Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[slobo]

Well, I have changed my mind after seeing that many of the so called open source engine are made money on, and there is no objections, and Rybka is the only one targeted. Houdini to mention, Rick48 as other... based on Robbo.

Rybka is "targeted" in what sense? It is still sold around there, isn´t it?
The problem of Houdini is well known. But its author is silent: he avoids answering some questions. He does not state his program is original.
So, what is your problem? The truth about Rybka´s origin?

[JuLieN]

Well, I have changed my mind after seeing that many of the so called open source engine are made money on, and there is no objections, and Rybka is the only one targeted. Houdini to mention, Rick48 as other... based on Robbo.

Rybka is "targeted" in what sense? It is still sold around there, isn´t it?
The problem of Houdini is well known. But its author is silent: he avoids answering some questions. He does not state his program is original.
So, what is your problem? The truth about Rybka´s origin?

Rybka entered ICGA events, while Houdini didn't. If Houdini were to enter those events, it would be under the same scrutiny. There is no special treatment for Rybka, AFAIK.

[slobo]

Well, I have changed my mind after seeing that many of the so called open source engine are made money on, and there is no objections, and Rybka is the only one targeted. Houdini to mention, Rick48 as other... based on Robbo.

Besides,
if majority of people starts disregarding rules and laws, it does not mean rules and laws don´t exist.

[K I Hyams]

However a leading figure like a President who decided about the fate of someone with judicial relevance and who cannot answer without a coaching is behaving like a puppet because he doesnt understand his own decisions.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the way in which politicians are briefed, how they operate on a day to day basis and how they deal with written questions posed by opposition experts.

The damage has been done and it cannot be cured by either this or that response in an interview a year later after it has found out that there wasnt any case of cheating at all.

We seem to have come full circle. Never mind, I have a song for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6h4LoMgqlI

[Harvey Williamson]

[quote="K I Hyams"
We seem to have come full circle. Never mind, I have a song for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6h4LoMgqlI[/quote]

I prefer this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEEPmGC_18g

The chorus is:

Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before

[K I Hyams]

We seem to have come full circle. Never mind, I have a song for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6h4LoMgqlI

I prefer this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEEPmGC_18g

The chorus is:

Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before

Well, your song is good but my song also has a religious dimension - it is all about The Holy Bucket.

[bob]

Bullshit. You have a known tendency to misspell a couple of words in a very unnatural way. And then the question about "Where is the ICGA located?" Right from the Rybka Forum?

Can you solve this made up riddle yourself ?

And then your "wait for part 2?" How would you know what is in there, hmmm?

Those famous little birds.

You are not very good at deception...

You are correct.

Little birds, my ass. You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

Miguel

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???

Just disingenuous...

[bob]

Ed, in the light of those two points, will you now tell us whether or not you were involved in the compilation of the questions?

Involved is the wrong word. As already said that would be too much credit

But here is the story. Frederic contacted me and asked specific information on various issues as preparation for his interview with David.

During the conversation I proposed one question to David, listed below.

I also contributed questions of the Soren Riis group responsible for the Chessbase article to Frederic and he told me: I would like to make it clear that the interview is by the ChessBase editors, not the Riis/Schröder group.

Frederic at his best

Any way, this is my proposed question for David to Frederic, tomorrow we will see what my alleged influence on Chessbase is really worth

-------

I submit a question for David if that suits your planning.

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/attack-of-the-clones/

Fringe Problems
There is one other type of offence that I would like to mention here in connection with cloning, namely entering a cloned program created by someone other than the entrant, in a tournament, with the entrant knowing it be a clone. One might draw an analogy between the criminal law offence of theft and the crime of handling goods knowing them to be stolen. This offence in the computer chess world is similar to one that recently caused something of a scandal in the Netherlands, when a board member of the Dutch Computer Chess Association (CSVN), the body that organises the prestigious Leiden tournaments entered a pirated copy of Junior in one of the major online annual tournaments. (See here for more details.) Put simply, if someone knows that a program has been ripped off, either by cloning or through piracy, they will not be permitted to use a ripped off copy to compete in any ICGA event.
=============

Here -- out of the blue -- after having scandalized Vas in public Levy also attacks Cock de Gorter about a case in which he notable was a negotiator. A case (a storm in a cup of tea) in which Cock offered apologies. Can you ask him why he did that?

