Fwd: Open letter to the CSVN

[IWB]

Hi there,

Hi,

I think the programmers should do the opposite ! Subscribe to the Leiden Tournament and then use the tournament rule number two who says :

The source code of the program may not contain recognizable parts from
published programs, unless the creators are in the team. In case of doubt the team gives the organization the possibility to look at the code and give
comments on it.

I'm almost 100% sure that Deep Rybka will whitdraw and will not give his source code to the organisers. Then Cock and his chief editor (and rybka fan boy) will see the truth about Vas.

Best
Johan

Actually that is a pretty good idea for the Litto compilers. Go there, show your code (it is not a secret anyhow) and ask to check

1. If Rybka is original and
2. If your code is "stolen" from Rybka 3 as VR claims!

If VR withdraw they have to allow the Littos, if he stays he has to prove his claim ...

Again, the CSVN did not think about the consequnce of their decision!

BYe
Ingo

[Terry McCracken]

For the record, David, on behalf of the ICGA secretariat responsible for this, sent them a letter pointing out the errors in their public statement. So far as I know, we've seen nothing in response.

Copied here with Cock's permission:

Hi Graham

Ed Schröder told me about the existing open letter, which is discussed for a couple of days.

The CSVN did not receive this letter untill now. I just read it a couple of minutes ago. It is 1.18 a.m. now.

I will respond on the Net after the Board makes a decission to do so and on behalf of the Board.

First personal reaction? In short sentences....?

The ICGA made a statement, just as the CSVN did.
In their statement the Board of CSVN did his utmost to give facts. More than one. And those facts raised question marks. Not all question marks seperately were enough to refuse the banning of Rybka. Of course not. But all together they did not give us a good feeling. These facts have nothing to do with the technical stuff. The Board has no opinion about the technical stuff whatsoever, nor wants to take part in the technical discussions.
The open letter repeats the well known arguments of the ICGA cs. But does not give answers on our doubts. Why should we change our minds? I do not have a good feeling by repeating again and again. That is not debating.

In my vision it is very clear: the programmers have a problem. What is a clone? Untill now there is no clear answer on that question.
They should solve it themselves. It can not be solved by the CSVN. If all experts agree, there is no problem anymore.

After that the CSVN Board will organise again if there are enough participants..

If not? We can do many other nice things in our spare time....

kind regards
Cock de Gorter

*Cock is wrong. For the following reasons...

First, he claimed that several programmers that had firmly stated that they did not believe Vas had copied Fruit code had SUDDENLY changed their minds. Ask any who have posted that thought about changing their mind. Tord. Others. They changed their mind over the 5+ years we have been gathering and presenting the data. 5+ years is "sudden"? False statement number 1.

Second, he claimed that we did not examine any public version of Rybka. That the "version" (singular, notice) we examined did not play in any ICGA event. False. We looked at Rybka 1.6.1 which was sent to ChessWar, we looked at 1.0 beta, and 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a which DID compete in the ICGA tournaments. 1.0 beta, 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a WERE distributed, and still are on the Rybka web site. We didn't just look at one version, we looked at 4. All were given to others by Vas. And we did look at a version that played in an ICGA event, as verified by the person that operated Rybka in a WCCC event (Lukas). False statement number 2.

Third, he claimed that no other WCCC competitors had been examined. False. If you go to the ICGA web site, 6 different programs have been kicked out of ICGA competitions. We are in the process of looking at another. False statement number 3.

In baseball, that is "three strikes and he's out."

Finally, his statement above, quoted here:

The open letter repeats the well known arguments of the ICGA cs. But does not give answers on our doubts. Why should we change our minds?

The letter doesn't give any 'answers on their doubts'? It would appear to me it refutes every "doubt" he quoted. That's simply beyond belief... His final statement, "the programmers should decide." Which group comprises the majority of programmers? those that believe Vas copied Fruit, or those that believe he didn't? The latter list numbers just a few. Less than 6. How about the other list? 16 signed the original letter of protest. Others weighed in later, Ken Thompson, for example. He's not going "with the programmers" he is going "against them." Which is fine if he doesn't care whether they participate or not...

*I edited Bob's comment so people could read what's important and not lost due to a choice of words.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Don,

thanks for your time and detailed good readable answer. Not all I can understand in detail, it seems we have different opinions but I think we can discuss about it.

Over the years I had so many contacts to persons as result of my own activities. In the most of times you will read from much of such persons with signature the open letter only a bit to critical topics or a new own version is ready for take off. After 172.000 mails I got since 1996 to computer chess topics from around 6.100 persons with different names I think I can build me an own opinion. Not all what I do in the past are right and often I am standing in such "Dilemma situations" too. I am sure it will be for each one better not to have so many background information I got. Could be danger, because you will lost your interest on computer chess very fast.

