CB: Feedback on the ICGA/Rybka disqualification scandal

[dj]

towforce wrote:

dj wrote:

..it seems to me that there are four categories of people capable of making relatively "expert" judgements (which does not , of course, mean they are necessarily right!). They are:

1. Commercial programmers with a track record of success.
2. A very small group of non-commercial engine authors who have produced strong engines and performed well in world in championships.
3. A very, very small group of people ackowledged as experts in the field by all and sundry without being engine authors.
4. Those who have actually worked on the Rykba project and know at least some versions from the inside.

That's a little bit like saying that only those who have experience of killing people may judge a murder trial.

If you had bothered to read the post to which I was replying you would have seen that Garvin had stated that only "experts" such as himself were able to judge the Rybka case. I was replying to that point and expanding.

That post is here. He never said or implied that such expertise could only come from a top chess programmer. Btw - you have quoted him, in quote marks, using the word "experts" - but he didn't use that word in his post - it's an invented quote.

Oh dear! Perhaps you are not aware that there are numerous uses for quotation marks, including irony as here.
It is you who has used the phrase "top chess programmer" (an invented quote) - not me. I specifically included a category of people who are NOT engine authors. Please read carefully. As for the ironical "expert" comment you do not even manage to quote the relevant Garvin post. I was alluding to the original post to which I replied, one in which inter alia he used the following words:

Everyone here on talkchess has opinions about this scandal, but most of those opinions are worthless because the people who hold them don't have a f***ing clue what happened because they either haven't read the evidence, aren't qualified to understand it, or (in a few pathetic cases) refuse to believe it and are now wilfully misrepresenting the facts of the case in an effort to persuade impressionable others to adopt their misguided point of view.

That passage, in conjunction with several similar passges in his two posts, indicates that Garvin thinks that he and his cronies are the experts who are in the know. Indeed at one point in his second post he distinguishes between those with knowledge and use logic (implied "experts") and the hoi polloi who are fanatical supporters of Rajlich. Hence the irony in my use of "experts" is more than amply justified. If you seriously supposed I was going to bother putting my entirely accurate characterization of Garvin's views into lengthy, stilted language then you are indeed even weirder than I supposed. At the very minimum your point was a footling exercise in nitpicking.
dj

Your suggestion that is comparable to allowing only murderers to judge murder trials is weird in the extreme - and, of course, totally wrong.

I didn't say "murderers" - I said people who have experience killing people.

Wow! I hereby change "murderers" to "murderers, people who commit manslaughter, people who kill others in accidents, doctors in Swiss death clinics, hangmen and soldiers." Does it make one iota of difference to the fatuity of your "point"? (btw that is an example of the use of quotation marks for irony).
dj

towforce wrote:

dj wrote:

Well, we have Chris Whittington and Ed Schröder who have both had success as programmers before retirement...

Chris Whittington the Third... Person Singular?

This is - if possible - even weirder. Perhaps you could explain the meaning - or rather lack of it. The emoticon at the end suggests you are going gaga. You might do well to remember the old adage

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Jokes aren't funny when they have to be explained, so I won't elaborate.

I see...hehe. So it was an attempted joke. The emoticon was you laughing at your own imaginary joke. Well, laugh on. Jokes are meaningful only when other understand them. How many people here understood it? I for one did not.
dj

[dj]

I repeat: I wish that all this nonsense would end. The ICGA has made its decision and that should be an end of it as far as those responsible for the verdict are concerned.

As a solution I would expect that the ICGA would write a self-correcting notion, saying that ouch they had applied the wrong logic which they thought would be the right one and that in that respect thex had to correct all their conclusions and that therefore Vas Rajlich plus Rybka are completely innocent again and of course with all their human and judicial rights.

The ICGA and Bob Hyatt would clarify the huge material losses for Vas and his wife.

ChessBase will negotiate it with the partners.

Dream on, Rolf, it ain't gonna happen.

The cc world will remain divided into two. Rybka will not participate in ICGA tournaments, which will become even more meaningless than they already are. Rybka will continue to be judged by its merits as an analytical tool for chess players, and by its performance in ratings tables. If Rybka 5 manages to edge first place when it eventually appears then people will rush to get their hands on it.