OpenChess

How hard is for those that support VAS , people like Nelson hernandez,MANSARI,Fernando ( from talkchess) rebel, and a lot of duck-head from rybka forum and talkchess to them is to hard to understand one simple thing VAS VIOLATED ICGA RULES ....and he deserve to be banned .. I been reading a lot funny things like who is ICGA ... ICGA do only small tournament .. bla bla bla bla ....... they have small brain because they forgot that everybody know about rybka because ICGA.

It hasn't been proven that Rybka 3 or Rybka 4 broke ICGA rules.

They just went "it's Vas's responsibility to prove those versions are innocent".

But really, that's not different from saying "Rybka 1.6.1 is made of 99% Crafty, so we'll assume all future versions of Rybka are guilty and it's Vas's responsibility to prove those versions are innocent" without checking Rybka 1.0 or 2.3.2a at all.

someones hard of reading

Uly wrote:It hasn't been proven that Rybka 3 or Rybka 4 broke ICGA rules.

They just went "it's Vas's responsibility to prove those versions are innocent".

But really, that's not different from saying "Rybka 1.6.1 is made of 99% Crafty, so we'll assume all future versions of Rybka are guilty and it's Vas's responsibility to prove those versions are innocent" without checking Rybka 1.0 or 2.3.2a at all.

Except that they did check Rs 1.0 and 2.3.2a and found them lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if R3 and R4 are clean? Banned is banned. If he wants to be unbanned, the ball is in his court to demonstrate that he's no longer appropriating other people's licensed code. The fact that he was/is so contemptuous of the entire proceeding doesn't really help with the sympathy/mercy vote, either.

jb

just got sent this
shows how many are hard of reading or just plain ignorant


Subject Vas: INNOCENT of IREELEVANT ICG
From Bill_Strong
Date Jul 20, 2011 1:33 am
URL http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/message/v ... 5#40929995
Its been FOREVER since Vas PROOVED himself 100% NOTGUILTY with a inter view at the PRODFESSIONAL Rybkaformum but you CLONERS arent able to admit it. Fancy me needing toshow up and DRILL any smarts into you since you only listen to CLONER sites and not FAIR and INDPEDENT like Chessbase and Rybkaforum. Lijke ALWAYS you just claim every one is a CLONER with no PROVE when Vas is 100% original giving us elkite chess players +300 ELO more than the peon world.

Bill Stron
g, BERMUDA
_______________________________________________________

hears another equally highly intelligent post from Vas's disciple

Subject CLONERS, ALL
From Bill_Strong
Date Jul 20, 2011 1:41 am
URL http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/message/v ... 3#40930113
ALL u have prooved is that EVRY ONE with EXCEPTING Vas is a CLONER and ONLY he had the wright ideas to give us elite chess players +300 ELO with Rybkacluster. NOONE thinks Vas is any thing less than 100% ORIGINAL and the imitation from CLONERS is too benearjth him to speak. The TRUE genius like Vas laughs at CLONERS by poking their fun when providing peons extra ELO. There is NO other explaination viable when you consider a FOUR4TIME CHAMPION like Vas and the FACTS.

Bill STRONG,m Bermuda

Uly wrote:It hasn't been proven that Rybka 3 or Rybka 4 broke ICGA rules. They just went "it's Vas's responsibility to prove those versions are innocent". [not a direct quote, AFAIK]

For that matter, it wasn't even proven that R3/R4 even competed in an ICGA event [Rajlich never addressed that question]. In essence, Rajlich was declared to be in default of Rule #2 for 2008-10 by (willfully) failing to respond to the inquiry regarding the originality of his entries. If you want a more "legalistic" argument: the history of prior incidents for Rajlich combined with the typical direction of engine development sufficed as prima facie evidence, and he chose not to rebut it.

In short, if investigating R3/R4 was a low-cost ordeal, it would have been more likely for the Panel to attempt this. As others have noted, at some point it becomes the responsibility of the author to address the situation, and the Board determined that this point had occurred in the given case. Obviously others disagree concerning this.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:The fact that he [Rajlich] was/is so contemptuous of the entire proceeding doesn't really help with the sympathy/mercy vote, either.

