Levy's interview on Chessbase about ICGA/rybka

[bob]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

I did not say you dictated ALL questions... In fact, I said this:

The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case

Believe what you want to believe. As said in the beginning you give me and Chris too much credit. We will see tomorrow if the one question I submitted is really present in part II. And if so, SO WHAT. It's a good question David going after the scalp of the CSVN. How disgusting.

Your question was about the wrong subject. The CSVN was taken to task because of outright false statements on their web page. Stuff about "wrong versions tested, none of the tested versions participated..." --false. Stuff about people "suddenly changing their minds." --false. In fact, EVERY statement they made was false:

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.

1. completely false. nobody "suddenly changed their mind." This investigation went on for quite a while, and people took their own sweet time reaching a conclusion. I originally discounted this. I had heard it several times, from Vincent and others. Not until the evidence began to come out did I change my mind. Others took a year or two longer. I don't think anyone considers that "sudden". --false

2. 2.3.2a definitely competed in the WCCC. Lukas and Vas have both confirmed that. In fact, we found a post on the Rybka forum made DURING a WCCC where Lukas specifically mentioned using both 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a during that event. False again.

3. No other program was investigated? None have been kicked out? None have been excluded? Where did that "gem" come from??? Not from fact. The ICGA wiki lists several examples that contradict that. --false again.

Cock's using a pirated version of a commercial chess engine was a problem. It was not "the problem" here. Implying that it was is, again, disingenuous, because you know better as this has been pointed out to you (and others) many times. You want to ignore the elephant in the room, and talk about a fly on the wall in the corner. Stick to the "big and important topics."

[slobo]

Whether or not Vasik used Fruit codes is unsolved. There are debates for, and there are debates against, so what's to believe.

I think it is too easy to say he used Fruit codes and leave it at that, because it is the easiest, more logical thing to do, and hereby condemn him beforehand.

Should we rely on ICGA's version who consists of Vas competitors who btw are commercial, or on Ed, Chris and others version who are studying the code and are trying to compare the differences and similarities between the two programs ?

You´re a dilettante who would like to be a professional. Do you remember your first post?

[marcelk]

We wanted the most qualified people we could find. If the commercial authors were eliminated, the next step would be the amateur authors, I mean we do enter chess tournaments and Rybka could be there, correct? And then after we eliminate the commercial and amateur authors, we have to eliminate ANY potential chess programmer, because if they were to write a program, then they would likely compete, and have that "conflict of interests" issue as well.

That is not a consequence but an unneeded exaggeration.

This is all simply a red-herring.
You REALLY think I would let a commercial author convince me to vote for something I didn't believe, or not vote for something I did believe? That is, quite simply, nonsense.

Here you touch the point precisely: You also had a deeply vested interest in the outcome of the investigation:
1. as the author of a copied program (ok, discovered during the process, but at that point you could have recused yourself).
2. as somebody who had proclaimed his stance upfront and is known to never ever let himself to be seen as "wrong". Hence the urge to always reply to every thread in every forum where you see something to be corrected, preferably until the other doesn't reply anymore and "the record is set". Hence also the refusal of Chris's panel participation at the first possible technical possibility ("e-mail verification").

Would the investigation outcome be different without your participation? How many minds were really needed? I would say at most 5 or 6 for this specific hard case. There were more than enough people available without such vested interests.

Would the investigation outcome be different without the "3"...?

Nope. We just would have had 13 voting rather than 16. 13 voting "he broke the rules" as opposed to 16. Would that matter?

Yes, it would be one step to take angles out and keep focus on the facts and waste less energy on diversions.

The Rybka Forum folks would have howled long and loud, just as they did with the current panel. This was not about the panel, or the people involved, nor the evidence presented, it was ONLY about the verdict... And unless the verdict was different, the discussions would have been exactly the same.

Absolutely not. They will "howl" as long as you post in their forum rubbing against their hairs, throwing salt in the wounds, generally not precisely reading to what you are responding to, getting things slightly mixed up once in a while when posting, trying to defend such slips making a lot of waves that way and underestimating their intelligence in general. As long as there is a bleeding finger in the water, the sharks will hunt... The frequency will drop the moment "they" are allowed to settle on their own form of agreement and move forward. It will not go away, of course there will be disgruntlement. You cannot make it go away by replying to all of their posts.

