Your question was about the wrong subject. The CSVN was taken to task because of outright false statements on their web page. Stuff about "wrong versions tested, none of the tested versions participated..." --false. Stuff about people "suddenly changing their minds." --false. In fact, EVERY statement they made was false:Rebel wrote:Believe what you want to believe. As said in the beginning you give me and Chris too much credit. We will see tomorrow if the one question I submitted is really present in part II. And if so, SO WHAT. It's a good question David going after the scalp of the CSVN. How disgusting.bob wrote:I did not say you dictated ALL questions... In fact, I said this:Rebel wrote:You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.bob wrote: You implied you had no involvement.
The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case
1. completely false. nobody "suddenly changed their mind." This investigation went on for quite a while, and people took their own sweet time reaching a conclusion. I originally discounted this. I had heard it several times, from Vincent and others. Not until the evidence began to come out did I change my mind. Others took a year or two longer. I don't think anyone considers that "sudden". --falseCSVN board wrote: 1. The group of experts consisted partially of the same persons who, a few years ago, explicitly stated that Rybka was not a clone. It is indeed very remarkable that experts suddenly change their mind.
2. The version of Rybka that was examined had never been distributed. The versions of Rybka that took part in the World Championships were not examined.
3. None of the other competitors in the World Championships had been examined.
2. 2.3.2a definitely competed in the WCCC. Lukas and Vas have both confirmed that. In fact, we found a post on the Rybka forum made DURING a WCCC where Lukas specifically mentioned using both 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a during that event. False again.
3. No other program was investigated? None have been kicked out? None have been excluded? Where did that "gem" come from??? Not from fact. The ICGA wiki lists several examples that contradict that. --false again.
Cock's using a pirated version of a commercial chess engine was a problem. It was not "the problem" here. Implying that it was is, again, disingenuous, because you know better as this has been pointed out to you (and others) many times. You want to ignore the elephant in the room, and talk about a fly on the wall in the corner. Stick to the "big and important topics."