Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
gerold
Posts: 10121
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: van buren,missouri

Re: Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Post by gerold » Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:47 pm

Adam Hair wrote:Ed has graciously created a page for my report and is hosting it.

http://www.top-5000.nl/adamhair.htm
Thanks Adam.

Looks like your post got shot down in here.

Best,
Gerold.

Adam Hair
Posts: 3217
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

Re: Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Post by Adam Hair » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:00 pm

gerold wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:Ed has graciously created a page for my report and is hosting it.

http://www.top-5000.nl/adamhair.htm
Thanks Adam.

Looks like your post got shot down in here.

Best,
Gerold.
Yep.

On the bright side, it stayed near the top of the threads. Woo Hoo :)

Best to you, Gerald.

User avatar
slobo
Posts: 2331
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:36 pm

Re: Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Post by slobo » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:33 pm

gerold wrote:
Steve B wrote:i think there is a reason for this divise split and it really has nothing to do with the Rybka program per se
Rybka has its own forum unlike any other engine that was ever found or accused of being a clone
the forum members have developed a sense of community and an attack on the program is viewed by them as an attack on the members and their integrity
after all..who wants to be a day to day posting member of a forum where the engine has fallen into disgrace?
..so they keep the issue alive ..day after day and now several months after the decision ..they send a non-engine programmer and moderator to go defend it on Playchess..(perhaps in anticipation of the Rybka 5 release)
take away the Rybka forum and i think the issue dies with the ICGA decision..perhaps not at first but by now certainly

i think if Houdini (for example) where investigated and found to be a clone there would be no-wheres the amount of debate because Houdart does not have his own forum devoted to the engine even though it currently is the strongest engine and has been for months now
i have on several occasions.. here on the CCC ..advised Houdart to start his own forum and then the day to day members of the forum will defend his program for him as they will have developed a sense of community as members of the forum

look at the Strelka affair
the program comes out..no forum behind it..
Rajlich calls it a clone and claims the program 'As His own" and walla we are done with it

IMHO Regards
Steve
HI Steve. I use Strelka,Critter,Houdini. These are the 3 top engines on my list. Houdini as number one. Critter a very close second. I hardly ever use Rybka any more. If Rybka 5 comes out stronger than these 3 i will use it. There are about 10 engines that are number 4 or 5 within 30 elo. The people buying Rybka are the ones who will decide if it stays in the top 10 or if Vas can up the Elo.
I will test R5 if Vas gives me a free copy as he did before. :-)

It seems the split is due to the fact that some are trying to say its ok to copy other people/s work as long as you do it manual and not copy and paste. Hahahaha. What a laugh.

Best,
Gerold.
:D :D :D
Great comment, Gerold.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."

User avatar
slobo
Posts: 2331
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:36 pm

Re: Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Post by slobo » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:43 pm

bob wrote:
Rebel wrote:
Steve B wrote:You make valid points of course but i still think the forum is what keeps this in the news with Chessbase refutations as late as a few days ago..months after the ICGA decision
i guess if this happened to a commercial program like Shredder or Junior(both without forums).. then we would see if there would be such a rift...So late in the day
i guessing there wouldn't be

Regards
Steve
I think it's not related having a forum but all to Rybka's extreme dominance and then suddenly dethroned, not on the chess board but driven by politics. Lots of juicy dramatic elements, a story you only see once in a lifetime.
Politics? This is NOT about "politics". It is about bad personal behavior of a single person.
You should have a good patience and steel nerves with people who have agenda with their to do list.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 33690
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Post by Graham Banks » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:52 pm

gerold wrote:It seems the split is due to the fact that some are trying to say its ok to copy other people/s work as long as you do it manual and not copy and paste. Hahahaha. What a laugh.

Best,
Gerold.
Yeah - that's stupid. If it looks exactly the same, then there's no difference.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Post by Rolf » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:04 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
gerold wrote:It seems the split is due to the fact that some are trying to say its ok to copy other people/s work as long as you do it manual and not copy and paste. Hahahaha. What a laugh.

Best,
Gerold.
Yeah - that's stupid. If it looks exactly the same, then there's no difference.
I must contradict you two laughers.

If you have certain algorithmic terms, then your code looks alike, is alike, but still it's not a question of copying or forbidden actions. <that's here the case with these PST cookies.

Just reporting as an observer. I insist on the principles of fair justice but else I'm on no sides.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 33690
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Rybka Investigation : Survey Of Evidence

Post by Graham Banks » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:14 pm

Rolf wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
gerold wrote:It seems the split is due to the fact that some are trying to say its ok to copy other people/s work as long as you do it manual and not copy and paste. Hahahaha. What a laugh.