From the most of persons with signature the open letter I have a very good opinion too. But this isn't the point Don.

My opinion:
ICGA is a one men show. I think the decision to Rybka is right but it comes years to late. ICGA have the same problem we all have, the situation isn't easy to solve. What we can do is to organize an official personal meeting, internet conference for an example. We should collect ideas and should sleep about it at first.

I made my points why I am thinking that "Open Letters" are not the right way. The problem we have today will be the same next year again (but clearly harder) and in two years again ... again and again. With new names of programs, with used good knowledge sources today are available for all of us.

Only one point is really interesting because in all other points we can nothing do. Each discussion will make the situation not better if we search an official way.

And the point is forthrightness!

I discuss for a while in a thread with Bob. We need a group of persons which are able to check sources. If programmer will participant on an official tourney the sources should be checked. Programmers will get a badge about it.

Example:
Hiarcs 14.0 C&FP
Junior 13.0 C&FP
Houdini 3.0
Komodo 4.0 C&FP

This have nothing to do which programs should participant on official tourneys or not. If the Leiden people are thinking Rybka can play is this decision right. But the programmers can say ... I am a "C&FP" programmer. This should be enough!

C&FP are standing for: Checked, forthrightness programmer! A tournament organization can give prices only to C&FP engines. This is one idea to solved the situation. If I gave a critic you can be sure you will get from my point of view a clear opinion and a way to solved a situation. Must not the right way, only an idea from my side not more not less.

Cock de Corter, Levy, Hyatt or others can't solved such a situation alone. The complete group of persons with have good ideas should discuss about it in a meeting.

I have no interest to read each year such open letters. We should be intelligence enough to avoid helplessnesses.

Please read my bad English to this topic again and please thinking about it what I wrote. I am sure you will produce the same opinion: This open letter is really bad.

We all make mistakes and believe me ... I made enough too. SSE for an example!

Best
Frank

Komodo 3.0 SSE x64 will start Monday for 4 days
Sorry for the other readers ... 15 ELO Don ... all is possible ... let us look of the results

[Frank Quisinsky]

More or less a doping test.

And for the programmers which signature the open letters and used sources by others ... nice to see an own name on a list in combination with names like Fabien Letouzey or Stefan Meyer Kahlen, right?

Many of the names are miles distantly from Letouzey or Meyer-Kahlen.
Not nice to read that programmers search to take an own advantage which such an action.

Bad, really bad!

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Ingo,

100% other opinion!
The programmers forget to thinking about here signature.

And I must thinking about discussion with yourself to the topic: Which engines should be available in a rating list. I think a loner you are can't build an own opinion about such a decision, sorry!

Best
Frank

[Sean Evans]

Tell Cock he is an idiot.

Hmmmm....it seems Hyattian Oligarchy member Hyatt considers himself above the Computer-Chess Club Charter:

3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others

Cordially,

Sean

In civil law "Slander" cannot be proven if the implied statements are true. Although there is alot of grey area here, the fact remains if Cock can be proven to be an idiot, there is no "Slander". Should a hooker be insulted if someone calls her a whore? Ever heard the term, "I call a spade a spade", this seems to apply. Capiche?

By your definition of the charter I can call you an arsehole and it will be within the CCC charter. Is that okay with you? I don't mind rebaptizing you!

Cordially,

Sean

[Thomas Mayer]

Hi there,

Hi,

I think the programmers should do the opposite ! Subscribe to the Leiden Tournament and then use the tournament rule number two who says :

The source code of the program may not contain recognizable parts from
published programs, unless the creators are in the team. In case of doubt the team gives the organization the possibility to look at the code and give
comments on it.

I'm almost 100% sure that Deep Rybka will whitdraw and will not give his source code to the organisers. Then Cock and his chief editor (and rybka fan boy) will see the truth about Vas.

Best
Johan

Actually that is a pretty good idea for the Litto compilers. Go there, show your code (it is not a secret anyhow) and ask to check

1. If Rybka is original and
2. If your code is "stolen" from Rybka 3 as VR claims!

If VR withdraw they have to allow the Littos, if he stays he has to prove his claim ...

Again, the CSVN did not think about the consequnce of their decision!

BYe
Ingo

Hi Ingo,

the Littos can't be allowed anyway because:

The source code of the program may not contain recognizable parts from published programs, unless the creators are in the team.

Littos are published, but the creators are anonymous. So nobody can have them in their team - that's completely independent from their relation to Rybka.

