Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[geots]

Whether or not Vasik used Fruit codes is unsolved. There are debates for, and there are debates against, so what's to believe.

I think it is too easy to say he used Fruit codes and leave it at that, because it is the easiest, more logical thing to do, and hereby condemn him beforehand.

Should we rely on ICGA's version who consists of Vas competitors who btw are commercial, or on Ed, Chris and others version who are studying the code and are trying to compare the differences and similarities between the two programs ?

16 people voted. I believe that only 3 were potential "competitors", that is, affiliated with a commercial computer chess program. So how does 3 out of 16 match up with your statement? What about the other 13 who are not competitors, some of which have been inactive in computer chess for 20+ years???

I just looked who is in charge of ICGA panel, and it appears to be one of Vas main competitors, who more than just once on countless occasions wanted legally to prevent Rybka from participating in important events, by hardware restrictions&uniformed hardware you name it...

It says all and everything about this ICGA panel, who is about to decide Vas further involvment in computer chess.

Now he says 16 people voted- all along we were told it was 14. Which is the truth, and which is another damn lie? As for the voters who were not his competitors, they won't even tell us the names of the voters, and from Hyatt's statement, we don't now know for sure how many there even were. And does he expect us to take his word for anything- how many or who? Not a chance in hell. They either feel ashamed of the way they voted, don't have the guts to come out and tell us- or both. My money says both. Who in the goddam hell ever heard of a secret vote. Ed and Albert saw it for what it was and had the guts and character to walk off. The rest had neither.


gts

[Rolf]

From now on we are living under a false reality of the ICGA with the suspicion that all engines are copies until the holy ICGA has decided otherwise. Meaning that nothing has any importance anymore. That is the bad side of the smear campaign.

the ICGA takes no view on an engine unless it enters on of its events.

Harvey, you dont get it. What do you think my reservations against the whole ICGA are coming from? I can answer that basic question. It's the internal contradiction in masses. Look please, if the ban against Vas really had no other sense than the tournament participation in the ICGA sphere, it's terrible to then see the whole press campaign in the NYT and DER SPIEGEL. Plus, if it's just the problem with these pre pre versions of the early Rybka. Dont you understand that? It just doesnt make sense. You guys are unable to think in what Gestalt means. The whole of each entity. With a minimum of education you just cant do it this way. Also, if one Bob is doing the gig on stage for the beloaden. But it's still wrong. You know, it's right for just a tiny little part of a certain field but not for what we all enjoy as computerchess competition.

If Vas saved say two weeks in that beginning, yes, but what does that mean right now?

Another thing to reflect. Vas already was on retreat for a longer time because of the unfriendly, insane resistance of the peers. Here Bob and David are correct, not they dictate the actual rules but the sissies among the direct competitors of Vas cried wolf. So they banned at first the use of cluster because they were too stupid to program it. This way they destroyed the progress in computerchess. Know what I mean?

You personally from Hiarcs will always remain connected with the preventing of progress in the field. If you dont correct that you will lose the rest of your fidel clients.

I have a little hope left that you might understand the problem. It's not if a side is completely right or wrong, but what is the best for our community. And with a ban of the best you cant expect that people remain interested.

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

...
(1) First of all their mathematical foolishness.
If you have 300 programmers (amateurs and pros) and gather 34 in a special ICGA panel and then only 16 voted, then even the result of 16-0 isnt a clear result at all. Levy says if it had been 9-7 then the staff should have taken some serious considerations out of doubt.

However this is against all knowledge coming from stats.

So you are saying instead of assuming a pretty obvious result of 16-0, we have to assume that all the others that did not voted are most likely pro Vas?. Come on you cannot be that foolish. This is sooooo biased nonsense you are talking here. If statistician would read your comments they would fall from their chairs laughing.
The next time I submit a scientific paper to a journal with my 16 failed experiments, I will claim that it worked nevertheless, because the hundreds or thousands of other experiments (I did not perform) would clearly show that my idea was right. This must convince every peer review board

...

If 18 out of 34 (out of a population of over 300!) abstained, this is a clear vote that they didnt agree with the basically called for endresult of the guilty side.

