Rybka disqualified and banned from World Computer Chess Cham

[Terry McCracken]

The wheels of justice don't always grind fast, but they grind effectively.

What justice are you talking about? I cant respect a justice that arbitrarily chooses its targets and spare other well protected sinners. I give you a political example. Would you deny that the US military has commited war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? Was there smoke in the air? Of course. Now I ask you how come that the US is never judged guilty before the court of the International Tribunal In The Hague?

Or take another example. After Deep Blue 2 team had beaten Kasparov they didnt allow to examine the details but they deconstructed the machine and quickly destroyed the evidence. You never raised your voice in protest. To the contrary you defended the team.

With this in mind I suppose that Vas Rajlich isnt accepting any justice performed by hobby judges.

Our justice system is very complex for a single reason and that is to guarantee fairness towards every possible defendent without prejudice. But what you were doing all these months is fabricating something that could be used to justify a pre-conceived judgement. In short you had no legal court trial at all. In other words, in every normal courtroom your results couldnt be used because of your bias. You are no independent and neutral researcher. With you I'm talking about you and your allies.

In special in the USA and its legal system it's so important to care about any possible bias, if not you have no case.

Let me give you a final example. The OJ trial. Of course OJ had murdered his wife and her lover. But OJ still got no murder verdict. Why? Because it could be reveiled that a single policeman had lied in a question that had practically nothing to do with that murder case. He had denied of "ever" having used the PC word "negroe" which is forbidden in your country. But he has used it. And so OJ couldnt be condemned for murder.

Bear this example in mind when you believe that your proof of Vasiks wrongdoing would hold water in a true lawcase. You have made hundreds of such "negroe" remarks against Vas and his lack of this or that so that you are totally burned as an expert witness. And you are not the only one who showed his bias. Christophe Theron comes to mind as a member of the panel.

The US military has killed a huge number of innocent people and still nobody is attending a trial in The Hague. Take this and bear it in mind if you want to destroy the life of someone out of sports like Vas. Somehow we must keep things in a fair balance and we shouldnt enter into blood thirst mode in a hobby entertainement, if true murder isnt effectively prosecuted. See OJ and the US military war crimes in the past wars.

You woke up from your deep sleep. Good. Good to have you back. Maybe things will be a little more lively in here now.

Best to you,
Gerold.

Don't encourage the asshole.

[Terry McCracken]

First. Keep any racists comments to yourself.

Second. Rajlich may or may not have got what he deserved. However, if Rajlich is banned for non-originality ("plagiarism") than they all should be, they are all plagiarists, no matter how Bob Hyatt would like to redefine the word plagiarism, it didn't work for Clinton and it won't work for Bob either. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

Third. In a million years I would never have thought I would have agreed with you on anything but there are disturbing parallels between Fuhrman and Hyatt. I alluded to the OJ trial in a previous post. Fuhrman got his just rewards and Bob will most likely get his punishment too, either in this world or the next.

The person I feel most sorry for is Ken Thompson. Due to the lack of impartial oversight during this "investigation" Ken should be walking, if not running away from it as fast as he can.

What a load of horseshit. You make libelous comments then be prepared to back them. Otherwise you're just another troll encouraging more vapid flames on this board.

There's no place for you or Twitty or Rolf here.

[garybelton]

What a load of horseshit. You make libelous comments then be prepared to back them.

Swearing is hardly constructive. There is no libel here. By definition (read the Wikipedia entry) "plagiarism" covers the unattributed use of others' ideas. Chess engine coders don't like this definition (like Clinton and the "S" word) but unfortunately it's just a fact. This doesn't really need to be discussed any futher, but while you are reading the definition of plagiarism, remember that ideas in programming have a commercial value of approximately 10x that of mere code. If you don't like the Wikipedia definition then you can always change it.

About Bob's pathological hatred of a minority (the Rybka coder), well you can read about that on any of three chess fora.

