ChessBase: A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess

[BB+]

For the moment I refer to the work of Miguel, as he has proven you can't make a case building assumption on assumption.

I think I can simply give this (from my Riis review):

Rather than examine the evidence and apply some principle like Occam's razor and/or inference concerning the most likely scenario, [Riis] huffs on about not being able to prove that something didn't happen in some obscure way.

Or more directly concerning Ballicora's alternative scenario:

[regarding] Ballicora's reconstruction of the Rybka PSTs using non-Fruit code. This seems unremarkable to me, and indeed, given nothing but the raw Rybka output, most CS students can do the same. However, if one were to give said students both the Rybka output and the Fruit 2.1 code, I suspect that many of them would adapt the latter rather than work from scratch.

In no way I have accused you of dishonesty [...]

Indeed, you accused me of prejudice. [I realise me might be having a Dutch/English mismatch].

[JcMaTe]

really embarrassing knowing that there are programmers (Rebel) that knows Rybka author has copied code from another program.
people like me we think when something like this happen is because Rebel has something to hide or VAS has offered him something in return to pay the favor of trying to divert the real information.

[Rebel]

Sorry, I have NEVER "altered my speech."

Yes you did, see the CB artice, you own words.

And when I corrected you people were indignant and started to doubt your integrity.

Ever learned to apologize for damage you (perhaps unconsciously) caused ?

[Rebel]

really embarrassing knowing that there are programmers (Rebel) that knows Rybka author has copied code from another program.
people like me we think when something like this happen is because Rebel has something to hide or VAS has offered him something in return to pay the favor of trying to divert the real information.

Perhaps Vas has offered me his 4 Shannon trophies.

You are from Hiarcs team I suppose ?

Else ?

[Rebel]

For the moment I refer to the work of Miguel, as he has proven you can't make a case building assumption on assumption.

I think I can simply give this (from my Riis review):

Rather than examine the evidence and apply some principle like Occam's razor and/or inference concerning the most likely scenario, [Riis] huffs on about not being able to prove that something didn't happen in some obscure way.

Or more directly concerning Ballicora's alternative scenario:

[regarding] Ballicora's reconstruction of the Rybka PSTs using non-Fruit code. This seems unremarkable to me, and indeed, given nothing but the raw Rybka output, most CS students can do the same. However, if one were to give said students both the Rybka output and the Fruit 2.1 code, I suspect that many of them would adapt the latter rather than work from scratch.

I leave that up to you to comment, a little bird told me a counter article is on its way for Chessvibes.

In no way I have accused you of dishonesty [...]

Indeed, you accused me of prejudice. [I realise me might be having a Dutch/English mismatch].

Not in my definition of VII and VIG as I apply VII to myself as well, just human nature, it's how we function. The point is to be AWARE of it which enables you to function more objective. It's Russel-stuff, mainly that human objectivity is greatly overrated. If my way of thinking offended you then I am sorry, never was my intention.

[Prima]

For the moment I refer to the work of Miguel, as he has proven you can't make a case building assumption on assumption.

I think I can simply give this (from my Riis review):

Rather than examine the evidence and apply some principle like Occam's razor and/or inference concerning the most likely scenario, [Riis] huffs on about not being able to prove that something didn't happen in some obscure way.

Or more directly concerning Ballicora's alternative scenario:

[regarding] Ballicora's reconstruction of the Rybka PSTs using non-Fruit code. This seems unremarkable to me, and indeed, given nothing but the raw Rybka output, most CS students can do the same. However, if one were to give said students both the Rybka output and the Fruit 2.1 code, I suspect that many of them would adapt the latter rather than work from scratch.

I leave that up to you to comment, a little bird told me a counter article is on its way for Chessvibes.

In no way I have accused you of dishonesty [...]

Indeed, you accused me of prejudice. [I realise me might be having a Dutch/English mismatch].

Not in my definition of VII and VIG as I apply VII to myself as well, just human nature, it's how we function. The point is to be AWARE of it which enables you to function more objective. It's Russel-stuff, mainly that human objectivity is greatly overrated. If my way of thinking offended you then I am sorry, never was my intention.

Rebel aka Ed, IF yous strongly believe you're right, why apologize? Your [on-going] actions speaks louder than words and is contrary to your apology.
Your apology for your way of thinking is hypocritical. Your "way of thinking" is proof you FAILED to practiced the scientific approach of being unbiased, non-opinionated, & honest, in your assessments.

Ever thought that this very "your way of thinking" mantra, manifested as contrived deliberate misrepresentations & incurvated facts, is what offends so many?

[hyatt]

Sorry, I have NEVER "altered my speech."

Yes you did, see the CB artice, you own words.

And when I corrected you people were indignant and started to doubt your integrity.

Ever learned to apologize for damage you (perhaps unconsciously) caused ?

