A problem CC community has

[chrisw]

It seems many posts go out topic with this clone war.

The original concept is: why don't try to improve ICGA from inside? And about my possible membership, I'm seriously considering it. Tough, I think programmers must rule (in democratic mean), while non-programmers as I am could be kind of external support.

The programmers DO rule the ICGA.

And in this specific case they boycott the strongest entity on the planet, Rybka cluster. They have seen the Ippolit source code (alleged illegal Rybka 3 hack, a punishable crime), discovered nothing Fruity and yet some (many?) plunder its secrets to make progress themselves in the meantime denying the father of their progress the right to play. To make the situation even worse some of them actively manipulate (non) ICGA tournaments to exclude Rybka cluster from participation.

There is always something in CC but I can not remember a time in CC I have seen so much self serving hypocrisy.

So there goes my popularity level among chess programmers and I can not care less, the truth must be said.

The ICGA in all of this has been a slave of the programmers. When the Fabien letter dropped into David's mailbox he had no choice then to act else the WCCC would be dead. It's the same with Harvey's generous proposal in this thread echoed by Bob. I contacted Harvey privately, he asked for my patience in order to check with x,y,z and reported a no go.

So now you know who controls the ICGA.

A convenient elimination of a competitor.

How self-serving.

The ICGA is not "ruled by the programmers". It is a Mubarak style dictatorship, ruled by Levy. There is no possibility to depose or change the leadership by the membership. It is true that the ICGA depends on programmers actually turning up for the once yearly event, and, given the opposition to the ICGA in some programmer quarters, it is also heavily dependent on being able to suggest that at least some programmers support it.

ICGA is a kind of oligarchy. There is no democracy in operation, just alliances and special interest groups of "programmer unions" and individual noisy programmers jostling for position and trying to use ICGA for their own purposes. The structure is anachronistic and belongs to pre-internet days, nowadays everything can be, and is, self-organised over the free internet space. ICGA is irrelevant, it got involved this time because a special interest group, again, was unable to make its anti-Rybka case via open internet debate, so it turned, mafia-like to the ICGA to help them make their case with opponents excluded. The ICGA duly obliged and immolated computer chess in the process. Idiots all.

[mclane]

The ICGA is not "ruled by the programmers". It is a Mubarak style dictatorship, ruled by Levy.

right. but mubarak is almost dead now.

There is no possibility to depose or change the leadership by the membership. It is true that the ICGA depends on programmers actually turning up for the once yearly event, and, given the opposition to the ICGA in some programmer quarters, it is also heavily dependent on being able to suggest that at least some programmers support it.

ICGA is a kind of oligarchy. There is no democracy in operation, just alliances and special interest groups of "programmer unions" and individual noisy programmers jostling for position and trying to use ICGA for their own purposes. The structure is anachronistic and belongs to pre-internet days, nowadays everything can be, and is, self-organised over the free internet space. ICGA is irrelevant, it got involved this time because a special interest group, again, was unable to make its anti-Rybka case via open internet debate, so it turned, mafia-like to the ICGA to help them make their case with opponents excluded. The ICGA duly obliged and immolated computer chess in the process. Idiots all.

ok.

so next step: new organisation. mubarak is finished.

the programmers can build their own organisation now.

[chrisw]

The ICGA is not "ruled by the programmers". It is a Mubarak style dictatorship, ruled by Levy.

right. but mubarak is almost dead now.

There is no possibility to depose or change the leadership by the membership. It is true that the ICGA depends on programmers actually turning up for the once yearly event, and, given the opposition to the ICGA in some programmer quarters, it is also heavily dependent on being able to suggest that at least some programmers support it.

