My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

[K I Hyams]

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.

Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.

I cannot see how the permission to publish emails, based on my question whether I may do so, should by any means be related to competence of other people, even more to aspersions about that. Appears very far-fetched to me.

Sven

“I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong”, That implies that Zach’s analysis is riddled with mistakes.
“40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts”. That implies that Zach is unable to recognise standard computer chess concepts when they are staring him in the face..

In other words, he is saying that at least 80% of Zach’s work is either inaccurate or incompetent. That sounds to me to be a serious slur on Zach’s ability. He has made those slurs without providing a shred of evidence and he has allowed you to publish them in that form.

If I were to make such serious aspersions on the competence of a colleague, I would not dream of allowing them to go public without providing concrete examples. It appears that Vas Rajlich does not adhere to that standard.

[bob]

So I can buy that given the right set of circumstances that source could be lost.

Bob, I wished you would always help in that style - showing your followers the even extremely seldom exceptions that could speak prothe prejudiced individual. This is what scientists ahould be good for, not waving hands and supporting premature condemnation. The truth will anyway come out. It doesnt need campaigns. In short, thanks for this nice clarification.

Sorry, but I _always_ speak "without supporting premature condemnation." Many are angry with me that I refuse to blindly follow the masses and accept the statement "this is a clone" with no proof. Many are angry with me because I have looked at the fruit/rybka comparison an am convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that parts of fruit were copied verbatim. No comment on how much, but guaranteed to be "not tiny".

He's had plenty of time to resolve this. And resolving it would not disclose anything that has not already been disclosed. I, like many others, believe it will _never_ be resolved, for reasons unknown to me.

[bob]

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.

Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.

I cannot see how the permission to publish emails, based on my question whether I may do so, should by any means be related to competence of other people, even more to aspersions about that. Appears very far-fetched to me.

Sven

“I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong”, That implies that Zach’s analysis is riddled with mistakes.
“40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts”. That implies that Zach is unable to recognise standard computer chess concepts when they are staring him in the face..

In other words, he is saying that at least 80% of Zach’s work is either inaccurate or incompetent. That sounds to me to be a serious slur on Zach’s ability. He has made those slurs without providing a shred of evidence and he has allowed you to publish them in that form.

If I were to make such serious aspersions on the competence of a colleague, I would not dream of allowing them to go public without providing concrete examples. It appears that Vas Rajlich does not adhere to that standard.

A couple of points.

1. Allowing the email to be posted is simply "a way of saying something without _really_ saying something, particularly without saying something with concrete supporting evidence." So it is just a way to side-step the issue, once again.

2. I personally believe that he knows that we know, and we know that he knows that we know. And that there is no possible refutation, so avoiding the topic and hoping it eventually blows over is the best alternative strategy to confronting it head on.

So don't hold your breath waiting on evidence. This "I don't have time" is a crock. Years ago Berliner accused me of cheating at the 1986 WCCC event that we won. I helped Levy, Newborn, Marsland, and Thompson evaluate the claim by providing whatever data they asked for. They wanted to run certain moves thru the version of Cray Blitz we used in that game. I made arrangements for Cray time (dedicated SMP crays are not exactly easy to come by) and had Cray restore the version from that date from their backups and had them confirm with Levy that they did daily backups and that there was no possible way anyone could have somehow created a faked version and put it into their backup system. I took Berliner's claims, point by point, and contacted other programs for the 3-4 moves he pointed out "would _never_ be played by a computer." I had the programmers involved then send sample output from _their_ program to Levy (Ken Thompson started the ball rolling since he was involved and immediately tested the positions on Belle and found it would play the same moves.) I spent a lot of time. In 1986, during my _first_ year of Ph.D. studies, while I was preparing for the Level I Ph.D. exam given Jan of 1997 (the WCCC was Summer of 86, the cheating claim surfaced around October. Yet I _still_ found the time to defend our hard work (we had 3 of us working on this program). Even with Level I exam preparation in full swing.

