Computer Chess Club
https://talkchess.com/
What a long read
, but I finished it. Wow, I thought Levy did a good job answering those questions (some of which I thought were loaded). Thanks for posting it. 
Just think of it, there is a part two to follow. My favorite snippet:AdminX wrote:What a long read
The suggestion that some of those who voted may have had a vested interest in a "guilty" verdict overlooks one very important and indisputable fact. The world of elite chess programmers is a very small one, and these are the people who are best equipped to judge the issues involved in the investigation. So Rajlich's actions were being assessed by his peers. If the ICGA had excluded from the panel anyone who is an elite chess programmer we would have been significantly diminishing the overall quality of the investigation.
Several were deeply involved. Zach, Mark W, Fadden, all provided information about the RE discoveries. Others of us verified much of the data directly, some over the course of the past 5 years or so the topic has been discussed. But yes, the panel, including the 3 member secretariat + the rest of the voting members looked at the evidence, refined it, then the secretariat wrote the final report with panel input when needed to clarify something.SzG wrote:I may not have understood you correctly. Are you saying that the panel itself examined Rybka and found it a clone? I thought it was Zach Wegner et al. who had come up with the analysis. Does Zach count to the elite of chess programmers?Don wrote: My favorite snippet:
The suggestion that some of those who voted may have had a vested interest in a "guilty" verdict overlooks one very important and indisputable fact. The world of elite chess programmers is a very small one, and these are the people who are best equipped to judge the issues involved in the investigation. So Rajlich's actions were being assessed by his peers. If the ICGA had excluded from the panel anyone who is an elite chess programmer we would have been significantly diminishing the overall quality of the investigation.
Simply shows how little you know. Those answers were written by David, with input from Mark L, Mark W, Harvey, and myself to name just four. The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case. The answers had to skirt around some hidden implications here and there, and I thought they were well-worded and clear...Damir wrote:This report is complete and utter nonsense, and looks like something Prof. Hyatt would come up with, supporting his views. Levy and others on the ICGA panel ( mainly Vas competitors) who have financial interest, would just agree upon this, and hereby prevent Rybka from participating in any events.
Like your avatar, you're full of shit.Damir wrote:Thanks for confirming to me that those involved in this witchhunter progress are indeed the commercial entities, and the same people who in previous times wanted Rybka participations in important events limited and even hardware restrictions imposed, just so they desperately could win WCCC title...