Let me just say that the R161/R1/R232a analyses were a lot of work for all involved [including those who read/debated the documents that were produced]. R3 might have been easier for me personally, due to my previous investigation with IPPOLIT, but I can't think that the Panel would/should just take my word that it was "clean" with respect to Fruit [if for no other reason, due process toward the nominal "plaintiff" Fabien Letouzey]. So another document would need to be produced, and read/verified by various Panel members. I'm not sure all of them have purchased R3/R4 [current commercial products], and particularly for the latter I would be unwilling to discuss it too closely in any event. As RV indicated, it's also much easier to show plagiarism than to be sure that none occurred via an investigatory process (it would likely be somewhat easier via a dialogue process). Finally, R4 would firstly be a large amount of work to do a proper RE, and then it seems [from recent RV comments] that one might have to try to determine its relation to the IPPOLIT history -- and then it might turn out that R4 wasn't really that close to the version that competed in Kanazawa.

An alternative way to proceed (chosen by the Panel) would be to address only R232a and previous. If Rajlich responded to the Board, some of the questions he was asked to address concerned R3/R4, and the Board would then choose how to proceed from there. If he didn't respond to the Board, there would be little incentive to continue the investigation in any event [essentially, if he doesn't care, why should anyone else? -- particularly if it takes hundreds of man-hours in toto?].

When I was in Lille on Friday, the gathered programmers agreed that Rajlich would likely have received much less punishment [perhaps very little indeed] had he not followed the path of silence, denoted by DD in the Report as "another manifestation of disrespect" to the community of games programmers as a whole.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Except that they did check Rs 1.0 and 2.3.2a and found them lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if R3 and R4 are clean?

Jeremy, please tell me the difference between what you said and saying this:

"They checked Rybka 1.6.1 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any future version is clean?"

Banning versions without any evidence of them being guilty and claiming that it's Vas who must prove his innocence can be done at any point and is lazy.

Being lazy is fine, that's why I said from the start that starting from the more relevant Rybka 4 would have made more sense. Imagine that they checked Rybka 4 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any previous version is clean?, that seems fine to me unlike what happened that seems backwards.

Probably they could have found out that Rybka 4 is lacking in the originality requirement by being based on Ippolit if they checked it at all, that's a reason for banning I would have supported.

Well, R1.6.1 was never entered in a WCCC, for starters. At least 2 versions which were were found wanting, as best as the investigators could determine, without any assistance or cooperation from the engine author. That's the difference. BB+'s point about Vas refusing to cooperate is relevant as well -- this was also part of the agreement he made when entering the competition.

As for laziness, how many volunteer man-hours of someone else's time spent performing unpleasant disassembly and analysis would you consider appropriate? Considering the difficulty, and considering what was found, I don't see any point in having dragged the process out any further. The thing is, any violation could/would/should have resulted in a ban, and two definite violations were determined.

You or others (Richard seems to be interested ATM) are, of course, welcome to spend your valuable time and energy to exonerate Rs 3 & 4, if you like. But, again, the penalties are based on the initial 2 violations & the resulting, reasonable assumption of continued violation. The ICGA board sent Vas the evidence. Had he wanted to, he could have said, "youthful indiscretion, sorry, but I cleaned it all up by R3 and here's some code that should demonstrate that". That's what he was required to do, based on the rules he agreed to abide by when entering the WCCC. The fact that the ICGA went to the trouble to disassemble his engines is more than they needed to do -- he could have been disqualified simply on the basis of refusing to provide source code as part of such an investigation.

So, I simply disagree with you here. I think it's irrelevant whether or not Rs 3 & 4 are clean -- the violations of Rs 1 & 2 were sufficient grounds for the actions of the ICGA board. At this point, Vas, as a demonstrated violator of ICGA rules, either needs to have a change of heart and cooperate, or simply accept the (justified) sanctions resulting from the violations. Well, in fact, that ship has sailed, I guess. He had a shot and decided not to take it.

jb

Uly wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Except that they did check Rs 1.0 and 2.3.2a and found them lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if R3 and R4 are clean?

Jeremy, please tell me the difference between what you said and saying this:

"They checked Rybka 1.6.1 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any future version is clean?"

Banning versions without any evidence of them being guilty and claiming that it's Vas who must prove his innocence can be done at any point and is lazy.

Being lazy is fine, that's why I said from the start that starting from the more relevant Rybka 4 would have made more sense. Imagine that they checked Rybka 4 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any previous version is clean?, that seems fine to me unlike what happened that seems backwards.

Probably they could have found out that Rybka 4 is lacking in the originality requirement by being based on Ippolit if they checked it at all, that's a reason for banning I would have supported.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Well, R1.6.1 was never entered in a WCCC, for starters. At least 2 versions which were were found wanting, as best as the investigators could determine, without any assistance or cooperation from the engine author. That's the difference. BB+'s point about Vas refusing to cooperate is relevant as well -- this was also part of the agreement he made when entering the competition.

