Frayer's opinion expressed at the Rybka forum....

[gerold]

Is the Cult of Vas Crumbling

Cult? What cult? The guy is a programmer, albeit a brilliant one, and wrote the best chess engine there is. I use it because it is the best. Period. Not because of any cult. If Fritz were to come out with some superduper engine that clobbered everything around, it would become my main engine.

To the gentleman that has said I am advocating the theft of Vasik Rajlich property, I would remind him that much has be written on this very forum in regards to how much Vas plagiarized the work of programmers that came before him.

Yes, contrary to many who enjoy writing and writing and writing, I asked the highest Fruit authority in these forums (barring Fabien), and he has looked at the evidence closely and said the accusations were pure crap. So, when you consider he is an eminently qualified programmer, is the only one authorized to release builds of Fruit, and has analyzed in detail the evidence, and concluded the accusations were unfounded, I am inclined to believe him over the endless posts in these forums.

Sorry, but that is pure garbage. You don't need to be the author of program X to be qualified to determine if someone copied pieces of X, any more than you need to be the author of a book to be qualified to determine if someone copied parts of it.

That argument won't cut it in a technical discussion with people who know what they are doing.

So you are claiming that when discussing the merits of whether or not Rybka is in fact a much plagiarized clone of Fruit, he and Fabien don't know what they are talking about? Astonishing.

If they are saying they see no fruit code in strelka, or if they have disassembled Rybka 1 and see no fruit code there, then _that_ would be astonishing. Fabien has not said there is no Fruit in Rybka. He has said he doesn't care.

The discussion is not about Strelka. I have no idea why you brought it up.

Please follow the discussion. This problem came to light because of the following actions:

(1) strelka reverse-engineered from Rybka according to author of Strelka.

(2) Vas concurs and initially claims Strelka as his own code. He later discovers that there was code added by the author of Strelka, which makes it impossible to claim "in toto" so he backs off of that claim, although still stating that most of Strelka is reverse-engineered from Rybka.

[that gives a direct tie between Rybka -> Strelka -> Rybka]

(3) someone (not sure who) initially noticed that there were marked similarities between Strelka and Fruit. Further analysis by several confirmed this.

[that gives a direct tie between Fruit -> strelka -> Rybka]

So Strelka has been in this discussion from the get-go, even though some would like to pretend it has not. Later direct analysis (via disassembly of Rybka) showed that Strelka and Fruit do have similarities with Rybka 1. This was done when the howl of protests started that we could not be sure that Strelka really looked like Rybka.

[that gives a direct tie between fruit -> Rybka]

That's where things stand on that front. If Ryan says he sees no similarities, he is simply not looking at the same things we have looked at. Fabien simply said "I do not care, this code is not handled by FSF because of the GPL."

In the beginning Fabien did not cheer to much about his
engine being used the
way Vas used it. Later he just
gave up and continued work on another project.

Best.

Gerold.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Is the Cult of Vas Crumbling

Cult? What cult? The guy is a programmer, albeit a brilliant one, and wrote the best chess engine there is. I use it because it is the best. Period. Not because of any cult. If Fritz were to come out with some superduper engine that clobbered everything around, it would become my main engine.

To the gentleman that has said I am advocating the theft of Vasik Rajlich property, I would remind him that much has be written on this very forum in regards to how much Vas plagiarized the work of programmers that came before him.

Yes, contrary to many who enjoy writing and writing and writing, I asked the highest Fruit authority in these forums (barring Fabien), and he has looked at the evidence closely and said the accusations were pure crap. So, when you consider he is an eminently qualified programmer, is the only one authorized to release builds of Fruit, and has analyzed in detail the evidence, and concluded the accusations were unfounded, I am inclined to believe him over the endless posts in these forums.

Sorry, but that is pure garbage. You don't need to be the author of program X to be qualified to determine if someone copied pieces of X, any more than you need to be the author of a book to be qualified to determine if someone copied parts of it.

That argument won't cut it in a technical discussion with people who know what they are doing.

So you are claiming that when discussing the merits of whether or not Rybka is in fact a much plagiarized clone of Fruit, he and Fabien don't know what they are talking about? Astonishing.

If they are saying they see no fruit code in strelka, or if they have disassembled Rybka 1 and see no fruit code there, then _that_ would be astonishing. Fabien has not said there is no Fruit in Rybka. He has said he doesn't care.

The discussion is not about Strelka. I have no idea why you brought it up.

Please follow the discussion. This problem came to light because of the following actions:

(1) strelka reverse-engineered from Rybka according to author of Strelka.

(2) Vas concurs and initially claims Strelka as his own code. He later discovers that there was code added by the author of Strelka, which makes it impossible to claim "in toto" so he backs off of that claim, although still stating that most of Strelka is reverse-engineered from Rybka.

