Time to rethink what Vasik Rajlich has done?

[mar]

I really don't understand why people keep coming back to this.

The ICGA clearly thought there was enough circumstantial evidence (decompiling, move similarity, variable names, Strelka, ...) for the claim that Rybka was written by modifying Fruit. In reaching this conclusion they no doubt also took Vas' past cloning of Crafty into account (and maybe also the dishonest NPS reporting in Rybka).

Vas could have easily defended himself against these allegations by showing the source code of R1.0b. When the investigation took place the source code of R1.0b was not even of commercial value anymore as Rybka had already become much stronger.

He chose not to defend himself. So nothing more needs to be said.

PS. The actual ICGA rule is "(submissions) whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details".

Note the word "derived".

uh, variable names?!
where? Rybka doesn't contain symbols => those variable names you refer to are probably present in Strelka, as well as function names

dishonest nps reporting is completely irrelevant here
like I said => where there is no code there cannot be code copying, it's really this simple

as for derived - note the word "code"

[towforce]

...so yes, I might as well call "them" incompetent morons because nobody obviously even bothered to actually read the evidence

I have read the evidence document. I think it was less than two years ago. If anyone else wants to read it, I provided a link earlier in the thread.

[Milos]

What I am saying is that the ICGA has gone to a lot of trouble to investigate the issue and produce a report, and you're effectively calling them incompetent and dishonest.

ICGA is incompetent and dishonest. This is exactly like calling the grass green.
The guy on top of ICGA is a moral midget with criminal character showing strong pathological behavior. Most of "judges" are persons with egos over the roof which were jealous beyond comprehension on Vas and whose last noticeable contribution to computer chess was about the time cold war ended.
Bob didn't (ever) even know how to use decompiler let alone produce "evidence". Calling some of those ppl incompetent is an understatement.

[Milos]

...so yes, I might as well call "them" incompetent morons because nobody obviously even bothered to actually read the evidence

I have read the evidence document. I think it was less than two years ago. If anyone else wants to read it, I provided a link earlier in the thread.

With all due respect you are clueless about chess programing. So stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

[Peter Berger]

As an amateur programmer you appear unable to understand that a commercial chess programmer with the outstandingly strongest and unassailable chess source of that time is not going to voluntarily present those source codes to a bunch of commercial competitors and wannabee chess programmers and chess programmers who have been massively insulting him for years as a hooligan and thief etc etc and who are already desperately trying to decompile his versions and find the secrets. Commercial rule 1. Keep secure your IP from outsiders.

Then he shouldn't subscribe to tournaments that as one of the conditions require him to do that. Basically you claim that he entered WCCC under false pretenses. Which is sufficient reason to ban him.

You start with a wrong assumption here, namely that this rule would have been applied to every tournament entry.

I am not in the mood for story-telling, but e.g. in Ramat-Gan 2004, it was most obvious that there were various entries who'd never show their source code to anybody - this is obviously true at least for Fritz, Junior and Shredder. Of course they were the in-crew, but they were also commercials who made (at least part of) their livings by selling their programs.

To stay in Ramat-Gan - by the end of the tournament all teams ( including me) had a very clear idea about the entry FIBchess. This was just some random guy from Mexico who had downloaded a program by a Spanish programmer, maybe/probably(?) with some minor modifications, and decided to apply for the tournament. He got like 500€ btw ( there was sponsorship back then). It is just that it was in noone's mind to challenge this entry as it came in useful.

Things get a bit more related to the topic when you think about Turino and the banishment of the Italian team. This was a bit trickier as they gave every detail on what they had done with their tournament application and spent some time to ask whether their entry was supposed to be valid before the start of the tournament. Of course no one bothered to check their questions, so there was a lot of drama to get them banned based on information they had provided themselves.

And later even sillier with entries like Gridchess who were allowed in ( probably someone had learned to read the applications by then) .

OK; but let's keep this simple: the rule to show your source code clearly applied to newcomers only.

[Rebel]

What you call false pretenses was clear from the start.

Did you miss all that in December 2005?

Think about your readers!

No, what I call 'false premises' has absolutely nothing to do with what you mention there. The false premise I refer to is NOT that there was any falsehood in to which degree the engine was original. It is that he should be prepared to deliver source code when requested.

IT WAS NEVER ASKED [!]

1. Vas said so.
2. If memory serves me well confirmed by the Rybka accusers (Wegner and/or Watkins), buried in the 80.000+ postings about the R/F case.
3. Nothing in the official documentation.

4. The witch hunt started in 2008 (Christophe Theron), later Zach and Watkins and finally Hyatt. At the time the case went to the ICGA the main part of the decompilation was already finished with the Strelka source code as their guide. Meaning - THERE WAS NO NEED TO ASK FOR THE SOURCE CODE.

Why not listen to people who spent months and months of their time in this historic case? Or must I conclude that you by default disagree with particular people who you dislike?

[hgm]

IT WAS NEVER ASKED [!]

How is that relevant?

Chris accused him of having no intention to give it, even when asked. That is a pretty damning accusation.

[hgm]

You start with a wrong assumption here, namely that this rule would have been applied to every tournament entry.

Ah, yes, I forgot. It is perfectly OK to use doping in the Tour de France. Anyone who thinks differently goes from the wrong assumption that all participants will be tested for doping, and should have his mind fixed...

[towforce]

The events happened around 10 years. The source code no longer has any competitive or commercial value.

I am bewildered that people are fighting passionately for a man who, if innocent, could have cleared his name at the drop of a hat at any time in the last 10 years.

What evidence is there that there's no copied code in Rybka?

[hgm]

To reduce the amount of nonsense, let me quote ICGA rule #2:

Each program must be the originalwork of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.

Programs which are discovered to be undeclared derivatives of others may be designated invalid by the Tournament Director if he is convinced, after seeking advice if he feels that to be necessary, that the closeness of derivation is of such a level as to constitute unfair competition. A listing and an executable version of all game-related code and data running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director prior to the start of and during the tournament. The Tournament Director has the right to submit the executable version of a program for testing for similarity with other known programs, and/or to submit the listing to an expert or experts of his choosing for examination, also to determine similarity. Under all circumstances the Tournament Director will take all reasonable steps to ensure that any such listingand/or executable are treated as being strictly confidential.

I don't see the word 'newcomer' here. What I see instead is 'Each program'.

And, wasn't the Rybka version that was investigated the version from the WCCC where Rybka first participated? I.e. where Vas was a 'newcomer'?