Frayer's opinion expressed at the Rybka forum....

[kingliveson]

Take the whole paragraphe about Tiger Woods. By metapher you insinuate that Vas might have similar problems at home. But that is poor guessing.

I don't think that is what was being "insinuated." It is clear that source code is what was being referred to.

[bob]

Can we actually resolve this issue rather then hitting a brick wall with the same nonsense and creating a thread about this every day Going round in circles like a dog chasing its tail for 2years now.

This has been quite similar to the Tiger Woods fiasco. He originally claimed that nothing unusual was going on, then today admitted to marital infidelity. had he done so initially, it would have been a much smaller note in sports news. As it is, it has dragged on for several days and no end is yet in sight. This could have been addressed by Vas on two occasions. Initially with the fruit/strelka/rybka issue, and now with the rybka/Robo* issue. Denying everything, or remaining mum after making the claim about Robo* has kept the story alive far longer than it deserved. Ultimately, the fault lies with Vas and how he chose to handle this. Only he can clear it up. Or he can let the speculation continue about Robo, and deal with the repercussions that appear to be in no danger of dying out, since as moderators, we have been handling this issue since we first took office.

It's beyond me what you have in mind. Look, I dont ask you why you like gambling too but you are now psychologizing Vas as if you were his father or uncle.

Please show me one sentence in the above that is about psychoanalyzing Vas or anyone else?

Take the whole paragraphe about Tiger Woods. By metapher you insinuate that Vas might have similar problems at home. But that is poor guessing.

I insinuated _nothing_ of the kind. I clearly stated that Tiger could have avoided much of the embarassment he is facing had he simply told a factual version of what was going on, rather than making up stuff right and left, and then having to back down later. And I then stated that Vas could have done the same and avoided these repeated rehashings of the same discussion.

Sheesh, do you have to be spoon-fed every conversation, one word at a time, using only monosyllable words?

How do you know what for someone else is the right time?

Quite easy. At the time the question is first asked. Tell the truth at that point and there will be fewer issues later with retractions.

He kept mum.

But when he wanted to talk to you you had no 15 minutes.

Not everyone gets to sit around all day as you apparently do. I clearly explained that we are starting final exams. I have one tomorrow, in fact, and two more next week. I have final projects to grade, final reports to read, and a ton of other things going on. You were asking me to do this while I was in class, in fact, which is why it took a while for me to get to my office and respond. Ever heard of the concept called "planning"? Don't ask me "Can you do this right now?" as my calendar is pretty full for tomorrow already. Rather, ask "what's a good time?" and I might be able to work something out. As the old saying goes, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

The same with the Strelka claim. How do you know why Vas had said what. Since he said that no decent tester ever tested seriously this thing.

The same with the clone claim. Since he said that, no decent tester ever tested this thing and on Playchess it's banned.

What's your point. All I ever said he claimed was the Strelka was reverse-engineered from Rybka 1 and that he was claiming it. I've made no other claims about comments from him about Strelka. That was where this story started.

Not a bad performance with only claiming something without any proof!

I can back up my claim that Vas clearly claimed Strelka as his own code. I'd be happy to accept any reasonable wager you'd like to make to the contrary. He wrote it in his own words, on his own forum. You can probably still find the post there should you still require proof.

Now what was the problem?

Exactly...

[Rolf]

Can we actually resolve this issue rather then hitting a brick wall with the same nonsense and creating a thread about this every day Going round in circles like a dog chasing its tail for 2years now.

This has been quite similar to the Tiger Woods fiasco. He originally claimed that nothing unusual was going on, then today admitted to marital infidelity. had he done so initially, it would have been a much smaller note in sports news. As it is, it has dragged on for several days and no end is yet in sight. This could have been addressed by Vas on two occasions. Initially with the fruit/strelka/rybka issue, and now with the rybka/Robo* issue. Denying everything, or remaining mum after making the claim about Robo* has kept the story alive far longer than it deserved. Ultimately, the fault lies with Vas and how he chose to handle this. Only he can clear it up. Or he can let the speculation continue about Robo, and deal with the repercussions that appear to be in no danger of dying out, since as moderators, we have been handling this issue since we first took office.

It's beyond me what you have in mind. Look, I dont ask you why you like gambling too but you are now psychologizing Vas as if you were his father or uncle.

Please show me one sentence in the above that is about psychoanalyzing Vas or anyone else?

Take the whole paragraphe about Tiger Woods. By metapher you insinuate that Vas might have similar problems at home. But that is poor guessing.

I insinuated _nothing_ of the kind. I clearly stated that Tiger could have avoided much of the embarassment he is facing had he simply told a factual version of what was going on, rather than making up stuff right and left, and then having to back down later. And I then stated that Vas could have done the same and avoided these repeated rehashings of the same discussion.

Sheesh, do you have to be spoon-fed every conversation, one word at a time, using only monosyllable words?

How do you know what for someone else is the right time?

Quite easy. At the time the question is first asked. Tell the truth at that point and there will be fewer issues later with retractions.

He kept mum.

But when he wanted to talk to you you had no 15 minutes.

Not everyone gets to sit around all day as you apparently do. I clearly explained that we are starting final exams. I have one tomorrow, in fact, and two more next week. I have final projects to grade, final reports to read, and a ton of other things going on. You were asking me to do this while I was in class, in fact, which is why it took a while for me to get to my office and respond. Ever heard of the concept called "planning"? Don't ask me "Can you do this right now?" as my calendar is pretty full for tomorrow already. Rather, ask "what's a good time?" and I might be able to work something out. As the old saying goes, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

The same with the Strelka claim. How do you know why Vas had said what. Since he said that no decent tester ever tested seriously this thing.

The same with the clone claim. Since he said that, no decent tester ever tested this thing and on Playchess it's banned.

What's your point. All I ever said he claimed was the Strelka was reverse-engineered from Rybka 1 and that he was claiming it. I've made no other claims about comments from him about Strelka. That was where this story started.

Not a bad performance with only claiming something without any proof!

I can back up my claim that Vas clearly claimed Strelka as his own code. I'd be happy to accept any reasonable wager you'd like to make to the contrary. He wrote it in his own words, on his own forum. You can probably still find the post there should you still require proof.

Now what was the problem?

Exactly...