[that gives a direct tie between Rybka -> Strelka -> Rybka]

(3) someone (not sure who) initially noticed that there were marked similarities between Strelka and Fruit. Further analysis by several confirmed this.

[that gives a direct tie between Fruit -> strelka -> Rybka]

So Strelka has been in this discussion from the get-go, even though some would like to pretend it has not. Later direct analysis (via disassembly of Rybka) showed that Strelka and Fruit do have similarities with Rybka 1. This was done when the howl of protests started that we could not be sure that Strelka really looked like Rybka.

[that gives a direct tie between fruit -> Rybka]

That's where things stand on that front. If Ryan says he sees no similarities, he is simply not looking at the same things we have looked at. Fabien simply said "I do not care, this code is not handled by FSF because of the GPL."

In the beginning Fabien did not cheer to much about his
engine being used the
way Vas used it. Later he just
gave up and continued work on another project.

Best.

Gerold.

You mean Chess64....it had never seen the light and I doubt if it will ever do....I was expecting eagerly a strong return from Fabien,but....
Dr.D

[bob]

The game has barely started, it isn't over. Everyone thought it was over in 1980 with the advent of the new Belle. Everyone thought it was over when deep thought became the first GM-level computer chess program. The game is alive and well. Whether Rybka will remain a major player or eventually fade away is far from resolved. Time will tell. But one thing is for certain, like it or not, someone is going to keep bringing this topic up, over and over, until it is resolved.

This is so at least we can hope. But I was talking about the little one whose reverse thing of the commercial engines is over. Of course he could also become Vince in 20 years.

We have now a last chapter which is so outlandish for you that I must hesitate if I begin this. Because it wont impress you.

Bob, who has ever concluded that you are a bad guy? You are not bad. You are one of these typical Americans, a bit rough but sympathetic. Not to speak of your experience in the field.

Now where could be a problem? Easy one. In your overall methodology. See IBM vs Kasparov where I said that your friends have clearly violated the codex in science for the treating of clients and above that how to guarantee that your research object cant run over all the factors you think having under control. But let's skip this. Please just dont comment on that we would only repeat ourselves.

Here now with Vas the same procedure as every year.

If you have a general policy against clones, how then can you cooperate with the cloners and this way estimate the clones? How can you justify such a behavior?

Let me give an example. In the USA this expert who had a life sentence. The g4 player. IMO you cant let him have this fame when he's a murderer. We have kids who play chess as well and they want to play g4 and they then must learn that also a murderer has his good sides? What?

I agree that cloners are no murderers. But when I called them chess cyber terrorists I meant it. Out of the hidence you can corrupt any otherwise sober social system. And you dont care?

How about the rule, all with a chess program, also amateurs must reveil their names otherwise no go, no testing. Why is that not already done?

I can't control, nor do I want to control, all the private testing that goes on. If someone tries to enter an ICGA or ACCA event, we do our best to prevent such entrants from making it past the initial screening. However, based on current knowledge, we probably should have excluded Rybka 1 from our CCT events based on this concept. It clearly has parts of Fruit in it. But the author wasn't unknown and had been somewhat active for a year or so previously. But we try.

However, there is no way to create a mandate that nobody test a program until the author and code is vetted. There's no one to do the vetting, and there is no authority to attempt to enforce such a mandate. In light of there being no way to enforce this, there's no reason to try to suggest it.

Or the case Norm. How can you tolerate that a guy repeats his actions? How can he be mentioned in a decent manner at all? Dont you see that such a guy is poisoning the community?

Not IMHO. I would be hesitant to allow something he writes to enter without careful analysis, but the person is different from the deed. Vas clearly copied parts of fruit. Doesn't necessarily make him a bad guy. Perhaps somewhat misguided at worst. You seem to want a death sentence (of an abstract type) after one bad act. That would exclude both Norm _and_ Vas. Which doesn't seem reasonable.

All the cheating that has been reveiled. Why is it that it's always treated as if it were peanuts. I mean Harvey has deeply cheated his opponent, no? But he has still a standing, also as operator? How can this be?

Not sure what you mean there.

These are cases where from the internal standards someone has violated known rules. It soesnt interest?

Again. You have a Wch programmer and you tolerate that certain hidden jerks send him email with announcing what they will do next? And you comment here in all depth how well the programs might play?

