Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[Don]

I continue to have a bad feeling about the result, if not the process.

One of ICGA's core problems now is that maybe once it was representative of the community of people who are hands-on engaged with computer chess. But that ceased to be true quite a long time ago. How many in this forum are members? Then, it is not surprising that their tournaments don't reflect the full spectrum of computer chess activity. (I am not talking here about the clones of questionable legality but all the activity and innovation that hundreds of programmers have done in the past 10 years). And now the recent investigation and banning have turned off some who might have participated.

I don't really think that is true. Surely any organization has a right to enforce their own set of rules for participation. If you disagree with the rules don't play or try to get the rules changed.

I think your argument should be for a change of rules if you really feel like that the current ones should not be enforced.

The ICGA has always been in favor of innovation, so your comments are way off base. For years they published articles in their magazine (and still do) pertaining to computer chess advancements have very heavy roots in academia.

Trying to make them sound anti-innovation is really a poor argument that does not reflect the actual facts, and it is more unfair propaganda. What they are encouraging is diversity which is going to aid innovation. Copying someone else's program is NOT innovation, I'm sorry and I cannot understand why anyone thinks this is "innovation."

--Jon

[Peter Berger]

Why are you picking out a specific group? I didn't name them. So what does that have to do with the discussion?

Thinking about the group of Michael Jackson, Iggy Pop, Elton John and Bob Hyatt in my opinion at least 1/3 of them are sexually deviant.

And I don't think Michael Jackson is, as he is dead.

Would you, just maybe?, feel a little offended by this statement if I were serious?

I mean: certainly nothing bad would really be said about you specifically.

[jdart]

I didn't say cloning was innovation and I don't believe that.

But there are hundreds of chess engines, original and cloned+tweaked and everything in between. How many are in ICGA events? How many of their programmers are ICGA members? 5%?

So there is a lot of worthwhile computer chess activity and ICGA is not in the middle of it, not anymore.

--Jon

[Don]

I didn't say cloning was innovation and I don't believe that.

But there are hundreds of chess engines, original and cloned+tweaked and everything in between. How many are in ICGA events? How many of their programmers are ICGA members? 5%?

So there is a lot of worthwhile computer chess activity and ICGA is not in the middle of it, not anymore.

You are correct, but don't confuse cause and effect. Are you saying that they were right in the middle of computer chess until the Rybka controversy and then suddenly people moved away in droves due to their "unreasonable" cloning policies? I don't believe that is an accurate picture or explanation.

The ICGA moved away from computer chess several years ago and with it a name change, so they are representing many games, not just chess and they have pretty limited resources and there is not that much money in computer chess so they are doing what they can.

I'm trying to take a nuanced reasonable view of what happened here. The ICGA received a complaint from a program author and they investigated it, and came to a conclusion and took action. That did not set well with people, but some responded with a major ad hominem attack against the ICGA and a lot of highly respected and honored people. The attack in my opinion was totally unfair, even if you did not agree with the outcome. The attitude is, "we don't like the result, so we are going to make you pay." And all of these people are taking it personally when it is not personal.

--Jon

[Rebel]

Why are you picking out a specific group? I didn't name them. So what does that have to do with the discussion?

Thinking about the group of Michael Jackson, Iggy Pop, Elton John and Bob Hyatt in my opinion at least 1/3 of them are sexually deviant.

And I don't think Michael Jackson is, as he is dead.

Would you, just maybe?, feel a little offended by this statement if I were serious?

I mean: certainly nothing bad would really be said about you specifically.

Good analogy.

[jdart]

Ok, I will agree there are some vocal opponents who are not reasonable. But if I also oppose some of what ICGA has done, that does not mean I side with the most unreasonable opponents in all their unreasonableness.

[Don]

Ok, I will agree there are some vocal opponents who are not reasonable. But if I also oppose some of what ICGA has done, that does not mean I side with the most unreasonable opponents in all their unreasonableness.

And I'm not saying that you do. You seem like a reasonable person to me but I do think you have been persuaded by the constant negativity and unfair vilification of the ICGA and anyone perceived to be associated with it.

If you hear enough negative talk, the brain cannot separate it from fact and you start believing it. That is called propaganda and it works extremely well. It's the only way to get entire countries to go to war against other countries due to the will of some leader or leaders.

[Don]

Ok, I will agree there are some vocal opponents who are not reasonable. But if I also oppose some of what ICGA has done, that does not mean I side with the most unreasonable opponents in all their unreasonableness.

And I'm not saying that you do. You seem like a reasonable person to me but I do think you have been persuaded by the constant negativity and unfair vilification of the ICGA and anyone perceived to be associated with it.

If you hear enough negative talk, the brain cannot separate it from fact and you start believing it. That is called propaganda and it works extremely well. It's the only way to get entire countries to go to war against other countries due to the will of some leader or leaders.

Anyway, enough of this for me. I did not really want to jump in to this but I feel that there is a real injustice here, it's just different from the one you think it is.

[Daniel Shawul]

And I'm not saying that you do. You seem like a reasonable person to me but I do think you have been persuaded by the constant negativity and unfair vilification of the ICGA and anyone perceived to be associated with it.

If you hear enough negative talk, the brain cannot separate it from fact and you start believing it. That is called propaganda and it works extremely well. It's the only way to get entire countries to go to war against other countries due to the will of some leader or leaders.

If someone disagrees with you, he is either "dishonest" Or "gave into the propoganda" but still nice guy though... Maybe you should stop guessing people's motives and accept what they tell you straight. Jon clearly said that is what he does, even if he disagrees with someone.

[Don]

And I'm not saying that you do. You seem like a reasonable person to me but I do think you have been persuaded by the constant negativity and unfair vilification of the ICGA and anyone perceived to be associated with it.

If you hear enough negative talk, the brain cannot separate it from fact and you start believing it. That is called propaganda and it works extremely well. It's the only way to get entire countries to go to war against other countries due to the will of some leader or leaders.

If someone disagrees with you, he is either "dishonest" Or "gave into the propoganda" but still nice guy though... Maybe you should stop guessing people's motives and accept what they tell you straight. Jon clearly said that is what he does, even if he disagrees with someone.

Who said he was not a nice guy? I don't think he is dishonest, I think he is a nice guy who gave in to the propaganda and I even said that I think he is a reasonable person. I know that the premise that the ICGA is evil is clearly wrong so he was a victim of the propaganda attack. So how was I guessing at his motives? I don't believe he had bad motives at all. And are you his watchdog or something?