WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[K I Hyams]

Why don't you try explaining what you mean? Not everyone can follow your extremely convoluted reasoning here. I will repeat, since Don's response followed Ed's post, what does technical ability have to do with morality in this context (the icga investigation, finding Vas guilty, while many are using ideas from ip* in their programs)???

Start here: http://www.top-5000.nl/david.htm

The key accusers

David Levy, chairman of the ICGA
Mark Lefler, IGCA secretariat
Robert Hyatt, IGCA secretariat
Zach Wegner, Rybka research
Mark Watkins, Rybka research

The key dissentients

Professor Miguel A. Ballicora author of Gaviota and the Gaviota Table Bases
Chris Whittington producer of the famous Chess System Tal
Ed Schröder producer of the REBEL series and 2-times world champion

http://www.top-5000.nl/david.htm

The extract above is from your latest masterpiece. You list the backgrounds/credentials of those whom you see as the key accusers and key dissenters. Although you dwell on your own achievements, describe Chris Whittington as “producer of the famous Chess System Tal” and describe Miguel as "Professor Miguel A. Ballicora author of Gaviota and the Gaviota Table Bases" you write off Hyatt as "Robert Hyatt, IGCA secretariat" In the light of the potted biography of Hyatt, below, is it possible that you are both economical and selective with the truth?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dr. Robert (Bob) Hyatt is an Associate Professor of Computer science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences (1988-present). He is the author of the computer chess program Crafty and the co-author of Cray Blitz, a two-time winner of the World Computer Chess Championships. He has been actively involved in computer chess since he first started to program a computer to play chess in 1968. These efforts have been supported by various computer vendors such as Univac (1978), Cray Research (1980-1994), and more recently AMD via their developer's lab. Crafty is freely available both in executable form (from many different web sites) and in source form (from Hyatt's home page). Crafty presently participates in many computer chess tournaments (and an occasional human chess tournament). An old version of the source of Cray Blitz is also available on the internet for those interested in seeing what computer chess looked like in the late 1980's.

The possibility that you are both economical and selective with the truth is supported by the observations that I make about your presentation, below. Perhaps they are incomplete; I took no more than a cursory glance at your stuff before the urge to get some fresh air took hold:

#. You deliberately confuse a jury with a panel of experts. Juries consist of laymen and on your website you support Levy's decision to exclude them. I refer to that fact below.
#. You question the integrity of other programmers on the flimsiest possible circumstantial evidence.
#. You fail to point out that you yourself signed the document that was produced.
#. You fail to point out that some of those whom you characterise as “not chess programmers at all” and “thus were not qualified to judge the evidence” are actually experienced programmers who are familiar with the workings of chess programs, thereby meeting Levy's criteria for suitability to be on the panel.

[Roger Brown]

The key accusers

David Levy, chairman of the ICGA
Mark Lefler, IGCA secretariat
Robert Hyatt, IGCA secretariat
Zach Wegner, Rybka research
Mark Watkins, Rybka research

The key dissentients

Professor Miguel A. Ballicora author of Gaviota and the Gaviota Table Bases
Chris Whittington producer of the famous Chess System Tal
Ed Schröder producer of the REBEL series and 2-times world champion

http://www.top-5000.nl/david.htm

The extract above is from your latest masterpiece. You list the backgrounds/credentials of those whom you see as the key accusers and key dissenters. Although you dwell on your own achievements, describe Chris Whittington as “producer of the famous Chess System Tal” and describe Miguel as "Professor Miguel A. Ballicora author of Gaviota and the Gaviota Table Bases" you write off Hyatt as "Robert Hyatt, IGCA secretariat" In the light of the potted biography of Hyatt, below, is it possible that you are both economical and selective with the truth?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dr. Robert (Bob) Hyatt is an Associate Professor of Computer science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences (1988-present). He is the author of the computer chess program Crafty and the co-author of Cray Blitz, a two-time winner of the World Computer Chess Championships. He has been actively involved in computer chess since he first started to program a computer to play chess in 1968. These efforts have been supported by various computer vendors such as Univac (1978), Cray Research (1980-1994), and more recently AMD via their developer's lab. Crafty is freely available both in executable form (from many different web sites) and in source form (from Hyatt's home page). Crafty presently participates in many computer chess tournaments (and an occasional human chess tournament). An old version of the source of Cray Blitz is also available on the internet for those interested in seeing what computer chess looked like in the late 1980's.

Hello K.I.,

Not to list the programming highlights of the key accusers does give the impression that they are somehow not qualified programmers in their own right.

