Judoka wrote:1. The PANEL produced the report and evidence
This is exactly what I am getting at, the PANEL producing both the evidence and the report determining guilt or innocence of a person is critical. If a large portion persons involved in this panel is clearly bais from the start of the proceedings then the resulting decisions can be considered bias as well.
Let me repeat... the "report" did not "determine" anything. It was a compilation of evidence produced by the panel. The ICGA board used that evidence (and only that evidence since Vas refused both the panel and the board's request for anything in his defense. The panel made NO DECISIONS. We laid out the evidence we uncovered in an orderly and clearly explained way. The ICGA took that and formed THEIR decision relative to innocence or guilt, and the punishment. The panel was similar to the prosecution's side of things. The defendant chose to not take the stand and remain silent. So the "court" (the ICGA board) took what they had and reached the decision they reached. One can't COMPEL someone to defend their actions if they choose not to.
Can you please answer the question: why did the persons who had already clearly determined the guilt or innocence of Vas prior to the meeting of the panel not recuse themselves from the proceedings? I assume at this point in their lives as educated and professional persons they are aware of the concept of conflict of interest. This is a clear case of that.
What "proceedings" are you talking about? Do the police recuse themselves when the prosecution starts to look for evidence? Or do they help? Does the prosecutor (who almost certainly believes the defendant is guilty else he would not prosecute the case) recuse himself while evidence is gathered? No, both of those provide their input to the "court" (which is basically the ICGA board in this instance).
2. The ICGA board, which is completely disjoint from the panel rendered the final verdict AND determined the punishment.
If the panel was bias or the members of the board already baised based on previous conversations then the panel members should have also recused themselves from the proceedings. They should have also demanded an unbiased review of the evidence and asked about the formation of the panel and who was on it. According to previous posts some members of the board had already stated their opinions on the subject. What was the vote on the board? According to most bylaws this should be recorded by the secretary and the vote and meeting notes made public if asked (especially for non-profits)
We had unbiased panel members. One was Ken Thompson, well known, certainly well-qualified to examine the evidence. And he had not been involved in computer chess since the 80's for competition, or the 90's as he helped with the Deep Blue / Kasaparov matches. There were others. I see NO ONE on the ICGA board that would be prejudiced, since none are in active competition and have not been for 20+ years.
You are mangling "board" and "panel". The board is the ICGA governing officers. The board formed the panel by asking Mark, Harvey and myself to "chair" the panel and to enlist the aid of others as we saw fit. I am aware of NO statement by any ICGA board member saying that they thought Vas was guilty prior to the investigation.
3. Vas had a chance to participate in the panel, and he had a chance to participate directly with the ICGA board after the panel report was completed and he had received a copy. He chose to exercise his right to remain silent.
Agreed.. but a few points.
1) how much time was Vas given to gather facts? based on what i have read so far the reverse engineering and fact gathering by the prosecustion was something done over several years .
He was given maybe 6 months while the panel compiled evidence. Once the report was in, the ICGA gave him 30 days to supply anything, which could have included a request for more time (He really would not need more time, he knows what he did, he has the source code to confirm or disprove any evidence we provided.)
The ICGA "panel" was convened for less than 6 months total. Not "several years". Some had been looking at the rybka binary for several years, of course.
2) by using the verbal "right to remain silent" i assume you realize that this whole proceeding had legal ramifications so leaning toward a trial than a casual meeting.
There was no "legal ramifications" whatsoever. A private organization can create whatever rules they want, and require that all participants adhere to those rules. They could demand that all chess programs be written in Perl, if they wanted. And everyone could either write in Perl or not participate. Or, if you wrote in something else and got caught, you would see those titles vacated and your future participation disallowed.
I don't see how one can misconstrue the meaning of "code copying." Quite simply, "to copy code someone else wrote". Plagiarism is a bit broader, but in the case of computer software, it would be "copying someone else's code and then claiming that you wrote it yourself."
but plagiarism and copying are different.
here is how i see it. Code copying is clear, its like a photo, you can compare it side by side and see the match with ZERO modification. even a layperson or someone uneducated in programming can compare two things. once you move to modification of code then things are defined differently...
from this point forward I would like to propose that debate revolve around if RYBKA code is plagiarized.
