The ICGA Process

[BB+]

The irreality of the Rybka Forum is perhaps greater than I thought:

Vas and I discussed whether or not he should give source code to the ICGA. He really didn't like that idea. My idea was removing all comments and maybe changing all names of variables to make the code harder to understand. But as the guys that disassembled Rybka hadn't understood several parts of the code, we agreed it's safer to not give anything to our competitors.
So Vas only defended himself by saying: I did nothing wrong.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid359776

This canard has been obliterated so many times, but yet lives on infamy for some reason. Did Rajlich really think Ken Thompson (who was the one who specifically asked about source code -- VR could presumably have had personal contact therein if desired) was going to rip him off? One wonders what would have been done in Kanazawa in 2010, had Zach brought up the Buzz/R4 issue [this was a serious consideration, but as it was his first WCCC, he didn't want ruffle any feathers] and the ICGA had (gasp) asked for the source code -- would Team Rybka simply decide to go home? [Incidentally, is that unethical -- entering an event but not being prepared to show source code if requested by the TD as per the rules? -- seems to be "gaming the system" (and the good graces of others, not to submit a complaint) if you ask me].

Even the other statement, that "guys that disassembled Rybka hadn't understood several parts of the code", is quirky in its perception -- not that mangling the code would be much of a burden either.

[hyatt]

I think that "didn't understand parts .." was a reference to the ip sources where lots of variable names were not exactly meaningful, showing that the person working on the code didn't quite see what it was doing, and so came up with some classic variable names that were about as bad as a1, a2, a3, ...

[Rebel]

Finally, personally I have seen nothing specific from the "dissenters" (Ed, Chris, and maybe Miguel) that would come close to challenging any opinion that Rajlich violated ICGA Rule #2 with his WCCC entries in 2006-7 -- the same would be true concerning a conclusion as regards the "most likely" sequence of events regarding Rybka development. Most of what has been proposed so far strikes me as either being too doubtful, or more of a vague hunch than being really substantive. The other issues raised (such as whether EVAL_COMP has any merit) appear currently to have been addressed adequately, at least to my understanding. [In this regard, it would be nice if those who "dissent" could exemplify what they would mean/understand by "specific" versus "general" chess knowledge, taking (for instance) isolated pawns as an example].

One issue at the time.

As it seems now the PST debate at Rybka forum is over its peek. When finished, provided I find the energy, next subject.

BTW, there is something wrong with the isolated pawns URL.

[Rebel]

This canard has been obliterated so many times, but yet lives on infamy for some reason. Did Rajlich really think Ken Thompson (who was the one who specifically asked about source code -- VR could presumably have had personal contact therein if desired) was going to rip him off? One wonders what would have been done in Kanazawa in 2010, had Zach brought up the Buzz/R4 issue [this was a serious consideration, but as it was his first WCCC, he didn't want ruffle any feathers] and the ICGA had (gasp) asked for the source code -- would Team Rybka simply decide to go home? [Incidentally, is that unethical -- entering an event but not being prepared to show source code if requested by the TD as per the rules? -- seems to be "gaming the system" (and the good graces of others, not to submit a complaint) if you ask me].

I can tell you from experience that giving your sources for inspection is a very very difficult thing to do for a commercial. In my case, I just had quit a good job, made the choice to step into a an unknown adventure that when failed would hurt my career, spouse and 3 kids. The sources contained my financial future. It's not that simple as you painted it above.

Secondly, the right to silence, "no man is bound to accuse himself"'. Vas took it. Not my choice but I am not Vas. But it should not be questioned. After all, the ICGA made the accusation, they have to proof it. Standard procedure in court.

[K I Hyams]

I can tell you from experience that giving your sources for inspection is a very very difficult thing to do for a commercial.

Rajlich refused to release code for both Rybka 1 and Rybka 2.
As far as Rybka 1 is concerned:
1. Rajlich told us that Rybka 1 code had already been released in the form of Strelka. Therefore it was not commercially sensitive.
2. It was ancient at the time that it was requested.
3. He was asked to release it to a secure source, under controlled conditions.

The case for the release of Rybka 2 code is only slightly less compelling.

Under those circumstances any reasonable and responsible person in his situation would have allowed the ICGA to see the code because, had it been clean, it would have killed the case against him. So, in this case, it was not "a very very difficult thing to do for a commercial".

Secondly, the right to silence, "no man is bound to accuse himself"'. Vas took it. Not my choice but I am not Vas. But it should not be questioned. After all, the ICGA made the accusation, they have to proof it. Standard procedure in court.