[Rebel]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

I did not say you dictated ALL questions... In fact, I said this:

The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case

Believe what you want to believe. As said in the beginning you give me and Chris too much credit. We will see tomorrow if the one question I submitted is really present in part II. And if so, SO WHAT. It's a good question David going after the scalp of the CSVN. How disgusting.

Your question was about the wrong subject. The CSVN was taken to task because of outright false statements on their web page.

Sorry but you have your dates wrong.

David's attack on the CSVN was 6 months before the CSVN statement that Rybka was welcome (again).

[marcelk]

I said he was "disingenuous" because he pretended to know less than he did. Feeding them questions is perfectly OK. Just as our helping David with the answers is perfectly OK. But you notice that WE have been forthcoming and up front about our role in answering the questions? Not ed. That is disingenuous. And that is what the word was applied to...

How strange, the attack on Miguel reads different:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 731#448731
Must be a server mixup.

The disingenuous did not come from "that was disingenuous" applying to his supplying questions. Came from the earlier part of the thread where he said he did not, then said he did, which I did call "disingenuous".

Then it must not be very hard to provide a link to that earlier part of the thread where "disingenuous" refers to something different than supplying answers to Friedel, because the above link is the first occurrence of the word I can find. My clicking skills must be lacking.

[bob]

You implied you had no involvement.

You implied I dictated Frederic the questions. As if that is real. Don't be stupid now.

I did not say you dictated ALL questions... In fact, I said this:

The questions were clearly influenced by Chris and Ed, and had some clear indications that this was the case

Believe what you want to believe. As said in the beginning you give me and Chris too much credit. We will see tomorrow if the one question I submitted is really present in part II. And if so, SO WHAT. It's a good question David going after the scalp of the CSVN. How disgusting.

Your question was about the wrong subject. The CSVN was taken to task because of outright false statements on their web page.

Sorry but you have your dates wrong.

David's attack on the CSVN was 6 months before the CSVN statement that Rybka was welcome (again).

I am talking about the ICGA's letter taking the CSVN to task for their Rybka comments. Nothing more.

[bob]

I said he was "disingenuous" because he pretended to know less than he did. Feeding them questions is perfectly OK. Just as our helping David with the answers is perfectly OK. But you notice that WE have been forthcoming and up front about our role in answering the questions? Not ed. That is disingenuous. And that is what the word was applied to...

How strange, the attack on Miguel reads different:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 731#448731
Must be a server mixup.

The disingenuous did not come from "that was disingenuous" applying to his supplying questions. Came from the earlier part of the thread where he said he did not, then said he did, which I did call "disingenuous".

Then it must not be very hard to provide a link to that earlier part of the thread where "disingenuous" refers to something different than supplying answers to Friedel, because the above link is the first occurrence of the word I can find. My clicking skills must be lacking.

The thread was about whether Ed had provided ANY information about the questions. He had feigned innocence by implying he knew nothing about it. Then he admitted he had supplied one question (and I am certain at least one other one, but that's a different issue).

Then we got to this point:

Little birds, my ass. You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...

If that is the case, what is wrong with that?

Miguel

Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???

Just disingenuous...

Seems to me one can infer directly what I am talking about here. Nothing wrong with Ed supplying questions. But the entire thread shows disingenuous behavior...

I mean, supplying questions, but saying you didn't? Acting as if you know nothing about it? That is the definition of disingenuous.

[Rebel]

Seems to me one can infer directly what I am talking about here. Nothing wrong with Ed supplying questions. But the entire thread shows disingenuous behavior....

It's okay Bob, I understand it's war-time and everything is allowed. But please don't attack others in the process, just keep your energy for me.

[bob]

We wanted the most qualified people we could find. If the commercial authors were eliminated, the next step would be the amateur authors, I mean we do enter chess tournaments and Rybka could be there, correct? And then after we eliminate the commercial and amateur authors, we have to eliminate ANY potential chess programmer, because if they were to write a program, then they would likely compete, and have that "conflict of interests" issue as well.

That is not a consequence but an unneeded exaggeration.

Not an exaggeration at all. They would like to see anyone that belongs to any one (or more) of the following groups to be disqualified:

(1) commercial authors, both past, present and future, past because they would "move up" in the final standings if Rybka is eliminated; present because they would compete now; future because anyone could end up competing against Rybka in the future.

