Fwd: Open letter to the CSVN

[Uri Blass]

Hi Thomas,
I consider Vas to be a programmer and not a hacker / cloner.

I think that there are enough original parts in Rybka to consider Vas to be a programmer(same for Robert Houdart).

I think that the case of Rybka is clearly in the grey area that means that there is no agreement between chess programmers if Vas is quilty.

I did not investigate the evidence but I understand that some programmers like Ed of Rebel and Chris of CStal read the evidence and it did not convince them that Vas is quilty.

It is not something clear like other cases(for example all agree that the similiarity between Toga and Fruit is bigger than the similiarity between Rybka and Fruit).

[mclane]

how do you explain the 900 elo jump between rybka versions.

do you know any chess program (that was developed by programmers not by copy-paste enthusiasts) that ever made this kind of strength increase ?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Thorsten,

how do you explain the 3.000 ELO jumping from Houdini?
how do you explain the 2.200 ELO jumpings from so many amateur programmers.

A big problem the most have is to look in one direction only. I thought the time of burning of witches is out. Each one should look in here own house.

How many ideas are from others!
How many parts of sources are from others!

What Vas do isn't correct. But Vas should not the once topic. If we are looking in detail so many other programmers live in fear of detecting. Different used the possibility to set a signature

This can't be the right way today!
We have to live with open sources and should learn to thinking in more open detecting.

A pity that computer chess collect so many individualists. Persons never can say ... sorry I made a mistake. Mens can be insufferably. Perhaps we need only more womens.

Perhaps we should give a women the Stockfish sources for a new creation of a new monster engine, called Stockwomen. Believe me the "Open Letters Programmers" are mate and will be never write more of such open letters.

Best
Frank

[Thomas Mayer]

Hi Uri,

I consider Vas to be a programmer and not a hacker / cloner.

accepted, I was always one of those that said we shouldn't forget Vas' achievements in computerchess - anyway, he is no longer acceptable in offical programmer computer chess tournaments as long he completely denies to coopertate in any form with the ICGA or the panel. I agree with Ed and others that a lifetime ban is way off, but to disqualify him from any tourneys he had played was the right thing.

I think that the case of Rybka is clearly in the grey area that means that there is no agreement between chess programmers if Vas is quilty.

You know the rules of the ICGA-events, do you ? And in case of qualified questions (and the result of the panel is VERY qualified) you have to ANSWER the questions or you get disqualified. There is no grey area. Still, this does not completely proof that he is quitly, but it does proof to 100% that he doesn't respect the rules.

I did not investigate the evidence but I understand that some programmers like Ed of Rebel and Chris of CStal read the evidence and it did not convince them that Vas is quilty.

as far as I know Ed himself believes that Vas is quilty but he has problems with the lifetime ban. And Chris ? Well, Twitty is almost against everything, whatever you bring up, Chris will be prepared for a "BUT".

It is not something clear like other cases(for example all agree that the similiarity between Toga and Fruit is bigger than the similiarity between Rybka and Fruit).

I tell you what I think how Rybka 1 might have been created: Fruit source on left monitor, blank page on right screen. Goal: translate Fruit to bitboard and optimize as much as possible. Of course later Rybkas got more and more different to that, but that's the start and at least there was enough of the Fruit body left in v2.3.2a (the newest one that was investigated) to see the origins. In the beginning I thought as well, that this can't be possible, nobody would base any commercial project on something like that. Well, it seems I was way to naive.

Greets, Thomas

[mclane]

Thorsten,

how do you explain the 3.000 ELO jumping from Houdini?

by copying robbolito.

how do you explain the 2.200 ELO jumpings from so many amateur programmers.

by using other programs as platform.

A big problem the most have is to look in one direction only. I thought the time of burning of witches is out.

yes. of course it is over.
but my opinion about rybka is, that it is not an original work
from vas rajlich alone. i don't believe in this: 20 ELO from using fruit-ideas-statement.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Thorsten,

OK what you wrote.

And to Vas:
He told us not the truths. That's the problem with Vas.

I am sure Vas is a good programmer too but he told us not the truths. Again and again!

Forthrightness ...

Best
Frank

[Robert Flesher]

Tell Cock he is an idiot.

