Fwd: Open letter to the CSVN

[geots]

Does this mean you took many ideas from Fruit? And/or from Strelka?

He's not going to give you a straight answer. Count on that. But if he did answer, how you gonna believe what he says? Slick with a quick wit and a smart mouth. His best asset, and Komodo's as well, is Kaufman.

gts

[michiguel]

I think that part of the letter is clearly wrong.

" Rybka is a without a shred of doubt a direct derivative of Crafty/Fruit and Mr. Rajlich concealed these origins from the Tournament Director."


They never checked Rybka3 or Rybka4 so they can tell something about old Rybka and not about new rybka.

I don't understand why any logical person would consider this an important distinction. If I went to a mechanic to get work done and he charged me for stuff he didn't do, I would never go back to him again, ever.... How many times do you have to be sucker punched before you get smart?

If such a mechanic had some kind of change of heart, he would have to give me powerful evidence that something had changed and it would have to start with a very sincere apology and admitting what he had done and there is good chance that would not be enough. We don't see anything like that here.

It may not be important for the decision not to pariticipate or to be against Vas but I think that it should be important for the content of the letter.

I see a clear difference between the claim
"Rybka is a direct derivative of Crafty/Fruit "
and the claim:
"Rybka was a direct derivative of Crafty(more than 6 years ago) and a direct derivative of Fruit including Rybka2.3.2a)"

Vas is clearly more quilty in the first case.

The statement, "Rybka is a direct derivative of Crafty/Fruit" is about as accurate as you can get. You are seriously nitpicking here. It's very easy to understand that this applies to older version of Rybka more than newer versions - after all the word "direct derivative" can only apply to one version. Each subsequent version is less like the original. There is nothing whatsoever misleading about this.

The idea that you should wait for Vas to make as many different changes as possible and judge him on the most changed version of Rybka is rather silly. Sooner or later he will make enough changes that it will be difficult to prove it is a Fruit derivative even though it is. Is that really the point of this, to hide the truth as much as possible?

I wish to spend my two cents here: one cent to say I agree with ICGA panel sentence and the last cent to put a question.

Let us assume I want to build my first chess program, so I take the good old TSCP and I start making experiments to learn how the whole stuff works. At a point I'm able to improve it and I call it kkk v. 0.x. I build as many 0.x versions as I can, until I decided I learned enough from it and I build my engine kkk v. 1.0, with 0% code from the original TSCP. Should it be considered a derivative?

Call it what you want, but at least two programs participated (openly) in ICGA in that situation: Comet and Ferret. Both started as GNUchess.

Miguel

Of course, I could keep all 0.x versions private, so nobody would never say anything about cloning, copying, etc... But, what if I release all of them? Is the only difference between an honest and a dishonest work the fact of releasing all versions?

Thanks for opinions...

[geots]

I think that part of the letter is clearly wrong.

" Rybka is a without a shred of doubt a direct derivative of Crafty/Fruit and Mr. Rajlich concealed these origins from the Tournament Director."


They never checked Rybka3 or Rybka4 so they can tell something about old Rybka and not about new rybka.

I don't understand why any logical person would consider this an important distinction. If I went to a mechanic to get work done and he charged me for stuff he didn't do, I would never go back to him again, ever.... How many times do you have to be sucker punched before you get smart?

If such a mechanic had some kind of change of heart, he would have to give me powerful evidence that something had changed and it would have to start with a very sincere apology and admitting what he had done and there is good chance that would not be enough. We don't see anything like that here.

I also read no evidence that Rybka1 beta or later rybka is a direct derivative of Crafty so I think that the Crafty part is misleading and I know that there are people who disagree with the claim that Rybka is a derivative of fruit(I do not claim that it is not but only that it is not something that all the programmers agree about)

Just when I thought it was impossible for anyone to come up with more off-the-wall and useless analogies than Hyatt does, you get the gold ring. This is the most futile and stupid attempt to prove a point I have ever heard. Times like this, you are much better off to let them think you have lost all perspective than to open your mouth and prove it.