It reminds me of a Star Trek episode I read once (very long ago) when Captain (not yet an Admiral) Kirk was on trial. His attorney wanted his record read whereas the prosecutor wanted it entered as being read.

The record was read and it was long and impressive - the primary reason that the prosecutor did not want it read to the court.

Perhaps it is a bit of the same here. Don't list the programming achievements because that might make the competence argument harder to disprove.

I am not against the listing of achievement highlights, not at all. Just do it for everybody BUT if you are making a case then I suppose...

Later.

[Rebel]

Ed is simply exposing his dishonest intentions here.

Now behave you bully, we are NOT at Rybka Forum here.
Understood ?

I simply write the truth wherever I post. You should try it.

Disagree with Hyatt is dishonesty ?

[Rebel]

Maybe "a barrier that keeps LAZY new entrants out."

If you're going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna meet some gentle people there

For those who come to San Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there
In the streets of San Francisco
Gentle people with flowers in their hair

All across the nation such a strange vibration
People in motion
There's a whole generation with a new (ELO) explanation
People in motion people in motion

For those who come to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
If you come to San Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there

If you come to San Francisco
Summertime will be a love-in there

----------

But continue trying to stop the future.

You are not the first one

[Rebel]

What, EXACTLY, do you offer to these discussions? Nothing but whining because you can't enter YOUR clones... Give me a break.

the redemption, recognition, eventual acceptance of Ivanhoe = a worthy goal
it is a valid program victim of intense wrongdoing...

you incessantly condemning it without proof = sick and disturbing

you incessantly spamming and belittling everyone else...in a narcissistic and vain effort to
secure Crafty's legacy as the only truly 'original' program ever created...?

sorry...must puke now.

If it can be proven Ivanhoe is a substantial improvement over the freeware IPPO (and co) I see no problem for recognition.

Substantial needs to be defined and ratified by the programmers among other things.

[Rebel]

Keith, Roger,

You seem to be ok with:

1. the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict ?

2. Wegner, Uniacke, SMK voted guilty and became WC. That's OK with you? Which judge would allow such members in his jury ?

3. Besides the introduction page read the detailed page also [ http://www.top-5000.nl/david2.htm ] and tell me if it's OK for you to see the chairman of the ICGA in the role of judge and final executioner without caring about the composition of his jury.

[K I Hyams]

Keith, Roger,

You seem to be ok with:

1. the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict ?

2. Wegner, Uniacke, SMK voted guilty and became WC. That's OK with you? Which judge would allow such members in his jury ?

3. Besides the introduction page read the detailed page also [ http://www.top-5000.nl/david2.htm ] and tell me if it's OK for you to see the chairman of the ICGA in the role of judge and final executioner without caring about the composition of his jury.

Ed,
I repeat, this was an expert panel, not a jury of lay people. Juries of lay people can and do successfully try complex technical cases. However, if you are uncomfortable with that fact then, in principle, I share your concern; I have always been wary of juries. Levy also shared that concern because he didn’t want laymen on that panel, in other words he didn’t want a jury either.

I labour the point about it not being a jury for 2 reasons:
#. What took place was not a kangaroo court, as you frequently imply; biased, ignorant and unprofessional jurors were neither present nor was their existence hinted at by those on the panel who cannot be accused of having a vested interest in the outcome.

#. You have admitted on the Rybka site that you feel that Rajlich’s behaviour was questionable and that he should own up to what he did wrong. The purpose of the panel was neither to decide the extent of his guilt nor to produce proof of that guilt “beyond reasonable doubt". It was simply to decide whether his behaviour was sufficiently questionable for him to be suspended by the club. That is precisely what they did and if their decision carries weight, that is due to the quality of those who were on the panel and the quality of work that they produced

Allowing about half a dozen programmers who could be seen as Rajlich’s competitors onto the panel gave those so minded a stick with which to beat the panel. However, it does not, in itself, invalidate the work that was carried out. Much of that work was done by Mark Watkins, a man who cannot be characterised as being one of Rajlich’s competitors and all of the work was scrutinised by those on the panel who were not Rajlich’s direct competitors. Had even one of those without vested interest made substantiated claims of foul play, a number of us would have raised our antennae.

As a teacher, I was sometimes in a position where I had to take part in a decision making process that could result in an outcome in which I had a personal interest. I was quite capable of acting professionally and although I made a number of errors of judgement in my career, unprofessional behaviour was not one of them because I was aware in advance of the possibility and made appropriate adjustments.

You have no evidence whatsoever that Amir Ban, SMK, Zach, Mark, Lance etc are any less principled than I am. If you want to defend Rajlich, you need to do so by examining the quality of the work that was done, not by making vague, pejorative and unsubstantiated allegations about those who may have contributed to the work.

