business. That is a completely different planet. We are talking about players in a sport.

And let me try to show you what I see.

It's like a sadomaso game where one side is publishing its tricks all in the open and then they say but this is not what you could use in your play. Or you ask me if I allow you to use it.

In future new generations will laugh about so much unfairness.

Hold in mind for a minute. You invent a better play routine but you renounce of playing it. You say no, I have enough of the game, here are my secrets, but pay attention you are not allowed to use these tricks. Except you ask and beg me and I perhaps allow you.

So, exactly the same individual that left this sport is now the guardian of the secrets he has found for a better play. He doesnt want to become champion nothing like that. He want only to humiliate other people who must ask for the permission to use something.

By nature this causes a game with much money for the inactive player who sells his tricks. Or do you want to claim that this is just a formal allowance which will be granted in all cases? That wouldnt be fun at all. It's in the nature of man that he wants to humiliate his competitors.


-----------------



So, after this look into our CC future I think that Vas Rajlich will be called and honored in future for being the champion who began a new era of fairness in sports. Through his negligence for these humiliating games of the old day doctors.

He gave his own titles for the benefit of mankind to realise that wrong and unfair scheme in sports (in CC to be exact).
He cured this sport of his poliomyelitis that slowed down progress for the young people and ate up their creative power.

Vas showed how young programmers could develop their true talent not by starting from scratch, inventing always the same basics, but creating new and elegant features that speeded up the process of chess played by machines.

For the same reason Vas optimalized the cluster philosophy in CC.

I'm sure that Vas has many more good ideas to improve computerchess, after the older generation has left their seats in the international restaurants.

The problem is, what you describe is _not_ what is happening today. People are free to use any ideas they find, and they are free to find them by any means they want including reverse-engineering anything they buy. But they are not free to use the code. As in verbatim copying of the code. No matter where the code comes from...

And that is all that matters in this case. He may be a great programmer. A great theoretician. But you still can't copy source code. There is a law preventing it, and there is a rule preventing it from being done by entrants...