FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[hyatt]

What motive do _I_ have? You have never scored a single point with me. I could have listed several reasons why I personally thought you should not be on the panel, but I didn't. Very first thing that comes to mind is a lack of character. You have tried multiple times to rewrite history. In the rolf case I pointed out I had the emails at the time. You immediately started the "you do NOT have my permission to post any of my private emails..." Because you KNEW you had been had at that point.

[Rebel]

It was noticed Ed was copying stuff from the Wiki and pasting on a forum. When we noticed we kicked Ed out of the wiki and the posts stopped. Ed, as you claim to be an honourable man, you can deny this if you want and I will accept your denial?

What denial?

Yesterday I posted I (at the time) started a thread on Rybka forum called Wiki leaks.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=24065

Read my crime.

In my view the CC community has a right to know certain things, such as what the risks are participating in an ICGA tournament where the silver and bronze medalist are given the right to judge the gold medal winner. As such I was happy to serve as a whistleblower and your ban actually was a compliment.

[Harvey Williamson]

It was noticed Ed was copying stuff from the Wiki and pasting on a forum. When we noticed we kicked Ed out of the wiki and the posts stopped. Ed, as you claim to be an honourable man, you can deny this if you want and I will accept your denial?

What denial?

Yesterday I posted I (at the time) started a thread on Rybka forum called Wiki leaks.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=24065

Read my crime.

In my view the CC community has a right to know certain things, such as what the risks are participating in an ICGA tournament where the silver and bronze medalist are given the right to judge the gold medal winner. As such I was happy to serve as a whistleblower and your ban actually was a compliment.

Thanks for confirming you were the leak.

[BB+]

In my view the CC community has a right to know certain things...

In my view, private means private. In your view, it seems "private" means whatever is convenient . I am not quite sure from where you have invented this "right to know", nor even exactly what "the CC community" is. In any case, this and the related incidents have made your untrustworthiness quite clear.

[Harvey Williamson]

Apologies here, and I'm timed out to be able to edit. I used the expression "dungbeetle" a Rybka Forum term, for Harvey, forgetting this is open-chess, and I shoudl have used his proper name. Apologies to the forum.

Apology accepted However I have got used to you calling me that as a term of endearment.

[Rebel]

In my view the CC community has a right to know certain things...

In my view, private means private. In your view, it seems "private" means whatever is convenient . I am not quite sure from where you have invented this "right to know", nor even exactly what "the CC community" is. In any case, this and the related incidents have made your untrustworthiness quite clear.

Then you must dislike Julian Assange & Edward Snowden, heck even the ICGA for posting the private emails between David and Vas on the icga-wiki including Vas's Phone-number, without removing the email addresses.

[Rebel]

If a person decides to have his words in the open he can freely do that. And that is what I asked to each one of you.

This is thoroughly illogical. If a person decides to have his words in the open he can freely publish them. He does not need you to be the conduit for this. You also asked the Panel as a group, rather than "each one" separately -- it does not take a genius to figure out the coercive group pressure could well play a role with the former methodology.

What an utter nonsense. Apparently that's what you want to read.

You are not reasonable any longer.

Why you label that as blackmail escapes me.

Don Dailey called it blackmail (he was smart enough to remove you from the Group reply I think), and Peter Skinner concurred. I don't find the term excessive. I reiterate, a decent person does not try to change privacy rules after the fact. A decent person does not put a group into such a predicament as you did with your "Hey I want to publish everybody's comments... do you all agree?" email. A decent person does not belittle one of the group's leaders when he tries to protect the agreed-to privacy rules.

That's not true Mark and way below your usual standard. I didn't harangue the Panel members, this is what I said -

What you give was indeed your one of your emails. But why don't you publish all your emails to the Panel members from that time? Including the one directed at MarkL regarding his request that you delete the Panel material from your hard drive.

Schröder was told by MarkL that the Panel discussions were private and he should delete the material from his hard drive, to which Schröder replied that such things were for babies.

[irrelevant links to Rybka forum posts]

Refer to your email to MarkL from that discussion. Your Rybka forum post is not relevant.

Are you sure you are quoting Amir correctly? What I labeled as red.

As I indicated, the exact words were not recorded. I am definitely sure that AmirB considered the Rybka case to be "obvious" (maybe the word was "clear"), and also that he later questioned whether "a bitboard rewrite of Fruit" (again I don't recall my exact phrasing) would be "legal" (this word was definitely used, and SMK disputed its context as noted).

[syzygy]

I might point out that Amir Ban interrupted me on this, and he and SMK had an extended side discussion about whether (or to what extent) doing a bitboard rewrite of Fruit would be "legal", both from the "Nintendo" (copyright) standpoint and also concerning ICGA's Rule #2 on originality.

Did they come to a conclusion on those two points?

