To campaign or not

[kranium]

i get it now...

info = accusation

i didn't know that

perhaps a judge will explain one day?

this would be a refreshing change, considering it's usually you that acting in that role.

[El Gringo]

Hi Ed,

First of all, welcome back to the forum.

I've been a computer chess entousiast since 1986. it all started with my Mephisto Rebel dedicated machine. A few years later it was heavilly beaten by a program called 'Psion Chess'.

I still remember the rgcc with the Sandro's killer line (bishop's opening i think). very well tested against Hiarcs, rebel and genius.

In 2003 i was operating 'Ruffian' at the dutch championship and the accusations from vincent diepeveen are still in my memory. First it was a fritz clone, then it was shredder.....

Now we have a new 'god' in chess programming. Vas really did a great job to make such a strong program !!!
But i still have some doubts
Some testers had the latest private version of rybka and it was only around 2100 Elo strong, maybe weaker than rebel 6 or 7.
And then (a while after the release off the fruit source code) his new version Rybka 1.0 beta was 650 Elo's stronger. i NEVER saw such a big elo-jump in the 20 years i have been in computer chess. Pure coincidence ???
Vas admitted that he has studied the source code off Fruit.....but what do you understand with study ?

I wasn't planning to write my opinion about all this...but i do it in respect for all the chess programmers like Ed Shroder, Richard Lang, Chistophe Theron, Fabien Letouzey, etc... for their 'original' work and their contribution to computer chess community.

Best
Johan Havegheer

[swami]

But i still have some doubts
Some testers had the latest private version of rybka and it was only around 2100 Elo strong, maybe weaker than rebel 6 or 7.
And then (a while after the release off the fruit source code) his new version Rybka 1.0 beta was 650 Elo's stronger. i NEVER saw such a big elo-jump in the 20 years i have been in computer chess. Pure coincidence ???
Vas admitted that he has studied the source code off Fruit.....but what do you understand with study ?

I can only give non technical opinion because I'm no programmer, I think it is possible for Vas to program and get big Elo jump in less time, so I don't think it is a coincidence, given that Vas is an IM and a MIT Comp sci graduate who sacrificed the job and decided to take up chess programming full time. I reiterate again that I don't want to take sides in the present debate. I just add this point that I think is okayish response to your post.

Best Regards.

[David Dahlem]

Hi Ed,

First of all, welcome back to the forum.

I've been a computer chess entousiast since 1986. it all started with my Mephisto Rebel dedicated machine. A few years later it was heavilly beaten by a program called 'Psion Chess'.

I still remember the rgcc with the Sandro's killer line (bishop's opening i think). very well tested against Hiarcs, rebel and genius.

In 2003 i was operating 'Ruffian' at the dutch championship and the accusations from vincent diepeveen are still in my memory. First it was a fritz clone, then it was shredder.....

Now we have a new 'god' in chess programming. Vas really did a great job to make such a strong program !!!
But i still have some doubts
Some testers had the latest private version of rybka and it was only around 2100 Elo strong, maybe weaker than rebel 6 or 7.
And then (a while after the release off the fruit source code) his new version Rybka 1.0 beta was 650 Elo's stronger. i NEVER saw such a big elo-jump in the 20 years i have been in computer chess. Pure coincidence ???
Vas admitted that he has studied the source code off Fruit.....but what do you understand with study ?

I wasn't planning to write my opinion about all this...but i do it in respect for all the chess programmers like Ed Shroder, Richard Lang, Chistophe Theron, Fabien Letouzey, etc... for their 'original' work and their contribution to computer chess community.

Best
Johan Havegheer

Ok, what could possibly explain the big elo-jump from Rybka 1.0 beta to Rybka 3? Only one explanation comes to mind .... the new 'god', Vas.

Regards
Dave

[bob]

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

You need to reread your quote above. "I posted and then got 95% behind me." Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

One has to start somewhere. Some consider it unfair when the police come to their door questioning them about a crime they are suspected of committing. They consider it unfair when the police go to their friends to verify statements or alibis. etc. But you do have to investigate, and this is a far more private place than putting it in the old r.g.c.c for example.

[Terry McCracken]

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

Ed it appears you're not well informed. There isn't a campaign going on to hurt Vas or his brainchild Rybka.

There is an ongoing investigation into whether Vas has broken the GPL, nothing more.

Evidence has all but been drownded out by blind supporters of Vas thus you can't see what has actually been said and understood by reputable people like Christophe, Bob, Zack et al.

Enrique has made the same mistake, unitentionally imo. He too never read what was most important. At least this is how it appears.

Investigations require time to gather all the evidence and present it in a logical and systematic fashion, something that hasn't been allowed by most of the CCC community.

In cases such as these it's very hard to get the proof you and what we want as it is thwarted at every turn by the ignorant masses. After the thread splits and the high level of stactic, most data has been lost on CCC.

Best,
Terry

[chrisw]

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

You need to reread your quote above. "I posted and then got 95% behind me." Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

One has to start somewhere. Some consider it unfair when the police come to their door questioning them about a crime they are suspected of committing. They consider it unfair when the police go to their friends to verify statements or alibis. etc. But you do have to investigate, and this is a far more private place than putting it in the old r.g.c.c for example.

Oh, police again?!

The police are subject to vigorous selection, training and discipline. And for good reason. They do not employ, for example, criminals who recently committed the same crime that allegedly requires investigation.

They carry out much of their investigative process quietly and at their own offices. They only start breaking down doors as part of their investigation after assembling good evidence and getting a warrant from a judge. They refrain from publicly accusing suspects unless and until they have assembled evidence considered good wnough to win a prosecution.

In short, they go about their business in a professional manner.

Finally, are you right in stating "it was Zach's intent to start a discussion ....". That rather implies he started this off and is responsible for it. Are you quite sure that is how it happened? 20 year old Zach was the prime mover and got this whole game rolling?

[David Dahlem]

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Zach, you are obviously a bright guy and looking at your age you must have a lot of potential. Realize that (chess) programming is something entirely different than politics, the latter being an issue you apparently not master. No real surprise looking at your age!

I suggest you to work on a document that beyond any doubt provides the evidence Rybka contains Fruit code. Else it is better for you to step down and hope that people will forget real fast.

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

You need to reread your quote above. "I posted and then got 95% behind me." Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

One has to start somewhere. Some consider it unfair when the police come to their door questioning them about a crime they are suspected of committing. They consider it unfair when the police go to their friends to verify statements or alibis. etc. But you do have to investigate, and this is a far more private place than putting it in the old r.g.c.c for example.

Actually what Ed really said was "I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me." Quite a different meaning than what you said he said, you seem to have left out the part about "100% proof".

Regards
Dave

[Albert Silver]

Another example from the past, old-timers here will surely remember. In 1995/96 MCHESS-5 was leading the SSDF-list for the wrong reasons. I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC (the precursor of CCC so to say) and got 95% of the experts behind me.

Proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof, proof...............

I hope this all makes some sense to you and wish you all the best.

Ed

You need to reread your quote above. "I posted and then got 95% behind me."

That isn't exactly what he wrote:

"I discovered it and provided the 100% proof in RGCC and got 95% of the experts behind me"

[Albert Silver]

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

I remember that one. Wasn't it Rebel 8? You had been testing some variant of knight maneuvering code, which solved one of the test positions (Nd1-e3-f5 or something) in 1-2 seconds. You had forgotten to leave this out in the final version and along came the onslaught.

I think most accepted your explanation. I know I did. It was a bit "in the face" to be some dastardly plan after all....

Albert