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

[bob]

Would you be questioning the neutrality or thoroughness or presumption of the panel?

Would anyone question the decision? The process? The members?

I will make a small wager what the honest answer would be. I will also make a small wager that I will not get one.

The ICGA is free to exclude from their competitions any engines that it deems breaks their rules.

I don't have a personal problem with any members on the panel. However, I do believe that business competitors and non-programmers had no business being on the panel because it automatically leads to claims that it was not a neutral process.

My interest is purely on things seen to be being done in a manner that is not open to question.
As for the actual findings, that's up to programmers to debate.

Its my understanding that R3 and R4 has not been proven to be clones or illegal in anyway. Until they can be proven to be illegal no one has any case against Rybka. Any claim or action that could harm the sells of Rybka at this point could be taken to court and ask for damages.

Only if it is "clean". But what if neither version is clean? Would anybody be so foolish as to get this into a court setting where subpoenas can _demand_ source code be produced, else someone goes to jail for contempt??? I don't think so.

[Graham Banks]

The ICGA is free to exclude from their competitions any engines that it deems breaks their rules.

I don't have a personal problem with any members on the panel. However, I do believe that business competitors and non-programmers had no business being on the panel because it automatically leads to claims that it was not a neutral process.

The few claiming it wasn't neutral simply don't want to believe the facts. That's their problem. The only relevant person who might object to any perceived non-neutrality, is free to object and provide evidence that would lead to restoration. None of the process would have been necessary, neutral or otherwise, had he done that to begin with.

My interest is purely on things seen to be being done in a manner that is not open to question.

Yeah, right. Maybe you actually believe that. I don't.

As for the actual findings, that's up to programmers to debate.

There is no debate, the facts speak for themselves. If you can't understand them, then do yourself a favor and stop pretending you do.

I've not questioned their findings anywhere. I've only pointed out concerns with the process, plus posted a few interesting comments from some programmers. I don't have a horse in this race.

Cheers,
Graham.

[bob]

Vas could lose in court and many would still support him. Reason is out the window. I never thought I'd say it but these people are afflicted much like cult followers and Vas is the Leader-They not only follow him like groupies but Worship the man!

Branch Davidians Regards,

It has nothing to do with hero worship. That's just plain childish.
It has to do with wanting any investigation to be neutral, thorough and not cut short based on making assumptions.
As for legal action, anybody disagreeing with a verdict there would really be showing their bias one way or the other. In fact FSF action is what many of us would like to see happen.
Just my opinion of course.

Expecting the usual attack dogs to bite any minute!

I think we all know that's pure bull**** , the Rybka supporters will make any excuse and twist the truth to suit them no matter what. I've read enough to know what I say is true. If the truth is childish then so be it.
Better than being delusional or making libelous comments abot those on the panel.

What is bullshit is the fanatics on either side who get carried away with overly emotive language and/or personal attacks.
Don't fall into their trap.

Good advice. Argue facts, not nonsense...

Would certainly reduce some of the traffic...

[Graham Banks]

It has nothing to do with hero worship. That's just plain childish.
It has to do with wanting any investigation to be neutral, thorough and not cut short based on making assumptions.
As for legal action, anybody disagreeing with a verdict there would really be showing their bias one way or the other. In fact FSF action is what many of us would like to see happen.
Just my opinion of course.

Expecting the usual attack dogs to bite any minute!

So now it was "cut short?" And you (and others) have previously been complaining "this has taken _way_ too long?"

So which is it?

Rybkas 3 and 4 have been implicated in the findings and the ICGA decision on the assumption of guilt (without any real investigation into those versions). In my opinion, that shouldn't happen. Others might disagree.

[geots]

The ICGA is free to exclude from their competitions any engines that it deems breaks their rules.

I don't have a personal problem with any members on the panel. However, I do believe that business competitors and non-programmers had no business being on the panel because it automatically leads to claims that it was not a neutral process.

The few claiming it wasn't neutral simply don't want to believe the facts. That's their problem. The only relevant person who might object to any perceived non-neutrality, is free to object and provide evidence that would lead to restoration. None of the process would have been necessary, neutral or otherwise, had he done that to begin with.

My interest is purely on things seen to be being done in a manner that is not open to question.

Yeah, right. Maybe you actually believe that. I don't.

As for the actual findings, that's up to programmers to debate.

There is no debate, the facts speak for themselves. If you can't understand them, then do yourself a favor and stop pretending you do.

I've not questioned their findings anywhere. I've only pointed out concerns with the process, plus posted a few interesting comments from some programmers. I don't have a horse in this race.

Cheers,
Graham.

[geots]

The ICGA is free to exclude from their competitions any engines that it deems breaks their rules.

I don't have a personal problem with any members on the panel. However, I do believe that business competitors and non-programmers had no business being on the panel because it automatically leads to claims that it was not a neutral process.

The few claiming it wasn't neutral simply don't want to believe the facts. That's their problem. The only relevant person who might object to any perceived non-neutrality, is free to object and provide evidence that would lead to restoration. None of the process would have been necessary, neutral or otherwise, had he done that to begin with.

My interest is purely on things seen to be being done in a manner that is not open to question.

Yeah, right. Maybe you actually believe that. I don't.

As for the actual findings, that's up to programmers to debate.

There is no debate, the facts speak for themselves. If you can't understand them, then do yourself a favor and stop pretending you do.

I've not questioned their findings anywhere. I've only pointed out concerns with the process, plus posted a few interesting comments from some programmers. I don't have a horse in this race.

