I Am Not Afraid Of The Truth- Are You?!

[geots]

All I need is a couple people to help me get this off the ground. Any truthseekers who want to end this once and for all want to help me.

Hi George,

as everyone can see when reading my recent posts, I am surely interested and willing to help in that matter.

However, I have not given up the idea of reaching some kind of consensus about certain topics that are of high importance for an adequate interpretation of the facts presented in the ICGA report. One topic on which I have started a discussion (unfortunately within the "Crafty accused of ..." thread where it does not belong to) is "reuse of evaluation concepts" which I see as a key topic in the whole Fruit/Rybka affair. The discussion has just started, and I would not want to start any activity in the sense you have proposed until there is at least some measurable advancement, in any direction.

As another point I have to add that, even though I very recently increased my posting activities in CCC, I will not be able to do a lot of CC work in general in the next months. I am going to start a new project in September, and this will put a significant limit to my spare time, so currently I can't promise any amount of contribution larger than a couple of postings per week.

Let's see what is possible.

Regarding the constitution of such a panel as you propose, I can agree to almost all what you have written. But I think we'd better have seven than five members, have each "camp" nominate two of them, let also Fabien and Vasik participate (for the "Crafty vs. Rybka" part we could replace Fabien by Bob but be restrictive about that) and have one additional person that both camps accept as fairly neutral. As further rules we could define that competitors of Rybka should not have the majority of votes, that all members must be active or former engine authors, and that all (currently four) members of the ICGA Board are excluded for obvious reasons (sorry to Rémi!).

Sven

Thanks for the reply, Sven. The Vas haters think I want to change the verdict. They are not even smart enough to understand that I was not satisfied with ICGA. It started off with the quote that he was guilty and voting was a formality. And that is before they saw evidence. And it just got worse. Maybe it doesn't bother a lot of people- but evidently the 14 who voted- their names must be a secret. No one will say. Do you blame them. I wouldn't admit to it either. All I want is a verdict I can trust. If it is guilty again- then their will be no more "thens". So be it. I will know then he was treated fairly. But I am told I am stupid because I question the panel. But I can live with that. If I was a newbie, it might be different. But I know how to deal with it. I don't take a poll to see if my position is popular. Some of the naysayers don't surprise me- that is what they are good at. Tearing people down. But they cannot with me- and they know I won't quit. Thus they scream louder. I don't expect any better- except Steve Blincoe shocked me. He was one of the few I would have thought would ever attack me over standing up for what I believe in.


I will pm you here on TalkChess and give you my email address. You are willing to go against a lot of people in the name of truth, and for that you had my respect from your first thread.



The Best,

George

[Steve B]

I don't expect any better- except Steve Blincoe shocked me. He was one of the few I would have thought would ever attack me over standing up for what I believe in.

actually i didnt attack you George
personally i like you and think you say whats on your mind which is refreshing
i did attack the idea of proceeding further without the participation of Rajlich
i simply think its a non-starter without him
cmon Geroge ..you know as well as i do thats it time already for him to at least take part in his own defense if there will be some sort of an appeal
like you would ever leave it to someone else to defend your reputation were it attacked..i think not..not one chance in a million
i know i wouldnt ..cant think of many who would
IMHO ..the time is much better spent in convincing Rahljlich to take part and respond.. then ..you are getting somewhere

Regards
Steve

[geots]

Call it an appeal. Vas asked me to represent him.

Well if Rajlich did indeed ask you to represent him in forming an appeals committe then that means he will finally take part in his own defense
for any appeal to be effective Rajlich will need to participate front and center in the process which he should have done from the getgo
one sentence replies to the ICGA and releasing goofy videos where he is giggling and acting like my 5 year old nephew dont really help his cause
you can make yourself very useful indeed if all you do is get him to finally participate directly in a formal appeal

i imagine if you form your committee and then appeal directly to the ICGA offering into evidence your grounds for a mistrial to be declared with a signed statement including Rajlich's signature then they would consider it

if you are thinking of preceding without Rajlich's direct participation then i imagine you will get no where and your proposing nothing more then a monkey trial
so i will save you some time here George
just go ahead and publish an open letter on the Rybka forum that you think Rybka did not violate the ICGA rules ,Rybka is still the resigining ICGA champion and have whomever you wish sign the letter
make it a sticky and there you go

this all reminds me of Fischer who till the day he died contended he was the reigning FIDE World Champion from 1972 to present.. having defended his title in 1992

Even in that delusion Fischer himself took part front and center

Get Rajlich to show himself Regards
Steve

That was merely a figure of speech about representing him. Which you already knew. None of that meant anything really, anyway.

