Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[Rebel]

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...

Then keep it shut

[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...

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

And for the record, I voted for you. And I think you will be a good one. But we do not agree on this point, obviously. This is similar to saying "It would not surprise me if there are several million dishonest people in the US." Does NOT insult everyone. Nor does it impugn everyone's character. The ones that "are" know who they are, the rest know they are not...

[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

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."

I am not inclined to give you a break on this. You are too important and valuable of a person to CCC. It is important that you realize your role in the dissension and acrimony that exists in the community.

For the record, the Bob Hyatt lexicon does not contain meanings that are non-existent in other dictionaries. However, it tends to ignore alternative meanings found in other dictionaries and in common usage.

For example, you say that you made no allegations since you did not specify any persons in particular. To back this up, you give a definition (easily seen when you google 'allegation') that says an allegation is made against someone. Of course, if we take this definition strictly literal, an allegation could never be made against a group but only against individuals.

Also, I have checked multiple definitions for the word 'allegation'. The common theme is "to assert something is true; to assert without proof". No mention of the need to specify individuals in order to make an allegation. Of course, an allegation has to be made against something. Such as a subgroup of people, say about one quarter of the participants of CCT 12.

What you said was short of an incrimination, but it definitely was a slur directed towards your competitors at CCT 12. There is a difference between expressing a lack of surprise if some competitors were using derivatives and expressing your "gut" feeling that approximately one quarter of them were using derivatives.

I assume that you are a Southerner, as I am. If someone said that they would not be surprised that some Southerners were uneducated bigots, neither one of us would object very much, because we know it to be true. However, if someone said that they felt strongly that a quarter of all Southerners were uneducated bigots, that affects you and me also. If they can prove it, then we have to accept it. But if they do not offer any proof, then that would piss me off, even if I am not an uneducated bigot. I would hope you would feel the same, because it is an untrue statement that makes many people worldwide look at an American from the South with contempt.

Adam

[Adam Hair]

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

And for the record, I voted for you. And I think you will be a good one. But we do not agree on this point, obviously. This is similar to saying "It would not surprise me if there are several million dishonest people in the US." Does NOT insult everyone. Nor does it impugn everyone's character. The ones that "are" know who they are, the rest know they are not...

Good choice. I think that all three moderators will do as good a job as you did. And you are a great moderator.

[Peter Berger]

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, you are just *horrible* in admitting to have made a mistake, as minor as it may be!

Let's have a look: of this list Amyan, Butcher, Junior, Diep, Gaviota, Hiarcs, Ikarus, Shredder, Sjeng, Telepath, The Baron, Thinker and Tinker should be out of doubt, as you have known and competed against them for years.

Now if 1/4 of the field are expected to be cheaters according to you, how would you feel yourself if you were one of the remaining entries ?

[F. Bluemers]

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, you are just *horrible* in admitting to have made a mistake, as minor as it may be!

Let's have a look: of this list Amyan, Butcher, Junior, Diep, Gaviota, Hiarcs, Ikarus, Shredder, Sjeng, Telepath, The Baron, Thinker and Tinker should be out of doubt, as you have known and competed against them for years.

Now if 1/4 of the field are expected to be cheaters according to you, how would you feel yourself if you were one of the remaining entries ?

funnily enough already the first engine from that list _is_ a known clone .
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Almond

[jdart]

I see computer chess tournaments as a sporting contest, not a scientific endeavor. And I see chess programs as works of art, not scientific papers. Although a great deal of science is involved, it's still a contest.

I think the tournament-running part of ICGA is becoming a club with only a few members and a high wall to keep everyone else out. They have a right to make any rules they like. But they have alienated a lot of people by their actions. In particular, the more I think about it, the less I think a lifetime ban for Rybka is justifiable, even if you grant all the allegations about it were true.

I have said before, I don't think these programs are works of art. They are technical creations and that's a different thing. And in technology, building on past achievements is generally considered admirable.

Now, to be clear, I don't agree with some who have argued we are in some kind of "new era" where all of a sudden copyright and licensing don't matter.