Best,
Gerold.
Yeah - that's stupid. If it looks exactly the same, then there's no difference.
I must contradict you two laughers.

If you have certain algorithmic terms, then your code looks alike, is alike, but still it's not a question of copying or forbidden actions. <that's here the case with these PST cookies.

Just reporting as an observer. I insist on the principles of fair justice but else I'm on no sides.
From what I understand, there might be some exceptions, but I mean in general terms.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

bob
Posts: 20795
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: IN DUBIO PRO REO is a basic but never a bias!

Post by bob » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:39 pm

Rolf wrote:
Adam Hair wrote: None of the commentary on the investigation and subsequent debate has provided a neutral point of view
Excuse me, either I am misunderstanding your English or my own yearlong critic of the whole style chosen by people like Bob Hyatt on the accusing side is too difficult to understand for amateur thinkers.

My position has no other "bias", meaning it's without any bias at all, when I stand on the norms of our classical and ethical system of justice and NOT lynch justice as it's practiced all over the places to the disadvantage of innocent Vas Rajlich.

In our law system we have the fundamental law which says "IN DUBIO PRO REO", so I beg everybody at first to get help for being able to understand this basic. Second requirement, only in a legal court case the final verdict could change this state of innocence into guilt. What we have seen here for more than 5 years and also in the last year's secretariat & panel of the ICGA is that the accusing side made the trial all alone and their President declared his verdict of a life sentence which alone is a totally unknown punishment in the world of sports not even talking about the sphere of Justice and Law.
"lifetime ban is totally unknown in sports?" You might ask Pete Rose (US baseball player, banned for gambling). Great Britain has lifetime bans for olympic athletes caught using performance-enhancing drugs. Tennis player Daniel Koellerer received a lifetime ban for fixing matches. Ever heard of Ben Johnson? Were DO you get your nonsense. Lifetime competition bans are not rare, they ARE reserved for particularly egregious behavior. That is what THIS was.

Adam please note, in our system of justice the defendent isnt forced to defend his innocence but the attorneys and judges must seek clear and unrefutable reasons for a verdict.
That is EXACTLY what the ICGA panel did. We simply provided iron-clad evidence showing code was copied over a period of about 8 years...

Even a silent defendant cannot be taken into special treatment or torture so that he could confess. All this of course is known from the Middle Ages and their processes of the inquisition. But that was ages ago. For more than 1000 years we now have the strict basic "IN DUBIO PRO REO".

You mention all the three or more forums and their different messages. Except the repetition of the basic requirements by me in personal and some very few others all members talked about their speculations or partial certainties what doesnt make it right in the bigger picture of the requirements of a court case in our civilized part of the world.

We ourself had lynch justice, inquisition and blood revenge but today we believe into "IN DUBIO PRO REO" which is meant to protect the human rights of every human being that came under suspicion of some deviant behavior. If we think about the possibility that we also could come under suspicion very easily due to rumors then we would directly hope that we have protection for our innocence.

Basically all who are bad-mouthing Vas and his Rybka are insulting themselves because they are unable to put themselves into the position under suspicion like Vas. Of course we are bigots at times. But normally this is not a favorable choice forever.

To sum this up I would wish that we all would more seek understanding for the possible flaws in our own thoughts and behavior rather than showing alleged certainty and pompous emptiness.

Make no mistake. If we had not thrown him out, Vas would still be here among us, perhaps in a seperate sub forum because of the huge traffic around Rybka (although Hiarcs has its own forum too since long).

Please Adam dont you mix up all and everything together. What I presented here was not something biased pro or contra but it was in the defense of our system of justice and this forbids prejudgements and private trials or defendents without a defense, not to speak of persons who are acting on all sides of the conflict as police, firemen and judges. Is it possible to understand what I tried to say?
Justice does NOT forbid a trial without a defense. There are two clear exceptions.

(1) a defendant is NEVER required to make a defense. He is given the OPPORTUNITY to do so. Vas was given such an opportunity first by the panel, then by the ICGA board (after the panel had completed the report and he had received a copy) and even recently on the Rybka Forum where he STILL refuses to answer most questions.

(2) Defendants ARE tried "in absentia" in some circumstances, such as if they simply refuse to come to the trial (often held in another country).

Vas falls under BOTH of those exceptions, because he chose to not defend himself.

Post Reply