FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[BB+]

Indeed, allowing others to form their own opinion is a sure sign that you are not qualified to rule. The whole idea that people should be allowed to have their own opinions makes me sick. Do you also loath such people?

Though it is more applicable to Mr. Schröder than to Mr. Whiitington, the desired conceptualisation of the task is to first decide (perhaps by a coin flip, psychoanalysis, or even channelling the yellow-suited aliens that supposedly want us to play more chess) that "Vas Is Innocent" (VII) or "Vas Is Guilty" (VIG), whereupon everything thereafter can/must then be seen through the "tunnel-vision" of such a perception. This can be contrasted to the alternative approach as put forth by Adam Hair in 2011 (though perhaps also known to an ancient civilisation or two): The conclusion reached by the reader will be based on how persuasive the evidence is.

[hyatt]

This argument has become beyond schizophrenic. Hardly any of it is focusing on the EVIDENCE (for good reason, of course). It has devolved into focusing on individual people, and things that are either barely ancillary to the actual topic at hand, or else completely unrelated. For example, a judge says "I am against violent crime" so he apparently, according to CW/Ed is now no longer qualified to sit on the bench for any case that has been deemed 'violent'. That is EXACTLY the judge I want in the courtroom, because I want that behavior to stop, not be encouraged.

Using their logic, NO ICGA MEMBER should be involved in this process, since ICGA members voted on those rules repeatedly. Hmmm... that would ALSO exclude Ed/CW since both participated in the past and accepted the rules as written then.

As far as RdM's post goes on RF, what EXACTLY does a defense attorney try to do? Cast doubt. That is the content of "defense attorney 101" in law school. 90% of a defense attorney's time is spent (at trial) in casting doubt on or discrediting evidence, casting doubt on or impugning prosecution witnesses. If the evidence is strong, or witnesses are damning, then there is little choice. But here we see attempts to go far beyond that normal behavior, to the point of casting everyone involved as "pure evil, liars, manipulators, obstructionists, on a vendetta, etc." Obviously a high level of desperation has set in. Meanwhile it appears to most that Vas just doesn't give a damn... based solely on his actions (or lack thereof) not on feelings, opinions and such.

Instead of actually offering evidence supporting some sort of originality in Rybka, we get nonsensical stuff like the Riis article (which you DID dismantle quite nicely, BTW) or the top-500 stuff like Ed's discussion of "interpolated scoring" and saying "semantic equivalence everywhere". If he had only looked up and studied what "semantic equivalence" actually means first, it wouldn't look so incredibly foolish. NOBODY would take 100 lines of code, find one line that is similar and then say "semantic equivalence". The usual idea behind trying to discredit evidence is to do just that, NOT end up discrediting yourself, which is what the top-500 stuff ends up doing flawlessly.

[hyatt]

BTW I am pretty sure that Ronald at LEAST knows the difference between bias directed toward a specific crime, and bias directed toward a specific person. I would hope ALL judges are biased against crime. That's why they were put on the bench in the first place. And that in no way should preclude their serving as judge.

[BB+]

BTW I am pretty sure that Ronald at LEAST knows the difference between bias directed toward a specific crime, and bias directed toward a specific person

I think syzygy's analysis was that "Attack of the Clones" was too Fruit/Rybka-centric, rather than being about clones in general. I am not so sure, and I seem to remember that Levy/ICGA included a (somewhat lengthy) defense of this piece (which in the Complaint was footnoted but only alluded to in passing) in their rebuttal to the EC [under the notion of They made loud and unnecessary public accusations]. To what extent the EC considered Levy's writing is anyone's guess (it does not appear in the history [page 6], where Rivello erroneously gives Feb 19 as the date of the Panel startup, when in fact that was the date of the article, the Panel being the 23rd). I might point out that it seems that the title proper is "Cloning chess engines", while the "Attack of the Clones" moniker appears to have been added by ChessVibes (though presumably with Levy's input).

[Rebel]

That the ICGA breached Vas privacy. By your logic Levy is not decent.

The ICGA published the whole Rajlich/Levy correspondence, of which Levy was part, and as a matter of record in the investigation. When asked, it seems they removed it. You, on the other hand, publish snips and pieces, whatever fits your purpose, sometimes with asking, other times with not.