We have a certain misunderstanding now. If you take other threads you normally must understand why I feel so happy and relieved after all the tension.

1) You missed the following. My idea was so simple and trivial that one normally couldnt miss it. I was dreaming of a little hello between you and Vas. To demonstrate that it's now over. Just a signal "Let's move on". Just like we are talking right now.
For me the surprise was that Vas saw no problem in a short talk with you. And I guess he also has much other duties meanwhile. My idea was NOT "Let's make a Noon Shoot Down". Because there is no room for serious proof. That's why it's really a bit overreached or -stretched if you want to have a debate 4 vs 1.

2) If you missed it only in short a note. We have too many people in the state of hybris of what online fora moves can possibly do. Example some here do it this way, if Vas didnt PROVE it what he claimed isnt it prejudicing against all constitutions if anonymous IMO jerks at best or chess cyber terrorists are NOT allowed to have their way like everybody normally? Answer from reality (real life, the sphere where you hold examinations) nope, not allowed. Period.

3) We had announcements and stuff like that but in the end after years Zach has no argument. No proof. We have no court case. Nothing. Even the entertainment with new clones failed.

4) Uri made clear that the whole dreams are over. At sunset RYBKA 3 in DEEP version on a QUAD has nobody to fear. This is proven, not a joke.

5) Vas is heading to a new age of chess with new online offers just like Junior now is doing it on ICC in combination with accounts you get access to the strongest engine available. Well fo you it's Junior. For Europe it's Rybka. Would be ridiculous to expect that Zach now is engaged for a permanent job of reverse engineering the different commercial entities. Game over for the little one and his hidden and open supporters. He wasted too much of his precious life for others in a negative, unproductive way.

[bob]

Can we actually resolve this issue rather then hitting a brick wall with the same nonsense and creating a thread about this every day Going round in circles like a dog chasing its tail for 2years now.

This has been quite similar to the Tiger Woods fiasco. He originally claimed that nothing unusual was going on, then today admitted to marital infidelity. had he done so initially, it would have been a much smaller note in sports news. As it is, it has dragged on for several days and no end is yet in sight. This could have been addressed by Vas on two occasions. Initially with the fruit/strelka/rybka issue, and now with the rybka/Robo* issue. Denying everything, or remaining mum after making the claim about Robo* has kept the story alive far longer than it deserved. Ultimately, the fault lies with Vas and how he chose to handle this. Only he can clear it up. Or he can let the speculation continue about Robo, and deal with the repercussions that appear to be in no danger of dying out, since as moderators, we have been handling this issue since we first took office.

It's beyond me what you have in mind. Look, I dont ask you why you like gambling too but you are now psychologizing Vas as if you were his father or uncle.

Please show me one sentence in the above that is about psychoanalyzing Vas or anyone else?

Take the whole paragraphe about Tiger Woods. By metapher you insinuate that Vas might have similar problems at home. But that is poor guessing.

I insinuated _nothing_ of the kind. I clearly stated that Tiger could have avoided much of the embarassment he is facing had he simply told a factual version of what was going on, rather than making up stuff right and left, and then having to back down later. And I then stated that Vas could have done the same and avoided these repeated rehashings of the same discussion.

Sheesh, do you have to be spoon-fed every conversation, one word at a time, using only monosyllable words?

How do you know what for someone else is the right time?

Quite easy. At the time the question is first asked. Tell the truth at that point and there will be fewer issues later with retractions.

He kept mum.

But when he wanted to talk to you you had no 15 minutes.

Not everyone gets to sit around all day as you apparently do. I clearly explained that we are starting final exams. I have one tomorrow, in fact, and two more next week. I have final projects to grade, final reports to read, and a ton of other things going on. You were asking me to do this while I was in class, in fact, which is why it took a while for me to get to my office and respond. Ever heard of the concept called "planning"? Don't ask me "Can you do this right now?" as my calendar is pretty full for tomorrow already. Rather, ask "what's a good time?" and I might be able to work something out. As the old saying goes, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

The same with the Strelka claim. How do you know why Vas had said what. Since he said that no decent tester ever tested seriously this thing.

The same with the clone claim. Since he said that, no decent tester ever tested this thing and on Playchess it's banned.

What's your point. All I ever said he claimed was the Strelka was reverse-engineered from Rybka 1 and that he was claiming it. I've made no other claims about comments from him about Strelka. That was where this story started.

Not a bad performance with only claiming something without any proof!

I can back up my claim that Vas clearly claimed Strelka as his own code. I'd be happy to accept any reasonable wager you'd like to make to the contrary. He wrote it in his own words, on his own forum. You can probably still find the post there should you still require proof.

Now what was the problem?

Exactly...

We have a certain misunderstanding now. If you take other threads you normally must understand why I feel so happy and relieved after all the tension.

1) You missed the following. My idea was so simple and trivial that one normally couldnt miss it. I was dreaming of a little hello between you and Vas. To demonstrate that it's now over. Just a signal "Let's move on". Just like we are talking right now.
For me the surprise was that Vas saw no problem in a short talk with you. And I guess he also has much other duties meanwhile. My idea was NOT "Let's make a Noon Shoot Down". Because there is no room for serious proof. That's why it's really a bit overreached or -stretched if you want to have a debate 4 vs 1.

First, I have always been able to talk to almost anyone. This current post is an example.

Second, what is the point of this conversation? To go thru the "hello, how are you doing? What's new? etc?" That's not going to do a thing to stem the tide of these threads on this same topic. These threads won't die until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. So for me, the only "point" would be to discuss the actual issue at hand, technically, and that would be best done with the ones that originally made the discovery involved.

I've already had discussions here with Vas. Informative ones. When I figured out how his cluster search worked. The thread went on for a couple of days, no arguments, just back-and-forth with data and observations, until it died out peacefully. Everyone already knows that can happen. And that didn't help this duscussion one bit.

2) If you missed it only in short a note. We have too many people in the state of hybris of what online fora moves can possibly do. Example some here do it this way, if Vas didnt PROVE it what he claimed isnt it prejudicing against all constitutions if anonymous IMO jerks at best or chess cyber terrorists are NOT allowed to have their way like everybody normally? Answer from reality (real life, the sphere where you hold examinations) nope, not allowed. Period.