Actually i didnt know it was just a figure of speech
silly me
sorry for taking your post's even remotely seriously
i wont make that mistake again
IMHO the only reasonable way for this to go any further is for Rajlich himself to get involved
heavily involved

otherwise its certainly an enjoyable read and always good for a laugh but its nothing more then a

Circus Side Show Regards
Steve

I was able to detect the sarcasm in your 2nd thread. I have no way to make you believe me- that I was not satisfied with the panel the way it was run. And if the right people judge- Zach would be there I hope. You know he will tell all if anything is wrong. I can't convince you that I can live with a guilty verdict. I am not interested in "guilty" or "innocent." All I want is a truth I can live with. No surprise at some of them, but I would have thought you would be one of the last ones to be critical of me for doing what I think is right. And trying to stand up for it. I expected it from some. But you- never.

[Terry McCracken]

The Vas haters think I want to change the verdict. They are not even smart enough to understand that I was not satisfied with ICGA.

George

Who the hell are the "Vas" haters?

Evidently you lack the "grey matter" to comprehend that Vas is his own worst enemy.

No one is trying to harm Vas he did that to himself. He's being censured for plagiarism.

What the hell do you expect when you're caught red-handed?

The fact you don't get it is inconsequential.

[geots]

I don't expect any better- except Steve Blincoe shocked me. He was one of the few I would have thought would ever attack me over standing up for what I believe in.

actually i didnt attack you George
personally i like you and think you say whats on your mind which is refreshing
i did attack the idea of proceeding further without the participation of Rajlich
i simply think its a non-starter without him
cmon Geroge ..you know as well as i do thats it time already for him to at least take part in his own defense if there will be some sort of an appeal
like you would ever leave it to someone else to defend your reputation were it attacked..i think not..not one chance in a million
i know i wouldnt ..cant think of many who would
IMHO ..the time is much better spent in convincing Rahljlich to take part and respond.. then ..you are getting somewhere

Regards
Steve

Steve, I don't think you read Sven's thread here. I think it is almost a "must" that not only Vas be there, but also Fabien. I would certainly leave it to Sven and others as to "what about Rybka 3 & 4. If Vas will not show up, I don't really see how we could do much. If he does not want to show, there may be no way I can keep on with this. But I am not going to try to give any orders- I don have the expertise to justify that. My contention all along is Vas didn't trust the panel. If he doesn't trust this one- I do not know what I can do to help him.


gts

[Steve B]

Steve, I don't think you read Sven's thread here. I think it is almost a "must" that not only Vas be there, but also Fabien.

now that would be an accomplishment
if all those that support Rajlich could concentrate their efforts into getting him to actually participate in this ..then my guess is that ICGA would listen
i also guess that you will come up against the Rybka party faithful who will give you every reason in the world why he should not personally partake and defend himself in an appeal
they could vilify and turn on you George for even suggesting this course of action ..as they have vilified everyone else
i hope ..nay...i want ..to be proven
Wrong Regards
Steve

[Don]

George,

There is nowhere to go with this. It's an ICGA matter and decision. So what if you do set up your Kangaroo court with your hand picked jury members and they make some kind of ruling on the matter? Do you overturn the ICGA decision? How do you propose to do that? Your "panel" has no authority over ICGA matters.

So this is about as silly as it gets.

You also said that this would be "final" and would settle the matter to the satisfaction of everyone. What planet did you come from? I mean no disrespect but I laughed out loud when I read that. I feel that you may possibly be sincere, but ridiculously naive and misguided.

There is something about this that is particularly offense to me and I think many others share my feelings. I urge you to think seriously about this: Regardless of how each of us may feel about how correct the decision is, the ENTIRE premise of your kangaroo court is that the ICGA had it out for Vas or that a bunch of petty software developers decided out of the blue to go after Vas because they are jealous of him. It doesn't matter to you or anyone else that the vast majority of the panel members had NO vested interest in proclaiming Vas innocent or guilty. People of the highest reputation, such as Ken Thompson one of the fathers of Unix and creator of Belle were on the panel, and you impugn their character by these assertions.

That is extremely vicious. If you want to talk about gang mentality and pre-judging people, you need to take a real hard look at what you are doing here. You and the others really need to stop this nonsense and we need to just move on.

Earlier I had brought this topic up on the Rybka Forum. Would not have brought it up again if a change in the people had not come about. Originally I had, I believe, 4 people. Now I must add a 5th person.

Many believe the ICGA panel that handled Vas' case started bad with the "we already know he is guilty"- coming from a panel member BEFORE the evidence had been handed to them. I could mention other problems, but it is pointless. Some side with me and some don't.