Wel, well, well, are we now going to deny the hard facts written in stone? Who was it who (initially) put emails of Vas on a major chess site? Perhaps Levy with his notorious "Attack of the Clones" article who set the whole name and shame drama in motion? Who was it who put the whole correspondence on the icga website for everybody to see? By your logic David Levy is not decent.

It's still there BTW [ http://icga.wikispaces.com/file/view/le ... thread.txt ]

And It's modified, at least the ICGA had the decency to take out the email addresses but check it out, it's doctered, for instance this email is left out -

Code: Select all

From: Vasik Rajlich 
Subject: Re: Fruit and Rybka
To: "David Levy" 
Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 11:36 AM

Hi David,

I can also go through all of this stuff with you by telephone, that might be more efficient. 
My home phone number is xx xx xx xx xxxx If you call, please do it on a weekday and before
14:00 CET.

Best regards,

Vas

How convinient........

With friends like the ICGA, who needs enemies?

BTW, if you are interested I can (under NDA) mail you the uncensored document with all the email addresses and Vas' private phone number.

A typical "conversation" with Mr. Schröder goes like this: "I'd like to post your (email) comments on my webpage. Can I do that?" Answer: no. A few weeks later, "Coming back to your comments about X, I'm done with subject and for completeness would like to record your views too. Everyone else has agreed, and I'll edit it as you see fit." Answer: no. A couple of months later: "I still feel that adding your comments to my webpage would help give the full picture blah blah." Answer: no reply to email. Webpage then says: "I contacted X about his comments, but he refused to respond." Some more time passes. Another email, another lack of reply. Webpage changed to: "I have contacted X, and since he no longer seems interested in the subject I have decided to record his comments so that they are not lost to posterity." (Of course, the comments are snipped down and variously highlighted in whatever manner Mr. Schröder prefers).

Very colorful put Nice drama. But seen through your eyes. In my eyes we had an agreement to have a debate about the AFC test (or the lack of it in your and Zach's documents) in email and in principle meant for publication. And if memory served me well (Chris may correct me) you quit after the second round without giving a reason.

[hyatt]

I can give a highly educated guess for the reason. Take, for example, the discussion about semantic equivalence. I explained it carefully. The simplest form is a function is semantically equivalent to another function if both produce the SAME output given the SAME input. A more rigorous definition would be "two functions that produce the same output, using the same exact operations, given the same input."

I went on to take an example from fruit and an example bit of ASM from rybka and showed how they matched up perfectly, the ONLY difference being how specific tests are done. To discover if a pawn is passed in a bit board program, one single AND with the right bit mask will do the trick. For a mailbox program, one has to loop over the squares in the forward direction. To use your AFC idea, one takes those two pieces of code and abstracts away JUST the bit board/mailbox differences and then asks "do these do either (a) exactly the same tests or (b) mostly the exact same tests with just a small part changed or added?"

You took that to a new universe in your top-500 nonsense. You claimed that since Fruit was interpolating evaluation between MG/EG, as were most other programs, there was "semantic equivalence all over the place". NOBODY applies semantic equivalence to one line of code out of 50 or 100. NOBODY.

I would imagine Mark simply became frustrated when every conversation keeps retreating to the same tired old points, and not adding anything new to the discussion. It does get old. A compiler person reading your semantic equivalence everywhere nonsense would simply shake his head and wonder "what is wrong with him?"

BTW _I_ am wondering "what is wrong with him?"

BTW any sort of phone conversation would be HIGHLY ill-advised. Later. "I did NOT say that." "YES you did." Etc. At LEAST email leaves a footprint that can't easily be wiped away. No court would let someone testify by phone for that very reason.

[Chris Whittington]

BTW I am pretty sure that Ronald at LEAST knows the difference between bias directed toward a specific crime, and bias directed toward a specific person

I think syzygy's analysis was that "Attack of the Clones" was too Fruit/Rybka-centric, rather than being about clones in general. I am not so sure, and I seem to remember that Levy/ICGA included a (somewhat lengthy) defense of this piece (which in the Complaint was footnoted but only alluded to in passing) in their rebuttal to the EC [under the notion of They made loud and unnecessary public accusations]. To what extent the EC considered Levy's writing is anyone's guess (it does not appear in the history [page 6], where Rivello erroneously gives Feb 19 as the date of the Panel startup, when in fact that was the date of the article, the Panel being the 23rd). I might point out that it seems that the title proper is "Cloning chess engines", while the "Attack of the Clones" moniker appears to have been added by ChessVibes (though presumably with Levy's input).