Or they did not care. Or they did not know. Or they had no time to think about such unimportant issues. Or they would raise the result to 34-0. Fact is, those 300 did not vote. Period. Maybe we would have a 299-1 endresult, who knows. Your assumptions are completely non-scientific.

But for many reasons in the peer group they didnt want to link their name with such a voting either. That's a typical sociopsychological problem. Anyway, ONLY 16 of the 34, so, less than 50% and less than 5% of all chess programmers voted against Vas Rajlich.

And only 0,0000002% of the human race voted against Vas!! So, 99.9999998% must be pro Vas.... hmmmm...

That is the correct spelling of the result. Since all knew of the problem and could have cared to participate. If not, they must have had reasons to abstain. I could guess that they didnt agree with the witchhunt of the anti Vas people.
....

Rolf, talking about foolishness...your post is a superb example of it. The correct spelling of the result is that 16 out of 16 voted the same way --> 100%. To assume what others would/could have voted makes no sense whatsoever. Every poll would then be useless as you can never get votes from all potential individuals. With your criteria, in the coming US elections (as an example), no president could be determined, because the majority of people will - for sure- do not vote for either candidate, hence the majority of US citizens have to be -a priori - against any president. This is only a ICGA witchhunt by you. Rarely read such poor, illogical and biased 'arguments' as yours. You can do better then that...(or maybe not)..

A.

[noctiferus]

I'm considered to be a statistician...

+1

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

I'm considered to be a statistician...

+1

The question is: did you fall from your chair laughing while reading Rolf's post?


A.

[noctiferus]

ROFL! ( it's also an anagram )

[Rolf]

...
(1) First of all their mathematical foolishness.
If you have 300 programmers (amateurs and pros) and gather 34 in a special ICGA panel and then only 16 voted, then even the result of 16-0 isnt a clear result at all. Levy says if it had been 9-7 then the staff should have taken some serious considerations out of doubt.

However this is against all knowledge coming from stats.

So you are saying instead of assuming a pretty obvious result of 16-0, we have to assume that all the others that did not voted are most likely pro Vas?

No, exactly this wasnt what I meant. I just wanted to mention the until now unknown reasons for their abstination. Dont waste so much time in computerchess. Take the political elections. You know that non voters are usually counted for the negative votes from opposition?

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

...
(1) First of all their mathematical foolishness.
If you have 300 programmers (amateurs and pros) and gather 34 in a special ICGA panel and then only 16 voted, then even the result of 16-0 isnt a clear result at all. Levy says if it had been 9-7 then the staff should have taken some serious considerations out of doubt.

However this is against all knowledge coming from stats.

So you are saying instead of assuming a pretty obvious result of 16-0, we have to assume that all the others that did not voted are most likely pro Vas?

No, exactly this wasnt what I meant. I just wanted to mention the until now unknown reasons for their abstination. Dont waste so much time in computerchess. Take the political elections. You know that non voters are usually counted for the negative votes from opposition?

This is completely irrelevant. The motivation of the non-voters do not matter. It is in politics the same thing. When people decide not to vote (and hence have no direct input in the voting), that's their problem and their problem alone.
In the whole Rybka-issue it is even much easier. If a programmer (or hundreds of them) were able to provide reasonable proof that no wrongdoing by Vas was involved, they could have approached the panel and could have presented their evidence, and may have voted. Nobody did (not even Vas himself!).

[noctiferus]

No.
This is much alike a referendum: there are n individuals that have voting rights (those enlisted in the panel). Whether they don't exercise their right, the referendum is won by the majority of effective voters.
It would be different If everybody in the panel would have been asked for voting: in this case, abstainers would actually be counted as negative voters, againts the positive votes.

[Laskos]

No.
This is much alike a referendum: there are n individuals that have voting rights (those enlisted in the panel). Whether they don't exercise their right, the referendum is won by the majority of effective voters.

A referendum or a parliament vote. But sometimes there is a quorum. Doesn't really matter, ICGA is not a parliament.

Kai