It went back and forth (and I think someone else joined in) for a couple of minutes (recall, the presentation was ex tempore, at the end of the round, and we had to leave the building soon too). My recollection is the following (all quotations are approximations). After I described LOOP briefly, and at some point [perhaps near a conclusion] labelled it with some phrase such as "essentially a bitboard rewrite of Fruit", Amir Ban interrupted me and said: But that would be legal, to which SMK intervened: "Legal", in what sense? Certainly not for our rules. AmirB then continued saying: Well, you can definitely take ideas from another engine, and SMK said: Yes, but what's happening here is much beyond that. Maybe it was Johannes Zwanzger (or Harvey, as the HIARCS operator) who chimed in: Surely you can't just rewrite Stockfish and call it your own, which then caused some discussion and nuance (from myself and others) to be added about what "rewrite" and "call it your own" should mean, and after some cross-chatter I think I rephrased the statement as (the unanimously agreeable): Surely you can't just re-implement Stockfish and enter it into an ICGA event. But as I say, time was short, and to my mind the debate never really handled anything but the extremes, and gave little if any guidance toward the middle. At the end of this, I think AmirB returned briefly to his statement about "legality" (which I took to mean copyright), and I don't recall anyone disputing with him at that juncture, though I think I said: It could depend upon how the rewrite was undertaken --- and in the same breath: OK, let's move on to Thinker (as to my mind, no one else in the room still seemed interested in what AmirB was raising).

Right before my short presentation (when the last people were still sitting down), AmirB had noted how "obvious" (post-disassembly) the Rybka case was, and wanted to know what could be done to stop the "smarter" guys who might be more careful to hide their non-originality. I'm not sure he was too happy with the end result of the discussion. Though as above, he was later quite adamant that ideas were of course non-exclusive. My recollection as to the audience were the 6 participants in the WCCC, namely: SMK, AmirB, JonnyZ, Harvey, Gyula Horvath, and Balasz Jako (the Merlin author); also Levy, Jaap, and a few other interested persons like Jan Krabbenbos (who might have made a comment or two at some points), and maybe Johan de Koning (definitely not HGM, who undoubtedly had better things to do). Some people might have departed before I finished, upon realising the subject matter was not the most interesting. I chatted some more with various people (including AmirB if my recollection is correct) at a short dinner at the restaurant at the metro station, and some of us rode back together on the metro to our hotels.

Thanks for the extensive recount. Interesting.

[Rebel]

It was noticed Ed was copying stuff from the Wiki and pasting on a forum. When we noticed we kicked Ed out of the wiki and the posts stopped. Ed, as you claim to be an honourable man, you can deny this if you want and I will accept your denial?

What denial?

Yesterday I posted I (at the time) started a thread on Rybka forum called Wiki leaks.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=24065

Read my crime.

In my view the CC community has a right to know certain things, such as what the risks are participating in an ICGA tournament where the silver and bronze medalist are given the right to judge the gold medal winner. As such I was happy to serve as a whistleblower and your ban actually was a compliment.

Thanks for confirming you were the leak.

"THE" leak?

Are you implying I am the leak for the whole Panel discussions?

Like Hyatt on RF forum ?? - Ed/Chris violated the Wiki acceptable use agreement and posted the complete contents of the Wiki.

This is what I leaked at Talkchess Engine Origins -

Code: Select all

 Junior    - Amir did not participated in the Panel forum discussions - abstained from voting 
 Komodo    - Don did not participated in the Panel forum discussions - voted guilty 
 Shredder  - SMK did not participated in the Panel forum discussions - voted guilty 
 Hiarcs    - Mark did not participated in the Panel forum discussions - voted guilty 
 Critter   - Richard did not participated in the Panel forum discussions - abstained from voting 
 Rondo     - Zach actively participated in the Panel forum discussions - voted guilty 
 Stockfish - None of the SF team participated in the Panel forum discussions - abstained from voting 

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... ab55750f76

Are you joining the above Hyatt statement?

[Chris Whittington]

It was noticed Ed was copying stuff from the Wiki and pasting on a forum. When we noticed we kicked Ed out of the wiki and the posts stopped. Ed, as you claim to be an honourable man, you can deny this if you want and I will accept your denial?

What denial?

Yesterday I posted I (at the time) started a thread on Rybka forum called Wiki leaks.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=24065

Read my crime.

In my view the CC community has a right to know certain things, such as what the risks are participating in an ICGA tournament where the silver and bronze medalist are given the right to judge the gold medal winner. As such I was happy to serve as a whistleblower and your ban actually was a compliment.

Thanks for confirming you were the leak.

He hasn't confirmed that at all.

Look, my opinion, and I don't actually know of course, is that it was NOT Ed who put the discussions into the sky, nor who sent the anonymous PM. Clearly I have my own list of possible "suspects" and Ed is by no means at the head of it. If you know Ed, the person, I think you'ld also know that he would say it was him, if it was him. After all, there's nothing wrong and everything right about this disclosure. Public interest trumps secrecy everytime, especially when the process itself has been called into question by an independent third party, and a terrible bias permeated the entire thing. It is right to disclose it.