A lengthy defence!!? Well, he would, wouldn't he

I looked up the bias disbarrment used in the USA:

"Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.


Note "might reasonably be questioned". Not proven, just questioned. That's a pretty low bar. Which Levy self-decided he passed under, limbo-like. I suggest not. The language is intemperate, almost violent even. It refers mqny times to Rybka and includes elements of Zach material stating clearly that Rybka=Fruit, splattered albeit with the odd caveat. But, as Sally Bercow "innocent face" discovered recently, this strategy can be costly.

[Chris Whittington]

I can give a highly educated guess for the reason. Take, for example, the discussion about semantic equivalence. I explained it carefully. The simplest form is a function is semantically equivalent to another function if both produce the SAME output given the SAME input. A more rigorous definition would be "two functions that produce the same output, using the same exact operations, given the same input."

I went on to take an example from fruit and an example bit of ASM from rybka and showed how they matched up perfectly, the ONLY difference being how specific tests are done. To discover if a pawn is passed in a bit board program, one single AND with the right bit mask will do the trick. For a mailbox program, one has to loop over the squares in the forward direction. To use your AFC idea, one takes those two pieces of code and abstracts away JUST the bit board/mailbox differences and then asks "do these do either (a) exactly the same tests or (b) mostly the exact same tests with just a small part changed or added?"

You took that to a new universe in your top-500 nonsense. You claimed that since Fruit was interpolating evaluation between MG/EG, as were most other programs, there was "semantic equivalence all over the place". NOBODY applies semantic equivalence to one line of code out of 50 or 100. NOBODY.

I would imagine Mark simply became frustrated when every conversation keeps retreating to the same tired old points, and not adding anything new to the discussion. It does get old. A compiler person reading your semantic equivalence everywhere nonsense would simply shake his head and wonder "what is wrong with him?"

BTW _I_ am wondering "what is wrong with him?"

BTW any sort of phone conversation would be HIGHLY ill-advised. Later. "I did NOT say that." "YES you did." Etc. At LEAST email leaves a footprint that can't easily be wiped away. No court would let someone testify by phone for that very reason.

The phone call was obviously for initial discussion purposes, to investigate possible solutions/whatever. It is unlikely Vas was imagining evidence and counter evidence arguing over the phone. Use your head, man.

[Rebel]

Young Zach understood and wasn't afraid to speak out. And it didn't hurt him. In fact I respect him for that.

You can try to contact him to find out his opinion, but I doubt he will respond as he concluded that anything he said would be twisted, decontextualized, and used against him on top-5000.nl:

Typical.

You and Zach had the brutality to hunt Vas on his own forum for years, from 2008 and on.

And when it backfires you start to complain.

You really haven't understood Newton's 3th Law, or shall I say accepted.

Take an example to Bob, he doesn't complain.

[hyatt]

I do complain about the nonsense that does nothing but waste time. We already know the following:

(1) the "damaged" person here is vas. He is the ONLY person with an interest at stake in this case. He is the ONLY person that can undertake any sort of action, whether it be contacting the ICGA, complaining to FIDE or initiating a legal action. No one else can do so except for him.

(2) The only two people keeping this discussion going is You/CW. Maybe 2-3 on RF in addition, but they only erupt when the various keywords "ICGA', "Levy", "Hyatt", "Lefler", "Williamson" and maybe WCCC appear. I don't see the point because you have not made any progress, and can't without Vas' direct assistance, which seems to NOT be forthcoming.

(3) The ICGA is only going to listen to Vas. The FIDE EC asked (not insisted) that they reconsider the life-time ban. I think it quite likely that the ICGA board might consider modifying that to what the panel recommended, namely "not allowed to participate until the current version of Rybka is judged to be original by an agreeable third party."

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result eventually."

This discussion pretty much fits that definition. Nothing will change until Vas acts.