Fwd: Open letter to the CSVN

[bob]

For the record, David, on behalf of the ICGA secretariat responsible for this, sent them a letter pointing out the errors in their public statement. So far as I know, we've seen nothing in response.

Copied here with Cock's permission:

Hi Graham

Ed Schröder told me about the existing open letter, which is discussed for a couple of days.

The CSVN did not receive this letter untill now. I just read it a couple of minutes ago. It is 1.18 a.m. now.

I will respond on the Net after the Board makes a decission to do so and on behalf of the Board.

First personal reaction? In short sentences....?

The ICGA made a statement, just as the CSVN did.
In their statement the Board of CSVN did his utmost to give facts. More than one. And those facts raised question marks. Not all question marks seperately were enough to refuse the banning of Rybka. Of course not. But all together they did not give us a good feeling. These facts have nothing to do with the technical stuff. The Board has no opinion about the technical stuff whatsoever, nor wants to take part in the technical discussions.
The open letter repeats the well known arguments of the ICGA cs. But does not give answers on our doubts. Why should we change our minds? I do not have a good feeling by repeating again and again. That is not debating.

In my vision it is very clear: the programmers have a problem. What is a clone? Untill now there is no clear answer on that question.
They should solve it themselves. It can not be solved by the CSVN. If all experts agree, there is no problem anymore.

After that the CSVN Board will organise again if there are enough participants..

If not? We can do many other nice things in our spare time....

kind regards
Cock de Gorter

Tell Cock he is an idiot. For the following reasons...

First, he claimed that several programmers that had firmly stated that they did not believe Vas had copied Fruit code had SUDDENLY changed their minds. Ask any who have posted that thought about changing their mind. Tord. Others. They changed their mind over the 5+ years we have been gathering and presenting the data. 5+ years is "sudden"? False statement number 1.

Second, he claimed that we did not examine any public version of Rybka. That the "version" (singular, notice) we examined did not play in any ICGA event. False. We looked at Rybka 1.6.1 which was sent to ChessWar, we looked at 1.0 beta, and 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a which DID compete in the ICGA tournaments. 1.0 beta, 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a WERE distributed, and still are on the Rybka web site. We didn't just look at one version, we looked at 4. All were given to others by Vas. And we did look at a version that played in an ICGA event, as verified by the person that operated Rybka in a WCCC event (Lukas). False statement number 2.

Third, he claimed that no other WCCC competitors had been examined. False. If you go to the ICGA web site, 6 different programs have been kicked out of ICGA competitions. We are in the process of looking at another. False statement number 3.

In baseball, that is "three strikes and he's out."

Finally, his statement above, quoted here:

The open letter repeats the well known arguments of the ICGA cs. But does not give answers on our doubts. Why should we change our minds?

The letter doesn't give any 'answers on their doubts'? It would appear to me it refutes every "doubt" he quoted. That's simply beyond belief... His final statement, "the programmers should decide." Which group comprises the majority of programmers? those that believe Vas copied Fruit, or those that believe he didn't? The latter list numbers just a few. Less than 6. How about the other list? 16 signed the original letter of protest. Others weighed in later, Ken Thompson, for example. He's not going "with the programmers" he is going "against them." Which is fine if he doesn't care whether they participate or not...

The statement about the engine that participated not being tested is not "FALSE". Why the hell do you want to twist the facts. Rybka 2.3.2a DID NOT participate in the ICGA and neither did Rybka 1.6 or Rybka 1.0 beta. The only time Rybka 2.3.2a participated was for a few games when the Rybka that was playing the ICGA (which was clearly different from Rybka 2.3.2a) was not able to connect due to some technical problems and thus a generic Rybka 2.3.2a on a laptop was used.

So you dispute Lukas' statement that SPECIFICALLY stated that he used 2.3.2a? And you do know he WAS the operator? Do you therefore claim that the versions we examined (2.3.2 and 2.3.2a) did NOT participate in an ICGA event? First, make your statement clear. It did, or it did not. No qualifiers are needed. Then we can take that statement and determine whether it is true or false...

Did it or did it not compete in an ICGA event (2.3.2a, specifically)???

BTW, the "other version" was still a standard 2.3.2 but simply had egtb paths hard-coded into the engine. Not exactly a "significant change." But he specifically said 2.3.2a played. Whether it was for one game or 10 tournaments does NOT matter. It played.

[bob]

There is a huge difference when you claim that an engine participated in a tournament and when it plays a few games due to a technical failure. Not portraying the entire episode is equivalent to using snippets of speech out of context to make up your own story. There is no need to morph the truth, just say it as it is. With respect to what constitutes "plagiarism" as per ruling 2 of ICGA ... there clearly needs to be a defined method of what constitutes plagiarism. If using knowledge screened from open source engines is not OK, then it should be quantified in a manner that is easy to assess. Otherwise you will get into the mess computer chess is at the moment.

Can't figure out which universe you are from. In mine, if a program plays a game, or even a move, in an ICGA tournament, it is bound to follow the rules. It is quite common for programmers to make minor tweaks between rounds. Now are you going to argue by saying "but no single version played in the entire event, so you can't find that one has copied code and then claim he violated the rules, unless every modified version is examined." Do you want to bet that 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a are so different that all the copied code was removed? REALLY?

BTW we looked at BOTH of those versions, so you need another version as well. And using Lukas' own words, "the only difference was hard-coded paths for accessing the TBs on my fast SSD device" makes even that argument look utterly ridiculous.