There are two issues. (1) the evidence; (2) how the evidence was obtained. I would agree that (2) is an issue, as reverse-engineering is not exactly on the up-and-up. But once it was done, that gave us (1). Vas then confirmed that (1) was a valid copy of his program, and that opened pandora's box. Whether you like how the evidence was discovered instantly became irrelevant, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

3) We had announcements and stuff like that but in the end after years Zach has no argument. No proof. We have no court case. Nothing. Even the entertainment with new clones failed.

_you_ say "no evidence." As a computer scientist that has spent years writing compilers, assemblers and assembly language programs for almost every machine ever made, I say "lots of evidence". From recent history, I know that a doctor can say "Look at this area on this MRI and you can see XX." I can't see crap. But then I am not trained in that area. He sees it easily because he is trained.

That's where this is, at the moment. I don't see any magic in any of this. Apparently all you see is witchcraft and superstition where some of us see hard facts.

4) Uri made clear that the whole dreams are over. At sunset RYBKA 3 in DEEP version on a QUAD has nobody to fear. This is proven, not a joke.

Until someone takes the time to parallelize Robo*. Then that will change as well. Or until someone takes the time to study robo* and take the good ideas and implement them in their program. Which has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

5) Vas is heading to a new age of chess with new online offers just like Junior now is doing it on ICC in combination with accounts you get access to the strongest engine available. Well fo you it's Junior. For Europe it's Rybka. Would be ridiculous to expect that Zach now is engaged for a permanent job of reverse engineering the different commercial entities. Game over for the little one and his hidden and open supporters. He wasted too much of his precious life for others in a negative, unproductive way.

The game has barely started, it isn't over. Everyone thought it was over in 1980 with the advent of the new Belle. Everyone thought it was over when deep thought became the first GM-level computer chess program. The game is alive and well. Whether Rybka will remain a major player or eventually fade away is far from resolved. Time will tell. But one thing is for certain, like it or not, someone is going to keep bringing this topic up, over and over, until it is resolved.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Can we actually resolve this issue rather then hitting a brick wall with the same nonsense and creating a thread about this every day Going round in circles like a dog chasing its tail for 2years now.

This has been quite similar to the Tiger Woods fiasco. He originally claimed that nothing unusual was going on, then today admitted to marital infidelity. had he done so initially, it would have been a much smaller note in sports news. As it is, it has dragged on for several days and no end is yet in sight. This could have been addressed by Vas on two occasions. Initially with the fruit/strelka/rybka issue, and now with the rybka/Robo* issue. Denying everything, or remaining mum after making the claim about Robo* has kept the story alive far longer than it deserved. Ultimately, the fault lies with Vas and how he chose to handle this. Only he can clear it up. Or he can let the speculation continue about Robo, and deal with the repercussions that appear to be in no danger of dying out, since as moderators, we have been handling this issue since we first took office.

It's beyond me what you have in mind. Look, I dont ask you why you like gambling too but you are now psychologizing Vas as if you were his father or uncle.

Please show me one sentence in the above that is about psychoanalyzing Vas or anyone else?

Take the whole paragraphe about Tiger Woods. By metapher you insinuate that Vas might have similar problems at home. But that is poor guessing.

I insinuated _nothing_ of the kind. I clearly stated that Tiger could have avoided much of the embarassment he is facing had he simply told a factual version of what was going on, rather than making up stuff right and left, and then having to back down later. And I then stated that Vas could have done the same and avoided these repeated rehashings of the same discussion.

Sheesh, do you have to be spoon-fed every conversation, one word at a time, using only monosyllable words?

How do you know what for someone else is the right time?

Quite easy. At the time the question is first asked. Tell the truth at that point and there will be fewer issues later with retractions.

He kept mum.

But when he wanted to talk to you you had no 15 minutes.

Not everyone gets to sit around all day as you apparently do. I clearly explained that we are starting final exams. I have one tomorrow, in fact, and two more next week. I have final projects to grade, final reports to read, and a ton of other things going on. You were asking me to do this while I was in class, in fact, which is why it took a while for me to get to my office and respond. Ever heard of the concept called "planning"? Don't ask me "Can you do this right now?" as my calendar is pretty full for tomorrow already. Rather, ask "what's a good time?" and I might be able to work something out. As the old saying goes, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

The same with the Strelka claim. How do you know why Vas had said what. Since he said that no decent tester ever tested seriously this thing.

The same with the clone claim. Since he said that, no decent tester ever tested this thing and on Playchess it's banned.

What's your point. All I ever said he claimed was the Strelka was reverse-engineered from Rybka 1 and that he was claiming it. I've made no other claims about comments from him about Strelka. That was where this story started.

Not a bad performance with only claiming something without any proof!

I can back up my claim that Vas clearly claimed Strelka as his own code. I'd be happy to accept any reasonable wager you'd like to make to the contrary. He wrote it in his own words, on his own forum. You can probably still find the post there should you still require proof.

Now what was the problem?

Exactly...

We have a certain misunderstanding now. If you take other threads you normally must understand why I feel so happy and relieved after all the tension.

1) You missed the following. My idea was so simple and trivial that one normally couldnt miss it. I was dreaming of a little hello between you and Vas. To demonstrate that it's now over. Just a signal "Let's move on". Just like we are talking right now.
For me the surprise was that Vas saw no problem in a short talk with you. And I guess he also has much other duties meanwhile. My idea was NOT "Let's make a Noon Shoot Down". Because there is no room for serious proof. That's why it's really a bit overreached or -stretched if you want to have a debate 4 vs 1.

First, I have always been able to talk to almost anyone. This current post is an example.

Second, what is the point of this conversation? To go thru the "hello, how are you doing? What's new? etc?" That's not going to do a thing to stem the tide of these threads on this same topic. These threads won't die until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. So for me, the only "point" would be to discuss the actual issue at hand, technically, and that would be best done with the ones that originally made the discovery involved.

I've already had discussions here with Vas. Informative ones. When I figured out how his cluster search worked. The thread went on for a couple of days, no arguments, just back-and-forth with data and observations, until it died out peacefully. Everyone already knows that can happen. And that didn't help this duscussion one bit.

2) If you missed it only in short a note. We have too many people in the state of hybris of what online fora moves can possibly do. Example some here do it this way, if Vas didnt PROVE it what he claimed isnt it prejudicing against all constitutions if anonymous IMO jerks at best or chess cyber terrorists are NOT allowed to have their way like everybody normally? Answer from reality (real life, the sphere where you hold examinations) nope, not allowed. Period.