I neither can, nor want to try to control anyone's freedom to send email. That's something well beyond my pay grade or interest. It took us about 6+ months to improve Crafty by about 100 Elo this last go round. Doing more testing than most can comprehend (about a million games a day, roughly times 6 months, is a mind-boggling number). So it makes you think "Ok, supposedly robo*/ippo* are reverse-engineered from Rybka. But they are +70 Elo stronger. It probably took 6 months of hard work by more than one person to make that happen." So then you have to wonder exactly what it is. But clearly it is stronger than rybka 3, which means it is stronger than everybody. Either these guys are geniuses, since apparently Vas has delayed R4 to try to catch up with or pass robo*. Yet they have had much less time to work on their changes than he has had. Or else this is something new that has been cooked up quietly for a few years. It's impossible to say at the moment, without a lot of effort to comapre it to Rybka 3. And that's not something I'm interested in doing, with the various ideas we have for Crafty changes.

Christophe Theron denied Vas any moral respect (without any proof) and you still see in him a buddy?

As I said, I don't consider anybody an enemy or someone that I 'hate'... So why wouldn't I consider him a "buddy" (It is not easy to call him a friend since we have never met, and our only conversations have been those we had here on CCC over the years. But "friend" is _far_ closer to the truth than "enemy" given those choices.

Where are the standards in computerchess? You repeatedly described how bad it was when you were unfairly accused of cheating and that you didnt rest to prove your innocence? Yes, you had no professional business running. You could even rely on support from your hardware factory. But now the double standard with Vas.

What double standard. Berliner made some silly claims. I sent supporting documentation to David Levy, Marsland and Thompson to analyze. We had Cray Research restore the exact executable we used for that game (they did a backup every night and went back to the exact backup date.) Harry sat at a terminal at the ACM event that year and entered positions that Levy wanted to test to see if our output (log file) from the game matched the output from the program as he watched in real-time. It matched perfectly. Berliner said "no program would play this move..." I asked several to test it, and right off the bat, Belle coughed up the same move. As did a couple of other programs of that era. So I _did_ offer up evidence that we didn't do anything odd. And after a lengthy process, Levy and group agreed 100% with that statement.

Compare that to the situation with Vas, and the old "Get Smart" 'Cone of silence' that we are presented with.

Of course he would like to show his evidence. But should here really the victim further be violated in the survey because you ask for hard facts out of his source code? I simply dont understand your thoughts when you attack the victim as if it had to open something. Why? Dont you see that this way everybody could be ripped apart? But would any professional let you do this? Show me at least a little of your code, but why? Are you Vas' judge?

The genie is out of the bottle. If there are obviously similar pieces of code in Rybka, what is wrong with publishing those along with the matching code from Robo*? He's already said Robo* is a clone of R3, and Robo* was released in source form. So providing that simple evidence would not reveal anything that is not already known, so far as I can tell.

I thought that you believed into the innocent until proven guilty principle? So what do you mean if you say I've seen enough - if this has relevance for anything near to a court case? Anbd how will you recompensate Vas if he was right all the time? What are you following? Is there not at least a slight possibility that you make mistakes? Would you like it if then you were scapegoated?

You are mixing two different issues. So how about keeping the context constant. Fruit/Rybka is a closed case. There is fruit code in Rybka 1, and there's not any sense in debating that. The Robo* issue is a different thing.

So which do you want to talk about. The former (fruit/rybka 1) has enough evidence to reach a conclusion with no further discussion. The latter (Robo*) has no data of any kind to suggest it is a clone, other than the word of the author of Rybka (Vas). I personally gave him quite a bit of time to clarify this, and as moderators we even disallowed links to the program. But to date, no further information has been provided, and this can't continue forever.

Bob, you are rightfully making clear what a huge expert you are. You have checked codes for 40 years by now. But does that mean that you are 100% watertight in all your judgements? What if you failed? Unthinkable?

It is unlikely. _extremely_ unlikely.

What science is behind that certainty? Arent we all too human? Arent we all making mistakes? Trial and Error the famous method coming from the USA. Err, did you see that I mentioned error? Impossible for you at least?

Once you have written a few hundred thousand lines of code, looked at who knows how many student programs over 40 years of teaching all sorts of courses from writing compilers on down, you realize that this reverse-engineering stuff is not that complicated, just time-consuming. I feel perfectly qualified to build a picket fence around the state of Texas. But it would take a _long_ time. But the "how" is not an issue, with respect to methodology, it is only an issue with respect to the length of time it would take.

And then finally your psychological take. How can you be so certain about the possible motives of Vas?

I have no idea about his motives, and have not suggested any. That is beyond my skill level for certain.

Guess this: Vas is sober and organises with O. who doesnt exist a vaerson of his thing. That way that you and others must think that something is not kosher. And he puts you with your nose onto characteristic feature of code. But it's made up to confuse. And then you come running and shout Foul this is the proof he has taken code etc pp.