[Evert]

On the other hand ...
So many engines started with many of ELOs more as for around 10 years. What I mean is, not easy to say ... all this engines are clones if the programmers used good known ideas which are secret for 10 years.

Part of the reason chess programs today are stronger than they were a couple of years ago is simply that computers are more powerful, especially if you restrict yourself to PC hardware.
Another point that has been brought up before but that seems hard to understand is that using an idea does not make a program a clone.
When I first wrote Jazz, I used rotated bitboards based on a description in papers by Bob Hyatt. Does that mean that it was a "Crafty clone"? No, it doesn't for a number of reasons, the main one being that there was no code overlap: I sat down and worked out how the algorithm worked, and implemented it from my own notes.


Very complicated for a NON programmer like me. What you wrote is logical for me but perhaps who know it in detail.

We can give Vas a yellow card.
We can give him not a red card.

That's my opinion!
And I am sure if we give Vas a yellow card much other must get this card too. And each programmer which signature the "Open Letter" have to give the own sources for a check before an official tourney will be start.

Best
Frank[/quote]

[Roger Brown]

SNIP

We can give Vas a yellow card.
We can give him not a red card.

That's my opinion!
And I am sure if we give Vas a yellow card much other must get this card too. And each programmer which signature the "Open Letter" have to give the own sources for a check before an official tourney will be start.

Best
Frank

Hello Frank,

This is perhaps an unfortunate analogy you are using here.

A yellow or red card is given when there is an offence which is spotted by the referee or by the officials on the pitch.

So, there might very well be an offence deserving of the yellow card but as it was not spotted you cannot penalise the player.

You are not proclaiming Vas' innocence - you are merely saying others are guilty. Very well, give the evidence or even the belief you have.

Step up and point a finger then.

Who should receive the next yellow card? Or is this merely an argument to do nothing?

Over to you Frank.

Later.

[Robert Flesher]

P.S. I'm referring to Robert Flescher remembering something Sean Evans did 10 years ago.

Robert,

I think this was something that was in the past and should be left there. That was a long time ago and nobody cares. Everybody makes minor mistakes in their lives (and most make pretty major ones) and deserves to be able to live it down - otherwise I'm sure there are people in your life who could "remember" every little embarrassing or wrong thing YOU ever did and bring it up over and over. This certainly isn't in the league of some major crime or anything so why bring it up?

Don, I have nothing agaist you, however, are you ****ing serious? I was attempting to establish a trendwith Evans REPEAT attacks on members. What seems to be amusing, and contradicting is your attitude towards Evans. The last time he was banned with the possibility of returned you stated,

"Yes, but this will cause him some trouble and effort. He will have
to disguise his style too. But in my opinion it does not matter at
all, only a few things can happen:

1) He will not try to re-enter.

2) He will try and eventually be found out and then removed again.

3) He will not be found out but will get removed again for
similar bad behavior.

4) He will not be found out but will behave himself and not get
removed. ( is THIS occuring?)

I'm fine with any of these possibilities.

- Don"

Why the change of heart?

The problem with allowing this kind of behaviour is that others will stoop to that level. So if that is what people want instead of respect, then as you wish. I am disappointed, the gloves come off!

[rodolfoleoni]

I exchanged some e-mails with Richard (Pijl) today, and I must say I fully understand (and agree with) his viewpoint. Evidences are clear. The problem is these evidences are clear to programmers, but CSVN is not a programmers association, so the chairman and the board lack the technical competence to understand how heavy is the issue and how incontrovertable are the proofs.

It's not matter of yellow cards. It's where the programmers community wants to go. In a world out of rules, where everybody can copy/paste others work, or in a sane environment, where honest work and computer chess science can evolve.

If I was a programmer, I wouldn't partecipate too....

[Sean Evans]

Tell Cock he is an idiot.

Hmmmm....it seems Hyattian Oligarchy member Hyatt considers himself above the Computer-Chess Club Charter:

3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others

Cordially,

Sean

Is he a member here?

Possibly a member at CCC. However, "on others" includes non CCC members. I do recall third-party non-CCC members being personally attacked and the aggressor was dealt with. Kasparov being insulted was one of them.

On a side note, if I was the moderator I would simply send you a polite PM advising of the charter rule and delete the post......problem solved.

Cordially,

Sean

[bob]

I exchanged some e-mails with Richard (Pijl) today, and I must say I fully understand (and agree with) his viewpoint. Evidences are clear. The problem is these evidences are clear to programmers, but CSVN is not a programmers association, so the chairman and the board lack the technical competence to understand how heavy is the issue and how incontrovertable are the proofs.

It's not matter of yellow cards. It's where the programmers community wants to go. In a world out of rules, where everybody can copy/paste others work, or in a sane environment, where honest work and computer chess science can evolve.

If I was a programmer, I wouldn't partecipate too....

Glad you are one of the few that actually asks the right kind of person and then thinks about the answer you get...

[Roger Brown]

The problem with allowing this kind of behaviour is that others will stoop to that level. So if that is what people want instead of respect, then as you wish. I am disappointed, the gloves come off!

Hello Robert,

Please keep the gloves on and do not stoop.

It is never easy to remain above the fray but y'know, it is a bigger betrayal of your principles than the other person's.

Think about it....

And please report posts which you think offend the charter.

I will deal with any member who needs to be attended to

Later.

[Robert Flesher]

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.