[bob]

Why don't you try explaining what you mean? Not everyone can follow your extremely convoluted reasoning here. I will repeat, since Don's response followed Ed's post, what does technical ability have to do with morality in this context (the icga investigation, finding Vas guilty, while many are using ideas from ip* in their programs)???

Start here: http://www.top-5000.nl/david.htm

The key accusers

David Levy, chairman of the ICGA
Mark Lefler, IGCA secretariat
Robert Hyatt, IGCA secretariat
Zach Wegner, Rybka research
Mark Watkins, Rybka research

The key dissentients

Professor Miguel A. Ballicora author of Gaviota and the Gaviota Table Bases
Chris Whittington producer of the famous Chess System Tal
Ed Schröder producer of the REBEL series and 2-times world champion

http://www.top-5000.nl/david.htm

The extract above is from your latest masterpiece. You list the backgrounds/credentials of those whom you see as the key accusers and key dissenters. Although you dwell on your own achievements, describe Chris Whittington as “producer of the famous Chess System Tal” and describe Miguel as "Professor Miguel A. Ballicora author of Gaviota and the Gaviota Table Bases" you write off Hyatt as "Robert Hyatt, IGCA secretariat" In the light of the potted biography of Hyatt, below, is it possible that you are both economical and selective with the truth?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dr. Robert (Bob) Hyatt is an Associate Professor of Computer science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, in the Department of Computer and Information Sciences (1988-present). He is the author of the computer chess program Crafty and the co-author of Cray Blitz, a two-time winner of the World Computer Chess Championships. He has been actively involved in computer chess since he first started to program a computer to play chess in 1968. These efforts have been supported by various computer vendors such as Univac (1978), Cray Research (1980-1994), and more recently AMD via their developer's lab. Crafty is freely available both in executable form (from many different web sites) and in source form (from Hyatt's home page). Crafty presently participates in many computer chess tournaments (and an occasional human chess tournament). An old version of the source of Cray Blitz is also available on the internet for those interested in seeing what computer chess looked like in the late 1980's.

The possibility that you are both economical and selective with the truth is supported by the observations that I make about your presentation, below. Perhaps they are incomplete; I took no more than a cursory glance at your stuff before the urge to get some fresh air took hold:

#. You deliberately confuse a jury with a panel of experts. Juries consist of laymen and on your website you support Levy's decision to exclude them. I refer to that fact below.
#. You question the integrity of other programmers on the flimsiest possible circumstantial evidence.
#. You fail to point out that you yourself signed the document that was produced.
#. You fail to point out that some of those whom you characterise as “not chess programmers at all” and “thus were not qualified to judge the evidence” are actually experienced programmers who are familiar with the workings of chess programs, thereby meeting Levy's criteria for suitability to be on the panel.

Total waste of bandwidth. You could have simply said "you are dishonest" and covered everything quite nicely...

[bob]

Keith, Roger,

You seem to be ok with:

1. the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict ?

2. Wegner, Uniacke, SMK voted guilty and became WC. That's OK with you? Which judge would allow such members in his jury ?

3. Besides the introduction page read the detailed page also [ http://www.top-5000.nl/david2.htm ] and tell me if it's OK for you to see the chairman of the ICGA in the role of judge and final executioner without caring about the composition of his jury.

None of those were on the JURY. You like to keep repeating false statements over and over (the infamous "plagiarism means you copied ideas AND code" where the definition clearly says "ideas OR code".) I notice you also fail to mention such dishonest characters as Turing award winner Ken Thompson, who has a "bit" of experience, having been the primary developer of unix, and a series of Belle chess programs / machines. What you don't say speaks VOLUMES about what you DO say. dishonesty is the best description.

[bob]

The International Computer Games Association (ICGA) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that, in the chess program Rybka, the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs: Crafty and Fruit.

Following the interpretation of rule #2 due to the Rybka-ICGA fiasco we are all plagiarists because we take ideas.

OK, so you are incapable of understanding the logic in even the most simple sentences, is that what you want to tell the world?

Because all readers older than 5 years and not suffering from Downs syndrome of course instantly understand that if you do A, and A is form of B, while C is (perhaps...) another form of B, it does in no way imply you also did C...

You fail to understand Levy used the wrong word ?

Why did Levy use the word plagiarism (which includes idea) and not the crystal clear "copying" we all do here?

Assuming you are not suffering from Down's explain the obvious.

Quite simple. The definition you quoted said "ideas OR text". Notice that OR. The ICGA claims Vas plagiarised source code (text), not ideas... I have no idea what you are suffering from, but it is serious.