Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[Harvey Williamson]

At the moment? Who decides? You?

I decided Ed is boring so now the thread is about that. feel free to change it again.

No, I do not decide anything, I just read what the last post were about. It was just to let you know that you answered to Ed about something unrelated.

Miguel

yep, I decided to do what he does all the time.

Bob doesn't need your help.

that really is boring.

[K I Hyams]

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=36

You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.

Confirmed.

Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.

waiting...

For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...

Totally irrelevant. You said that "guts are rarely wrong in these cases" (fact), and you accused me of lying twice because I said you said "guts are good to detect clones". "good" == "rarely wrong". I believe that a person who think this way and declares it publicly is not fit for leading an investigation of this kind.
Miguel

Forgive me for briefly intruding. However, some people might find that the post below injects a bit of interest into this utterly pointless and acrimonious sub-thread. The post is from Harald Lüßen, writer of the chess engine “Elephant”. It illustrate the power of gut feeling.

A few years ago in Germany there was a tv show "Schach der Grossmeister".
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schach_der ... %9Fmeister

Once a year two grandmaster chess players had a game in the background
and two others were commenting the game.
Helmut Pfleger (ELO 2477) and Vlastimil Hort (2725).
The dialogue typically went like this:

Pfleger: Ah, black now comes out with a bishop. What can white do now?
Hort: Knight c5 looks good to me.
Pfleger: Knight c5? That is strange. But what if we play this. (Shuffles around
pieces on the demo board and shows the end position.)
Hort: Hm, ok but I like my knight.
Pfleger: Let's go back and try this (Shuffles around other pieces, explaining
possible attacks and defences.)
Hort: You may be right, but a knight on c5 ...
Pfleger: (Now moving the knight to c5 and wondering what pieces to move.) Hm?
Oh, there is the real move. Let's see. Knight to c5. ...

Harald

[Adam Hair]

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

"I would not be surprised . . ." is not an allegation.

Best
Dan H.

Casts a slur of suspicion though.

"On WHO?"

On most or all of the participants of CCT 12. According to you, 1/4 of these people are may be using derivative engines. Which begs the question "Which of these authors may be dishonest?". You say the the "gut" is rarely wrong in these situations. That means you feel strongly that some of these authors are breaking the rules:

Almond/AlmondX Richard Hall
Amyan Antonio Dieguez
Berta/BertaCCT Felix Schmenger
Butcher/ButcherX Marek Kolacz
Deep Junior Amir Ban, Shay Busihnsky
Daydreamer Aaron Becker
Deuterium/DeuteriumCCT Ferdinand Mosca
Diep Vincent Diepeveen/Brian Fraiser
Dirty/DirtyChess Pradu Kannan & Andres Valverde
Gaviota Miguel A. Ballicora
Hannibal Sam Hamilton/Edsel Apostol/Audy Arandela(Book)
Hiarcs Mark Uniacke/Robert G. Osborne
Ikarus Muntsin & Munjong Kolss TBD
Jabba/JabbaChess Richard Allbert
Komodo Don Dailey and GM Larry Kaufman
Ktulu Rahman Paidar/Edwin Dabbaghyan
mathmoi/ChessPlusPlus Mathieu Pagé
Scorpio Daniel Shawul / Book. Salvo Spitaleri
Shredder/ShredderX Stefan Meyer Kahlen / C. Keck
Sjeng/SjengX Gian Carlo Pascutto/Sujay Jagannathan
Spark Allard Siemelink
Telepath/TelepathX Charles Roberson
The Baron Richard Pijl/Arturo Ochoa
Thinker/Thinkerdev Kerwin Medina
Tinker/TinkerFICS Brian Richardson

The fact of the matter is that your statements are strong enough to come close to being an allegation. Some may not interpret your statements quite that way. But others do. There is some ambiguity in the English language, and not everybody has a copy of the Bob Hyatt lexicon. Many times I have seen people interpret your statements in a way that did not match exactly what you meant. Too many times I have then seen you accuse that person of a lack of understanding on the topic of discussion, or accuse them of twisting your words, when you could have simply acknowledged there may be a misunderstanding and then attempt to clarify.

Adam

[michiguel]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899

The other side of the moon

Dear forum administrators,

Can you please move this thread to the Engine Origin section, where it belongs ?

These discussions will never end, and there will always be people talking about Rybka (before it was Ippolit and all its derivatives, then Houdini, now Rybka, and tomorrow something else). But for the rest of us (which I believe is a majority) we are getting fed up of thes discussions taking over the forum.

I'm not advocating any censorship, just moving these discussions to the appropriate forum, where spamers can spam themselves happily, leaving the rest of us unspamed!

I am against spamming, but this is not spamming at all. Everyhing is in two threads only. I do not believe that the majority do not want to read about it since those two threads have 63% of the reads of the whole first page combined. In other words, those two reads have been read twice as much as all the other 18 threads combined.

Miguel

Basically ask yourselves this question:
* how many posts a day are there in this forum (General Topics) to talk about "cloning" issues ?
* how many posts a day are there in this same forum to talk about Chess ?

Thank you for your understanding

[bob]

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

"I would not be surprised . . ." is not an allegation.

Best
Dan H.

Casts a slur of suspicion though.

"On WHO?"

