My two cents on Rybka's disqualification

[Dann Corbit]

I think it is very likely that Vas has done something wrong. My big problem is with the process.

1. Vas was singled out. Where is the reverse engineering of Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior, etc.? Why has Vas been singled out for this scrutiny and the other commercial vendors have not?
2. The process to find similarity is someone's recent invention. Has it been tested on other similar systems (meaning a test of similarity between TSCP and Brutus is absurd, a test between Junior and Shredder and other high end programs that are binary only against high-end open source programs makes sense)
If the experiment is run without any controls, then what have we really shown?
To my way of thinking, it would also be a good idea to perform the following exercise:
A. Take a strong open source program and copy it.
B. Make a bunch of changes and form a binary.
C. Study the program and use the algorithms in a new program.
D. Compare the results of the tool for case B and C
I doubt if anybody wants to put the work in to do this, but it seems a good way to model the problem and test the results of analysis.
3. The prosecution was formed by asking "Hey, anybody who wants to throw stones at Vas, gather over here in the barn."
Imagine if a jury were formed in that manner.
4. Look into your own source code at the following:
A. PVS search
B. Null move reductions
C. LMR reductions
Now, do these look a whole lot like those found in some other programs? If so, why are you not prosecuting yourself? If it is OK, then where is the line to draw in the sand that says "This amount of similarity is OK, but this amount is cheating"?

[zamar]

No argument with you man but I'm so sick and tired of those Rybka fanboys who try to justify Rajlich's act. He cheated! Period! He stole somebody else's code and made money with it! It's not fair! He was only interested in money and nothing else. He knew that he stole the code that's why he denied testing. I don't understand why he is defended by the same people who he betrayed in first place. He made a good engine but to which expense. He didn't acknowledged that he used somebody's code and had the nerve to claim that he made the engine all by himself. More over, he accused Robbolito author for stealing Rybka's code. I mean "Hello". He did that because he felt threatened. Free and open source engines will take over and his monopoly with Rybka will be over. He wasn't interested in advancing computer chess. He is just a greedy bastard who saw an opportunity to make money! He made a name for himself in computer chess, won prizes and made a ton of money. But somebody else did the hard work. His attentions are not pure. He should 've acknowledged other peoples work and give that engine for free and not charge for it, because it's not his work. I mean Rajlich is just unscrupulous and greedy. And he should pay the price.

I agree with much that you say, still even bastards need to be treated correctly and legally.

[garybelton]

In this case, Joona is simply right.

Oh and.

If you want crafty to win anything again you need to pla·gia·rize some of the ideas from Ippolit (Rybka 3, not Fruit anything). Other chess engine authors know this well. Or, you could use your reverse engineering skills to decipher Rybka 4.1 and use those ideas instead. The big cluster fast testing of eval terms that you use a lot, where did you get that idea from, btw?

Lastly, do you have any knowledge of who the people behind the pseudonyms of Head Comrade Yacov and Roberto Pescatore are?

Thank you.

[Harvey Williamson]

I think it is very likely that Vas has done something wrong. My big problem is with the process.

1. Vas was singled out. Where is the reverse engineering of Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior, etc.? Why has Vas been singled out for this scrutiny and the other commercial vendors have not?
2. The process to find similarity is someone's recent invention. Has it been tested on other similar systems (meaning a test of similarity between TSCP and Brutus is absurd, a test between Junior and Shredder and other high end programs that are binary only against high-end open source programs makes sense)
If the experiment is run without any controls, then what have we really shown?
To my way of thinking, it would also be a good idea to perform the following exercise:
A. Take a strong open source program and copy it.
B. Make a bunch of changes and form a binary.
C. Study the program and use the algorithms in a new program.
D. Compare the results of the tool for case B and C
I doubt if anybody wants to put the work in to do this, but it seems a good way to model the problem and test the results of analysis.
3. The prosecution was formed by asking "Hey, anybody who wants to throw stones at Vas, gather over here in the barn."
Imagine if a jury were formed in that manner.
4. Look into your own source code at the following:
A. PVS search
B. Null move reductions
C. LMR reductions
Now, do these look a whole lot like those found in some other programs? If so, why are you not prosecuting yourself? If it is OK, then where is the line to draw in the sand that says "This amount of similarity is OK, but this amount is cheating"?

The panel was open to all that had an interest prosecution and defence. Why team rybka stayed away is a question for them. vas was invited many times to take part, he refused. i am sure if you had applied to join you would have been accepted.

Fabien came back to this board as a result of his posts other programmers and him sent a letter to the ICGA asking them to investigate.

if there is evidence against other programs then make a case and I am sure they will be investigated.

[Rein Halbersma]

The ICGA rules specify participants have to submit source code on request. Not complying is in itself reason for a ban, even if the source code would be clean as a whistle, and I think the rules also make that clear.

Does anyone know how many authors have been requested to submit their source code during past ICGA events? Why not enforce this for everyone by default?

E.g. let everyone submit their entire source code + build scripts and let the ICGA or someone notarized by the ICGA (e.g. Ablett / Corbit) build the binaries, signed with some unique crypto-signature. During the tournament the players could be forced to use a special GUI that checks whether the binary indeed contains the special signature (i.e. was really built form the submitted sources).

