Fwd: Open letter to the CSVN

[geots]

It wasn't enough to give him a verdict and penalty- which BTW I still consider pure bullshit.

But now you are evidently going to have petitions and threats of not entering yourselves. What is next- a threat to chessbase to end their relationship with him?

And if that does not work- figure out a way to see who has bought Rybka since this verdict came down and worry the hell out of them?

Under the guise of fairness and morality, which I would imagine a blind man could see thru, you are determined to make his life miserable to the end of time.

I just wish for 1 day I could be the guy you sent this open letter to, and I could respond back. You wouldn't be sending another.

Not just for this case, but in my entire life I have wanted to be the one to respond to "open letters" and "threats of boycotts", blatant or veiled.

I would cancel an event before I would cave in to crap like this. But some have more backbone than others. And that "some" are the ones who have my respect.

And I am quite sure you don't care- but I have lost a ton of respect for anyone whose name is on that list. But that was easier than normal- because some already had none of my respect. And if it were me, I would suggest that their programs, under these circumstances, were the ones not welcome.

CSVN has not exactly been a paragon of virtue after the Junior fiasco. Then they release there statement which is based on 100% false accusations. Best of which was "no distributed version of Rybka was tested." 2.3.2a was not distributed?

One thing I know for sure Bob. You are a better person than this.

[geots]

Sorry for my second message:

NEVER, NEVER the organisators from perhaps the best computer chess event we have should give a threat with such a letter.

We should hold the events we have and we can be sure that the organisators in Leiden will do a good work as in all the years before. Cock de Corter have many knowledge about such things, he and the others in Leiden don't need a nanny, sorry!

What NONSENS
I am very disappointed about it!

Which one had this idea?

Best
Frank

You have my respect Frank. Not the easiest for some to stand up and be counted here. Dad taught me when I was young that you cannot go wrong by standing up for what you believe in.

George

[h1a8]

I'm clueless here. What is going on? Why are there no other threads talking about what you guys are talking about? Please info me.

[JuLieN]

I'm clueless here. What is going on? Why are there no other threads talking about what you guys are talking about? Please info me.

This is on the CSVN website:

Rybka and the ICGA
Monday, 22 August 2011 08:36

Some time ago, the ICGA promulgated that Rybka had been proven to be a Fruit clone; therefore, a liftetime suspension of its programmer had been decided upon.
Moreover, all world titles had been retroactively declared invalid.

Evidently, the primary reflection within the CSVN-board was to acknowledge this suspension as such. The board has insufficient knowledge and, therefore, we chose to rely upon both the authority and the reliability of the ICGA.
At the same time, we allowed ourselves to put some question marks to issues we considered to be well within our grasp.

The decision-making
1. ICGA's decision was prepared by a group of experts; some of its members could gain benefit of the sanctions inflicted upon Rybka;
2. At the subsequent voting, 14 out of 34 persons stated that one could indeed consider Rybka to be a clone.

The evidence
1. The group of experts consisted partially of the same persons who, a few years ago, explicitly stated that Rybka was not a clone. It is indeed very remarkable that experts suddenly change their mind.
2. The version of Rybka that was examined had never been distributed. The versions of Rybka that took part in the World Championships were not examined.
3. None of the other competitors in the World Championships had been examined.

The delay
The program was known by the end of 2005. It is indeed very remarkable that, through abetment of rivalling contenders, action was taken and sanctions were implemented no earlier then 2011.

The degree of punishment
In the world of sport, the doping problem is well known. When doping rules are violated, a first time sanction of one or two years is common practice; Rybka faced a lifetime suspension straightaway.

Of course, the annoucement made by the ICGA immediately gave rise to discussions on the Internet fora.
Those who were in favour of the sanctions were severely questioned by (e.g.) Miguel A. Ballicora, George Speight and Sšren Riis. Their opposition did make an impression on us, because these people can rely upon a vast expertise in the field of chess programming, law and mathematical logic. When finally dutchman Ed Schršder, former world computer chess champion, joined the aforementioned critics of ICGA, we no longer seemed to have a choice.