Here is Cocks reply in email to David which I posted with his permission.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... n%20gorter

Thanks,

Ed

Cock's response completely misses the mark. The ICGA responded to the CVSN nonsense and pointed out that each and every assumption they stated was outright false.

For example: The ICGA did not review any version of rybka that participated in an ICGA event. Completely false. 2.3.2a competed, we have the direct statement by Lukas (the operator) to that effect.

Another example: Staunch rybka supporters changed their minds suddenly and decided Vas was guilty. Yet statements by several of these "supporters" pointed out that it took a year or two of watching the investigation and studying the evidence before they "suddenly changed their mind" (apparently suddenly can mean over a period of > 2 years to cock.)

In fact, each reason he gave for discounting the ICGA decision was completely false. And you are just harping on the illegal use of a copy of Fritz, which, in and of itself was also wrong, although completely unrelated to and separate from the ICGA investigation...

For the record, your question did not make it in. It had nothing to do with the investigation...

But there were OTHER questions that you guys supplied. Once the others are public, I might be willing to point a key one out. Although I really don't want to expose your "English usage" issue as it is helpful to recognize your writing when needed...

[bob]

Bullshit. You have a known tendency to misspell a couple of words in a very unnatural way. And then the question about "Where is the ICGA located?" Right from the Rybka Forum?

Can you solve this made up riddle yourself ?

And then your "wait for part 2?" How would you know what is in there, hmmm?

Those famous little birds.

You are not very good at deception...

You are correct.

Little birds, my ass. You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

Miguel

There is nothing wrong with Ed supplying questions. However, If Ed is being less than totally open about his involvement with the Chessbase questions and was involved in their setting, then that is relevant for 2 reasons:
# if he is going to imply or express a view about the questioning or support the questioning in any way whatsoever he needs to declare a vested interest.
# despite his own lack of openness he will have associated himself with implied criticism of a lack of openness on the panel about the identities of those who voted.

Ed, in the light of those two points, will you now tell us whether or not you were involved in the compilation of the questions?

Just for the sake of science (and logic) let me clarify that collecting QUESTIONS is in itself an open process that shouldnt be censored or kept closed otherwise the whole inquiry is worth nothing.

However a leading figure like a President who decided about the fate of someone with judicial relevance and who cannot answer without a coaching is behaving like a puppet because he doesnt understand his own decisions.

But there is no way out, Levy will have to take his responsibilities for his weired manner how he treated Vas Rajlich in public in the name of the ICGA. The damage has been done and it cannot be cured by either this or that response in an interview a year later after it has found out that there wasnt any case of cheating at all.

Not at all. Some of the questions were technical in nature. David wrote his own responses then ask the secretariat and/or a couple of panel members to review his answers for clarity. On some we expanded on what he wrote.

[bob]

Bullshit. You have a known tendency to misspell a couple of words in a very unnatural way. And then the question about "Where is the ICGA located?" Right from the Rybka Forum?

Can you solve this made up riddle yourself ?

And then your "wait for part 2?" How would you know what is in there, hmmm?

Those famous little birds.

You are not very good at deception...

You are correct.

Little birds, my ass. You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

But I think it was good because innocent readers have both versions in front of them now: good and provocative questions and yet better answeres.

At least a couple of the questions were not questions. They were the sort of "testimony" a lawyer introduces at trial by asking a rambling statement where the answer is not important, he just wanted the jury to hear his statement. Most of the time, the judge directs the jury to disregard, because the lawyers are not allowed to testify, just question each witness. If you read the questions, you can see this in a couple of examples, particularly a question asking about exactly where the ICGA is located (which country does it "reside" in) with legal implications included...