OpenChess

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/message/v ... 5#41497265
The PROFESSIONALS at Rybkfafourm have AGAIN shown Vas to be 10-0% INNOCENT. We ALL owe a nataural GENIUS like Vas our apologoy for CLONERS distrcaating him to giveing us elite chess players +300 ELO with IRRELEAVANT claims from ICGA. This is TRUE and INDEPDNEDENT,


Vas,

Not sure if you ever are reading this but I feel obliged to offer you my sincere apologies for questioning the originality of your work in public, for instance the letter that I co-signed that eventually has given you so much trouble.

In retrospect I blame myself for losing my objectivity due to the volume of the alleged evidence initiated by that absurd and damning "0.0" thing which explanation on one good day you should whisper in my ear.

The out of proportion punishment and especially the false demonization in the mainstream media shocked me, the demonization in the CC fora even more as if you were the Ted Bundy of computer chess. And it changed my overall view.

I emptied my mind (not easy) and started to read the documents again, now not hindered by the VIG prejudice but from the VII (Vas is innocent) point of view. And an amazing new world opened. Long story short and to use your own famous words, I went through the documents forwards and backwards and rejected many things.

Apologies again, it was a learning experience and compliments for programmers like Chris and Miguel who were more critical and decided to stand up for justice.

Now, please, give us that Rybka 5 that takes every engine for breakfast and it will silence most of the voices.

Ed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANYONE with half a mind knows Bill Strong is an alias for a moronic, cretinous , imbecile whose sole aim in life is to bark louder than Felix and get brownie points (free cluster time ) from his master
i just wonder what (unsteady) Eddy is after , head patted , tummy rubbed or the same as the retard

My impression: Getting attaboys from some of the Rybka fandom is better than standing up for the truth...

To each his own...

AND ANOTHER ....


eHere is ANOTHER and INTELLIGENT post AGAIN showing Vas to be PROOVED for us against the IRREVLAVANT IACAGA and CLONERS who are AGAINST the TRUTH of Vas being 100% INCONENT for us eliete chess players with +300 ELO. It is ORIGINAL and ALLfor this,


Earlier I had brought this topic up on the Rybka Forum. Would not have brought it up again if a change in the people had not come about. Originally I had, I believe, 4 people. Now I must add a 5th person.

Many believe the ICGA panel that handled Vas' case started bad with the "we already know he is guilty"- coming from a panel member BEFORE the evidence had been handed to them. I could mention other problems, but it is pointless. Some side with me and some don't.

I propose to decide this to the full satisfaction of everyone. Then IT WILL BE OVER. FOR GOOD. I can assure you I will know for sure and abide by any decision they reach. And so will all the people who question the decision. No one who believes Vas is guilty will ever again have to listen to dissenting views. You cannot do better than that.

I propose a panel made up of Zach Wegner, Miguel Ballicora, Chris Whittington, Uri Blass, and Sven Schule to review all evidence and add any of their own. For some one who thinks Whittington would be biased, he will not. That you can count on. All he wants is the truth. But it would not matter anyway, because a majority vote of 3 - 2 will be accepted. Unless they feel a unanimous vote should be required. These five can decide that issue.

From now on they will be viewed as "The Five". They can review any previous evidence, and add any of their own as I said. Any of the 5 who do not want to serve on the panel means the remaining 4 will choose their 5th member- must be unanimous selection.

Then when they are done and render their verdict- we will all agree and live by it. ICGA not recognizing this panel or their verdict will not matter. We are after the truth, and if ICGA's feelings are hurt- they will have to deal with it. The truth is more important than anything and everything else.

They can also, if Vas is willing- study Rybka 3 and 4. I think to these 5 people he would agree. If not- he has to live or die with what evidence they have thru 2.3.2.

There it is. I agree to abide by their decision because I 100% think they are more than capable. And we won't have any pre-existing biases.

To anyone who thinks this is a bad idea because they say he has already been found guilty- I can and will only assume they would do anything to keep the verdict from changing. They don't want the real truth from these 5 men- remembering it may very well be guilty.

If the evidence is ironclad- to those who worry- the evidence won't change. And it is of utmost importance THAT THESE 5 MEN AND NO ONE ELSE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE DISCUSSION. Bob Hyatt does not need to be there. He wasn't when ICGA ruled and voted.

If it still means ICGA wants to be stubborn and stick by their decision, it won't matter. It is not life or death to be recognized by them. But they will have to agree if they don't like the verdict- sooner or later. And if the verdict is guilty, that will be academic anyway.

Remember the best and brightest in ICGA did not really study the evidence as these 5 men will. They just handed it down the chain to others and abided by their decision. For the most part.