As for laziness, how many volunteer man-hours of someone else's time spent performing unpleasant disassembly and analysis would you consider appropriate? Considering the difficulty, and considering what was found, I don't see any point in having dragged the process out any further. The thing is, any violation could/would/should have resulted in a ban, and two definite violations were determined.

You or others (Richard seems to be interested ATM) are, of course, welcome to spend your valuable time and energy to exonerate Rs 3 & 4, if you like. But, again, the penalties are based on the initial 2 violations & the resulting, reasonable assumption of continued violation. The ICGA board sent Vas the evidence. Had he wanted to, he could have said, "youthful indiscretion, sorry, but I cleaned it all up by R3 and here's some code that should demonstrate that". That's what he was required to do, based on the rules he agreed to abide by when entering the WCCC. The fact that the ICGA went to the trouble to disassemble his engines is more than they needed to do -- he could have been disqualified simply on the basis of refusing to provide source code as part of such an investigation.

So, I simply disagree with you here. I think it's irrelevant whether or not Rs 3 & 4 are clean -- the violations of Rs 1 & 2 were sufficient grounds for the actions of the ICGA board. At this point, Vas, as a demonstrated violator of ICGA rules, either needs to have a change of heart and cooperate, or simply accept the (justified) sanctions resulting from the violations. Well, in fact, that ship has sailed, I guess. He had a shot and decided not to take it.

jb

Uly wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Except that they did check Rs 1.0 and 2.3.2a and found them lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if R3 and R4 are clean?

Jeremy, please tell me the difference between what you said and saying this:

"They checked Rybka 1.6.1 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any future version is clean?"

Banning versions without any evidence of them being guilty and claiming that it's Vas who must prove his innocence can be done at any point and is lazy.

Being lazy is fine, that's why I said from the start that starting from the more relevant Rybka 4 would have made more sense. Imagine that they checked Rybka 4 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any previous version is clean?, that seems fine to me unlike what happened that seems backwards.

Probably they could have found out that Rybka 4 is lacking in the originality requirement by being based on Ippolit if they checked it at all, that's a reason for banning I would have supported.

You or others (Richard seems to be interested ATM)

cant see this is entirely factual .not in Richards case( though certainly in uly whatever s case ) i see Richards posts as honest opinions( based on examination of codes ) that Ippolit is clean
i also agree that fundamentally it doesn't matter if vas finally did remove all traces of stolen and plagiarized code as he was clearly in breech of rules other abide d by
if a thief steals and uses those profits to build a clean little or large business when caught has his assets seized , a slap on the wrist and now be a good boy sets a terrible example , which others will see as weakness and a green light to ignoring any rules, ergo he deserved a long ban and to return monies or face court action, he owes Fabien more than an app9olagy as well. in fact he owes just about everyone concerned an apology , but wont ever find the testes to give it

Uly wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Except that they did check Rs 1.0 and 2.3.2a and found them lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if R3 and R4 are clean?

Jeremy, please tell me the difference between what you said and saying this:

"They checked Rybka 1.6.1 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any future version is clean?"

Banning versions without any evidence of them being guilty and claiming that it's Vas who must prove his innocence can be done at any point and is lazy.

Being lazy is fine, that's why I said from the start that starting from the more relevant Rybka 4 would have made more sense. Imagine that they checked Rybka 4 and found it lacking in the originality requirement. Result: ban. Who cares if any previous version is clean?, that seems fine to me unlike what happened that seems backwards.

Probably they could have found out that Rybka 4 is lacking in the originality requirement by being based on Ippolit if they checked it at all, that's a reason for banning I would have supported.

It was Rajlch who was banned, not Rybka 1 or Rybka 2 or Rybka 3. Therefore it doesn’t matter which flavour he has on offer at the moment - he is banned!!!

If he wants the ban lifted, he could consider adopting the attitude and behaviour that any other reasonable person would adopt in the prevailing circumstances, namely:
1. Returning any cups that he won with engines that were found to be clones.
2. Returning any prize money that he won.
3. Telling the truth about what he did.
4. Apologising for the inconvenience and upset that he caused.
5. Recognising the fact that, as he has shown himself to be untrustworthy and nobody is willing to spend hundreds of hours reverse engineering his code he may have to actively cooperate with more stringent scrutiny than those who have not shown themselves to be untrustworthy.