I'm going to say this one time. I got better things to do than reply to every misdirection tactic you throw up>> I have no idea how clean Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 may or may not have been. Just as I have no idea exactly how illegal Rybka 2.3.2a may or may not have been.

None of that is the issue here. A_l_l of the people on this forum, as far as you are concerned, fall into 2 categories. And you are wrong again- both ways.

1. People that you think will blindly follow you and listen to you- wherever you lead them. I happen to think in the end they have a lot more sense than you give them credit for.

2. People you think are so ignorant and irrelevant- you don't care what they think about anything. In your mind they pose no danger to an intellectual like yourself.

WRONG- in both cases. You have grossly underestimated the people on both sides of the issue. Not surprising- that is generally the norm for a self-absorbed person.

But make no mistake about this: No matter what you think of anyone, or what label you put on them, they are plenty smart enough to realize your excuses for not studying the codes for Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 is complete and total bullshit.

Excuses (plural), because there is not a doubt in my mind you are prepared to come up with a diff. one for each day of the week. But the problem you cannot escape- no way: THERE IS NO GOOD EXCUSE. In the big picture, those 2 versions were by far the most critical to any case brought by ICGA.

And as sure as death and taxes, there is one reason and one reason only those 2 versions were left out. From your point of view, as that is what I am dealing with here. Your response to Uri. You were either unsure or doubtful or lacked the confidence- that you would find any evidence they were "unclean at all" or even "unclean enough".

I don't think there is one person on this forum, even tho a few might not want to admit it, who is not smart enough to know for sure that if you were confident what you found in versions 3 & 4 would further the case against Vas, you would have studied them with a magnifying glass.

But you were scared of the complications that might arise when you found them clean, or "clean enough". And no matter what anyone thinks about Vas, Rybka and this case in general- you will be hard pressed to find followers who will buy into your excuses there. These people are not stupid, and you are pressing your luck by pushing the envelope here.

Now as I see it, you have 3 choices, or any combination thereof. You can choose to ignore me. You can ride the horse that says I know nothing about programming, so I ought to just shut up. Or you can attack any and everything I say, as well as my character, morals, logic and judgment. You have no clue how little I give a shit what you do. Because in the end, after all is said and done, back to square one- NO REASONS FOR AVOIDING Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 are anything other than lies and/or total bullshit.

It is for certain I could have expressed the issue in a bit lighter tone. And I might have. Given a different situation and person. But did you ever see the old, old movie- "One Eyed Jacks"? A young Marlon Brando told Karl Malden's character, "You are a revered and well respected person around here. But you are a one-eyed jack, and I've seen the other side of your face."

[mhull]

Although I respect those whom I know in the letter, I think that an elite group of programmers (most of whom seem to have been on the panel that passed down the guilty verdict on Rybka?) trying to bully/railroad independent tournament organisers into meeting their demands goes far beyond what many enthusiasts would consider as acceptable.

But enthusiasts don't know what they're talking about pretty much all the time. So what they consider acceptable is what I'd consider wannabe hubris.

I am really disappointed and wonder who will be next to face such an ultimatum.

All along, it seems to me that this decision regarding Rybka's eligibility has been hailed as being an ICGA (and perhaps FSF) matter, but now we see differently.

I hope more organizers get an ultimatum. It's the only defense left for programmers against self-important wannabes who try to elevate themselves as authorities in a technical field they manifestly don't understand.

[geots]

Did all of the authors that signed the letter to the ICGA sign the letter to the CSVN? Does not look like it to me!

No, they didn't. Why do you need to ask that question. It is relatively easy to compare the names and figure out, perhaps after a few sleepless nights, the differences (at least for a fifth-grader it is. The general level in this forum is above that. If you have difficulties please explain so and somebody will probably help you out.)

What is to stop the CSVN or any other organization or person from having a computer chess tournament and publishing the results with any chess program that is obtainable either by procurement or freeware?