ICGA is a kind of oligarchy. There is no democracy in operation, just alliances and special interest groups of "programmer unions" and individual noisy programmers jostling for position and trying to use ICGA for their own purposes. The structure is anachronistic and belongs to pre-internet days, nowadays everything can be, and is, self-organised over the free internet space. ICGA is irrelevant, it got involved this time because a special interest group, again, was unable to make its anti-Rybka case via open internet debate, so it turned, mafia-like to the ICGA to help them make their case with opponents excluded. The ICGA duly obliged and immolated computer chess in the process. Idiots all.

ok.

so next step: new organisation. mubarak is finished.

the programmers can build their own organisation now.

You don't need an "organisation". Just self-organise over the internet, as is already done. You only need a hierarchical organisation when information flow is limited (and then some people with information can take advantage for their own benefit). Why have an organisation to make a WCCC? Peter Skinner, or anybody else, can organise one from here, next year somebody else could do it, and so on.

[hgm]

Democracy doesn't work in sports events. Because it invites exactly what you are so fulminating against: a majority of weaker players simply vote out the strongest. Very democatic, but not really the idea of a sports event.

So self-organization will just lead to an endless war of boycots: "if he is in I will be out, and start my own organization or 'World Championship', with people that I do not dislike for whatever petty reason." You do need an unbending authority that says: this is the World Championship, and if you don't like it, too bad for you.

[chrisw]

Democracy doesn't work in sports events. Because it invites exactly what you are so fulminating against: a majority of weaker players simply vote out the strongest. Very democatic, but not really the idea of a sports event.

So self-organization will just lead to an endless war of boycots: "if he is in I will be out, and start my own organization or 'World Championship', with people that I do not dislike for whatever petty reason." You do need an unbending authority that says: this is the World Championship, and if you don't like it, too bad for you.

I disagree. In a self organising system with full information (computer chess internet interaction eg) competing tournament ideas would Darwinistically sort themselves out (as is happening right now).

I do agree with you that there is a problem of a majority ganging up on a minority (as we saw with Rybka) but there is an overwhelming force against this becoming entrenched, namely that end users are part of the equation and they see straight through the hypocricy and want to see something different, plus programmers with moral imperatives (such as protection of minorities against bullying) will also make their voices heard. It is not easy for morally unsound processes to take place in the full glare of open debate (as we are seeing).

Gradually, one or maybe more tournaments with sufficient credibility will arise via this process. We may be seeing this right now.

Finally, the problem with your, shall I call it dictatorial solution, is just that, it is a dictatorship. We don't need dictatorships when we can democratically organise, as oligarchs the world over are discovering at present.

[rodolfoleoni]

I'd be very curious to know Tord viewpoint, as he posted Fabien open letter here. I've got the impression he's gone from Stockfish project, maybe because of disagreements with you about ICGA, clones, etc. But, being this one only an impression, I'd like to hear from you how things are inside the Team. With the hope to not offend you.

No offence at all. We have never discussed about ICGA (that I discovered only recently) nor clones or tournaments. All our discussion have been on strictly technical points.

Actually my first discussion about tournaments and ICGA was the monster thread that I started few days ago. I have to admit I was never interested in this topic (I was and still I am not interested in tournaments) and I also knew almost nothing of ICGA until few weeks ago.

I've my own interpretation of everything happened in these years.

- Rybka affair: just after the first appearance of R1 I remember several posts on talkchess. Several people claimed R1 had "stolen" something from Fruit. Not based on RE or hex reading, but only by comparing engines output.

I do not remember several people making serious claims that R1 stole something from fruit based on comparing engines output before reverese engineering of Rybka.

Note that if somebody claims something like this then the same person needs to show the relevant output if he wants me to take him seriously.

If somebody thinks that he has some evidence that Rybka is based on Fruit based on engine output without reverse engineering then
I would like to see the evidence in a different thread in the relevant forum.

Hi Uri,

it's something I vaguely remember. I tried to perform a search, but I couldn't find the topics. Maybe there's an older archive.

Anyway, it could be considered irrelevant, as evidences went on the attention of ICGA years later.