Anyway, I believe it's better to clarify already in the organization phase that nobody else would play the dutch open if they keep their opinion in the Rybka case. A protest direcly at the tournament when it already had started would lead to nothing then big confusion. Besides that I would react absolutely the same if Rybka or one of the Littos would be included into CCT or WCC and I believe most chess programmers as well. Those tourneys are programmer tournaments and not hacker / cloner tournaments. Each programmer that take part takes his holiday and quite a lot of money just to play their - we all do that for fun. Sorry, but I don't spent 1000 to 1500 Euro just to get cheated.

Greets, Thomas

[Frank Quisinsky]

Shit of the charter.
We have other problems to solved.

Sorry!

Best
Frank

[IWB]

Thomas,

I fully agree with everything you have written. My remark was of course ment ironic to show how absurd and ludicrous the CSVN ruling is!

Anyhow, this:

...unless the creators are in the team....

... is interesting! The first one to claim the sources as "his" original is the author as no one can prove different! It is of course something else who believes that ... but reading what some people want to believe about Rybka it is not too far off to assume that a 'takeover' of the source will be accepted by some as well!

Bye
Ingo

[M ANSARI]

For the record, David, on behalf of the ICGA secretariat responsible for this, sent them a letter pointing out the errors in their public statement. So far as I know, we've seen nothing in response.

Copied here with Cock's permission:

Hi Graham

Ed Schröder told me about the existing open letter, which is discussed for a couple of days.

The CSVN did not receive this letter untill now. I just read it a couple of minutes ago. It is 1.18 a.m. now.

I will respond on the Net after the Board makes a decission to do so and on behalf of the Board.

First personal reaction? In short sentences....?

The ICGA made a statement, just as the CSVN did.
In their statement the Board of CSVN did his utmost to give facts. More than one. And those facts raised question marks. Not all question marks seperately were enough to refuse the banning of Rybka. Of course not. But all together they did not give us a good feeling. These facts have nothing to do with the technical stuff. The Board has no opinion about the technical stuff whatsoever, nor wants to take part in the technical discussions.
The open letter repeats the well known arguments of the ICGA cs. But does not give answers on our doubts. Why should we change our minds? I do not have a good feeling by repeating again and again. That is not debating.

In my vision it is very clear: the programmers have a problem. What is a clone? Untill now there is no clear answer on that question.
They should solve it themselves. It can not be solved by the CSVN. If all experts agree, there is no problem anymore.

After that the CSVN Board will organise again if there are enough participants..

If not? We can do many other nice things in our spare time....

kind regards
Cock de Gorter

Tell Cock he is an idiot. For the following reasons...

First, he claimed that several programmers that had firmly stated that they did not believe Vas had copied Fruit code had SUDDENLY changed their minds. Ask any who have posted that thought about changing their mind. Tord. Others. They changed their mind over the 5+ years we have been gathering and presenting the data. 5+ years is "sudden"? False statement number 1.

Second, he claimed that we did not examine any public version of Rybka. That the "version" (singular, notice) we examined did not play in any ICGA event. False. We looked at Rybka 1.6.1 which was sent to ChessWar, we looked at 1.0 beta, and 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a which DID compete in the ICGA tournaments. 1.0 beta, 2.3.2 and 2.3.2a WERE distributed, and still are on the Rybka web site. We didn't just look at one version, we looked at 4. All were given to others by Vas. And we did look at a version that played in an ICGA event, as verified by the person that operated Rybka in a WCCC event (Lukas). False statement number 2.

Third, he claimed that no other WCCC competitors had been examined. False. If you go to the ICGA web site, 6 different programs have been kicked out of ICGA competitions. We are in the process of looking at another. False statement number 3.

In baseball, that is "three strikes and he's out."

Finally, his statement above, quoted here:

The open letter repeats the well known arguments of the ICGA cs. But does not give answers on our doubts. Why should we change our minds?

The letter doesn't give any 'answers on their doubts'? It would appear to me it refutes every "doubt" he quoted. That's simply beyond belief... His final statement, "the programmers should decide." Which group comprises the majority of programmers? those that believe Vas copied Fruit, or those that believe he didn't? The latter list numbers just a few. Less than 6. How about the other list? 16 signed the original letter of protest. Others weighed in later, Ken Thompson, for example. He's not going "with the programmers" he is going "against them." Which is fine if he doesn't care whether they participate or not...

The statement about the engine that participated not being tested is not "FALSE". Why the hell do you want to twist the facts. Rybka 2.3.2a DID NOT participate in the ICGA and neither did Rybka 1.6 or Rybka 1.0 beta. The only time Rybka 2.3.2a participated was for a few games when the Rybka that was playing the ICGA (which was clearly different from Rybka 2.3.2a) was not able to connect due to some technical problems and thus a generic Rybka 2.3.2a on a laptop was used.