In other words, what is your leverage to force the CSVN to not include Rybka or any other program for that matter?

Nothing. They can do what they want to do within their charter and within local law. They live in a free world. Their members might or might not agree that respecting IP rights is something that is part of their charter. In general, in this country nothing is stopping anyone beforehand from doing anything if it doesn't cause immediate harm to another person (except for speeding). Go ahead, come over and try, it is really fun here.

For example, if I start a computer chess tourney and include Crafty and Rybka and Hyatt says he wants out and I say "stuff-it", what options would Hyatt have to stop the tourney?

Nothing stops you from starting that tourney. Why would he try to stop it? If he wants to, there are many options for him. He can send you an e-mail. He can file a frivolous lawsuit. He can fly over, break your window, enter your house and unplug your computer. He can fly over and kidnap your cat and make a demand and you might give in. What is your point?

Tho he maybe went a few miles out of his way, I believe his point is that basically you are trying to sell bullshit.

[Don]

If I went to a mechanic to get work done and he charged me for stuff he didn't do, I would never go back to him again, ever.... How many times do you have to be sucker punched before you get smart?

Of course that does not mean he does it all the time.

To ban Rajlich because once his feet were stinking is ridiculous. He may have washed them in the meantime. Take another smell.

As I said I would expect some kind of acknowledgment from him that there has been a change. Since he denies that any of this happened and continues to maintain that he has done nothing wrong, what basis do you have believing that he suddenly decided to "wash his feet?"

[Don]

If I went to a mechanic to get work done and he charged me for stuff he didn't do, I would never go back to him again, ever.... How many times do you have to be sucker punched before you get smart?

Of course that does not mean he does it all the time.

To ban Rajlich because once his feet were stinking is ridiculous. He may have washed them in the meantime. Take another smell.

Of course this is up to to the ICGA, not us. I cannot speak for the ICGA but things like this are rarely absolute if you handle things correctly. If I were Vas and wanted to compete again, I would go to the ICGA and try to make my case.

If I were Vas I would go to them and tell them that I agree that I went too far with the copying and try to make the case that my own contribution is substantial (without trying to use it as an excuse or justification) and that I would like to clear the air. I would ask them to consider reinstating newer versions of Rybka and I would invite them to study the source code, which I would willing provide. Vas could easily ask them to sign a non-disclosure agreement and he could ask for exposure of the code to be limited.

The LAST thing the ICGA is going to do is continue to dance with Vas when he is not even responding to them. You guys expect everyone to bend over backwards for him when he won't even lift a finger to help himself.

[John Conway]

The following letter has been sent to the CSVN. I'm posting it here on behalf of the signees.

Open letter to the CSVN

September 21, 2011

Dear Cock de Gorter, CSVN board and CSVN members,

As past participants of the CSVN tournaments we feel that your decision to allow Rybka back in your tournaments is ill-reasoned and damaging to computer chess. Your statements regarding the decision-making are misleading and those about the evidence are all factually false:

1. The ICGA panel consisted of experienced computer chess specialists, some commercial, some hobbyists, and some pure academics. At the end of the investigation, not a single person in the panel said that they believed Vasik Rajlich was innocent.
2. Experts who have long-defended Vasik Rajlich have changed their minds because the investigation results leaves them no doubt regarding his breaking of rule 2 of the ICGA: Rybka is a without a shred of doubt a direct derivative of Crafty/Fruit and Mr. Rajlich concealed these origins from the Tournament Director. Furthermore, he has not provided any clarification for the found similarities.
3. All Rybka executables considered in the investigation were distributed to rating lists and/or users. Version 2.3.2a participated in the 2007 WCCC.
4. In the past the ICGA has investigated entries that raised suspicion and for which a complaint was filed by one of the participants. Cheaters have been caught before and Rybka is no exception.