You refer to “court” and Rajlichs right to silence. It is not clear why you would do so because the ICGA was not a court as such and it was bound by and complied with different rules. However, since you mention court, I offer the section below:

“............legislative changes were made to reduce the reliance that could be placed on the right to silence, culminating in the Criminal justice and public order act 1994 (CJPOA).
The CPJOA allows the court to 'draw such inferences as appear proper' from the defendant's silence in the following cases:
failure to mention a fact when questioned, which the defendant might reasonably have been expected to mention, and which is used in his defence (at s.34);
refusal to testify in his own defence in court or, having taken the oath, to answer questions without good reason ............”

The “inferences as appear proper” from Rajlich’s refusal to supply to the ICGA code that, for the reasons listed above, was not commercially sensitive are crystal clear.

In a court, he is judged on both his actions and his subsequent silence, especially when offering the evidence that he implies would clear his name is clearly a no cost option.

[Rebel]

You are entitled to your opinion. Having been there (you have not) I fully understand Vas's refusal. In fact in the circumstances he is in, being accused, his integrity questioned and put on trial, I would refuse to give them any sources, ancient or not. However I would have stand up for myself giving explanations. I hope you do realize the latter is risky, that you are mistrusted and every word is scrutinized by a group of people who already have made up their minds. That one word that comes out wrong or even unconsciously has an ambiguous meaning you hang. Hence the principle of the right of silence.

As to your other point, if you want to play courtroom with out of proportional punishments then do it right.

[K I Hyams]

You are entitled to your opinion. Having been there (you have not) I fully understand Vas's refusal. In fact in the circumstances he is in, being accused, his integrity questioned and put on trial, I would refuse to give them any sources, ancient or not. However I would have stand up for myself giving explanations. I hope you do realize the latter is risky, that you are mistrusted and every word is scrutinized by a group of people who already have made up their minds. That one word that comes out wrong or even unconsciously has an ambiguous meaning you hang. Hence the principle of the right of silence.

As to your other point, if you want to play courtroom with out of proportional punishments then do it right.

You are entitled to your opinion. Having been there (you have not) I fully understand Vas's refusal.

I object to that!! How dare you state that I have never been accused of criminal behaviour - you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I get up to in my spare time!!

In fact in the circumstances he is in, being accused, his integrity questioned and put on trial, I would refuse to give them any sources, ancient or not.

My interest in this aspect of the case was sparked by the implication by Lukas that he and Rajlich didn’t provide the evidence that (they claim) would have cleared Rajlich’s name because it was commercially sensitive. I didn’t believe him and I note that you seem unconvinced of the integrity of the Commercially Sensitive Gambit as well.

However I would have stand up for myself giving explanations. I hope you do realize the latter is risky, that you are mistrusted and every word is scrutinized by a group of people who already have made up their minds. That one word that comes out wrong or even unconsciously has an ambiguous meaning you hang.

Well, standing up for yourself and giving (verbal) explanations might be what you would do but it is not what a sensible person would advise you to do. In fact, you have mentioned in that quote one of many reasons why no educated person would agree with your choice. The sensible course when you are dealing with those whom you think are biased is to conduct a written campaign and force them to display their prejudice in writing.

The Watkins list of panel members is at the beginning of this thread. They all look to me to be men of the highest quality, men who would judge a case according to the evidence presented, not their personal prejudice (even if they had any) and men who are of a far higher quality than those one might expect to recruit onto a jury in a criminal trial. Incidentally, it is recognised in court that juries enter the room with preformed opinions and that is why they are instructed to judge the case solely on the evidence presented. Why do you think that those panel members had less integrity than 12 men pulled in off of the street? Nobody on that panel felt that Rajlich had produced legitimate programs. Where is your evidence that they prejudged the issue? In fact, I understand that Tord was one a number of members who had previously stated that he thought that Rajlich was innocent, if you have evidence against Tord, please include it.

Hence the principle of the right of silence.

I have already dealt with the legal consequences of that particular one of your mantras but you appear to have blocked it already.

As to your other point, if you want to play courtroom with out of proportional punishments then do it right.

I explained to you last time that it was you, not me, who wanted to use court room parallels and that I consider them inappropriate because he broke the rules of a club, not a country. You seem to have blocked that one as well.

With reference to the proportionality of the punishment, he will already have a very good idea of what he has to do if he wants to get the sentence reviewed. The process starts with an apology and the return of money and property that he acquired by breaking the rules.