I have no animosity towards Bob and I don't think he's evil. He's doing what he is programmed to do and not deviating from it. This approach has worked well for him in life, and he needs these qualities to be effective in what he does (programmer). Although I do not adore or aspire to his language, logic, analysis and style, I will admit that he seems like a person who someone else other than me would like.

[bob]

The wheels of justice don't always grind fast, but they grind effectively.

What justice are you talking about? I cant respect a justice that arbitrarily chooses its targets and spare other well protected sinners. I give you a political example. Would you deny that the US military has commited war crimes in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? Was there smoke in the air? Of course. Now I ask you how come that the US is never judged guilty before the court of the International Tribunal In The Hague?

Arbitrarily chooses? A formal protest was filed by a large group of participants at the WCCC events. The ICGA _had_ to investigate such a protest. And doing so is not an "arbitrary choice" it is mandated by tournament rules...

Or take another example. After Deep Blue 2 team had beaten Kasparov they didnt allow to examine the details but they deconstructed the machine and quickly destroyed the evidence. You never raised your voice in protest. To the contrary you defended the team.

I defended them because there was _no_ evidence of cheating. Their log files were perfectly consistent, if somewhat difficult to read. I do not see why you continue to rehash something that _nobody_ else considers even remotely plausible, 14 years after the event and investigation.

With this in mind I suppose that Vas Rajlich isnt accepting any justice performed by hobby judges.

He has no choice. He can't compete in WCCC events, and that is the only punishment ICGA has any control over..

Our justice system is very complex for a single reason and that is to guarantee fairness towards every possible defendent without prejudice. But what you were doing all these months is fabricating something that could be used to justify a pre-conceived judgement. In short you had no legal court trial at all. In other words, in every normal courtroom your results couldnt be used because of your bias. You are no independent and neutral researcher. With you I'm talking about you and your allies.

Yep. Nothing in our evidence that even remotely suggests guilt. It was all made up. A panel of distinguished computer chess programmers fabricated the whole thing. Although I don't understand why, they did.

In special in the USA and its legal system it's so important to care about any possible bias, if not you have no case.

Let me give you a final example. The OJ trial. Of course OJ had murdered his wife and her lover. But OJ still got no murder verdict. Why? Because it could be reveiled that a single policeman had lied in a question that had practically nothing to do with that murder case. He had denied of "ever" having used the PC word "negroe" which is forbidden in your country. But he has used it. And so OJ couldnt be condemned for murder.

Bear this example in mind when you believe that your proof of Vasiks wrongdoing would hold water in a true lawcase. You have made hundreds of such "negroe" remarks against Vas and his lack of this or that so that you are totally burned as an expert witness. And you are not the only one who showed his bias. Christophe Theron comes to mind as a member of the panel.

"negroe" remarks?

The US military has killed a huge number of innocent people and still nobody is attending a trial in The Hague. Take this and bear it in mind if you want to destroy the life of someone out of sports like Vas. Somehow we must keep things in a fair balance and we shouldnt enter into blood thirst mode in a hobby entertainement, if true murder isnt effectively prosecuted. See OJ and the US military war crimes in the past wars.

Can we include the Holocaust, Japanese prison camps as well as Viet Nam. Genghis Kahn's reign of terror. The bombing of Hiroshima? May as well include every major historical event as well..

[bob]

First. Keep any racists comments to yourself.

Second. Rajlich may or may not have got what he deserved. However, if Rajlich is banned for non-originality ("plagiarism") than they all should be, they are all plagiarists, no matter how Bob Hyatt would like to redefine the word plagiarism, it didn't work for Clinton and it won't work for Bob either. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

Third. In a million years I would never have thought I would have agreed with you on anything but there are disturbing parallels between Fuhrman and Hyatt. I alluded to the OJ trial in a previous post. Fuhrman got his just rewards and Bob will most likely get his punishment too, either in this world or the next.

The person I feel most sorry for is Ken Thompson. Due to the lack of impartial oversight during this "investigation" Ken should be walking, if not running away from it as fast as he can.