The sanctioning of Rybka is upsetting news for all involved in computer chess. The public condemnation of a many-times World Champion and well-known representative of the field does not reflect well on the field’s image. The decision to ban Rybka was consequently not taken lightly.

However, it is unacceptable to us that you base your decision making on opinionated Internet postings and put aside the extensive expertise that the ICGA has gathered. Your lack of judgment, which is further exemplified by your recent handling of the Junior/HIARCS incident, is a sign that your once-respectable tournaments are not in good hands any more. Under the current direction we can therefore not enter your tournaments.

Regards,

Amir Ban
Don Dailey
Robert Hyatt
Gerd Isenberg
Marcel van Kervinck
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Fabien Letouzey
Thomas Mayer
Daniel Mehrmann
Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Richard Pijl
Ralf Schäfer
Mark Uniacke
Ben-Hur Carlos Vieira Langoni Júnior
Harvey Williamson

The irony is that all those that predicted ICGA will become irrelevant, now suddenly find that it is CSVN that has become irrelevant.

[Uri Blass]

The following letter has been sent to the CSVN. I'm posting it here on behalf of the signees.

Open letter to the CSVN

September 21, 2011

Dear Cock de Gorter, CSVN board and CSVN members,

As past participants of the CSVN tournaments we feel that your decision to allow Rybka back in your tournaments is ill-reasoned and damaging to computer chess. Your statements regarding the decision-making are misleading and those about the evidence are all factually false:

1. The ICGA panel consisted of experienced computer chess specialists, some commercial, some hobbyists, and some pure academics. At the end of the investigation, not a single person in the panel said that they believed Vasik Rajlich was innocent.
2. Experts who have long-defended Vasik Rajlich have changed their minds because the investigation results leaves them no doubt regarding his breaking of rule 2 of the ICGA: Rybka is a without a shred of doubt a direct derivative of Crafty/Fruit and Mr. Rajlich concealed these origins from the Tournament Director. Furthermore, he has not provided any clarification for the found similarities.
3. All Rybka executables considered in the investigation were distributed to rating lists and/or users. Version 2.3.2a participated in the 2007 WCCC.
4. In the past the ICGA has investigated entries that raised suspicion and for which a complaint was filed by one of the participants. Cheaters have been caught before and Rybka is no exception.

The sanctioning of Rybka is upsetting news for all involved in computer chess. The public condemnation of a many-times World Champion and well-known representative of the field does not reflect well on the field’s image. The decision to ban Rybka was consequently not taken lightly.

However, it is unacceptable to us that you base your decision making on opinionated Internet postings and put aside the extensive expertise that the ICGA has gathered. Your lack of judgment, which is further exemplified by your recent handling of the Junior/HIARCS incident, is a sign that your once-respectable tournaments are not in good hands any more. Under the current direction we can therefore not enter your tournaments.

Regards,

Amir Ban
Don Dailey
Robert Hyatt
Gerd Isenberg
Marcel van Kervinck
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Fabien Letouzey
Thomas Mayer
Daniel Mehrmann
Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Richard Pijl
Ralf Schäfer
Mark Uniacke
Ben-Hur Carlos Vieira Langoni Júnior
Harvey Williamson

The irony is that all those that predicted ICGA will become irrelevant, now suddenly find that it is CSVN that has become irrelevant.

No
It is not the case.

Komodo Junior Crafty Shredder Sjeng Hiarcs are not going to participate in their events but I hope to see other strong programs in that tournament that are not Rybka.

Looking at the names that did not sign the letter
possible candidates are Houdini,Critter, Stockfish and Naum

[John Conway]

The irony is that all those that predicted ICGA will become irrelevant, now suddenly find that it is CSVN that has become irrelevant.

No
It is not the case.

Komodo Junior Crafty Shredder Sjeng Hiarcs are not going to participate in their events but I hope to see other strong programs in that tournament that are not Rybka.

Looking at the names that did not sign the letter
possible candidates are Houdini,Critter, Stockfish and Naum

Houdini is a possible candidate?