There it is. That is my proposal. I am not afraid of their verdict either way. Are you?



http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/message/v ... D/41497347
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

hyatt wrote:My impression: Getting attaboys from some of the Rybka fandom is better than standing up for the truth...

I don't think that it is that simple, Ed is more principled than that. Watching his behaviour gives me a sensation of déjà vu. The familiar stages seem to be:
stage 1. Voice disapproval of the behaviour of one whom you perceive as behaving badly.
stage 2. Accuse others who react to bad behaviour of bias/mob response.
stage 3. Join the camp of original miscreant.
stage 4. Block reasonable arguments.
stage 5. Repeat failed arguments.
stage 6. Go off in a huff.
stage 7. Express remorse.

Stages 1 - 3 happen in that order and stages 4 - 7 are repeated a number of times and in various orders.

hyatt wrote: To each his own...

You will need a tin hat if you use that phrase on CCC.

Rebel wrote:I emptied my mind (not easy) and started to read the documents again, now not hindered by the VIG prejudice but from the VII (Vas is innocent) point of view. And an amazing new world opened. Long story short and to use your own famous words, I went through the documents forwards and backwards and rejected many things.

At least you are honest about your incapacity to simply read the documents and make up your mind on that basis alone.

Jeremy

K I Hyams wrote:

hyatt wrote:My impression: Getting attaboys from some of the Rybka fandom is better than standing up for the truth...

K I Hyams wrote: I don't think that it is that simple, Ed is more principled than that. Watching his behaviour gives me a sensation of déjà vu. The familiar stages seem to be:
stage 1. Voice disapproval of the behaviour of one whom you perceive as behaving badly.
stage 2. Accuse others who react to bad behaviour of bias/mob response.
stage 3. Join the camp of original miscreant.
stage 4. Block reasonable arguments.
stage 5. Repeat failed arguments.
stage 6. Go off in a huff.
stage 7. Express remorse.

Stages 1 - 3 happen in that order and stages 4 - 7 are repeated a number of times and in various orders.

ALL stages point to a disturbed personality (disorder ?) similar stages are common in domestic violence perpetrators
Doesn't bode well for his spouse or partner really .

Professional help should be sought as his attempts to "vent frustrations" here are a poor substitute for therapy

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Rebel wrote:I emptied my mind (not easy) and started to read the documents again, now not hindered by the VIG prejudice but from the VII (Vas is innocent) point of view. And an amazing new world opened. Long story short and to use your own famous words, I went through the documents forwards and backwards and rejected many things.

At least you are honest about your incapacity to simply read the documents and make up your mind on that basis alone.

Jeremy

you really are a kid, aren't you? since that is potentially mean of me, I explain:

only a child, or perhaps a mathematician, believes that any human comes to a problem as a completely fair weighing machine able to view the problem in total isolation and without preconceptions.

K I Hyams wrote:

hyatt wrote:My impression: Getting attaboys from some of the Rybka fandom is better than standing up for the truth...

I don't think that it is that simple, Ed is more principled than that. Watching his behaviour gives me a sensation of déjà vu. The familiar stages seem to be:
stage 1. Voice disapproval of the behaviour of one whom you perceive as behaving badly.
stage 2. Accuse others who react to bad behaviour of bias/mob response.
stage 3. Join the camp of original miscreant.
stage 4. Block reasonable arguments.
stage 5. Repeat failed arguments.
stage 6. Go off in a huff.
stage 7. Express remorse.

Stages 1 - 3 happen in that order and stages 4 - 7 are repeated a number of times and in various orders.

I know the rules of the game, when the tide is turning, time to attack the messenger. Nothing new under the sun.

Rebel wrote:

K I Hyams wrote:

hyatt wrote:My impression: Getting attaboys from some of the Rybka fandom is better than standing up for the truth...

I don't think that it is that simple, Ed is more principled than that. Watching his behaviour gives me a sensation of déjà vu. The familiar stages seem to be:
stage 1. Voice disapproval of the behaviour of one whom you perceive as behaving badly.
stage 2. Accuse others who react to bad behaviour of bias/mob response.
stage 3. Join the camp of original miscreant.
stage 4. Block reasonable arguments.
stage 5. Repeat failed arguments.
stage 6. Go off in a huff.
stage 7. Express remorse.

Stages 1 - 3 happen in that order and stages 4 - 7 are repeated a number of times and in various orders.

I know the rules of the game, when the tide is turning, time to attack the messenger. Nothing new under the sun.

cherry picking what to respond to and doing so with clear delusional and paranoid posts to boot tempts me to suggest the name of good doctor or councilor to offer you professional help , perhaps Vas may foot the bill as your clearly aiding and abetting him to keep the illegally/ immorally gained profits he has accumulated from plagiarizing others work

Is Veritas not meaning truth ?