There are two issues. (1) the evidence; (2) how the evidence was obtained. I would agree that (2) is an issue, as reverse-engineering is not exactly on the up-and-up. But once it was done, that gave us (1). Vas then confirmed that (1) was a valid copy of his program, and that opened pandora's box. Whether you like how the evidence was discovered instantly became irrelevant, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

3) We had announcements and stuff like that but in the end after years Zach has no argument. No proof. We have no court case. Nothing. Even the entertainment with new clones failed.

_you_ say "no evidence." As a computer scientist that has spent years writing compilers, assemblers and assembly language programs for almost every machine ever made, I say "lots of evidence". From recent history, I know that a doctor can say "Look at this area on this MRI and you can see XX." I can't see crap. But then I am not trained in that area. He sees it easily because he is trained.

That's where this is, at the moment. I don't see any magic in any of this. Apparently all you see is witchcraft and superstition where some of us see hard facts.

4) Uri made clear that the whole dreams are over. At sunset RYBKA 3 in DEEP version on a QUAD has nobody to fear. This is proven, not a joke.

Until someone takes the time to parallelize Robo*. Then that will change as well. Or until someone takes the time to study robo* and take the good ideas and implement them in their program. Which has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?

5) Vas is heading to a new age of chess with new online offers just like Junior now is doing it on ICC in combination with accounts you get access to the strongest engine available. Well fo you it's Junior. For Europe it's Rybka. Would be ridiculous to expect that Zach now is engaged for a permanent job of reverse engineering the different commercial entities. Game over for the little one and his hidden and open supporters. He wasted too much of his precious life for others in a negative, unproductive way.

The game has barely started, it isn't over. Everyone thought it was over in 1980 with the advent of the new Belle. Everyone thought it was over when deep thought became the first GM-level computer chess program. The game is alive and well. Whether Rybka will remain a major player or eventually fade away is far from resolved. Time will tell. But one thing is for certain, like it or not, someone is going to keep bringing this topic up, over and over, until it is resolved.

Count me in
Dr.D

[Uri Blass]

My comments:

1)Vas can say that when he confirmed that strelka is a copy of rybka he meant that he found that most of rybka's code is in strelka.

He did not mean that he looked at everything in strelka to verify that nothing was taken from fruit and not from rybka.

I do not say that no code in rybka is taken from fruit but only that even if you convince people that some strelka's code is from fruit it does not prove that some rybka's code is from fruit.

2)I am not sure if Robbolito is going to be number 1 when somebody add parallel search to it because it is possible that at that time Rybka4 is going to be available and stronger than robbolito


Uri

[bob]

My comments:

1)Vas can say that when he confirmed that strelka is a copy of rybka he meant that he found that most of rybka's code is in strelka.

He did not mean that he looked at everything in strelka to verify that nothing was taken from fruit and not from rybka.

I do not say that no code in rybka is taken from fruit but only that even if you convince people that some strelka's code is from fruit it does not prove that some rybka's code is from fruit.

2)I am not sure if Robbolito is going to be number 1 when somebody add parallel search to it because it is possible that at that time Rybka4 is going to be available and stronger than robbolito


Uri

You miss the key third prong of the investigation. We (Primairly Zach, but others also) looked at the Rybka1 binary as well. To actually confirm that the parts of strelka that matched fruit also appear in Rybka 1. That makes this direction moot. Strelka gave the initial link to get things started. But since, it has been not about strelka, but about Rybka, studying its disassembled binary, which eliminates the fuzzy area of what part of strelka is in fruit, what part is in Rybka, and what part is in both...

[Rolf]

The game has barely started, it isn't over. Everyone thought it was over in 1980 with the advent of the new Belle. Everyone thought it was over when deep thought became the first GM-level computer chess program. The game is alive and well. Whether Rybka will remain a major player or eventually fade away is far from resolved. Time will tell. But one thing is for certain, like it or not, someone is going to keep bringing this topic up, over and over, until it is resolved.

This is so at least we can hope. But I was talking about the little one whose reverse thing of the commercial engines is over. Of course he could also become Vince in 20 years.

We have now a last chapter which is so outlandish for you that I must hesitate if I begin this. Because it wont impress you.

Bob, who has ever concluded that you are a bad guy? You are not bad. You are one of these typical Americans, a bit rough but sympathetic. Not to speak of your experience in the field.

Now where could be a problem? Easy one. In your overall methodology. See IBM vs Kasparov where I said that your friends have clearly violated the codex in science for the treating of clients and above that how to guarantee that your research object cant run over all the factors you think having under control. But let's skip this. Please just dont comment on that we would only repeat ourselves.

Here now with Vas the same procedure as every year.

If you have a general policy against clones, how then can you cooperate with the cloners and this way estimate the clones? How can you justify such a behavior?

Let me give an example. In the USA this expert who had a life sentence. The g4 player. IMO you cant let him have this fame when he's a murderer. We have kids who play chess as well and they want to play g4 and they then must learn that also a murderer has his good sides? What?

I agree that cloners are no murderers. But when I called them chess cyber terrorists I meant it. Out of the hidence you can corrupt any otherwise sober social system. And you dont care?

How about the rule, all with a chess program, also amateurs must reveil their names otherwise no go, no testing. Why is that not already done?

Or the case Norm. How can you tolerate that a guy repeats his actions? How can he be mentioned in a decent manner at all? Dont you see that such a guy is poisoning the community?

All the cheating that has been reveiled. Why is it that it's always treated as if it were peanuts. I mean Harvey has deeply cheated his opponent, no? But he has still a standing, also as operator? How can this be?

These are cases where from the internal standards someone has violated known rules. It soesnt interest?

Again. You have a Wch programmer and you tolerate that certain hidden jerks send him email with announcing what they will do next? And you comment here in all depth how well the programs might play?

Christophe Theron denied Vas any moral respect (without any proof) and you still see in him a buddy?