I propose to decide this to the full satisfaction of everyone. Then IT WILL BE OVER. FOR GOOD. I can assure you I will know for sure and abide by any decision they reach. And so will all the people who question the decision. No one who believes Vas is guilty will ever again have to listen to dissenting views. You cannot do better than that.

I propose a panel made up of Zach Wegner, Miguel Ballicora, Chris Whittington, Uri Blass, and Sven Schule to review all evidence and add any of their own. For some one who thinks Whittington would be biased, he will not. That you can count on. All he wants is the truth. But it would not matter anyway, because a majority vote of 3 - 2 will be accepted. Unless they feel a unanimous vote should be required. These five can decide that issue.

From now on they will be viewed as "The Five". They can review any previous evidence, and add any of their own as I said. Any of the 5 who do not want to serve on the panel means the remaining 4 will choose their 5th member- must be unanimous selection.

Then when they are done and render their verdict- we will all agree and live by it. ICGA not recognizing this panel or their verdict will not matter. We are after the truth, and if ICGA's feelings are hurt- they will have to deal with it. The truth is more important than anything and everything else.

They can also, if Vas is willing- study Rybka 3 and 4. I think to these 5 people he would agree. If not- he has to live or die with what evidence they have thru 2.3.2.

There it is. I agree to abide by their decision because I 100% think they are more than capable. And we won't have any pre-existing biases.

To anyone who thinks this is a bad idea because they say he has already been found guilty- I can and will only assume they would do anything to keep the verdict from changing. They don't want the real truth from these 5 men- remembering it may very well be guilty.

If the evidence is ironclad- to those who worry- the evidence won't change. And it is of utmost importance THAT THESE 5 MEN AND NO ONE ELSE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE DISCUSSION. Bob Hyatt does not need to be there. He wasn't when ICGA ruled and voted.

If it still means ICGA wants to be stubborn and stick by their decision, it won't matter. It is not life or death to be recognized by them. But they will have to agree if they don't like the verdict- sooner or later. And if the verdict is guilty, that will be academic anyway.

Remember the best and brightest in ICGA did not really study the evidence as these 5 men will. They just handed it down the chain to others and abided by their decision. For the most part.

There it is. That is my proposal. I am not afraid of their verdict either way. Are you?



gts

[geots]

Steve, I don't think you read Sven's thread here. I think it is almost a "must" that not only Vas be there, but also Fabien.

now that would be an accomplishment
if all those that support Rajlich could concentrate their efforts into getting him to actually participate in this ..then my guess is that ICGA would listen
i also guess that you will come up against the Rybka party faithful who will give you every reason in the world why he should not personally partake and defend himself in an appeal
they could vilify and turn on you George for even suggesting this course of action ..as they have vilified everyone else
i hope ..nay...i want ..to be proven
Wrong Regards
Steve

Trust me, they won't. I know them all. If I were to be turned on tho, all I can say is "What else is new". As for Vas, I will get on my knees if I have to.



Best To You, My Friend

gts

[geots]

I propose a panel made up of Zach Wegner, Miguel Ballicora, Chris Whittington, Uri Blass, and Sven Schule to review all evidence and add any of their own.

You are very generous with time of others, when it comes to wasting it. How much are you going to pay them to dance to your tune?

I have a cheaper proposal: Vas puts his source code on his website, so everyone can judge for himself what was copied and what not, now that he has missed the opportunity to have it reviewed by ICGA by an expert with no stake in this under a non-disclosure agreement.

He could certainly do that with Rybka 1. Lukas, on the Rybka site, claims that his excuse for refusing to release Rybka 1 source is that it is commercially sensitive. Utter BS bearing in mind:
1. The fact that he has told us that Strelka is a very close copy of Rybka 1 and the source code for Strelka is freely available.
2. The Rybka 1 engine is obsolete.
3. The non-disclosure agreement that he could have had.

If he has nothing to hide, releasing the Rybka 1 code would go a long way towards discrediting his critics, reestablishing his own credibility and getting himself access to ICGA events. All at no cost to himself.

If we don't get Rybka 1- I don't know if we can go any further. And I'm not saying Vas's presence is a must, but it is as close as you can get to a must.

I really want to do this right. It is very important that people who are credible and have a good head on their shoulders- meaning people like you- please believe me when I say I don't give a damn about innocent or guilty. I just want a truth I can believe in. Well, I do give a damn- because if it were you- I would hope you were to be found innocent. But not to the extent that some bias would affect anything. One or the other- and you will never hear a peep from me again about it.


gts

[Zach Wegner]

What exactly would my motivation be for being a part of this panel?