As mentioned above, we had a number of questions as to the decision-making, the delay, the evidence and the degree of punishment and now, added to all that, the technical justification seemed to falter.

At this very moment, the CSVN board has the most serious doubts as to the rightfulness of ICGA's decision. Therefore, we have chosen not to abide by their sanctions against Rybka.

The CSVN board.

[h1a8]

The following letter has been sent to the CSVN. I'm posting it here on behalf of the signees.

Open letter to the CSVN

September 21, 2011

Dear Cock de Gorter, CSVN board and CSVN members,

As past participants of the CSVN tournaments we feel that your decision to allow Rybka back in your tournaments is ill-reasoned and damaging to computer chess. Your statements regarding the decision-making are misleading and those about the evidence are all factually false:

1. The ICGA panel consisted of experienced computer chess specialists, some commercial, some hobbyists, and some pure academics. At the end of the investigation, not a single person in the panel said that they believed Vasik Rajlich was innocent.
2. Experts who have long-defended Vasik Rajlich have changed their minds because the investigation results leaves them no doubt regarding his breaking of rule 2 of the ICGA: Rybka is a without a shred of doubt a direct derivative of Crafty/Fruit and Mr. Rajlich concealed these origins from the Tournament Director. Furthermore, he has not provided any clarification for the found similarities.
3. All Rybka executables considered in the investigation were distributed to rating lists and/or users. Version 2.3.2a participated in the 2007 WCCC.
4. In the past the ICGA has investigated entries that raised suspicion and for which a complaint was filed by one of the participants. Cheaters have been caught before and Rybka is no exception.

The sanctioning of Rybka is upsetting news for all involved in computer chess. The public condemnation of a many-times World Champion and well-known representative of the field does not reflect well on the field’s image. The decision to ban Rybka was consequently not taken lightly.

However, it is unacceptable to us that you base your decision making on opinionated Internet postings and put aside the extensive expertise that the ICGA has gathered. Your lack of judgment, which is further exemplified by your recent handling of the Junior/HIARCS incident, is a sign that your once-respectable tournaments are not in good hands any more. Under the current direction we can therefore not enter your tournaments.

Regards,

Amir Ban
Don Dailey
Robert Hyatt
Gerd Isenberg
Marcel van Kervinck
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Fabien Letouzey
Thomas Mayer
Daniel Mehrmann
Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Richard Pijl
Ralf Schäfer
Mark Uniacke
Ben-Hur Carlos Vieira Langoni Júnior
Harvey Williamson

And not a majority said that he was actually guilty (nice way to twist things). Also, by the fact that the panel consisted of entities that created a conflict of interest makes it moot who were the other members who were on the panel (smoke and mirrors there too). Not all Rybkas that were investigated were distributed to the PUBLIC.

Then, they based their decision largely off of logic. At least some points they made is common sense. This is all that matters. Also, In no sport does anyone get a lifetime ban for cheating. That's just plain inhuman. We are not Klingons but humans from Earth. It is totally irrational to ban anyone for life for cheating.

What about the other things they said?
In order to have a valid rebuttal you must defeat ALL RELEVANT arguments made of why a decision is made, not just some. As long as 1 argument still stands then the entire argument is still valid.

Actually, the fan does not cares if non top engines decide not to enter. The fan wants to see the top engines go against each other. Houdini, Rybka, Stockfish, and Critter. Anyone else is irrelevant really.

[tomgdrums]

Wow! This whole thing has just gotten completely out of whack!

Sure ICGA can rule how they want. Their rules, and it seems Vas did not abide by them. But the ruling was overly harsh.

As I have said before there seems to be no heroes in this whole matter.

And CSVN have their own rules and they can run their tournament as they see fit.