I'm not redefining _any_ word. When you talk about programming, plagiarism is _always_ about copying source code, not ideas. You can find dozens of references to this, if you want to look around with google. I particularly like the end-all argument that "I will get my just rewards in the "next life""> God does provide the "ultimate threat" to those that have no further factual arguments...

[bob]

What a load of horseshit. You make libelous comments then be prepared to back them.

Swearing is hardly constructive. There is no libel here. By definition (read the Wikipedia entry) "plagiarism" covers the unattributed use of others' ideas. Chess engine coders don't like this definition (like Clinton and the "S" word) but unfortunately it's just a fact. This doesn't really need to be discussed any futher, but while you are reading the definition of plagiarism, remember that ideas in programming have a commercial value of approximately 10x that of mere code. If you don't like the Wikipedia definition then you can always change it.

About Bob's pathological hatred of a minority (the Rybka coder), well you can read about that on any of three chess fora.

I have no animosity towards Bob and I don't think he's evil. He's doing what he is programmed to do and not deviating from it. This approach has worked well for him in life, and he needs these qualities to be effective in what he does (programmer). Although I do not adore or aspire to his language, logic, analysis and style, I will admit that he seems like a person who someone else other than me would like.

Again, look up the usage of the word in computer programming. There are university projects to automate "plagiarism detection" and it does _not_ address copying of ideas, since ideas can not be copyrighted.

[garybelton]

How long do you think this Wikipedia edit would last:

Current definition of plagiarism:

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,

Bob's definition of plagiarism:

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas (except in computer programming), or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,

Any bets?

[BubbaTough]

Arbitrarily chooses? A formal protest was filed by a large group of participants at the WCCC events. The ICGA _had_ to investigate such a protest. And doing so is not an "arbitrary choice" it is mandated by tournament rules...

Just a minor quibble ... I don't believe it is mandatory to conduct retroactive investigations indefinitely far past. In 2040 if they want to question the results of a 1997 tournament, well it may just be tough luck. How long is reasonable is a judgement call, and up to the ICGA. Clearly any challenge within a year should be investigated. Going back 6 years might be reasonably be considered excessive by some (and reasonably be considered appropriate by others). Normally I would personally consider it excessive to go that far back, but if I received a petition of noteworthy members of the community as was the case here I might change my mind.

-Sam

[bob]

How long do you think this Wikipedia edit would last:

Current definition of plagiarism:

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,

Bob's definition of plagiarism:

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas (except in computer programming), or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,

Any bets?

It is a generic definition. A photographer goes and takes exactly the same photo, same lighting, same shutter speed, same aperture, same focal length, same direction, etc... It clearly is not the same physical photograph, as in copying. It is clearly plagiarism from a photographer's point of view.

Computer software is different. Even copyright law and patent law have to address the differences. I can patent any kind of "original gadget" that does something I consider useful. I can't patent it, if it has a computer and software in it, and the software is the thing that makes it unique.

If you look up any of the university projects on automated plagiarism detection, you will see that ideas are not the issue. In student assignments, they are _given_ the idea up front: "write a program that reads in N values and sorts them using a heap-sort." There are a _bunch_ of different ways to express a heap-sort algorithm, in terms of a syntactic product that compiles and does as directed.

The patent office refuses to patent computer algorithms for this very reason, except within _very_ narrow ranges that make some sort of sense. You could not patent minimax, for example. Nor can you copyright it because copyright applies to text or photographs or charts, etc.

[Rolf]

Bob: "Nothing in our evidence that even remotely suggests guilt. It was all made up. A panel of distinguished computer chess programmers fabricated the whole thing."

Rolf:

"no, that is twisting my words. of course you found results, only and strong counterargument I'm saying is that you have no authorization to act like expert, accuser and judge, and that is the basic minimum of our justice. The guys who lynched in the past century, werent wrong on the guilt of certain people, but still their lynching was wrong because they didnt follow legal courtroom rules. Same with you and your allies now. The only possible solution is a legal court case but not the kangooroo stuff of the ICGA. It's so trivial that I cant understand why you want something even you as our greatest expert cant get. Because if you could, then we had no justice at all."