This seems to guarantee both the privacy of closed source entries and still gives the ICGA the possibility to verify the originality of the source code.

[bob]

He was repeatedly asked to join the Wiki discussion.

Now you are speaking like committee was a neutral party and Vas was friendly asked to just asked to join the committee.

If the committee was neutral why then in the final report there is nothing which speaks for him, but it's is easy to find sarcastic remarks.

If the committee was acting a prosecutor, what was the point to ask the defendant to help prosecutor.

The committee was playing both sides, and that was really unfair.

Vas was given 30 days, _after_ the report was finished, to respond to any/all points raised. He did nothing. That is somehow "unfair"?

The "panel" was very much like an open court, where all sides meet in a single room. One person presents evidence, the other side then attacks the evidence, or the credibility of the witness, or whatever. And this back-and-forth continues until both sides are satisfied they have "made their points". Then on to the next witness or piece of evidence, and this repeats. It is as fair as it can be. If a defendant clams up and refuses to make any statements, that does not make the proceeding unfair. It marks the defendant as not very smart.

[bob]

That is all very nice in theory, but what if I refuse to defend myself (just repeating my not-guilty plea as a mantra). Should I then walk free with murder, because it makes it impossible to give me a 'fair trial'?

That's not what I said! If the panel is strongly biased against you, what are your chances for successful defense? My guess is that among the five most active panelist there were at least one, maybe even 2-3 persons who were willing to spend a lot of time and effort to prove Vasik guilty and none who were willing to spend a lot of time and effort to prove Vasik innocent.

As I understand it Vas has gotten every opportunity to defend himself, by submitting source code and clarify the issues raised by the committee based on that. He passed the opportunity...

If "the committee" had been considered some kind of prosecutor that had been alright. But to appoint a committee to gather neutral information for judgement, but the committee acting "de facto" prosecutor, that really really sucks.

You do realize that when you are accused of committing a crime, you have a responsibility to defend yourself? No one does it for you. After all, it is your future hanging in the balance. If a defendant refuses to offer any evidence, it does make the proceeding unbalanced and biased against him. But that is his choice, and the repercussions are also his.

[Rein Halbersma]

He was repeatedly asked to join the Wiki discussion.

Now you are speaking like committee was a neutral party and Vas was friendly asked to just asked to join the committee.

If the committee was neutral why then in the final report there is nothing which speaks for him, but it's is easy to find sarcastic remarks.

If the committee was acting a prosecutor, what was the point to ask the defendant to help prosecutor.

The committee was playing both sides, and that was really unfair.

Vas was given 30 days, _after_ the report was finished, to respond to any/all points raised. He did nothing. That is somehow "unfair"?

The "panel" was very much like an open court, where all sides meet in a single room. One person presents evidence, the other side then attacks the evidence, or the credibility of the witness, or whatever. And this back-and-forth continues until both sides are satisfied they have "made their points". Then on to the next witness or piece of evidence, and this repeats. It is as fair as it can be. If a defendant clams up and refuses to make any statements, that does not make the proceeding unfair. It marks the defendant as not very smart.

Normally a defendant either has his own lawyer, or gets one appointed by the court to ensure a fair trial. Why didn't the ICGA appoint one or more panel members to this role?

Edit: even Milosevic got a court-appointed lawyer when he didn't recognize the jurisdiction of the Hague tribunal.

[bob]

In this case, Joona is simply right.

Oh and.

If you want crafty to win anything again you need to pla·gia·rize some of the ideas from Ippolit (Rybka 3, not Fruit anything). Other chess engine authors know this well. Or, you could use your reverse engineering skills to decipher Rybka 4.1 and use those ideas instead. The big cluster fast testing of eval terms that you use a lot, where did you get that idea from, btw?

I was doing cluster testing before _anybody_ else was doing it. Does that answer your question???

As far as plagiarizing goes, if that is the only way to make progress, I won't be making any. But something tells me that is not the only way to advance... It is just "the easy way" which is why we reached the point we are at with Rybka. "easy way".

Lastly, do you have any knowledge of who the people behind the pseudonyms of Head Comrade Yacov and Roberto Pescatore are?

Thank you.

Not a clue, and don't care, since that program and its derivatives are not an issue for me since they won't be allowed into any tournaments I will play in...

[zamar]

The "panel" was very much like an open court, where all sides meet in a single room. One person presents evidence, the other side then attacks the evidence, or the credibility of the witness, or whatever. And this back-and-forth continues until both sides are satisfied they have "made their points". Then on to the next witness or piece of evidence, and this repeats. It is as fair as it can be. If a defendant clams up and refuses to make any statements, that does not make the proceeding unfair. It marks the defendant as not very smart.

There are 20 silent persons in the room and 10 persons furiously prosecuting you. After discussion, these 30 people will produce a report for final judgement. What's the point of even entering the room? For everything you say, there will be many persons trying to prove it wrong and very few (if any) trying to prove it right. Really "open wild-east court".