But there are probably 500 or more reasonably functional chess programs available now. How many of these would be acceptable into an ICGA competition? What about for example Umko, which is a well-written and strong program but clearly and legally derived from Stockfish and Toga?

Also, personally, I've never myself been all that much into the competitive aspect of it. I compete with myself, in a sense: to make my program better. To make it better than all others hasn't exactly been my goal.

--Jon

[K I Hyams]

In particular, the more I think about it, the less I think a lifetime ban for Rybka is justifiable, even if you grant all the allegations about it were true.
--Jon

The ICGA demands that Vasik Rajlich return to the ICGA the four replicas of the Shannon Trophy presented at the World Computer Chess Championships in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and to return to the ICGA all prize money awarded for Rybka’s performances in those events.
David Levy [President - ICGA]
June 28th 2011
Perhaps they are waiting for the return of property that they think he obtained under false pretences before they are willing to have him back. The ball entered Rajlich’s court when they first approached him about the investigation and the ball is still in Rajlich’s court today. If I were running the ICGA, I would also want assurances from him that he would cooperate with requests for material that would verify the authenticity of any future program that he wanted to enter into ICGA competitions.

[Don]

I see computer chess tournaments as a sporting contest, not a scientific endeavor. And I see chess programs as works of art, not scientific papers. Although a great deal of science is involved, it's still a contest.

I think the tournament-running part of ICGA is becoming a club with only a few members and a high wall to keep everyone else out.

I hope you are not letting yourself be swayed by all the propaganda, but I think this is totally unfair and off base. You are just echoing what you have been taught to say. If you look you will see that the ICGA has actually bent over backwards to welcome new blood into the ICGA, even to the point where they almost let in a obvious plagiarist of Mark Leflers "Now" program, even to the point of helping him financially. My very first tournament was payed for by the ICGA and that is when I had the weakest program in the tournament, they had never even heard of me before this. They payed for my trip to Europe and my accommodations in 1986.

I know the "boys club" sound bite sounds good on paper but it's just hyperbole to a ridiculous degree.

Please lay it out for us. Tell us who the members are of this "club" and what their agenda is. Bob Hyatt does not have a competitive program at the moment, so I assume that you believe he is going to work his way down until Crafty is the strongest remaining program? Is Bob going to go after Komodo next, then Stockfish etc ? What is the purpose of this club, to keep the best programs out of computer chess? Please, help me understand how any reasonable person can caught up in this ridiculous fear mongering conspiracy theory nonsense.

I would suggest that we stick to factual items if we insist on continue to debate this and better yet just drop it. If all that you have is to impugn the motives of everyone that disagree's with you then you don't have much.

They have a right to make any rules they like. But they have alienated a lot of people by their actions. In particular, the more I think about it, the less I think a lifetime ban for Rybka is justifiable, even if you grant all the allegations about it were true.

I have said before, I don't think these programs are works of art. They are technical creations and that's a different thing. And in technology, building on past achievements is generally considered admirable.

Now, to be clear, I don't agree with some who have argued we are in some kind of "new era" where all of a sudden copyright and licensing don't matter.

But there are probably 500 or more reasonably functional chess programs available now. How many of these would be acceptable into an ICGA competition? What about for example Umko, which is a well-written and strong program but clearly and legally derived from Stockfish and Toga?

Also, personally, I've never myself been all that much into the competitive aspect of it. I compete with myself, in a sense: to make my program better. To make it better than all others hasn't exactly been my goal.

--Jon

[Damir]

So, Mr Lefler without allegedly knowing or thinking gave the source of his program away to a 3rd party, and hereby increased the number of clones..
I suppose we should thank him for his contribution.

I can not help but think that Vasik story is similar as his. He too gave an engine to a supposed tester whom he thought he could trust. That tester gave the engine Vas entrusted to him to others, and what we now have is an allegation that Rybka is a clone of not just one but several other engines.

PS: Why is Mr lefler on ICGA panel ?