Most important, I still hope VR will produce a clean code to the attention of ICGA for future Rybka releases. Until then, it's a stalemate and Community will remain divided into several parties, with every one wanting different things.

[hgm]

..., namely that end users are part of the equation and they see straight through the hypocricy and want to see something different, plus programmers with moral imperatives (such as protection of minorities against bullying) will also make their voices heard. It is not easy for morally unsound processes to take place in the full glare of open debate (as we are seeing).

The problem is that the end users are not part of the equation at all. Unlike other major sports events, spectators to computer Chess tourneys don't pay a cent, and no one cares a hoot about them.

There is nothing like enlightened dictatorship... Democracy is a mess.

[chrisw]

..., namely that end users are part of the equation and they see straight through the hypocricy and want to see something different, plus programmers with moral imperatives (such as protection of minorities against bullying) will also make their voices heard. It is not easy for morally unsound processes to take place in the full glare of open debate (as we are seeing).

The problem is that the end users are not part of the equation at all. Unlike other major sports events, spectators to computer Chess tourneys don't pay a cent, and no one cares a hoot about them.

There is nothing like enlightened dictatorship... Democracy is a mess.

Computer chess is full of dictators but not one is even remotely "enlightened". At least on open forum people have to pretend some form of morals but as soon as you allow them freedom to decide for others behind closed doors even those limited and probably fake morals vaporise into self interest. the dictatorial system rapidly creates wannabee emperor mentality into the self important heads of even the organisation's flunkeys, as the 300 euro two star Michelin restaurant bill, counter signed by David Levy, and flashed around the forums, proudly apparently, attests. That is just the tip of the iceberg. All you need are free and open forums, with bullying suppressed, and organisation will self-evolve from the base, whether end user or programmer, no need for dictators, emperors or their flunkeys.

and, btw, if you believe end users are not part of the equation, then what are you doing arguing on a shop based forum that is majority enduser?

[bob]

I know David for 25+ years and I am confident he will go all the way the programmers want him to go. The problem is not David nor the ICGA (=David) but its programmers and the ongoing boycott of Rybka as lastly demonstrated when Peter Skinner was in favor to allow Rybka in his CCT tournament.

Everybody knows Rybka 3 is above suspicion (even Ken Thompson said so) and yet the boycott continues. Until then the problem remains. First something has to change between the ears of some programmers before the CC community can move on. It has been long enough by now.

Then why not ask Vas to talk to the ICGA and the case can be reopened. he could perhaps show the R3 code to ken who I think would be trusted by all sides.

The offer is appreciated but I think you first need to check some of the programmers else you will go the CSVN way.

I believe we all have said the same thing. Should he show that the current Rybka is clean, there would be no problem letting it compete. The only issue would be the current ban for past (very) bad behavior...

if anyone should be banned for "very bad behaviour" it should be one Robert Hyatt for false and malicious allegations against an entirely innocent competitor whose program he was unable to either beat or understand. Repeated and unjustified accusations of theft, appeals to, and actual disassembley of, and illegal publication of the internals of that program and then further participation in multiple libels and bullying via the world's press. I would doubt that there has ever been a more disgusting case of abuse in computer chess than that perpetrated by Hyatt here.

I have made ZERO "false allegations". I did verify that a formal protest was justified. Like it or not. You are the perfect person to question anyone's character, you have so little of your own. No point in raising your past transgressions, everyone knows what they were. Just beware of throwing stones in a glass house...

[bob]

I appear to understand them better than you as nothing has changed Facts are Facts. Only your's and Ed's twisted view is being swallowed by some illiterates.

On top of my head I can mention 10 programmers who do not agree with the ICGA verdict. They are all twisted Terry? 14-0 you perhaps can label as a fact, 14-10 no longer. I would say controversial at best, maybe undecided is better.

How about honesty? They do not disagree with the fact that Vas copied Fruit. Most of them disagree with the punishment the ICGA board chose to impose. You continually try to distort things to make a point that is actually not supported.