marcelk wrote: bob wrote:
Damir wrote: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???
An outsider can reverse the question: why where those "3" needed when there were that many others at hand?
We wanted the most qualified people we could find. If the commercial authors were eliminated, the next step would be the amateur authors, I mean we do enter chess tournaments and Rybka could be there, correct? And then after we eliminate the commercial and amateur authors, we have to eliminate ANY potential chess programmer, because if they were to write a program, then they would likely compete, and have that "conflict of interests" issue as well.
This is all simply a red-herring. You REALLY think I would let a commercial author convince me to vote for something I didn't believe, or not vote for something I did believe? That is, quite simply, nonsense.
Either those "3" were indispensable, but then the others don't matter other than confirm the findings and bump up the vote count. A sign of weakness by itself. Or the "3" wouldn't bring in anything additional crucial know-how and could have been easily recused. A sign of strength.
Would the investigation outcome be different without the "3"...?
Nope. We just would have had 13 voting rather than 16. 13 voting "he broke the rules" as opposed to 16. Would that matter?
Removal of any hint of impartiality is such a valuable first step with big dividends. It would have saved the fora of hundreds of messages about that sub-topic alone, everyone's effort spent on some more constructive endeavors for example.
So long as Rybka was found guilty, no "posts" would have been saved. The Rybka Forum folks would have howled long and loud, just as they did with the current panel. This was not about the panel, or the people involved, nor the evidence presented, it was ONLY about the verdict... And unless the verdict was different, the discussions would have been exactly the same.