So I don't buy this "no time at the moment." One will make time, _if_ one actually has a way of refuting the claim, which we did to _everybody_'s satisfaction. The final letter from Levy took Berliner's claim, point by point, and directly refuted each and every one with hard evidence. Why can't we get that here? Perhaps there is no hard evidence to refute the claim? So why does everyone keep waiting for something that is not going to come (This is about the fruit/rybka point). And then what about the Rybka/IP* issue? One has to ask "why??" And there are not many _reasonable_ possible explanations, if you are fair in trying to answer that "Why?"

So, the situation "is what it is, and it isn't going to change."

Not much point in keeping the hope alive.

[Roger Brown]

From: "Vasik Rajlich" <...>
To: "Sven Schüle" <...>
Subject: Re: Request for your comments on computer chess topic
Date: Sun, 13. Jun 2010 11:36:19

Hi Sven,

(1) Sure, that's no problem.

(2,3) Let me address this all later in one statement, I think this will be the best way to handle that. It's on my to-do list.

(4) I meant rating lists, tournaments, etc. No doubt a lot of users won't really care about anything I have to say.

The tie between author and engine is really important. If we allow anonymous engines, the field will become a mess.

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Best regards,
Vas

I hope that Vas provides evidence for those percentages quick and fast.

I mean, surely you cannot get in a free lick in a fair fight - or before the fight has begun even!

I say that there should be some time limit on the length that these statements can stand unchallenged.

Otherwise it just becomes an attack without a possibility of response.

Later.

[Graham Banks]

I removed a subthread where personal attacks were occurring. I will copy any genuine posts (only a couple) that went with them back to posters so that they can repost if they choose.
Unfortunately some of these posts quoted things that warranted removal (Harvey and Zach's posts regarding BB's identity). My apologies for that.

[Sven]

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.

Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.

I cannot see how the permission to publish emails, based on my question whether I may do so, should by any means be related to competence of other people, even more to aspersions about that. Appears very far-fetched to me.

Sven

“I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong”, That implies that Zach’s analysis is riddled with mistakes.
“40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts”. That implies that Zach is unable to recognise standard computer chess concepts when they are staring him in the face..

In other words, he is saying that at least 80% of Zach’s work is either inaccurate or incompetent. That sounds to me to be a serious slur on Zach’s ability. He has made those slurs without providing a shred of evidence and he has allowed you to publish them in that form.

If I were to make such serious aspersions on the competence of a colleague, I would not dream of allowing them to go public without providing concrete examples. It appears that Vas Rajlich does not adhere to that standard.

These percentages are very plausible for me. I don't know whether many non-programmers can follow but nevertheless I suggest to all interested members to reread what I already posted five weeks ago on that topic (EO subforum). Read especially my quite detailled comments on each of the points from Zach's pages under the heading "My details". If I had to match these 11 points with the 40-40-20 estimate by Vas then I would perhaps come to similar numbers as he did.

One note @Zach here: for me claiming that something is "wrong", or "standard CC concept" does not mean anything about your competence, and also nothing personal. I just try to keep as objective as possible. If someone would make 4 wrong statements out of 11 then this does not turn him "incompetent" at all. Just to let you know. EDIT: I see no reason why Vas should view this differently.

Sven

[Alexander Schmidt]

you might consider that the mods live in different time zones, and some mods are not actually active anymore.

So you kind of admitted that this thread belongs into EOF.

Fine.

But it's still here.

Comments with a different opinion are usually moved within 10 minutes.

[Albert Silver]

you might consider that the mods live in different time zones, and some mods are not actually active anymore.

So you kind of admitted that this thread belongs into EOF.

Fine.

But it's still here.

Comments with a different opinion are usually moved within 10 minutes.

Actually, I'm pointing out that you are jumping the gun.

As a rule, instead of posting posts screaming bloody murder, there is a small red exclamation point ("!") that one can click on to report posts one believes warrant moderating. Moderators do not read each and every post. If you really want to draw their attention to what you view as a problem, report it.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Moderators do not read each and every post.

You seriously want to tell me that Graham did not read the initial posting?

[Alexander Schmidt]

Moderators do not read each and every post.

You seriously want to tell me that Graham did not read the initial posting?

gn, I goto sleep...