(2) amateur authors, both past, present and future, for the same reasons. Apparently we can not compete equally due to insufficient intellect, so we would have a vested interest in seeing Rybka disqualified to get it out of the way. Never mind that those of us that really enjoy fair competition ALWAYS want to compete against the best there is.

(3) potential authors. Same deal.

(4) programmers with even a remote interest in computer chess, because they might join groupls 1 or 2 above.

Who is left?

This is all simply a red-herring.
You REALLY think I would let a commercial author convince me to vote for something I didn't believe, or not vote for something I did believe? That is, quite simply, nonsense.

Here you touch the point precisely: You also had a deeply vested interest in the outcome of the investigation:
1. as the author of a copied program (ok, discovered during the process, but at that point you could have recused yourself).

What nonsense. Until March of this year, no one had any idea about the early versions of Rybka being complete knock-offs of Crafty 19.x... By then the secretariat was formed, the panel was convened, and the investigation was nearing the end. I should have recused myself at the end? Why?

2. as somebody who had proclaimed his stance upfront and is known to never ever let himself to be seen as "wrong". Hence the urge to always reply to every thread in every forum where you see something to be corrected, preferably until the other doesn't reply anymore and "the record is set". Hence also the refusal of Chris's panel participation at the first possible technical possibility ("e-mail verification").

Chris could not wait for a simple weekend to pass. A weekend where I was out of town. Sorry, but if 48 hours is "too long" then that is "too bad." Others had to wait. We wanted to make sure that we had no "doppelgangers" slipping in to create discord. The "real Chris" would have been enough discord. So this excuse simply won't fly.

Would the investigation outcome be different without your participation? How many minds were really needed? I would say at most 5 or 6 for this specific hard case. There were more than enough people available without such vested interests.

Those on the panel will tell you I was not very vocal during the discussions. I had seen the evidence many times, my intent was to let everyone have sufficient time to reach their own conclusion. Which they did. Ask any panel member if there was any bullying or anything similar... I don't think removing any person other than Mark or Zach would have mattered at all, and eliminating one of them would have simply stretched the time-frame out. This case was not a "close call" at all.

Would the investigation outcome be different without the "3"...?

Nope. We just would have had 13 voting rather than 16. 13 voting "he broke the rules" as opposed to 16. Would that matter?

Yes, it would be one step to take angles out and keep focus on the facts and waste less energy on diversions.

There was no way to eliminate "diversions." Every trial with a guilty verdict ends in an appeal...

The Rybka Forum folks would have howled long and loud, just as they did with the current panel. This was not about the panel, or the people involved, nor the evidence presented, it was ONLY about the verdict... And unless the verdict was different, the discussions would have been exactly the same.

Absolutely not. They will "howl" as long as you post in their forum rubbing against their hairs, throwing salt in the wounds, generally not precisely reading to what you are responding to, getting things slightly mixed up once in a while when posting, trying to defend such slips making a lot of waves that way and underestimating their intelligence in general. As long as there is a bleeding finger in the water, the sharks will hunt... The frequency will drop the moment "they" are allowed to settle on their own form of agreement and move forward. It will not go away, of course there will be disgruntlement. You cannot make it go away by replying to all of their posts.

I came NOWHERE near to "replying to all their posts". But there are a few that are not willing to listen to technical explanations, or anything, and just mindlessly repeat, over and over, "Vas didn't copy any code..."

[bob]

Seems to me one can infer directly what I am talking about here. Nothing wrong with Ed supplying questions. But the entire thread shows disingenuous behavior....

It's okay Bob, I understand it's war-time and everything is allowed. But please don't attack others in the process, just keep your energy for me.

Not attacking anything or anyone here, I simply said your "behavior was disingenuous." You pretended to know nothing, but were actually providing questions... Absolutely nothing wrong with providing questions. But why not just stand up and say "I was involved in this..." I state what I believe, consistently. Agree with me or not, you will ALWAYS know what I think if I have an opinion about something. I was up-front in stating that I was involved in answering Friedel's questions to David. I don't see a thing wrong with that, after all I was involved in gathering the evidence and then in writing the final report... And I certainly know "a little" about compilers and assembly language among other things.

I don't see anything to be embarrassed about in providing questions to CB. I see something wrong with feigning no involvement.