Why this list of programmers has decided to boycott is beyond me. They aren't really proving anything. In fact to someone like me who has basically agreed with the ICGA "verdict" (although not the severity of the penalty) this new boycott makes me feel a little queasy about the ICGA verdict. Now it DOES seem like a witch hunt. Just a little. And I am NOT really defending Vas.

I am just a little nauseous at seeing yet another open letter on a matter that was supposedly finished. (not counting the possible FSF thing..)

What is wrong with computer chess right now?

Is Lokasoft the only bastion of sanity left??

(oh yeah they sell the now almost five year old Chess Tiger 2007 for the same price as they always have...not so sane... )

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Bob,

yes, but you can make the situation not better if you undersign such letters. One letter is more as enough and the situation is clear enough.

Programmers can give a personal boykott during the tourneys too. It's easy, don't play a game vs. a critical engine.

Let the decision and organisation in the hand by the organisators. Such a letter to CSVN is the job by our ICGA and not from a group of different programmers. Keen to do well.

Readers are thinking, the group of undersign programmers have a problem with the high playing strength from Houdini and Co. This is an evidence of incapacity too.

Really, I am very disappointed about it.
Very bad idea.

Before again such a letter goes to an organisator, the programmers should a bit better thinking about it.

Best
Frank

Furthermore, all this have to do with "keep conditions". We don't to do things we want to do. With such activities never we can give computer chess a clear redirection. The big problem, each one means he can do what he want. And now the undersign programmers are sitting in the first line. But the underdign programmers are sitting in the second or third line only.

First line: ICGA
Second line: CSVN
Third line: Vistiors, users, people with interest
Forth line: The programmers

Keep conditions:
One letter is enough and the ICGA should switch information about it with CSVN. The organisation is all the years fantastic in Leiden, can't be right.

All this is very bad!

[Graham Banks]

Although I respect those whom I know in the letter, I think that an elite group of programmers (most of whom seem to have been on the panel that passed down the guilty verdict on Rybka?) trying to bully/railroad independent tournament organisers into meeting their demands goes far beyond what many enthusiasts would consider as acceptable.
I am really disappointed and wonder who will be next to face such an ultimatum.

All along, it seems to me that this decision regarding Rybka's eligibility has been hailed as being an ICGA (and perhaps FSF) matter, but now we see differently.

[Thomas Mayer]

Hi Graham,

The Dutch Open is an official ICGA tournament, at least as far as I know. So Cocks behaviour is completely unacceptable. He directly attacks the panel that investigated in the Rybka case. And he did it in public, therefore an open letter is the logical thing programmers can do. Fair programmer competition is wanted, no cloners festival. If cloners and hackers are the future of the dutch open then be it, but without us. Period.

Greets, Thomas

[geots]

Hi Graham,

The Dutch Open is an official ICGA tournament, at least as far as I know. So Cocks behaviour is completely unacceptable. He directly attacks the panel that investigated in the Rybka case. And he did it in public, therefore an open letter is the logical thing programmers can do. Fair programmer competition is wanted, no cloners festival. If cloners and hackers are the future of the dutch open then be it, but without us. Period.

Greets, Thomas

Don't know much about the rules surrounding this tournament, but nowhere in the "open letter" did anyone state anything about ICGA's relationship with a "Dutch this or that" tournament. All I read was a lot of bullshit about how Cock had "done this wrong" and "done that wrong". And how letting Rybka play would be another "done this wrong" on his list.
And he can have any opinion he chooses about the Rybka issue, but if it is in conflict with the beliefs of the panel- it would be wise to not make it public. As I see you were complaining about his public stance on the case. Would you rather he whispered his opinions in dark back-alleys?

It's a bit late for the moral high-ground attempt. The group who signed the letter saw to that. A lot of whining about this and that, but what it comes down to is: "You let Rybka enter, we aint showing up." I'm quite sure all other complaints can be overlooked.

Would I let Rybka in and chance losing all the programmers who signed the open letter? Not a chance in hell.

After the letter, I would let Rybka in and tell the programmers who signed the letter that their programs were no longer welcome.

gts