Where are the standards in computerchess? You repeatedly described how bad it was when you were unfairly accused of cheating and that you didnt rest to prove your innocence? Yes, you had no professional business running. You could even rely on support from your hardware factory. But now the double standard with Vas. Of course he would like to show his evidence. But should here really the victim further be violated in the survey because you ask for hard facts out of his source code? I simply dont understand your thoughts when you attack the victim as if it had to open something. Why? Dont you see that this way everybody could be ripped apart? But would any professional let you do this? Show me at least a little of your code, but why? Are you Vas' judge?

I thought that you believed into the innocent until proven guilty principle? So what do you mean if you say I've seen enough - if this has relevance for anything near to a court case? Anbd how will you recompensate Vas if he was right all the time? What are you following? Is there not at least a slight possibility that you make mistakes? Would you like it if then you were scapegoated?

Bob, you are rightfully making clear what a huge expert you are. You have checked codes for 40 years by now. But does that mean that you are 100% watertight in all your judgements? What if you failed? Unthinkable?

What science is behind that certainty? Arent we all too human? Arent we all making mistakes? Trial and Error the famous method coming from the USA. Err, did you see that I mentioned error? Impossible for you at least?

And then finally your psychological take. How can you be so certain about the possible motives of Vas?

Guess this: Vas is sober and organises with O. who doesnt exist a vaerson of his thing. That way that you and others must think that something is not kosher. And he puts you with your nose onto characteristic feature of code. But it's made up to confuse. And then you come running and shout Foul this is the proof he has taken code etc pp.

Is this absolutely unthinkable in a scene with so much suspicion and hatred? Tell me frankly do you categorically deny that such a scenario were impossible to do because you would look through the tricks?

Norte that this is poor theory what I have just made up, but isnt this at least theoretically possible to do in computerchess programming? Please tell me.

I wished we had ethical norms for our scene and that would mean that we deny people to use evil cheats to blackmail decent members. Someone who clones is out. Also if he claims but I did it only to show how XY had done it too. We are not here in the FBI to arrest drugdealers. We cant tolerate anonymity even if it pretends that it reveils horrible crimes in other people in our field because no crime can be so big that such meanness should be tolerated.

Couldnt we agree on all that? Why wasnt this done already long ago?

If you would engage yourself in that manner, Bob, I would still like you more because who should have the authority to do this?

Rolf

[bob]

The game has barely started, it isn't over. Everyone thought it was over in 1980 with the advent of the new Belle. Everyone thought it was over when deep thought became the first GM-level computer chess program. The game is alive and well. Whether Rybka will remain a major player or eventually fade away is far from resolved. Time will tell. But one thing is for certain, like it or not, someone is going to keep bringing this topic up, over and over, until it is resolved.

This is so at least we can hope. But I was talking about the little one whose reverse thing of the commercial engines is over. Of course he could also become Vince in 20 years.

We have now a last chapter which is so outlandish for you that I must hesitate if I begin this. Because it wont impress you.

Bob, who has ever concluded that you are a bad guy? You are not bad. You are one of these typical Americans, a bit rough but sympathetic. Not to speak of your experience in the field.

Now where could be a problem? Easy one. In your overall methodology. See IBM vs Kasparov where I said that your friends have clearly violated the codex in science for the treating of clients and above that how to guarantee that your research object cant run over all the factors you think having under control. But let's skip this. Please just dont comment on that we would only repeat ourselves.

Here now with Vas the same procedure as every year.

If you have a general policy against clones, how then can you cooperate with the cloners and this way estimate the clones? How can you justify such a behavior?

Let me give an example. In the USA this expert who had a life sentence. The g4 player. IMO you cant let him have this fame when he's a murderer. We have kids who play chess as well and they want to play g4 and they then must learn that also a murderer has his good sides? What?

I agree that cloners are no murderers. But when I called them chess cyber terrorists I meant it. Out of the hidence you can corrupt any otherwise sober social system. And you dont care?

How about the rule, all with a chess program, also amateurs must reveil their names otherwise no go, no testing. Why is that not already done?

I can't control, nor do I want to control, all the private testing that goes on. If someone tries to enter an ICGA or ACCA event, we do our best to prevent such entrants from making it past the initial screening. However, based on current knowledge, we probably should have excluded Rybka 1 from our CCT events based on this concept. It clearly has parts of Fruit in it. But the author wasn't unknown and had been somewhat active for a year or so previously. But we try.

However, there is no way to create a mandate that nobody test a program until the author and code is vetted. There's no one to do the vetting, and there is no authority to attempt to enforce such a mandate. In light of there being no way to enforce this, there's no reason to try to suggest it.

Or the case Norm. How can you tolerate that a guy repeats his actions? How can he be mentioned in a decent manner at all? Dont you see that such a guy is poisoning the community?

Not IMHO. I would be hesitant to allow something he writes to enter without careful analysis, but the person is different from the deed. Vas clearly copied parts of fruit. Doesn't necessarily make him a bad guy. Perhaps somewhat misguided at worst. You seem to want a death sentence (of an abstract type) after one bad act. That would exclude both Norm _and_ Vas. Which doesn't seem reasonable.

All the cheating that has been reveiled. Why is it that it's always treated as if it were peanuts. I mean Harvey has deeply cheated his opponent, no? But he has still a standing, also as operator? How can this be?

Not sure what you mean there.

These are cases where from the internal standards someone has violated known rules. It soesnt interest?

Again. You have a Wch programmer and you tolerate that certain hidden jerks send him email with announcing what they will do next? And you comment here in all depth how well the programs might play?

I neither can, nor want to try to control anyone's freedom to send email. That's something well beyond my pay grade or interest. It took us about 6+ months to improve Crafty by about 100 Elo this last go round. Doing more testing than most can comprehend (about a million games a day, roughly times 6 months, is a mind-boggling number). So it makes you think "Ok, supposedly robo*/ippo* are reverse-engineered from Rybka. But they are +70 Elo stronger. It probably took 6 months of hard work by more than one person to make that happen." So then you have to wonder exactly what it is. But clearly it is stronger than rybka 3, which means it is stronger than everybody. Either these guys are geniuses, since apparently Vas has delayed R4 to try to catch up with or pass robo*. Yet they have had much less time to work on their changes than he has had. Or else this is something new that has been cooked up quietly for a few years. It's impossible to say at the moment, without a lot of effort to comapre it to Rybka 3. And that's not something I'm interested in doing, with the various ideas we have for Crafty changes.

Christophe Theron denied Vas any moral respect (without any proof) and you still see in him a buddy?

