Robert Flesher wrote:A first I thought you were just belligerent, now it seems clear that you are infact ill. Your grasp of situations and your conduct borders on malignant narcissism. So let me make it clear for you one more time. I stated that perhaps Bob was not slandering "COCK", as maybe he was being an idiot. We all can be accused of this once and a while. You then proceed to call me an arsehole (your typical childish retort). I advised you to look in the mirror, an obviously you did not like what you saw and this enraged you twisted ego even further. So call me what you like, if it helps you deal with the scared little boy you see in the mirror, by all means fire away. I have thick skin, but you continued attacks speaks voulmes about your character and the lack of moderation regard these issues.
So for the time being, please be a good boy, you may be on borrowed time.
The CCC-Charter applies to Bob and I and everyone else. One individuals interpretation of facts is not justification for name calling. Accept your lesson of the day and move on.
Robert Flesher wrote:A first I thought you were just belligerent, now it seems clear that you are infact ill. Your grasp of situations and your conduct borders on malignant narcissism. So let me make it clear for you one more time. I stated that perhaps Bob was not slandering "COCK", as maybe he was being an idiot. We all can be accused of this once and a while. You then proceed to call me an arsehole (your typical childish retort). I advised you to look in the mirror, an obviously you did not like what you saw and this enraged you twisted ego even further. So call me what you like, if it helps you deal with the scared little boy you see in the mirror, by all means fire away. I have thick skin, but you continued attacks speaks voulmes about your character and the lack of moderation regard these issues.
So for the time being, please be a good boy, you may be on borrowed time.
The CCC-Charter applies to Bob and I and everyone else. One individuals interpretation of facts is not justification for name calling. Accept your lesson of the day and move on.
Cordially,
Sean
It was said in the Third Person and you are manipulating it out of context Sean, that's not a violation of the charter but the latter is.
Moreover, your attacks on Robert and Bob are certain violations of the charter.
K I Hyams wrote:
Yes. the significant difference between the version of Rybka 2.3.2a that started the tournament and the one that was released and analysed by panel members was the means of addressing bases.
The only difference between your post, to which I am replying and a post which I started to write but abandoned was that I planned to deal with the issue of the tablebases at the end of my post, rather than the beginning. Apart from that, I isolated the same claims by Ansari and dealt with them in the same way.
I hope, in other words, what you are saying is, "Great minds think alike."!
K I Hyams wrote:I became aware of the fact that the 2 versions of Rybka 2.3.2a were effectively identical as a consequence of reading a statement to that effect by Lukas Cimiotti on the Rybka site, it may have been written in 2007 and may also have been quoted on the OpenChess site. I abandoned my post when a quick search for Cimiotti’s statement failed to unearth it. If you have it to hand, I would be grateful if you would post the URL.
K I Hyams wrote:Mr Cimiotti is a useful source of information. He also confirmed for us that, at the time that the panel requested the source code, Vas still had it in his possession and had not destroyed all of his previous versions, as at least one of his acolytes has claimed.
Hahaha!... you mean "useful" as in if Vas won't shoot himself in the foot, Lukas will do it for him.
K I Hyams wrote:When a subpoena is served, asking for the source, a claim that it was destroyed after the panel’s request for it will not be believed, if only because it means that he deliberately destroyed the proof of his innocence. I must also look for a record of that gem. Perhaps that was referenced on OpenChess as well.
I remember that too... just couldn't find a specific reference (to version).
K I Hyams wrote:
Yes. the significant difference between the version of Rybka 2.3.2a that started the tournament and the one that was released and analysed by panel members was the means of addressing bases.
The only difference between your post, to which I am replying and a post which I started to write but abandoned was that I planned to deal with the issue of the tablebases at the end of my post, rather than the beginning. Apart from that, I isolated the same claims by Ansari and dealt with them in the same way.
I hope, in other words, what you are saying is, "Great minds think alike."!
Well the way I heard it was, "Great minds don't think alike, Great minds think for themselves !"
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
K I Hyams wrote:
Yes. the significant difference between the version of Rybka 2.3.2a that started the tournament and the one that was released and analysed by panel members was the means of addressing bases.
The only difference between your post, to which I am replying and a post which I started to write but abandoned was that I planned to deal with the issue of the tablebases at the end of my post, rather than the beginning. Apart from that, I isolated the same claims by Ansari and dealt with them in the same way.
I hope, in other words, what you are saying is, "Great minds think alike."!
