Interesting reflection on a past statement

[Graham Banks]

Since you ask, I will tell you that the reason why I raised the issue of your double standards is because the maintenance of such standards requires, at best, a facility for self-delusion and I think that the most charitable interpretation of much of your behaviour would be that you have a facility for self-delusion.

Really? Some would say that you're deluded too, so I guess that makes us even. However, I suspect that much of your obnoxious behaviour towards me goes back to your having never got over being called a tosser.

[kranium]

Since you ask, I will tell you that the reason why I raised the issue of your double standards is because the maintenance of such standards requires, at best, a facility for self-delusion and I think that the most charitable interpretation of much of your behaviour would be that you have a facility for self-delusion.

Really? Some would say that you're deluded too, so I guess that makes us even. However, I suspect that much of your obnoxious behaviour towards me goes back to your having never got over being called a tosser.

Why not simply answer KI's questions?
Your agenda is completey obvious...

You (and your group) are and have been one of Rybka's staunchest and most vocal supporters for the last 5 years, arguing tooth and nail...defending Rybka.

Your recent posts appear to be no more than pitiful last ditch efforts of denial in light of the fact that it is well known and widely accepted that your were and are completely wrong.

In addition, you continue to test Rybka when others have washed their hands of it...?
Rybka..a known clone of Fruit and Crafty open sources?...and now Houdini as well?
but not IvanHoe?, against which there is not a stitch of evidence of wrongdoing?
pitiful really to see this...

you've unsuccessfully offered every possible excuse to not test Ippolit, all were ridiculous and have failed,
now you're now down to one last measly weak and ineffectual excuse to continue your misguided in-denial egocentric power trip:
'the ipppolit authors are anonymous'...
now even Ingo Bauer is copying it:

"1. Engines with an unknown author! I consider this unfair to the other authors."

both of you in a vain and desperate effort to save face...
ridiculous!

[kranium]

You find the Ippolit engines unacceptable because there are rumours that they contain copied code. Why then do you find the Rybka engines acceptable when there is strong evidence that they contain copied code?

Graham?
Ingo?
Werner, Johan (CEGT)?

and any other entrenched corrupt Rybka 'good old' fan-boys...
please answer...

[Rebel]

as he failed to comply with the rules that stated he should have supplied source code on request.

Vas was never asked to hand-over his source code.

Well, there is the post below from Cimiotti that shows that the suggestion that he should hand his code over, thereby proving his innocence, was put to him but he refused to do so. His excuse that it would help his competitors is a non-runner for the following reasons:
1. The code was way out of date.
2. It would have been handed over to a secure source.
3. The Rybka 1 code was already, according to Rajlich, freely available in the form of Strelka.

"- N/- By Lukas Cimiotti (*****) [de] Date 2011-08-14 10:28
Vas and I discussed whether or not he should give source code to the ICGA. He really didn't like that idea. My idea was removing all comments and maybe changing all names of variables to make the code harder to understand. But as the guys that disassembled Rybka hadn't understood several parts of the code, we agreed it's safer to not give anything to our competitors.
So Vas only defended himself by saying: I did nothing wrong."
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ;hl=source

I am aware of the odd posting, but its conclusion is not correct. I made the same mistake by assuming the ICGA had asked for the R1 sources, it did not happen. Ask Bob, Mark Lefler.

Secondly Strelka is a mixture of Fruit and and only partly of RE Rybka and if you compare the search depth's it's sure Osipov took the secrets of Rybka's search.

Yes, I was aware of the possibility that the suggestion that the Rybka code be handed over to the ICGA may not have come from the ICGA itself. I therefore phrased my post carefully and didn't make that claim.

However, Cimiotti's post shows that someone pointed out to Rajlich the obvious fact that if he had nothing to hide, giving the code to the ICGA would have proved his innocence. Cimiotti's post also shows that Rajlich did not feel able to do so, despite the fact that it was obsolete and would be going into secure custody. Such a refusal, in those circumstances and without good reason, does not look good

If I was innocent and my name was smeared for years followed by an aggressive announcement (the chessvibes article by Levy) that I will have to stand trial before a panel of programmers of which 6-7 are my direct opponents to talk about issues (my programming secrets) I rather not want to talk (explain, share) about then I think I would do the very same and give the ICGA the middle finger as there was nothing left to gain for me as 16 programmers already had convicted me and thus my fate was sealed.

However, if I were approached in a friendly way and was asked to handover my sources to 2-3 independent and non competing experts for investigation then certainly I would had taken the opportunity to proof my innocence.

But it had to be done with a lot of tam-tam. Missed chance.

[Graham Banks]

Why not simply answer KI's questions?
Your agenda is completey obvious...

My agenda is to have fun testing a wide range of engines, as can be evidenced by the many tournaments that I post results of in the tournament subforum.

You (and your group) are and have been one of Rybka's staunchest and most vocal supporters for the last 5 years, arguing tooth and nail...defending Rybka.

I can only speak on my own behalf. Yes I defended Vas before the ICGA verdict, based on what I'd been told by Christopher Conkie, Ryan Benitez and some other respected figures. However, as I've already stated several times, I've not commented on the ICGA findings, only on some aspects of the process

Your recent posts appear to be no more than pitiful last ditch efforts of denial in light of the fact that it is well known and widely accepted that your were and are completely wrong.