You are overlooking critical data. We have compared fruit to rybka one _ourselves_. So no obfuscation can be produced by this theoretical conspiracy to confuse. Strelka just opened the door. But strelka is no longer an issue in this, just the code shared between Fruit and Rybka.

Is this absolutely unthinkable in a scene with so much suspicion and hatred? Tell me frankly do you categorically deny that such a scenario were impossible to do because you would look through the tricks?

Certainly that could have been done. But that only opened the door and attracted attention. Once efforts focused on disassembling Rybka 1 to see what it was doing, strelka became irrelevant. And it has nothing to do with the current state of things. It was the catalyst that started the ball rolling, but it is no longer a factor at all.

Norte that this is poor theory what I have just made up, but isnt this at least theoretically possible to do in computerchess programming? Please tell me.

I wished we had ethical norms for our scene and that would mean that we deny people to use evil cheats to blackmail decent members. Someone who clones is out. Also if he claims but I did it only to show how XY had done it too. We are not here in the FBI to arrest drugdealers. We cant tolerate anonymity even if it pretends that it reveils horrible crimes in other people in our field because no crime can be so big that such meanness should be tolerated.

Couldnt we agree on all that? Why wasnt this done already long ago?

Exactly how can that be done? Who supplies the money to send people out to investigate every member of CCC to see if they are legitimate people or made up personnas??? What do they gain by providing these funds?

If you would engage yourself in that manner, Bob, I would still like you more because who should have the authority to do this?

Rolf

Authority is one thing. Ability is something else... How to make such an idea come to pass is fraught with issues, money being right at the top. And that is the deal-breaker in this.

Thanks like usual for the time you have invested again with many news for me. To keep this at least readable for the interested please let me condensate a couple of aspects which explain well what is still seperating us on this level of methodology as such.

For obvious reasons, because you are doing trial and error you are swimming in a sea of details. Without ever mentioning more general concepts. Then with the somewhat blindness of a typical positivist you miss what could be done without too much efforts. In a way you drown but although a ship is nearby waiting for you.

Two examples for positivistic blindness

I asked for the names of those who offer new programs. Then you pretend that for a general vetting there is no money or manpower. Excuse me, but I have asked for the names. And if then these names are correct or authentic that will show itself in future events. If then the names were false, that would mean ok, sorry, fraud, therefore bye bye. No need to first build up bureaucratic monsters to investigate the laundry of the new guys.

How do you verify identities over the internet? Even Interpol can't pull this bit of wizardry off without a ton of expenses to make it happen. What if this person was "me" back in 1970? I was completely unknown in the world of computer chess. So was Slate. And Berliner. 1970 was the first computer chess tournament, and excepting perhaps Greenblatt, Kotok, a couple of Russian computer scientists, there were no "names" or known people. So how does one get started?

And now we don't have face-to-face events. Who are you playing against? Is there really a Bob Hyatt, or is that a fictitious character? What about Vas? so this is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

The same with real names, correct ones, on CCC. Since it's the rule if you break it then bye bye. It will show. The principle is important. Then it will all go its way. Someone who just wants to ask about a program, the name is irrelevant, but if someone like e.g. Alexander Schmidt with his agenda, then I would expect that his identity is real. Because of all the implications of justice.

If we find a fake user here, he/she gets removed. But finding them is nearly impossible.

The Principle is decisive

You claim you seperate the man from his deads. Really? How far? If Norm has tried to sell foul programs three times what do you want more? The man becomes foul. That human experience.

Another principle is that you dont install someone who broke the rules as observer or guardian of the rules. That the case with Harvey. That's just not correct. He betrayed in CCT and now moderates (?) on Playchess? Again this is all Human Experience over Centuries and Ages. Of course I'm NOT for Life Sentences. But there are so many good jobs so the breaker must not protect the rules. All principles.

You do realize that the FBI (in the US), Interpol (Europe) actually _hire_ criminals? I know you must have known that. Which makes your whole statement above completely meaningless. Do you know _why_ they hire them and how they choose them? Do a little research. Then come back.

Another principle one should respect is consistant facts. It cannot be that the one who tried to paint Vas for a lack of moral education is the same who took other people's stuff into his own program. That's hypocrisy. Just because you proposed to bring along the Tiger author to the talks with Vas.

Look up the meaning of hypocrisy first. It means to say one thing and do another. I don't think you can accuse Norm of that. He cloned a program and pointed out someone else had cloned a program. That is absolutely _not_ hypocrisy.

Another extremely important principle. If some people or only one (a special case on the internet only) build up a sort of terroristic movement - anonymously of course - to harm the community. Then you cant just take their products and do as if that came from perfecvtly kosher types of guys. No, criminals in a hiding place are not partners for serious communication. Just like in your examinations. Personal presence is duty one, no?