K I Hyams wrote:I became aware of the fact that the 2 versions of Rybka 2.3.2a were effectively identical as a consequence of reading a statement to that effect by Lukas Cimiotti on the Rybka site, it may have been written in 2007 and may also have been quoted on the OpenChess site. I abandoned my post when a quick search for Cimiotti’s statement failed to unearth it. If you have it to hand, I would be grateful if you would post the URL.
K I Hyams wrote:Mr Cimiotti is a useful source of information. He also confirmed for us that, at the time that the panel requested the source code, Vas still had it in his possession and had not destroyed all of his previous versions, as at least one of his acolytes has claimed.
Hahaha!... you mean "useful" as in if Vas won't shoot himself in the foot, Lukas will do it for him.
K I Hyams wrote:When a subpoena is served, asking for the source, a claim that it was destroyed after the panel’s request for it will not be believed, if only because it means that he deliberately destroyed the proof of his innocence. I must also look for a record of that gem. Perhaps that was referenced on OpenChess as well.
I remember that too... just couldn't find a specific reference (to version).
Thank you, Rob. The quotes were just what I was looking for.
The first quote, partly reproduced below, destroys the straw to which Ansari clutches, although I doubt that will prevent him from repeating the claim.
wrote:
.....................Btw. WCCC in Amsterdam was run the first day using Rybka 2.3.2 (with TBs and hash size hardcoded - no other modification), from the second day it was 2.3.2a - the version that was released later to the public.
The second one, again partly reproduced below, means that the claim that he innocently destroyed the evidence that would clear his name, before it became obvious that he would need it to clear his name is a lame duck.
wrote:
Date 2011-08-14 10:28
Vas and I discussed whether or not he should give source code to the ICGA. He really didn't like that idea. My idea was removing all comments and maybe changing all names of variables to make the code harder to understand. But as the guys that disassembled Rybka hadn't understood several parts of the code, we agreed it's safer to not give anything to our competitors.
I do not think that he will feel able to provide the court with Rybka 2.3.2a source and so I think that he will try the "I destroyed the evidence that would clear my name" gambit, anyway. If he does, his credibility will not be helped by the fact that has used the excuse of losing code before; he claimed that he had lost the Rybka 3 code, at what could be seen as a convenient time. At that time, he wrote that in future he would be more careful with his code.
Ever since someone dug up Luca's old thread that Rybka 2.whatever ..did in fact compete in the ICGA WCCC
i have been saying this..
it wont be long now before the Rybka Party Faithful throw Lucas Under The Bus
Ever since someone dug up Luca's old thread that Rybka 2.whatever ..did in fact compete in the ICGA WCCC
i have been saying this..
it wont be long now before the Rybka Party Faithful throw Lucas Under The Bus
Only A Matter Of Time Regards
Steve
A number of the characters behind the ridiculous pseudonyms on the Rybka site remind me of Mohammed Said al-Sahaf, the Iraqi sycophant that the Americans renamed “Comical Ali”. If they do turn on Cimiotti, it will ratchet the entertainment up to a new level.
Uri Blass wrote: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).
Ed and Chris lack a great deal in terms of honesty. Ed started questioning the data by saying "I still believe Vas to be guilty." Now he is not questioning the data, he is questioning the motives of the panel, ICGA and programmers. They've found NOTHING wrong with the evidence, to date. Right now it is more personal than factual...
mclane wrote: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 ?
Ruffian
Miguel
There's more to the story. we now know 1.6.1 rybka had a LOT of crafty code. Eval. Search. Move selection/ordering/ Hashing. etc. Earlier versions were NOT based on Crafty, based on my analysis... So he started with something, moved to Crafty, which was apparently a very big jump from the previous version, whatever that was based on. Then he moved to Fruit. I can see how one would jump wildly advancing by copying like that...
Frank Quisinsky wrote:And each programmer which signature the "Open Letter" have to give the own sources for a check before an official tourney will be start.
I would support any initiative in which investigations are not started after suspicion is raised and a formal complaint is filed, but as standard operating procedure. Investigating all programs is possibly not feasible, we don't have Formula1 like budgets. Random checks might be. Or always checking the winner. There could be several ways to work out the details that are acceptable by all.
I actually like the "check the winner" idea. Nascar does that and it seems to work. You win, your car is impounded at the winner's circle and checked from top to bottom. They occasionally spot check a particular feature on every car, such as spoiler area and angle, or car height, etc...