As I said, I don't consider anybody an enemy or someone that I 'hate'... So why wouldn't I consider him a "buddy" (It is not easy to call him a friend since we have never met, and our only conversations have been those we had here on CCC over the years. But "friend" is _far_ closer to the truth than "enemy" given those choices.

Where are the standards in computerchess? You repeatedly described how bad it was when you were unfairly accused of cheating and that you didnt rest to prove your innocence? Yes, you had no professional business running. You could even rely on support from your hardware factory. But now the double standard with Vas.

What double standard. Berliner made some silly claims. I sent supporting documentation to David Levy, Marsland and Thompson to analyze. We had Cray Research restore the exact executable we used for that game (they did a backup every night and went back to the exact backup date.) Harry sat at a terminal at the ACM event that year and entered positions that Levy wanted to test to see if our output (log file) from the game matched the output from the program as he watched in real-time. It matched perfectly. Berliner said "no program would play this move..." I asked several to test it, and right off the bat, Belle coughed up the same move. As did a couple of other programs of that era. So I _did_ offer up evidence that we didn't do anything odd. And after a lengthy process, Levy and group agreed 100% with that statement.

Compare that to the situation with Vas, and the old "Get Smart" 'Cone of silence' that we are presented with.

Of course he would like to show his evidence. But should here really the victim further be violated in the survey because you ask for hard facts out of his source code? I simply dont understand your thoughts when you attack the victim as if it had to open something. Why? Dont you see that this way everybody could be ripped apart? But would any professional let you do this? Show me at least a little of your code, but why? Are you Vas' judge?

The genie is out of the bottle. If there are obviously similar pieces of code in Rybka, what is wrong with publishing those along with the matching code from Robo*? He's already said Robo* is a clone of R3, and Robo* was released in source form. So providing that simple evidence would not reveal anything that is not already known, so far as I can tell.

I thought that you believed into the innocent until proven guilty principle? So what do you mean if you say I've seen enough - if this has relevance for anything near to a court case? Anbd how will you recompensate Vas if he was right all the time? What are you following? Is there not at least a slight possibility that you make mistakes? Would you like it if then you were scapegoated?

You are mixing two different issues. So how about keeping the context constant. Fruit/Rybka is a closed case. There is fruit code in Rybka 1, and there's not any sense in debating that. The Robo* issue is a different thing.

So which do you want to talk about. The former (fruit/rybka 1) has enough evidence to reach a conclusion with no further discussion. The latter (Robo*) has no data of any kind to suggest it is a clone, other than the word of the author of Rybka (Vas). I personally gave him quite a bit of time to clarify this, and as moderators we even disallowed links to the program. But to date, no further information has been provided, and this can't continue forever.

Bob, you are rightfully making clear what a huge expert you are. You have checked codes for 40 years by now. But does that mean that you are 100% watertight in all your judgements? What if you failed? Unthinkable?

It is unlikely. _extremely_ unlikely.

What science is behind that certainty? Arent we all too human? Arent we all making mistakes? Trial and Error the famous method coming from the USA. Err, did you see that I mentioned error? Impossible for you at least?

Once you have written a few hundred thousand lines of code, looked at who knows how many student programs over 40 years of teaching all sorts of courses from writing compilers on down, you realize that this reverse-engineering stuff is not that complicated, just time-consuming. I feel perfectly qualified to build a picket fence around the state of Texas. But it would take a _long_ time. But the "how" is not an issue, with respect to methodology, it is only an issue with respect to the length of time it would take.

And then finally your psychological take. How can you be so certain about the possible motives of Vas?

I have no idea about his motives, and have not suggested any. That is beyond my skill level for certain.

Guess this: Vas is sober and organises with O. who doesnt exist a vaerson of his thing. That way that you and others must think that something is not kosher. And he puts you with your nose onto characteristic feature of code. But it's made up to confuse. And then you come running and shout Foul this is the proof he has taken code etc pp.

You are overlooking critical data. We have compared fruit to rybka one _ourselves_. So no obfuscation can be produced by this theoretical conspiracy to confuse. Strelka just opened the door. But strelka is no longer an issue in this, just the code shared between Fruit and Rybka.

Is this absolutely unthinkable in a scene with so much suspicion and hatred? Tell me frankly do you categorically deny that such a scenario were impossible to do because you would look through the tricks?

Certainly that could have been done. But that only opened the door and attracted attention. Once efforts focused on disassembling Rybka 1 to see what it was doing, strelka became irrelevant. And it has nothing to do with the current state of things. It was the catalyst that started the ball rolling, but it is no longer a factor at all.

Norte that this is poor theory what I have just made up, but isnt this at least theoretically possible to do in computerchess programming? Please tell me.

I wished we had ethical norms for our scene and that would mean that we deny people to use evil cheats to blackmail decent members. Someone who clones is out. Also if he claims but I did it only to show how XY had done it too. We are not here in the FBI to arrest drugdealers. We cant tolerate anonymity even if it pretends that it reveils horrible crimes in other people in our field because no crime can be so big that such meanness should be tolerated.

Couldnt we agree on all that? Why wasnt this done already long ago?

Exactly how can that be done? Who supplies the money to send people out to investigate every member of CCC to see if they are legitimate people or made up personnas??? What do they gain by providing these funds?

If you would engage yourself in that manner, Bob, I would still like you more because who should have the authority to do this?

Rolf

Authority is one thing. Ability is something else... How to make such an idea come to pass is fraught with issues, money being right at the top. And that is the deal-breaker in this.

[Rolf]

The game has barely started, it isn't over. Everyone thought it was over in 1980 with the advent of the new Belle. Everyone thought it was over when deep thought became the first GM-level computer chess program. The game is alive and well. Whether Rybka will remain a major player or eventually fade away is far from resolved. Time will tell. But one thing is for certain, like it or not, someone is going to keep bringing this topic up, over and over, until it is resolved.

This is so at least we can hope. But I was talking about the little one whose reverse thing of the commercial engines is over. Of course he could also become Vince in 20 years.

We have now a last chapter which is so outlandish for you that I must hesitate if I begin this. Because it wont impress you.

Bob, who has ever concluded that you are a bad guy? You are not bad. You are one of these typical Americans, a bit rough but sympathetic. Not to speak of your experience in the field.