That works both ways. Who is claiming that is what Robo* is about? A single person doesn't cut it.

Logic

Several times I could read of these 70 points the thing should be stronger than Rybka 3. Please Bob. In how many games on what hardware in what tests?

Thousands of games now. On equal hardware. Just as testing is almost always done by the various groups doing this kind of testing. Nobody complains about the way they test _other_ engines, mine included. So there is some flaw in the way that they tested Robo* but not in how they test Crafty or others? Very high level of paranoia there.

And this is all mystery above that the program itself has no mother or father. Other than the famous Backdoorman or the Fisherman's Friend. I can only tell you that I would begin to show little just a bit of interest if they were better with 700 points. That would be interesting.
BTW on what HW?? Read Uri who confirmed that on a quad R3 is undefeated champion of the World.

What did Rybka have to start with? Exactly the same situation??? One must at least be fair in these judgements. You are not even close.

Because I dont understand the debate about strength when the HW, cluster, parallelism is the main topic. My own program is running with normal fuel on my netbook and normally is 120 points stronger than your Crafty! But you would still beat me with your big irons and null moves. I had no fair chance as a human.

Won't begin to try to figure out what you are trying to say there.

Into this chapter also belongs the Berliner incident. Berliner made a mistake that nobody should do in front of a computerchess expert. You just cannot claim that his baby is unable to play such and such move or variations. LOL

Because then he will prove you what it can play. After some tweaks here and some there, we know the story. Suddenly even our little software kiddies coughed up the moves Kasparov had doubted that DB2 could have played.

It would seem you are implying that (a) we modified Cray Blitz so that it would play the moves Berliner complained about. That would be a bit difficult since the folks up at Cray restored the version that they backed up immediately prior to the start of the game against HiTech. If you believe that Ken modified Belle, you really have no clue at all, because Belle could not be modified, it was a pure hardware program. To modify it, required removing chips and replacing them with modified chips, a 6 week task based on other changes he made. I didn't modify Crafty to make it find DB's moves against Kasparov. So the above statement just seems to be the result of random neurons firing, causing you to produce random and incoherent sentences.

What is the background of this logical fallacy. Easy one. In German we have a saying "You will always be more informed if you come back from the Mayor." The key is the shift of perspectives over time. But you could never tweak the saying by "Nobody must go to the Mayor because we could all know it in advance." Because that would be a false logical deduction. The knowledge of the future is decisive, so that all claims that something has already existed in the past cant be proven with evidence out of the future.

Let me conclude, a positivism will always miss certain principles and one if them is logic which is crucial in case of fallaces.

I agree that you miss a ton of logic here, if that is what you are trying to say.

[Rolf]

A couple of peanuts facts corrections:

a) you are mixing up things. if I ask for the names everywhere on the net then it's just that. No need to examine now how one could later identify such potential fakes. We are living in a certain reality, Bob, and that means if later you change your name you have a problem. <no need to discuss this.

b) With such candidates of wrongdoing like Theron, Norm or Harvey you have a problem. But you cant solve it by claiming that you do it like the FBI who even cooperates with criminals, Bob. That pretending wont fly. Remains why you do as if all three by all means must play major roles in computerchess although there are many others and who are sober.

c) Again, we are living in a certain reality, sometimes in more than just a single one. You are in science, others in business. Now please understand that. It is not just a single one who tells something and then you in your rooms must blindly digest that. No, it's easier. Vas said something and someone like ChessBase believed him and banned the clones from their server. Period.

d) Could you specify who these different test groups are who test these clones right now? Are they real or magic? The groups I know dont test your fabulous clone from these fabulous nameless authors who are working with stolen code.

e) Finally our old topic. You say that Cray moves couldnt be manipulateed because they have been hardware. If only that were the problem, why not manipulating the output instead? This is what Kasparov thought in 1997, that DB/IBM had done. You know better than me how such cheats are done or at least possible. Long ago you named me so many possibilities that I was tried to speculate what could be made safe at all in computer technology. Normally your standpoint is that you can never tell and if you tried to find out the next step of cover up is already under construction and so on. Isnt that no longer true? - I hope my English does not insinuate for naive readers that I would accuse you of doing such cheats. We are talking about what could be done by people who wanted to cheat. That was the topic long ago. For the debate now it's important to know that it cant be shown/proven LATER what could have been possible in the past. That's why DB/IBM quickly dismantled their machine so that nobody could have made some tests. But in such a case if we had a crime case such a manoevring would create suspicions. Not so here, where then it was claimed that everybody who dared to ask was diffamated as sore loser. Because suddenly it was declared to be a sports event and not science. - Bob, here now the same.
In Reality version "professionals"/"business" your reality version "science" isnt decisive. And you can lament endlessly that you still had questions, but as in the case with IBM/DB where they dismantled their own evidence and moved on.