Really? If that's your interpretation, then so be it.

In addition, you continue to test Rybka when others have washed their hands of it...?

Others have washed their hands of it? CEGT, SSDF, etc?
I think you should get your facts straight.

Rybka..a known clone of Fruit and Crafty open sources?...and now Houdini as well?
but not IvanHoe?, against which there is not a stitch of evidence of wrongdoing?
pitiful really to see this...

Hmmm - would you like us to test Ivanhoe 1,000,000 or Ivanhoe 1,000,001? What's the point of trying to test an engine when new versions keep appearing weekly (or so it would seem)? After all, it's a person's own choice as to what they spend their precious CPU time and electricity costs on.

you've unsuccessfully offered every possible excuse to not test Ippolit, all were ridiculous and have failed,
now you're now down to one last measly weak and ineffectual excuse to continue your misguided in-denial egocentric power trip:
'the ipppolit authors are anonymous'...
now even Ingo Bauer is copying it:

"1. Engines with an unknown author! I consider this unfair to the other authors."

both of you in a vain and desperate effort to save face...
ridiculous!

[Rebel]

Trust me, any reasonable experienced chess programmer reads C-sources as you read a chess book, especially when the C-source comes with comments what it is doing.

No one has a problem with someone reading a book that says pawn shelter is good and trying to translate it into code; many (but not all) do have a problem with cut and paste king shelter code, and in-between is a big messy confusing gray area.

Did not happen, take Zach's document and compare Fruit king-shelter-code vs Rybka. It's different. As I can mention 17 other differences (from minor to fundamental) and this is just a minor one.

[kranium]

Hmmm - would you like us to test Ivanhoe 1,000,000 or Ivanhoe 1,000,001? What's the point of trying to test an engine when new versions keep appearing weekly (or so it would seem)? After all, it's a person's own choice as to what they spend their precious CPU time and electricity costs on.

The latest official release from the official Ippolit website:
IvanHoe 999947c
please

these guys have put an enormous amount of time and effort into meticulously developing a state-of-the-art engine that equals Rybka 4 (even though it's allegedly based on Rybka 3?).
it's long and gradual development history is well documented...

??

[kranium]

Others have washed their hands of it? CEGT, SSDF, etc?
I think you should get your facts straight.

I have my facts straight:
yes, others have washed their hands of it..with no hesitation or pitiful wiggling:
Olivier Deville (Chesswar) , Leo Dijksman (WBEC), Frank Quisinsky (SWCR) to name a few...
i.e. anybody honorable, not 'in denial', and capable of admitting a past misjudgment...

[Graham Banks]

Hmmm - would you like us to test Ivanhoe 1,000,000 or Ivanhoe 1,000,001? What's the point of trying to test an engine when new versions keep appearing weekly (or so it would seem)? After all, it's a person's own choice as to what they spend their precious CPU time and electricity costs on.

The latest official release from the official Ippolit website:
IvanHoe 999947c
please

these guys have put an enormous amount of time and effort into meticulously developing a state-of-the-art engine that crushes Rybka.
it's long and gradual development history is well documented...

??

There are two problems at present Norman.
The first is that in order for any more Ippo derivatives to be tested by CCRL, a majority vote would be required within the group and the current position is that we won't.
The second is that if at some stage that were to change, there is still the problem of new versions coming out in quick succession. There's not much fun putting a lot of resources into testing the latest version, when it becomes redundant midway through testing.

[kranium]

Hmmm - would you like us to test Ivanhoe 1,000,000 or Ivanhoe 1,000,001? What's the point of trying to test an engine when new versions keep appearing weekly (or so it would seem)? After all, it's a person's own choice as to what they spend their precious CPU time and electricity costs on.

The latest official release from the official Ippolit website:
IvanHoe 999947c
please

these guys have put an enormous amount of time and effort into meticulously developing a state-of-the-art engine that crushes Rybka.
it's long and gradual development history is well documented...

??

There are two problems at present Norman.
The first is that in order for any more Ippo derivatives to be tested by CCRL, a majority vote would be required within the group and the current position is that we won't.
The second is that if at some stage that were to change, there is still the problem of new versions coming out in quick succession. There's not much fun putting a lot of resources into testing the latest version, when it becomes redundant midway through testing.

Graham,

there are no 'new versions' since 999947c...??
what a ridiculous excuse...
the uncountable simple optimized compiles 'coming out in quick succession' on Immortal are not to be considered...
these 'compliler's have not changed the source code..and you know that!
you're simply using it to bolster your 'denial'

clearly, the official and strongest releases come directly from the talented authors at ippolit.wikispace.com
c'mon, you're grasping at straws here, you think people don't recognize this?

Graham it's not complicated like you pretend...
it's very simple, IvanHoe is world class engine, with many many features not found elsewhere.
i realize you are bitter because you believe Vas was ripped off, are devoted to the guy, and you have difficulty admitting you may have been mistaken...
but c'mon man!
you test Strelka 2 (a 'cloned' Rybka w/ hundreds of lines verbatim Fruit code?)
no problem for the CCRL here!
and Rybka (a 'cloned' Fruit?)
also no issues!

there's oodles of evidence that Rybka cloned Fruit!, and absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing of any kind against Ippolit?!
it's a 'no brainer'...how can it be argued?