Cheers,
Graham.

Sigh! I suppose once your guardian, I remain so forever. Seems like eons ago when you were a mod and Conkie and some other guy were going at each other thread for thread. It was fast turning vitriolic, stupid, insane and a waste of everyone's time, not to mention bandwidth. Rightly so, you told Conkie to end it- it was going nowhere. Now is a good time to take your own advice. Extremely hard for anyone to reply to silence. Let them stew in their own pot. Last bit of advice: When I post a thread on this subject, I NEVER read any of their replies to it. I'm not interested in what they think and it's mostly not much more than "copy and paste" anyway.


Use Your Head Regards,

GTS

[Terry McCracken]

It has nothing to do with hero worship. That's just plain childish.
It has to do with wanting any investigation to be neutral, thorough and not cut short based on making assumptions.
As for legal action, anybody disagreeing with a verdict there would really be showing their bias one way or the other. In fact FSF action is what many of us would like to see happen.
Just my opinion of course.

Expecting the usual attack dogs to bite any minute!

So now it was "cut short?" And you (and others) have previously been complaining "this has taken _way_ too long?"

So which is it?

Rybkas 3 and 4 have been implicated in the findings and the ICGA decision on the assumption of guilt (without any real investigation into those versions). In my opinion, that shouldn't happen. Others might disagree.

It's all been explained. What part don't you understand?

The onus wasn't on the panel or the ICGA to prove Rybka 3 & Rybka 4 was clean that was up to Vas to demonstrate they were clean and he failed to do so. They had no choice but to rule against Vas, none whatsover. Vas showed only contempt for the ICGA and all involved by ignoring them. He deserved what he got for his actions and or inactions.

It would take months to go through every last version and all he had to do is show his source like everyone else when asked. He didn't and if he did it's almost a given they weren't clean. He doesn't seem to realize that he broke the gpl in his earlier versions, called it Public Domain when it clearly was not. He also said that it was the same for R3 & R4!

Fabien should now take him to court for theft and it won't even matter if the last two versions are clean or not. The FSF will kill Vas!

[peter]

Would you be questioning the neutrality or thoroughness or presumption of the panel?

Would anyone question the decision? The process? The members?

I will make a small wager what the honest answer would be. I will also make a small wager that I will not get one.

The ICGA is free to exclude from their competitions any engines that it deems breaks their rules.

I don't have a personal problem with any members on the panel. However, I do believe that business competitors and non-programmers had no business being on the panel because it automatically leads to claims that it was not a neutral process.

My interest is purely on things seen to be being done in a manner that is not open to question.
As for the actual findings, that's up to programmers to debate.

Its my understanding that R3 and R4 has not been proven to be clones or illegal in anyway. Until they can be proven to be illegal no one has any case against Rybka. Any claim or action that could harm the sells of Rybka at this point could be taken to court and ask for damages.

Only if it is "clean". But what if neither version is clean? Would anybody be so foolish as to get this into a court setting where subpoenas can _demand_ source code be produced, else someone goes to jail for contempt??? I don't think so.

Hello Prof. Hyatt!

I guess, the presumption could be wrong, Rajlich would have to proof being not guilty when taking legal action against an econonic damage done to his business by ICGA.
At such a court it would not be questioned if ICGA tournament rules were broken, but if or not Rybka had been sold against copyright or copyleft law probably, at least if this was the legal issue of such a case, whoever might bring it up.
The one to proof their claims would be the ones who raises them, means to me, ICGA would have to proof Rybka was sold against any administrable law, if it was that, they allege or if it was that they had to proof being sued to a formal apology or even to compensation of financial loss.
ICGA can demand the sources of programs playing tournaments hosted by them but they cannot force programmers to show their sources to them years later. Of course they can demand so and they can try to accomplish any punishment they think to be right but this would not be of any meaning as for civil or private law. (Criminal law would be questioned only here to send anybody to jail, I guess ).
I really don't know, if Rajlich would have to show Rybka's sources anyhow but in a legal case I guess, if he would have to at all, then only to an expert sworn to impartiality by law, not to ICGA, as far as I can see.

[bob]

It has nothing to do with hero worship. That's just plain childish.
It has to do with wanting any investigation to be neutral, thorough and not cut short based on making assumptions.
As for legal action, anybody disagreeing with a verdict there would really be showing their bias one way or the other. In fact FSF action is what many of us would like to see happen.
Just my opinion of course.

Expecting the usual attack dogs to bite any minute!

So now it was "cut short?" And you (and others) have previously been complaining "this has taken _way_ too long?"

So which is it?

Rybkas 3 and 4 have been implicated in the findings and the ICGA decision on the assumption of guilt (without any real investigation into those versions). In my opinion, that shouldn't happen. Others might disagree.

I have seen no mention of Rybka 3 and Rybka 4. The _author_ of Rybka 1 and beyond was banned for violating a tournament rule several times, and then denying he did, several times.

Participants have always held the "originality rule" as sacrosanct. It is paramount to provide a level playing field and encourage competition. As David said, violating that rule is the highest form of misbehavior the ICGA recognizes...

[bob]

What has your talking have to do with Vas or R3 or R4. Maybe you are a bit confusion

Understanding metaphors requires capability of abstract thinking. Not everyone obviously has it...

Don''t be telling on yourself.

R5 May be out by Dec.or Jan. Do you think it will the next world computer chess champion. If not will it be Houdini. What is your guess.

Rybka certainly won't be. Nor Houdini. Try another guess, because neither of those will be able to compete.