Look France in soccer will go to the Finals in South Africa, because a French player had taken the ball with his hand so that the ball later went into the goal. All on video. Ireland the poor losers wont go to the Wch. Which is unfaqir but this is how sports among professionals is working. This isnt a question of science because there isnt anything to research because it's all on videotape. But the decisions are made by their own rules. And in case of your anonymous stuff it was banned by ChessBase a little market leader. PERIOD.

[bob]

A couple of peanuts facts corrections:

a) you are mixing up things. if I ask for the names everywhere on the net then it's just that. No need to examine now how one could later identify such potential fakes. We are living in a certain reality, Bob, and that means if later you change your name you have a problem. <no need to discuss this.

So we can have real names, real net names that match up with real names, fake net games that match up with real names, and fake net names that match up with fake people that do not exist. And we don't worry about anything except for fake net names? As I have said _many_ times, if there are exceptions to a policy, or if a policy can't realistically be enforced, there is no reason to have that policy.

b) With such candidates of wrongdoing like Theron, Norm or Harvey you have a problem. But you cant solve it by claiming that you do it like the FBI who even cooperates with criminals, Bob. That pretending wont fly. Remains why you do as if all three by all means must play major roles in computerchess although there are many others and who are sober.

OK, you made the accusation. What _exactly_ did Theron do? Expose an example of plagiarism? Oh, right. he exposed _one_ example, but didn't go look at all the others, right? What about Harvey? What was his "wrongdoing"? Norm copied a program and claimed it as his own. That was wrong. But it has _nothing_ to do with the current circumstances. So what has he done in this process that is wrong? I see absolutely nothing. As I stated previously, Interpol and the FBI hire people convicted of wrongdoing, because they are ideally suited to ferret out more wrongdoing since they understand the issues.

c) Again, we are living in a certain reality, sometimes in more than just a single one. You are in science, others in business. Now please understand that. It is not just a single one who tells something and then you in your rooms must blindly digest that. No, it's easier. Vas said something and someone like ChessBase believed him and banned the clones from their server. Period.

I believed him too. For a while. But after months, with no evidence, my faith in this is not "blind" and demands something to support the claims. I could care less what ChessBase did. They've hardly been the epitome of ethics.

d) Could you specify who these different test groups are who test these clones right now? Are they real or magic? The groups I know dont test your fabulous clone from these fabulous nameless authors who are working with stolen code.

Do the research yourself. Look in the tournaments and matches forum. The results are there.

e) Finally our old topic. You say that Cray moves couldnt be manipulateed because they have been hardware. If only that were the problem, why not manipulating the output instead?

I said no such thing. I said "Belle" software could not be modified. Because the chess engine was done completely in hardware and it was not easy to modify. As far as manipulating our output, how could we do that when Levy watched as the program ran and produced output that matched the log we had given him previously? He watched this in real-time where there was no opportunity to finagle with the output before anyone sees it.

This is what Kasparov thought in 1997, that DB/IBM had done. You know better than me how such cheats are done or at least possible. Long ago you named me so many possibilities that I was tried to speculate what could be made safe at all in computer technology. Normally your standpoint is that you can never tell and if you tried to find out the next step of cover up is already under construction and so on. Isnt that no longer true? - I hope my English does not insinuate for naive readers that I would accuse you of doing such cheats. We are talking about what could be done by people who wanted to cheat. That was the topic long ago. For the debate now it's important to know that it cant be shown/proven LATER what could have been possible in the past. That's why DB/IBM quickly dismantled their machine so that nobody could have made some tests. But in such a case if we had a crime case such a manoevring would create suspicions. Not so here, where then it was claimed that everybody who dared to ask was diffamated as sore loser. Because suddenly it was declared to be a sports event and not science. - Bob, here now the same.
In Reality version "professionals"/"business" your reality version "science" isnt decisive. And you can lament endlessly that you still had questions, but as in the case with IBM/DB where they dismantled their own evidence and moved on.

I clearly pointed out ways that someone could cheat if they wanted to, assuming that they have an unlimited budget and a large group of accomplices. Cray Research certainly would not be a party to assisting us in cheating, they were looking for _good_ publicity. But I am not sure where this is supposed to be going and there's no point in continuing this angle.

Look France in soccer will go to the Finals in South Africa, because a French player had taken the ball with his hand so that the ball later went into the goal. All on video. Ireland the poor losers wont go to the Wch. Which is unfaqir but this is how sports among professionals is working. This isnt a question of science because there isnt anything to research because it's all on videotape. But the decisions are made by their own rules. And in case of your anonymous stuff it was banned by ChessBase a little market leader. PERIOD.