I see NOTHING in Soren's article that merits any debate. Nothing new. Lots of incorrect information. Incorrect dates. Incorrect ratings. Incorrect quotes. ZERO "meat" which is what one MUST produce to make the ICGA report look weak. He offers NOTHING but a reference to your nonsensical web site that attacks statements/opinions that were NEVER expressed in the ICGA report. Or it offers nonsensical stuff like "try 0. instead of 0.0 and you might be surprised." YOU might be surprised. No first year computer science student would...

Again, "I" didn't cause this damage. Vas bears 100% of the responsibility for that by copying my program, and then copying fruit, and denying it to this day, in spite of impossible-to-refute proof...

[hyatt]

I believe we ALL almost ALWAYS enter an investigation with some sort of prejudice. For example, I think this "bug" is caused by this kind of issue. Then we investigate. But, at least speaking for myself, I am not so stupid that I rule out all other causes just because I think I know what is wrong. Because I do occasionally start on the wrong track and have to back up.

When the "fruit" accusation first surfaced (by Vincent I believe) I discounted it as more of the "any new program is accused of being a derivative if it shows up out of the blue." But as I looked at what Zach and Christophe had found, my opinion began to change. Not because I considered Vas guilty. But because the evidence became more and more convincing.

When Vas first claimed ip*/robo* and such were RE copies of Rybka, we gave him the benefit of the doubt and considered the program to be "pirated" and did not allow links to be posted for months. But he NEVER offered any proof, and we finally said "enough is enough, with no proof, we are not willing to possibly punish someone for something that has not been proven by the primary accuser. Again, a change of mind.

The Rybka case is not something where we "dove in from day 1 thinking Vas was guilty." It was something that was determined over the course of several years, to the point that enough programmers believed the evidence that they asked the ICGA to take action. This VII/VIG stuff is PURE NONSENSE. No "VII evidence" was hidden or not shown. Nor was any "VIG evidence" hidden. You can characterize it as a "witch hunt" if you want. That is false. And hyperbolic. And misleading to those that don't really understand any of this. Too many good people on the panel. You can't claim they all were biased, because I don't know that ANY had any sort of axe to grind, other than to expose something that should never have happened.

Nothing is going to change as a result of your distorted web page. Nothing is going to change as a result of Soren's highly unprofessional report to ChessBase. That is where you can find the REAL distortions and mistruths. Nothing is going to change with a letter to CheeVibes. We will answer Soren's article, and he will end up looking quite foolish and dishonest. I would suspect anything written to ChessVibes will be treated the same way. The evidence is too compelling to anyone capable of understanding it. This nonsensical attempt to find some incredibly improbable explanations for parts of the evidence is not going to accomplish anything but making the person doing the writing look incredibly foolish. The 0. vs 0.0 is about as stupid a concept as I have ever seen. I showed that to two pretty good students. Their response? You are kidding, right? He copied the code. Only reasonable explanation. You are out in the 1 million sigma range on the normal curve to believe some of that stuff actually happened..

[Judoka]

So the board appointed you and others who had already determined the guilt of Vas to run a panel?
5 years of disucssing the guilt of a person is a long time and our brains tend to form connections if repeatedly shown or told the same information over and over again. Intelligence or education does not mean immunity to this sort of brainwashing.
I dont think the board was unbaised if it allowed the panel to form with members who had already determined guilt of a member as its head.

I am sure then the panel was unprejudiced in its approach to the information and discussions that took place then.

ICGA can cast its nets as far as it wants to find evidence of bias? That is like digging back to grade school and saying you got in a playground fight in 5th grade so this proves your a bully and violent.

I give you that Vas could clear things up by giving his code to someone to compare and resolve the issue but with the language used by many of his accusers and the subsequent investigation led by them I don't blame him for declining.

As a point of fact we are ALWAYS bias, I had a professor long ago say that if we find something we feel is totally unbiased it is only because we have the same bias. This is exactly why we have rules to follow during investigations.

Maybe the blame should be placed on the Board for not insisting on another panel to led by members who presumed Vas innocence to send in a counter report.

As far as I can see in all the discussions there is a lot of name calling and provocation that leads me to think that the result of the panel and subsequent board was at the very least biased in its decision making process.

I am reminded of the Famous Monty Python Witch trial scene in the.

The final note I have is that attacking people who do not agree with you that have equal creditably as programmers as liars is baffling to me. They are not stupid people or ignorant but have come to the table with a different view point.

As for now I am not taking a side that vas is guilty or innocent but i do feel that an almost mob mentality formed and was pervasive in the decision making process. At the very least the process was highly questionable in many respects.

[Rebel]

Rebel aka Ed, IF yous strongly believe you're right, why apologize? Your [on-going] actions speaks louder than words and is contrary to your apology.

???

BB felt insulted, I was just being polite because I respect him. You read too much into it. You must have missed the meaning when I said that human objectivity is greatly overrated.

Or are you such a type that will state: I am 100% certain that Vas copied Fruit ?