Lucky you... I managed to get re-interested in it (after Deep Blue) while in Bristol in 2007. Been a time-suck ever since.syzygy wrote:I didn't follow computer chess in those years
I managed to worm the failed 2007 Rybka/Junior negotiations (overseen by Levy) into this, which would probably be the start of any "anti-Vas" attitude if one existed (or mutual bad blood). There could also be a lump of little things, like: Rajlich only personally showed up 2006 (having Hans operate in 2007-10), and entered as "Rajlich" that year (6 months after Rybka was commercial) to avoid the commercial entry fee mark-up; Rybka chose not to enter the "Software" championship in 2010 (competing only in the Open/Blitz with the cluster, even though Hans was already in Kanazawa); I've also heard some stories about things in the wake of the 2007 loss in the Zappa match in Mexico (probably rash comments/actions that were later re-thought).syzygy wrote:but I have the impression that "tensions" that developed from 2006 to 2010 have much to do with what followed after.
But Levy's first Feb 2011 email should have been something more like: "Hi Vas, as you probably know, there's a lot of talk about cloning these days, and now particularly Rybka and Fruit. Have you seen Zach Wegner's document on this? I am preparing an article about the general topic for ChessVibes in the next couple of weeks, and I'd like to quote your comment on it."
As for Rajlich, if one is to take a negative view of his attitude toward "rules", one might peruse the Freestyle events, particularly the 8th (and final one). He, or more properly his wife, was sanctioned for "account-sharing", namely there were 5 "teams" with Rybka 3 betas in the preliminary round, and it so happened that "Rajlich" was the one of these that had the bad luck and did not qualify for the final. His wife's "Rybusia" account did qualify, but she was playing in the European Individuals on the weekend of the finals, so Vas took over. This was deemed against the Rules (5.1), and in the end "Rybusia" was refused prize money (but not "disqualified" as far as I can tell/remember).
There are a number of side issues, particularly the fact that the 7th Freestyle saw a lot of people with multiple entries/accounts, and the rules for the 8th were particularly changed to prevent this. I guess Rajlich thought it was more of a "X physical people = X entries" concept, but I don't think that was the intention. [I even asked Ingo Althöfer, arguably the creator of the Freestyle concept, about this in Tilburg 2011, and he said that always, the idea was that the principal person must make the final decision on moves, and this could not be delegated en masse]. He had some communication with the TDs about a related issue one or two days before the preliminary round, so he could have asked for a clarification if needed (then again, he probably never figured that he would manage not to qualify while Rybusia would). The alternative side issue was the [winning] Italian contigent, who openly admitted sharing information/analysis during games (though they each made their own moves), of which 2 of the 3 qualified for the final, partially due to a rather dodgy intra-Italian game which could easily have been thrown. [Larry Kaufman was also forfeited for not being on the server at exactly the start time of one round (he then withdrew), which was probably a wise rule for the preliminary round, but not the finals]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the sponsor dropped out after this.
[And the previous 7 Freestyles were not exactly a rosy view either].In the aftermath, Rajlich got an opinion from Stewart Reuben, and eventually made a final plea (note that he lists himself first on the "Rybusia" team, even though he was technically entered as "Rajlich" and his wife was "Rybusia"). There was also much talk about the "vagueness" of the rules (the inquiry to Reuben did not touch that subject, as Rajlich seemed more concerned about procedural matters), who had the authority (and when) to make the [effective] disqualification, etc. All in all, the issue flurried the Rybka forum for the next month or so (until the next batch of R3 Elo-gain threads emerged).
Incidentally, another (throughly famous) sporting incident involving over-turning a umpire's decision (by the American League president -- the game was duly finished being "played under protest", though the result of the umpire's decision coincidentally was the final out of the game) was the Pine Tar Incident, that I remember well from my youth. [My recollection was that there were some players who had been traded and/or gone on/off the disabled list in the interim, and there were side disputes with handling them too, but Wikipedia just lumps this under the placing of Mattingly as 2nd baseman]. One does have to like the "base-touching affidavit" which follows upon the noted: league officials held a strategy session to anticipate tricks the Yankees might use to prevent the game from continuing.
Or do you mean something closer to what syzygy is suggesting, namely that the procedural mechanism should not have been decided without his input?
here is how it works. About everybody had a good look at the Fruit source and folks see this most elegant way (Tord included) how to code the multi entries of calling search every chess programmer has to have in his program. They like it and use it. That's not copying, that's programmers learning from programmers how to code.
I have addressed them [