So? Doesn't make it "right". Just means it "happened". There is a difference.

[Rolf]

Thanks again. The fog is lifted somewhat now.

1) The names, what for

Again, these names dont interest me much, they must not be researchable at all. The idea is that if there are names and then sometimes in future a tournament and they want to participate then they travel or sign in on the net, they pay perhaps some money, then this could be researched or checked. Nothing special. I have no idea why you are suddenly such a pracher for anonymity when you have been you all your life without a problem?

2) Hypocrisy

Theron used himself code from other code into his own code, so how could he possibly accuse Vas of a lack of moral education?

Harvey cheated during your tournament with twiddling on his clock, the one of Hiarcs of course. Now I read he's a sysop on Playchess?? Pardon?

Norm sold his clones. Not only that he made them.

3) You say CB isnt God so to speak with higher ethics, ok, but why dont you sue Vas at the GPL if you are so certain without even asking Ryan? Vas has not yet confessed on his knees in front of you, what do you wait for?

4) Bob, please, let's skip the old Cray. I brought it as example, not becasise I had a single idea that something hat happened under your own name, this is unthinkable for me, and I mean it.
We were talking in general and you as expert, this is what you always told me, knew so many possibilities to cheat and also to prevent and then agasin to counterplay that prevention etc endless loop, that yaou once told me that a true and safe protection were useless because eberything could be done. Also with tech we in public dont even heard of.

My only conclusion was why the DB/IBM people chose Kasparov into such a design, where he must forcedly decompensate in such a situation of crisis after game 2 and why they didnt prevent him from becoming demotivated, because they had tried to win against Kasparov, the real, but not a zombie Kasparov without stamina. You never answered that. For me it was a science duty. But then you took it all as a sports event for the money of this famous Prize.

You also attacked Kasparov for his strange behavior although I tried to explain that he was in a double bind sort of paranoid twist and he didnt react this way because of allegedly a bad character.

But let's come back to Vas. Either sue him or stop this campaign here against him. Please.

But even if he failed with R1 that does not mean that these anonymous stealers of R3 (?) are ok.

[Milos]

Either sue him or stop this campaign here against him. Please.

You can whine as much as you like but it won't help you. I know you are not quite capable in you current state to understand it but I will still make a quote: "Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth."

[bob]

Thanks again. The fog is lifted somewhat now.

1) The names, what for

Again, these names dont interest me much, they must not be researchable at all. The idea is that if there are names and then sometimes in future a tournament and they want to participate then they travel or sign in on the net, they pay perhaps some money, then this could be researched or checked. Nothing special. I have no idea why you are suddenly such a pracher for anonymity when you have been you all your life without a problem?

I am _not_ a supporter of anonymous users. But since there is no way to avoid the problem, it doesn't make much sense worrying about it, wouldn't you say? I think anonymous handles are mostly created to cause problems without dealing with the potential repercussions. Which, to me, makes them something I would like to see completely eradicated. Ditto for anonymous email remailers and such. But it isn't going to happen.

2) Hypocrisy

Theron used himself code from other code into his own code, so how could he possibly accuse Vas of a lack of moral education?

Where is there any evidence to support that accusation? I've not seen any, so there's no basis for the remark

Harvey cheated during your tournament with twiddling on his clock, the one of Hiarcs of course. Now I read he's a sysop on Playchess?? Pardon?

Lots of people have made that mistake. Whether he knew and understood that it was wrong at the time is unknown. It's not a big deal to me unless it is a repeated happening, which it has not been. Something that is wrong might well not be known by everybody. Everybody that runs a computer on ICC against humans (and against other computers) fiddle with the search time on a move-by-move basis at times. The rules of ICC don't say a word about that being wrong. Yet if you do that in an ACCA or CCT event, it is against the rules. So I'm willing to overlook isolated events.

Norm sold his clones. Not only that he made them.

3) You say CB isnt God so to speak with higher ethics, ok, but why dont you sue Vas at the GPL if you are so certain without even asking Ryan? Vas has not yet confessed on his knees in front of you, what do you wait for?

First, there is absolutely no doubt that fruit code is in Rybka 1. No doubt. Second, why would I want to sue him? What do I get in return? Absolutely nothing. I can't even file such a legal action if I wanted to, it would be dismissed because I have no "interest" in the case (I am not the damaged party, the FSF and the author of fruit would have to do that). Why would I want to spend the money to file such a suit? How would it help me? How would the loss of my time and money do anything but hurt me? With no upside? As I have said, that's not my reason for looking at the issue. I was simply curious as to whether this might explain Rybka's sudden rise to the top in the CC world.