[Rebel]

You are entitled to your opinion. Having been there (you have not) I fully understand Vas's refusal.

I object to that!! How dare you state that I have never been accused of criminal behaviour - you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I get up to in my spare time!!

Uh... the subject was handing over your sources for investigation.

In fact in the circumstances he is in, being accused, his integrity questioned and put on trial, I would refuse to give them any sources, ancient or not.

My interest in this aspect of the case was sparked by the implication by Lukas that he and Rajlich didn’t provide the evidence that (they claim) would have cleared Rajlich’s name because it was commercially sensitive. I didn’t believe him and I note that you seem unconvinced of the integrity of the Commercially Sensitive Gambit as well.

You seem to be missing a couple of empathy genes, if you are wrongly accused, what do people do? From the above text I understand you have been there yourself. So, what did you do?

However I would have stand up for myself giving explanations. I hope you do realize the latter is risky, that you are mistrusted and every word is scrutinized by a group of people who already have made up their minds. That one word that comes out wrong or even unconsciously has an ambiguous meaning you hang.

Well, standing up for yourself and giving (verbal) explanations might be what you would do but it is not what a sensible person would advise you to do.

If I am not a sensible person why continue talking ?

I have better things to do.

[BB+]

Secondly, the right to silence, "no man is bound to accuse himself"'. Vas took it. Not my choice but I am not Vas. But it should not be questioned. After all, the ICGA made the accusation, they have to proof it. Standard procedure in court.

The principle of "refusing to answer" a case also implies that any allegations made by the "prosecution" can be assumed to be true [as they are unrebutted]. The only "escape valve" for a defendant at that point is that the evidence is not weighty enough to need to be answered in the first place.

In the matter at hand, Fabien made the accusation, the (advisory) ICGA Panel sorted through the evidence, and formed a consensus that it was convincing (indeed, overwhelming) that the 2006-7 WCCC entries of Rajlich were not "original" on the face of it. When (essentially) unanswered by VR, the Board judged the matter by accepting this advisory opinion of the Panel regarding the evidence, concluded that Rule #2 had indeed been broken, and then decided on a verdict. [And of course, the process/procedure was not quite so perfunctory as I make it seem here].

[BB+]

I think that "didn't understand parts .." was a reference to the ip sources where lots of variable names were not exactly meaningful, showing that the person working on the code didn't quite see what it was doing, and so came up with some classic variable names that were about as bad as a1, a2, a3, ...

I think it was Strelka (with PassedPawnValue7), not IPPOLIT (which appears deliberately obfuscated in the source, at least at first, until "RobboLito" appeared), but the reference is obscure in any event.

I can tell you from experience that giving your sources for inspection is a very very difficult thing to do for a commercial. In my case, I just had quit a good job, made the choice to step into a an unknown adventure that when failed would hurt my career, spouse and 3 kids. The sources contained my financial future. It's not that simple as you painted it above.

I guess I just have a different sense of the "conditions of entry" for the event. Maybe I take the ICGA too seriously as an organisation. I've always found the "source code" argument a bit disingenuous (almost a red herring), but as you say, having money on the line can change one's opinion about such matters.

I reiterate that I find it a bit odd that commercials would be entering events where this could become an issue [I think one recent suggestion was that 1 or 2 random WCCC entrants (plus the winner) would have their code inspected -- would this already be enough of a deterrent to entry?]. Has there been a historical incident of leakage of code from the ICGA? For instance, in the Fruit/Rybka investigation, preRybka versions (in executable form) were given to the Secretariat, and to the best of my knowledge, beyond the Secretariat members only Zach and I received copies from them, and we've only publicised the parts that are clear rip-offs of Crafty.

As for the question of R1/R2 code vs R4 [mentioned later], the former would have been most relevant for the investigation directly, but such code is claimed not to exist in any event. However, I think it was the general opinion (not mine, particularly) was that Rajlich would be requested to show some current code [certainly if entering another ICGA event] to ensure that any objections regarding the Fruit issue were now moot. As I say, with the Buzz/R4 issue, this already could have happened in 2010 (or Team Rybka might simply have been allowed to amend their entry to say: yes, Rybka uses magic multiplication from Buzz, tablebase code from Nalimov...).

BTW, there is something wrong with the isolated pawns URL.

I think it is OK -- just look for a quote from "EVAL_COMP" halfway down the post. http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... =10#p13113