On most or all of the participants of CCT 12. According to you, 1/4 of these people are may be using derivative engines. Which begs the question "Which of these authors may be dishonest?". You say the the "gut" is rarely wrong in these situations. That means you feel strongly that some of these authors are breaking the rules:

Almond/AlmondX Richard Hall
Amyan Antonio Dieguez
Berta/BertaCCT Felix Schmenger
Butcher/ButcherX Marek Kolacz
Deep Junior Amir Ban, Shay Busihnsky
Daydreamer Aaron Becker
Deuterium/DeuteriumCCT Ferdinand Mosca
Diep Vincent Diepeveen/Brian Fraiser
Dirty/DirtyChess Pradu Kannan & Andres Valverde
Gaviota Miguel A. Ballicora
Hannibal Sam Hamilton/Edsel Apostol/Audy Arandela(Book)
Hiarcs Mark Uniacke/Robert G. Osborne
Ikarus Muntsin & Munjong Kolss TBD
Jabba/JabbaChess Richard Allbert
Komodo Don Dailey and GM Larry Kaufman
Ktulu Rahman Paidar/Edwin Dabbaghyan
mathmoi/ChessPlusPlus Mathieu Pagé
Scorpio Daniel Shawul / Book. Salvo Spitaleri
Shredder/ShredderX Stefan Meyer Kahlen / C. Keck
Sjeng/SjengX Gian Carlo Pascutto/Sujay Jagannathan
Spark Allard Siemelink
Telepath/TelepathX Charles Roberson
The Baron Richard Pijl/Arturo Ochoa
Thinker/Thinkerdev Kerwin Medina
Tinker/TinkerFICS Brian Richardson

The fact of the matter is that your statements are strong enough to come close to being an allegation. Some may not interpret your statements quite that way. But others do. There is some ambiguity in the English language, and not everybody has a copy of the Bob Hyatt lexicon. Many times I have seen people interpret your statements in a way that did not match exactly what you meant. Too many times I have then seen you accuse that person of a lack of understanding on the topic of discussion, or accuse them of twisting your words, when you could have simply acknowledged there may be a misunderstanding and then attempt to clarify.

Adam

Please...

"It wouldn't surprise me if ..."

as opposed to

"A, B and C are derivative programs"

Give me a break.

For the record, since you seem to think I use a different dictionary:

allegation: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

So, who EXACTLY is this "someone"? To allege that someone has done something illegal or wrong, one has to identify "someone."

[bob]

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=36

You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.

Confirmed.

Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.

waiting...

For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...

Disagree with Bob and you are called dishonest.

Boring.

Try something new.

No, "putting words into my mouth" is dishonest...

Yawn...

[bob]

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=36

You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.

Confirmed.

Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.

waiting...

For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...

Totally irrelevant. You said that "guts are rarely wrong in these cases" (fact), and you accused me of lying twice because I said you said "guts are good to detect clones". "good" == "rarely wrong". I believe that a person who think this way and declares it publicly is not fit for leading an investigation of this kind. And it was not just a phrase written carelessly with a bit of exaggeration. You stood by it and that is clear from the rest of the thread I linked.

Now you are trying to derail the whole thing discussing side issues and accusing who disagree with you of dishonesty.

Miguel

My last reply to pure stupidity, which certainly describes this particular subject.

"gut feeling" won't convict ANYBODY. Evidence will. I did not accuse ANY specific person. I did not mention ANY specific program by name. Feel free to continue this nonsense. You can do so by yourself...

[Peter Skinner]

Maybe Peter will chime in lamenting over not banning me for life? You people really are pathetic.

Maybe you all need to wise up...just a thought.

Peter as in me? When did I want you banned for life?

Me

[Terry McCracken]

Maybe Peter will chime in lamenting over not banning me for life? You people really are pathetic.

Maybe you all need to wise up...just a thought.

Peter as in me? When did I want you banned for life?

Me

No, not you. You must have missed it. Peter Berger.

I think he never recovered from me accidently spelling his last name wrong several years ago. I use to live about block or so away from a street at the age of nine named Burger Street. Yep, that was how I spelled his name. Opps!!

Anyway, not you.

[michiguel]

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=36

You smeared 1/4 of the CCT entrants for no other reason than your gut. That is not a lie. By the way, nothing came out of that empty statement.

Confirmed.

Please "name the CCT entrants that were smeared". SPECIFICALLY. Program names or author names will do equally well.

waiting...

For what purpose? It is YOUR statement (click the link above), so if YOU need the names for some purpose you might ask YOURSELF that question. Did or did you not write

I would not be surprised in the least to discover that 1/4 of the cct-12 programs are not original.

Any burden of proof is on YOUR side. Naming would be a nice start. Evidence is next. Waiting...

My POINT is that I did NOT claim any specific program was a clone, now did I? Because I don't believe a "gut feeling" is proof. You have joined right in with Ed and Chris, using distortion, hyperbole, and dishonesty to further your agenda(s). There is a HUGE difference between a "suspicion" (which is why I did NOT "name names") and proof. You know that. Yet you continue this line of discussion, which is completely dishonest. I don't "name" until I am sure. As in the Rybka case, for one example...

Totally irrelevant. You said that "guts are rarely wrong in these cases" (fact), and you accused me of lying twice because I said you said "guts are good to detect clones". "good" == "rarely wrong". I believe that a person who think this way and declares it publicly is not fit for leading an investigation of this kind. And it was not just a phrase written carelessly with a bit of exaggeration. You stood by it and that is clear from the rest of the thread I linked.

Now you are trying to derail the whole thing discussing side issues and accusing who disagree with you of dishonesty.

Miguel

My last reply to pure stupidity, which certainly describes this particular subject.

"gut feeling" won't convict ANYBODY. Evidence will. I did not accuse ANY specific person. I did not mention ANY specific program by name. Feel free to continue this nonsense. You can do so by yourself...

I gave a direct link, so the people can go read and formed their own opinion, compare with what I said, and verified if I lied or not.

I am going to be a moderator very soon, so I will try to stay away from controversial discussions. You had the last word.

Miguel