4) Bob, please, let's skip the old Cray. I brought it as example, not becasise I had a single idea that something hat happened under your own name, this is unthinkable for me, and I mean it.
We were talking in general and you as expert, this is what you always told me, knew so many possibilities to cheat and also to prevent and then agasin to counterplay that prevention etc endless loop, that yaou once told me that a true and safe protection were useless because eberything could be done. Also with tech we in public dont even heard of.

My only conclusion was why the DB/IBM people chose Kasparov into such a design, where he must forcedly decompensate in such a situation of crisis after game 2 and why they didnt prevent him from becoming demotivated, because they had tried to win against Kasparov, the real, but not a zombie Kasparov without stamina. You never answered that. For me it was a science duty. But then you took it all as a sports event for the money of this famous Prize.

Kasparov resigned game 2 on his own. It was only after that that he collapsed, made the cheating accusations, etc. But he was mentally beaten after game 2. His public accusation only made him look like an idiot.

You also attacked Kasparov for his strange behavior although I tried to explain that he was in a double bind sort of paranoid twist and he didnt react this way because of allegedly a bad character.

But let's come back to Vas. Either sue him or stop this campaign here against him. Please.

I have no campaign of any sort. I've gotten the answer(s) I wanted, and the questions are now put to rest with respect to fruit. Robo* is a completely different issue. We were asked by several to not allow links because Vas had said this program is a clone of his. We respected that claim, but after months of nothing, it is time to resolve this and either have data from him supporting the claim, as I did against Crafty clones, or else let Robo* compete and move on. Something tells me that if Robo* was 70 Elo _weaker_ than R3, this discussion would not even be happening. I wonder why.

But even if he failed with R1 that does not mean that these anonymous stealers of R3 (?) are ok.

I would agree. _IF_ we knew that these "anonymous stealers" actually stole anything. To date, there is nothing but a simple claim by Vas. No evidence of any kind. And the fact that it is stronger than Rybka makes this a bit more difficult to believe. The jury is still out on this one.

[Rolf]

I think we have it now. Thanks so far.

I thought that until the fog isnt lifted you were not starting to sue Vas, but after that you would. Now I understand you. This all isnt about a sort of legally relevant failure but some sort of formal inexactitudiness without any legal consequences after such a long time, correct? If seen earlier you might have taken actions but no longer now, ist that true so far?

Again, actually Vas wont talk but as he confirmed others besides me he will talk after he got some things would become clearer.

Couldnt we just give him that time which seems to lay not in his realm and stop this climate of hate against Rybka?

I ask this for the sake of our own peace, not in any way to protect Vas. He has his own remedy and that is ignoring. But we are going nowhhere with this campaign. Also please consider that most here are younger and they might seek a sort of winner which isnt very likely to get. All IMO.

Ok, I am a total outsider, but from all what I know about peace of mind I would support if we would stop such a scapegoating. It shouldnt be allowed on CCC. BTW didnt Vas react positively for talking with you? Let's see what will happen.

All the best for a nice weekend for you all.

Rolf

[bob]

I think we have it now. Thanks so far.

I thought that until the fog isnt lifted you were not starting to sue Vas, but after that you would. Now I understand you. This all isnt about a sort of legally relevant failure but some sort of formal inexactitudiness without any legal consequences after such a long time, correct? If seen earlier you might have taken actions but no longer now, ist that true so far?

Again, actually Vas wont talk but as he confirmed others besides me he will talk after he got some things would become clearer.

Couldnt we just give him that time which seems to lay not in his realm and stop this climate of hate against Rybka?

I ask this for the sake of our own peace, not in any way to protect Vas. He has his own remedy and that is ignoring. But we are going nowhhere with this campaign. Also please consider that most here are younger and they might seek a sort of winner which isnt very likely to get. All IMO.

Ok, I am a total outsider, but from all what I know about peace of mind I would support if we would stop such a scapegoating. It shouldnt be allowed on CCC. BTW didnt Vas react positively for talking with you? Let's see what will happen.

All the best for a nice weekend for you all.

Rolf

here's my take on this: He has as long as he wants to make some sort of statement, either about fruit code in Rybka 1 or exactly what was copied from his code and included in robo*. But in fairness, I see absolutely no justification to continue to maintain that robo* is any sort of clone. There are several reasons:

(1) it is stronger (significantly stronger, +70 elo is _not_ easy to do in any program, without a ton of time and a ton of testing);

(2) we have seen absolutely no evidence that it is a clone. Just a statement. And I don't see how anyone could consider it fair that this just drags on and one with no evidence offered.

In light of that, the best solution is to treat Robo* like any other program. If it isn't a clone, good. If it is a clone, that will give Vas incentive to speak up before he drops off the top of all the rating lists. Either way, the truth comes out and that's all anyone really wants at the moment.