Now where could be a problem? Easy one. In your overall methodology. See IBM vs Kasparov where I said that your friends have clearly violated the codex in science for the treating of clients and above that how to guarantee that your research object cant run over all the factors you think having under control. But let's skip this. Please just dont comment on that we would only repeat ourselves.

Here now with Vas the same procedure as every year.

If you have a general policy against clones, how then can you cooperate with the cloners and this way estimate the clones? How can you justify such a behavior?

Let me give an example. In the USA this expert who had a life sentence. The g4 player. IMO you cant let him have this fame when he's a murderer. We have kids who play chess as well and they want to play g4 and they then must learn that also a murderer has his good sides? What?

I agree that cloners are no murderers. But when I called them chess cyber terrorists I meant it. Out of the hidence you can corrupt any otherwise sober social system. And you dont care?

How about the rule, all with a chess program, also amateurs must reveil their names otherwise no go, no testing. Why is that not already done?

I can't control, nor do I want to control, all the private testing that goes on. If someone tries to enter an ICGA or ACCA event, we do our best to prevent such entrants from making it past the initial screening. However, based on current knowledge, we probably should have excluded Rybka 1 from our CCT events based on this concept. It clearly has parts of Fruit in it. But the author wasn't unknown and had been somewhat active for a year or so previously. But we try.

However, there is no way to create a mandate that nobody test a program until the author and code is vetted. There's no one to do the vetting, and there is no authority to attempt to enforce such a mandate. In light of there being no way to enforce this, there's no reason to try to suggest it.

Or the case Norm. How can you tolerate that a guy repeats his actions? How can he be mentioned in a decent manner at all? Dont you see that such a guy is poisoning the community?

Not IMHO. I would be hesitant to allow something he writes to enter without careful analysis, but the person is different from the deed. Vas clearly copied parts of fruit. Doesn't necessarily make him a bad guy. Perhaps somewhat misguided at worst. You seem to want a death sentence (of an abstract type) after one bad act. That would exclude both Norm _and_ Vas. Which doesn't seem reasonable.

All the cheating that has been reveiled. Why is it that it's always treated as if it were peanuts. I mean Harvey has deeply cheated his opponent, no? But he has still a standing, also as operator? How can this be?

Not sure what you mean there.

These are cases where from the internal standards someone has violated known rules. It soesnt interest?

Again. You have a Wch programmer and you tolerate that certain hidden jerks send him email with announcing what they will do next? And you comment here in all depth how well the programs might play?

I neither can, nor want to try to control anyone's freedom to send email. That's something well beyond my pay grade or interest. It took us about 6+ months to improve Crafty by about 100 Elo this last go round. Doing more testing than most can comprehend (about a million games a day, roughly times 6 months, is a mind-boggling number). So it makes you think "Ok, supposedly robo*/ippo* are reverse-engineered from Rybka. But they are +70 Elo stronger. It probably took 6 months of hard work by more than one person to make that happen." So then you have to wonder exactly what it is. But clearly it is stronger than rybka 3, which means it is stronger than everybody. Either these guys are geniuses, since apparently Vas has delayed R4 to try to catch up with or pass robo*. Yet they have had much less time to work on their changes than he has had. Or else this is something new that has been cooked up quietly for a few years. It's impossible to say at the moment, without a lot of effort to comapre it to Rybka 3. And that's not something I'm interested in doing, with the various ideas we have for Crafty changes.

Christophe Theron denied Vas any moral respect (without any proof) and you still see in him a buddy?

As I said, I don't consider anybody an enemy or someone that I 'hate'... So why wouldn't I consider him a "buddy" (It is not easy to call him a friend since we have never met, and our only conversations have been those we had here on CCC over the years. But "friend" is _far_ closer to the truth than "enemy" given those choices.

Where are the standards in computerchess? You repeatedly described how bad it was when you were unfairly accused of cheating and that you didnt rest to prove your innocence? Yes, you had no professional business running. You could even rely on support from your hardware factory. But now the double standard with Vas.

What double standard. Berliner made some silly claims. I sent supporting documentation to David Levy, Marsland and Thompson to analyze. We had Cray Research restore the exact executable we used for that game (they did a backup every night and went back to the exact backup date.) Harry sat at a terminal at the ACM event that year and entered positions that Levy wanted to test to see if our output (log file) from the game matched the output from the program as he watched in real-time. It matched perfectly. Berliner said "no program would play this move..." I asked several to test it, and right off the bat, Belle coughed up the same move. As did a couple of other programs of that era. So I _did_ offer up evidence that we didn't do anything odd. And after a lengthy process, Levy and group agreed 100% with that statement.

Compare that to the situation with Vas, and the old "Get Smart" 'Cone of silence' that we are presented with.

Of course he would like to show his evidence. But should here really the victim further be violated in the survey because you ask for hard facts out of his source code? I simply dont understand your thoughts when you attack the victim as if it had to open something. Why? Dont you see that this way everybody could be ripped apart? But would any professional let you do this? Show me at least a little of your code, but why? Are you Vas' judge?

The genie is out of the bottle. If there are obviously similar pieces of code in Rybka, what is wrong with publishing those along with the matching code from Robo*? He's already said Robo* is a clone of R3, and Robo* was released in source form. So providing that simple evidence would not reveal anything that is not already known, so far as I can tell.

I thought that you believed into the innocent until proven guilty principle? So what do you mean if you say I've seen enough - if this has relevance for anything near to a court case? Anbd how will you recompensate Vas if he was right all the time? What are you following? Is there not at least a slight possibility that you make mistakes? Would you like it if then you were scapegoated?

You are mixing two different issues. So how about keeping the context constant. Fruit/Rybka is a closed case. There is fruit code in Rybka 1, and there's not any sense in debating that. The Robo* issue is a different thing.

So which do you want to talk about. The former (fruit/rybka 1) has enough evidence to reach a conclusion with no further discussion. The latter (Robo*) has no data of any kind to suggest it is a clone, other than the word of the author of Rybka (Vas). I personally gave him quite a bit of time to clarify this, and as moderators we even disallowed links to the program. But to date, no further information has been provided, and this can't continue forever.

Bob, you are rightfully making clear what a huge expert you are. You have checked codes for 40 years by now. But does that mean that you are 100% watertight in all your judgements? What if you failed? Unthinkable?

