Voir Dire

[Shaun]

What do you think happens, for instance, to cyclist champions that refuse to have themselves tested for doping control? Will the UCI install a panel of investigators, that will go along the road with dogs to sniff out trees where the champion might have relieved himself during the race, to take samples there? (And make sure the dogs employed have never barked to the champion in question?) I don't think so!

But they would not turn up 5 years later and complain that a sample had not been stored in the freezer...

[hgm]

That is a lame excuse for not coming up with any sources at all. (And, as far as I know, not used by Vas towards ICGA.)

[kranium]

But asking for the source 5 years later is not reasonable...
For historical reasons you keep previous versions of Crafty and that is great, however most? certainly a large percentage of people would not keep very old source.

programmers hold on to their source code and revision history...source code being text, it takes up almost 0 disk space.
(rational people usually don't arbitrarily delete something they invested so much time/effort into...)
of course, that being said, Vas has been known to conveniently 'lose' source code on occasion

Also with Rybka you have the version that plays in tournaments and the UCI version - I dont know at what point the versions split however I would suspect they are quite different now.

Are you seriously suggesting that Vas removed all traces of the plagiarized Fruit/Crafty code from a 'special version' to be used in the tournaments?

wow,
now you guys are really grasping at straws!

[AdminX]

One rule: Programmer must provide source code when there is a protest. Vas refused. If you break a rule, what should happen? Should you not be kicked out of that event, or if it is over, have the title stripped away?

This is the key point. A protest has been filed. Based on preliminary evidence, the suspicion did not seem unfounded, and ICGA had no reason to dismiss the case. So they start an investigation. To do that properly, they need source code, and request it. Vas does not comply.

At that point, if I had been ICGA, the limit of my benevolence would have already been exceeded, and I would have declared an immediate ban and revoking of titles. (Not a lifelong one, I am against that as a matter of principle, but certainly until he complied with the request for source code.)

What do you think happens, for instance, to cyclist champions that refuse to have themselves tested for doping control? Will the UCI install a panel of investigators, that will go along the road with dogs to sniff out trees where the champion might have relieved himself during the race, to take samples there? (And make sure the dogs employed have never barked to the champion in question?) I don't think so!

ICGA was lenient, however. They went at out of their way to prove that the suspicion was not unfounded, appointed a committee of expert witnesses to get evidence the hard way without Vas' cooperation. But, if anything, this only enhanced the suspicion, to the point where many already consider it proven. No reason at all to call it off. But still refusal to comply with the rules...

Damn it, If I agree with you on this point too!

[Shaun]

That is a lame excuse for not coming up with any sources at all. (And, as far as I know, not used by Vas against ICGA.)

Vas had already said that he did not have the source to Rybka 3 which I believe. (A while back he wanted to make old Rybka exes available for download and had to ask on the forum if people had copies! Some people keep everything others are more ruthless - Vas I would suggest is in the second camp.)

[hgm]

Well, then he could have shown source code of Rybka 4. Or are you suggesting he lost that too, that no source code of Rybka (other than Ippo and such) exists on this planet at all?

That you no longer have a specific exact version of a program is plausible. That a professional software developer would have nothing at all that is remotely related to a specific version stretches credibility. Most professional programmers use some form of version control as a second nature. (I don't know your background, so pardon me asking: are you acquainted with what tools like git or CVS do?).

I am legally obliged to save all paperwork relevant for my tax declaration for 10 years, just in case the tax revenue service decides to investigate me. So a period of 5 years is certainly not excessive.

[Sven]

That is a lame excuse for not coming up with any sources at all. (And, as far as I know, not used by Vas against ICGA.)

Vas had already said that he did not have the source to Rybka 3 which I believe. (A while back he wanted to make old Rybka exes available for download and had to ask on the forum if people had copies! Some people keep everything others are more ruthless - Vas I would suggest is in the second camp.)

Agreed, and furthermore I do not know any ICGA rule saying that participants must keep the source code of their participating program version for 5 years just in case the originality will be put in question later on.

And without the sources being available, the burden of proof more than ever is on the accuser's side. The ICGA thinks the proof is there, based on the 100% agreement of all panel members. But if I consider the recent and former CCC forum posts then I get to believe that actually we have some sort of 50-50 (maybe 40-60 but that doesn't matter) distribution of opinions about "proven or not proven", at least in the Fruit case.

Therefore, since it must have been clear from the beginning that the results provided by the panel would have massive influence on the final ICGA decision, I wonder whether the "Voir Dire" principle was applied to ensure having a somewhat balanced composition of the panel. With their 100% agreement it is obvious that they did nothing but provide, or support, evidence against the defendant, but not any kind of a balanced assessment of the case. If that was what the ICGA requested or expected from the panel then the whole decision process was flawed.

Sven

[hgm]

And without the sources being available, the burden of proof more than ever is on the accuser's side.

This also is in gross dis-accord with practice in real courts. When I am accused of tax fraud, I can elect to not provide the administrative documents the Dutch equivalent of the IRS requests of me. But the consequence of that is that the burden of proof is reversed, and I will be judged guilty unless I can prove my innocence.

Without sources, the burden of proof is on the defender's side.

This whole voir-dire argument is utterly ridiculous. The ICGA judgement in the Rybka case is based based on factual evidence. Pieces of code that occur in both Crafty and Rybka, which are unlikely beyond reasonable doubt to be the same by independent development (e.g. because they are dead code).

It does not matter how biased the one pointing out that code is. Even the most biased panel in the world cannot point out code that is not there. If the panel is lying and has fabricated the evidence, just point out that the mentioned code does not occur in Crafty or Rybka at all. Discrediting the people that brought the evidence is a pointless rear-guard battle when the evidence speaks for itself...

[John Conway]

If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.

You mean like when Vas acted as judge, jury and prosecutor in the Ippolit affair?

[Laskos]

If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.

You mean like when Vas acted as judge, jury and prosecutor in the Ippolit affair?

Exactly. On one hand I am happy that Rybka was degraded to the level of Ippolit, but I would be happier if Ippolit would have been raised to the level of Rybka. Remember when even the name "Ippolit" was forbidden here? In fact my opinion would be to consider legit both Rybka and Ippolits, although the case against both is clear. We should accept the new paradigm in chess programming, more so after such extremely strong engines as IvanHoe and Stockfish are available at the source code level. In fact I cannot imagine the recent surge of engines to the level of Rybka 4 without Ippolits. Do we have to install some degrees of legitimacy? - as for now the boundary of what is legit and what is not is very fussy. People have to admit that the rules of CC programming are different now than 10 years ago, a thing beneficial to all CC community, if CC is a science as Physics and Mathematics are. The progress due to Crafty, Fruit, Stockfish, and Ippos is unbelievable.

Kai