Hmmmm....it seems Hyattian Oligarchy member Hyatt considers himself above the Computer-Chess Club Charter:

3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others

Cordially,

Sean

In civil law "Slander" cannot be proven if the implied statements are true. Although there is alot of grey area here, the fact remains if Cock can be proven to be an idiot, there is no "Slander". Should a hooker be insulted if someone calls her a whore? Ever heard the term, "I call a spade a spade", this seems to apply. Capiche?

By your definition of the charter I can call you an arsehole and it will be within the CCC charter. Is that okay with you? I don't mind rebaptizing you!

Cordially,

Sean

Perhaps, you should read it again. I merely suggested what is and is not slander. Bob provided reasons as to why he believe "COCK" is an idiot. If his arguements were found to be reasonable, perhaps the statement could be truthful, and therefore not slander.


As pertaining to "arseholes", I would suggest you just visit your nearest mirror and have a looksee. Capiche?

[Sean Evans]

Tell Cock he is an idiot.

Hmmmm....it seems Hyattian Oligarchy member Hyatt considers himself above the Computer-Chess Club Charter:

3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others

Cordially,

Sean

In civil law "Slander" cannot be proven if the implied statements are true. Although there is alot of grey area here, the fact remains if Cock can be proven to be an idiot, there is no "Slander". Should a hooker be insulted if someone calls her a whore? Ever heard the term, "I call a spade a spade", this seems to apply. Capiche?

By your definition of the charter I can call you an arsehole and it will be within the CCC charter. Is that okay with you? I don't mind rebaptizing you!

Cordially,

Sean

Perhaps, you should read it again. I merely suggested what is and is not slander. Bob provided reasons as to why he believe "COCK" is an idiot. If his arguements were found to be reasonable, perhaps the statement could be truthful, and therefore not slander.


As pertaining to "arseholes", I would suggest you just visit your nearest mirror and have a looksee. Capiche?

Flesher you are an arsehole based on your own interpretation of the CCC charter. You want the title; therefore, you shall now be called arsehole hence forth.

Cordially,

Sean

[Watchman]

The statement about the engine that participated not being tested is not "FALSE". Why the hell do you want to twist the facts.

I sure hope you are not going to say that because a version has the Tablebases path hardcoded in the .exe that it makes it a clearly different engine...

Rybka 2.3.2a DID NOT participate in the ICGA and neither did Rybka 1.6 or Rybka 1.0 beta.

Ok I am trying to follow along here with the logic.... but it escapes me...

Rybka 2.3.2a DID NOT participate...

The only time Rybka 2.3.2a participated was for a few games when the Rybka that was playing the ICGA

The only time Rybka 2.3.2a participated was for a few games

So it did play...

...

(which was clearly different from Rybka 2.3.2a) was not able to connect due to some technical problems and thus a generic Rybka 2.3.2a on a laptop was used.

but the 2.3.2a version that played was clearly different from Rybka 2.3.2a.

So summing up...

Rybka 2.3.2a did not play... but it did play... but the 2.3.2a version that played was not the same as the 2.3.2a version that actually played...

[Terry McCracken]

The statement about the engine that participated not being tested is not "FALSE". Why the hell do you want to twist the facts.

I sure hope you are not going to say that because a version has the Tablebases path hardcoded in the .exe that it makes it a clearly different engine...

Rybka 2.3.2a DID NOT participate in the ICGA and neither did Rybka 1.6 or Rybka 1.0 beta.

Ok I am trying to follow along here with the logic.... but it escapes me...

Rybka 2.3.2a DID NOT participate...

The only time Rybka 2.3.2a participated was for a few games when the Rybka that was playing the ICGA

The only time Rybka 2.3.2a participated was for a few games

So it did play...

...

(which was clearly different from Rybka 2.3.2a) was not able to connect due to some technical problems and thus a generic Rybka 2.3.2a on a laptop was used.

but the 2.3.2a version that played was clearly different from Rybka 2.3.2a.

So summing up...

Rybka 2.3.2a did not play... but it did play... but the 2.3.2a version that played was not the same as the 2.3.2a version that actually played...

It's a bit much isn't it? *Sigh*

It's pointless to argue with closed-minded people.