It is clear that the code is not a direct copy of the fruit code so this seems to be is a better word to use. the two words are not interchangeable and using them so creates confusion.
The common definition of plagiarism, as applied to written text, can be found on the net. And it includes both ideas and text, such as the plot of a story or movie, rather than just the book or screenplay being copied. For computer software, that is not the case. We use copyright law there, which explicitly excludes "ideas". One patents ideas, and copyrights written text (only). And for computer software, you can not patent that at all for various reasons. So all that is protected is the actual source code. So in the software development usage of plagiarism, this is used as "copying the source code of others and then claiming it to be your original work". Very much as one would copy a part of a paper and then not properly "cite it." In the case of the ICGA, citing the author might be ok or it might not. If you copy from someone, and supply their name, and there own program is not in the tournament, then you can legally compete. We have had versions of Toga compete in lieu of Fruit, for example. But Toga can't compete if Fruit competes...
Easiest example to understand is the Rybka 1.6.1 / Crafty 19.x copying that was blatant and massive in its scope...
You didnt answer my question.
What versions of Rybka competed in ICGA events?
Rybka 2.3.2a to name just one that is in our report, and is on the formal record for participating in an ICGA WCCC tournament.
Was 1.6.1 an official competitor in an ICGA event?
Did this version compete in any ICGA events that are in question?
The conviction of someone based on a program that did not compete in an ICGA event is outside the scope of the ICGA.
Sorry, but it is NOT outside the scope of the ICGA. The ICGA can define their own "scope" in any way they want. And in this case, we chose to do exactly the same as the court system does and allow the admission of a "prior bad act" to show a "pattern of behavior." This is perfectly accepted in legal proceedings as well. So while others, and perhaps you as well, would LIKE to see the 1.6.1 evidence thrown out, because it is impossible to refute, that is not going to happen, nor should it. Other events use the ICGA rules, such as the CCT events, and there 1.6.1 DID compete... As well as being fraudulently entered into ChessWar and other events.
Finally, the people best qualified to examine Crafty/Rybka/Fruit and determine if code had been copied WAS/IS chess programmers. They can do this in 1/100th the time a non-chess person would require, because they are familiar with the underlying data structures, program functions, and chess algorithms. The original letter of protest was signed by 16 programmers. You could hardly exclude them from the proceedings as they had been the ones that discovered the evidence. The panel did NOT convict Vas. The panel presented evidence to the ICGA board. They formed an opinion, and rendered a verdict based on the preponderance of the evidence presented and the absolute refusal of Vas to supply anything in opposition.
Again
why can they not be excluded from the panel?
Exclude chess programmers from the panel? Exclude DNA experts from developing and submitting the DNA evidence at a trial? Exactly what sense does this make?
Agreed professionals or knowledgeable people are key(e.g. expert witnesses) in a proceeding but your missing my point the panel is essentially the Jury in this circumstance. The panels opinions and evidence should be presented to the board without preconceived prejudices. The evidence presented by the 16 members of the letter and should stand on its own with out them having to be a part of the proceedings.
A similar process from a college setting (since at least a few are in that setting would have been an excellent guideline)
http://www.case.edu/provost/ugstudies/acintegrity.htm would perhaps have provided a guideline.
Basically you have no point. If, as you said, your point was that the panel was the jury. Because that did not happen. The panel did not render a verdict, nor did we specify what punishment was appropriate. The ICGA board reached a decision after seeing our evidence and zero defense.
Does the college you are teaching at allow the accusing professor to sit on the review board for the student being accused?
Absolutely. Both sides are ALWAYS present in any such proceeding, whether legal or administrative... Note they would not be on the "review board" itself although they would be present at the hearing. And also notice that NONE of the panel was on the ICGA board either. I am certain you have not done enough reading here to understand the process. The panel gathered and presented the evidence. The board (a completely disjoint group from the panel) evaluated the evidence and rendered a verdict. So your question above is really completely irrelevant since that did not happen in this case either.
Finally can we all be a bit more professional about this. Emotions are runnning high but name calling ,... really? I tell my ten year old when she is upset to think it but dont say it
Restraint requires patience, intelligence and good judgement, and I continue to be pleased and impressed by the restraint demonstrated here on a nearly-daily basis.