It is unlikely. _extremely_ unlikely.

What science is behind that certainty? Arent we all too human? Arent we all making mistakes? Trial and Error the famous method coming from the USA. Err, did you see that I mentioned error? Impossible for you at least?

Once you have written a few hundred thousand lines of code, looked at who knows how many student programs over 40 years of teaching all sorts of courses from writing compilers on down, you realize that this reverse-engineering stuff is not that complicated, just time-consuming. I feel perfectly qualified to build a picket fence around the state of Texas. But it would take a _long_ time. But the "how" is not an issue, with respect to methodology, it is only an issue with respect to the length of time it would take.

And then finally your psychological take. How can you be so certain about the possible motives of Vas?

I have no idea about his motives, and have not suggested any. That is beyond my skill level for certain.

Guess this: Vas is sober and organises with O. who doesnt exist a vaerson of his thing. That way that you and others must think that something is not kosher. And he puts you with your nose onto characteristic feature of code. But it's made up to confuse. And then you come running and shout Foul this is the proof he has taken code etc pp.

You are overlooking critical data. We have compared fruit to rybka one _ourselves_. So no obfuscation can be produced by this theoretical conspiracy to confuse. Strelka just opened the door. But strelka is no longer an issue in this, just the code shared between Fruit and Rybka.

Is this absolutely unthinkable in a scene with so much suspicion and hatred? Tell me frankly do you categorically deny that such a scenario were impossible to do because you would look through the tricks?

Certainly that could have been done. But that only opened the door and attracted attention. Once efforts focused on disassembling Rybka 1 to see what it was doing, strelka became irrelevant. And it has nothing to do with the current state of things. It was the catalyst that started the ball rolling, but it is no longer a factor at all.

Norte that this is poor theory what I have just made up, but isnt this at least theoretically possible to do in computerchess programming? Please tell me.

I wished we had ethical norms for our scene and that would mean that we deny people to use evil cheats to blackmail decent members. Someone who clones is out. Also if he claims but I did it only to show how XY had done it too. We are not here in the FBI to arrest drugdealers. We cant tolerate anonymity even if it pretends that it reveils horrible crimes in other people in our field because no crime can be so big that such meanness should be tolerated.

Couldnt we agree on all that? Why wasnt this done already long ago?

Exactly how can that be done? Who supplies the money to send people out to investigate every member of CCC to see if they are legitimate people or made up personnas??? What do they gain by providing these funds?

If you would engage yourself in that manner, Bob, I would still like you more because who should have the authority to do this?

Rolf

Authority is one thing. Ability is something else... How to make such an idea come to pass is fraught with issues, money being right at the top. And that is the deal-breaker in this.

Thanks like usual for the time you have invested again with many news for me. To keep this at least readable for the interested please let me condensate a couple of aspects which explain well what is still seperating us on this level of methodology as such.

For obvious reasons, because you are doing trial and error you are swimming in a sea of details. Without ever mentioning more general concepts. Then with the somewhat blindness of a typical positivist you miss what could be done without too much efforts. In a way you drown but although a ship is nearby waiting for you.

Two examples for positivistic blindness

I asked for the names of those who offer new programs. Then you pretend that for a general vetting there is no money or manpower. Excuse me, but I have asked for the names. And if then these names are correct or authentic that will show itself in future events. If then the names were false, that would mean ok, sorry, fraud, therefore bye bye. No need to first build up bureaucratic monsters to investigate the laundry of the new guys.

The same with real names, correct ones, on CCC. Since it's the rule if you break it then bye bye. It will show. The principle is important. Then it will all go its way. Someone who just wants to ask about a program, the name is irrelevant, but if someone like e.g. Alexander Schmidt with his agenda, then I would expect that his identity is real. Because of all the implications of justice.

The Principle is decisive

You claim you seperate the man from his deads. Really? How far? If Norm has tried to sell foul programs three times what do you want more? The man becomes foul. That human experience.

Another principle is that you dont install someone who broke the rules as observer or guardian of the rules. That the case with Harvey. That's just not correct. He betrayed in CCT and now moderates (?) on Playchess? Again this is all Human Experience over Centuries and Ages. Of course I'm NOT for Life Sentences. But there are so many good jobs so the breaker must not protect the rules. All principles.

Another principle one should respect is consistant facts. It cannot be that the one who tried to paint Vas for a lack of moral education is the same who took other people's stuff into his own program. That's hypocrisy. Just because you proposed to bring along the Tiger author to the talks with Vas.

Another extremely important principle. If some people or only one (a special case on the internet only) build up a sort of terroristic movement - anonymously of course - to harm the community. Then you cant just take their products and do as if that came from perfecvtly kosher types of guys. No, criminals in a hiding place are not partners for serious communication. Just like in your examinations. Personal presence is duty one, no?

Logic

Several times I could read of these 70 points the thing should be stronger than Rybka 3. Please Bob. In how many games on what hardware in what tests? And this is all mystery above that the program itself has no mother or father. Other than the famous Backdoorman or the Fisherman's Friend. I can only tell you that I would begin to show little just a bit of interest if they were better with 700 points. That would be interesting.
BTW on what HW?? Read Uri who confirmed that on a quad R3 is undefeated champion of the World.

Because I dont understand the debate about strength when the HW, cluster, parallelism is the main topic. My own program is running with normal fuel on my netbook and normally is 120 points stronger than your Crafty! But you would still beat me with your big irons and null moves. I had no fair chance as a human.

Into this chapter also belongs the Berliner incident. Berliner made a mistake that nobody should do in front of a computerchess expert. You just cannot claim that his baby is unable to play such and such move or variations. LOL

Because then he will prove you what it can play. After some tweaks here and some there, we know the story. Suddenly even our little software kiddies coughed up the moves Kasparov had doubted that DB2 could have played.

What is the background of this logical fallacy. Easy one. In German we have a saying "You will always be more informed if you come back from the Mayor." The key is the shift of perspectives over time. But you could never tweak the saying by "Nobody must go to the Mayor because we could all know it in advance." Because that would be a false logical deduction. The knowledge of the future is decisive, so that all claims that something has already existed in the past cant be proven with evidence out of the future.

Let me conclude, a positivism will always miss certain principles and one if them is logic which is crucial in case of fallaces.