Judoka wrote:
Shouldnt the main requirement been to have programmers on the panel? Not SOME not partially but entirely composed of experts and programmers of equal level not 1 or 2 that could sway the group. The problem with 1 expert and 10 amateurs would be that the 1 experts opinion could sway the others. Hyatt formed and led the panel even with this the panel returned a 14-0 out of 34 members .
The panel members are listed below. Look at their names. look at their qualifications......................................................
Panel members:
Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of
Chessbase News (2010-present))
Amir Ban (author of Junior: World Champion 2002, 2004, 2006, World microcomputer
Champion 1997, 2001)
Charles Roberson (author of NoonianChess)
Christophe Theron (author of Chess Tiger)
Dariusz Czechowski (author of Darmenios)
Don Dailey (author of Cilkchess, Star Socrates, Rex, Komodo)
Eric Hallsworth (part of Hiarcs Team, Publisher of Selective Search magazine)
Fabien Letousky (author of Fruit)
Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)
Gerd Isenberg (author of IsiChess)
Gyula Horvath (author of Pandix, Brainstorm)
Ingo Bauer (Shredder team)
Jan Krabbenbos (Tournament Director of Leiden tournaments)
Kai Himstedt (author of Gridchess and Cluster Toga)
Ken Thompson (creator of Belle Chess Machine, World Computer Chess Champion
1980, Turing Award winner 1983, creator of B and C programming languages,
Unix and Plan 9 developer). More Information about Ken can be found here http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Thompson
Marcel van Kervinck (author of Rookie)
Maciej Szmit (assistant professor at Technical University of Lodz)
Mark Watkins (MAGMA Computer Algebra Group, School of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Sydney)
Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs, World Microcomputer Champion 1993)
Mincho Georgiev (Pawny)
Olivier Deville (Tournament Director of ChessWars)
Omid David (author of Falcon)
Peter Skinner (Tournament Director of CCT--the major annual online computer chess
tournament)
Ralf Schäfer (author of Spike)
Richard Vida (author of Critter)
Richard Pijl (author of The Baron)
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder, multiple world champions from 1996-2007)
Thomas Mayer (author of Quark)
Tord Romstad (author of Stockfish, Glaurung)
Tom Pronk (ProChess, Much)
Vladan Vuckovic (Axon, Achilles)
Wylie Garvin (game Programmer at Ubisoft Montreal)
Yngvi Björnsson (The Turk)
Zach Wegner (author of ZCT and Rondo, an upgraded version of Anthony Cozzie’s
Zappa program, which was world champion in 2005)
Judoka wrote:
Asking laypersons to be a part of the panel just usually results in them falling in line behind the experts.
To which “laypersons” do you refer? Your logic is flawed anyway, even if there were “laypersons" and those hypothetical "laypersons" fell in line “behind the experts”, there would have been fewer abstentions, wouldn’t there?
Judoka wrote:
- Convicting someone for an activity that didn't take place in their tournament seems to be grasping for straws. If this was the case it would have been much easier to determine guilt by using version that was used that had clear cases of copying from Crafty that participated in events?
The panel did not present a clear guideline and criteria to follow to prove guilt or innocence."The Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC) is a method of identifying substantial similarity for the purposes of applying copyright law." This IS the method to use to add steps makes the process questionable.The AFC process was only 1 step? What were the other steps used?
While evidence is very critical so is the manner in which it is examined. There have been people who have been tried and convicted by juries that were 100% sure of their decision based on the evidence presented only to be later proved innocent by additional evidence. The DNA in this case is the original code but after 5 years of accusations drama I dont blame Vas for basically giving the group the silent treatment when they asked him for it.
More nonsense. This was not a jury trying a legal case, a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict was not required. This was simply an internal affair; a panel deciding on whether someone had broken the rules of a private club. The composition of the panel and the way in which they reached a decision was therefore a private matter. There is no obligation for a member of a private club to be present at a disciplinary hearing and there is not even an obligation on those who are conducting the hearing to invite him.
Judoka wrote:
The program examined was NOT the same version that competed in the ICGA championships.
The version of Rybka 1 was effectively the same and the version of Rybka 2 was exactly the same. Rybka 2.3.2a featured in the tournament and Rybka 2.3.2a was the version examined.
In the post below, Cimiotti admits that a version of Rybka that was inspected by the ICGA played in the WCCC:
By Lukas Cimiotti (*****) [de] Date 2007-08-19 19:36
Rybka - 2.3.2a MP x64 gets a reasonable boost from going from 4 to 8 cores. Rybka is continously beeing improoved, so the version that will (hopefully) be playing in Mexico isn't ready yet - it won't be publicly available, but i think, multiprocessor efficiency will not be improoved until then. Btw. WCCC in Amsterdam was run the first day using Rybka 2.3.2 (with TBs and hash size hardcoded - no other modification), from the second day it was 2.3.2a - the version that was released later to the public.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ;hl=wccc
If you did some basic research before shooting off your mouth, you wouldn’t look quite so stupid.