Corrupt CCRL, CEGT, and IPON

[hgm]

what i've posted is the truth, if not please refute it.

Calling people 'corrupt', as your title already does, is in fact a criminal offense, and when the people you accuse would sue you, they would in fact win, and you would be forced to retract your statements in public.

'Corruption' means receiving benefits to not do your duty properly to favor the provider of these benefits. You cannot prove these people received anything, these are just wild accusations. They have nothing to do with 'truth' as the rest of the world defines it. In fact, one of the persons involved already flatly denied them when you directed a more specific version of your fabrications at him.

[kranium]

You cannot prove these people received anything, these are just wild accusations.

George Speight (CCRL) referring to Vas R.:

Then after he went commercial- I have every beta, every version he sold, and every update to every version. If he wrote it, I have it.
And from the first free beta to the last commercial version he has put out- it has cost me NADA- i.e., not one dime have I spent. It was all given to me free.

all versions up to and including Rybka 4.1...that certainly equates to a substantial sum,
(and that's just one tester in one of the aforementioned groups)

[hgm]

That is called 'hear-say', and a court would not consider it proof. He could just have been bragging. Even if it were true it would not proof corruption, because that would also require you to prove that these gifts were the reason for 'professional misconduct'. Furthermore, even if George was found to be corrupt it would be illegal to brand the organization for which he works as corrupt. That would requireyou toprove he controls that organization.

You cannot accuse people of crimes just because someone else tells you they are criminals. A lawyer would really tear you to threads...

[Adam Hair]

Who else better to teach us about morals than a code thief, eh?

How is making some changes to an existing open source code while releasing it as a free engine makes one a code thief?

There is no difference between downloading Ippolit/Robbolito and making regular copies of it.

Now if Norman decided to sell it then it is questionable. But it's free for all.

I believe Harm is refering to two incidences. First, Norman tried to sell a Toga derivative called xyClops. He did apologize and refunded the money.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ht=xyclops
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ht=xyclops
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ht=xyclops

If this was the only incidence, everything would probably be fine.

However, the next year Norman presented Crimson,a closed source engine, as his own work. Turns out that the base code was the open source engine Viper, the work of Tord Romstad.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... rman+viper

Since these events, he has done nothing wrong.

seems entirely typical you would attempt to turn this into a character asassination, but ok,
i realize you have no other option...

yes...and both times immediately stopped when questions arose (one or two 'strings' presented), and moved on...
i did the right thing each time, and am not ashamed.
thanks for digging up these old links to illustrate that fact so succinctly.

Vas and Robert H.?
aren't you and the CCRL still testing/promoting these engines Adam?
(despite boatloads of evidence of gross GPL plagiarism)

that's what this thread is about...

perhaps you guys should do the right thing as well...?
(no sorry, that's right i forgot...you answer to nobody!)

I do not know why I am responding to this. I do not know why I follow anything you write.

Character assassination? I do not have the stomach for that. I did feel that it was pertinent to explain why Harm was calling you a "code thief". Also, I felt it necessary to show how you responded when people discovered the truth behind xyClops. That was the reason behind using those links. I could have cherry-picked them to try to make you look worse, but that was not my intent. Crimson is just a bad mark on your record. I can do nothing to make that look better.

Back to character assassination. Is that not what you have tried to do to me whenever I respond to your posts? I have possibly impugned your character once, when I stated my opinion that you would have tried selling Fire if it had been as strong as Houdini. I took the statement back when you protested. You have not conducted yourself in a similiar manner. You chose to take my statements concerning my choice to avoid obligations to authors and tried to use them to make an unfounded point about me, as well as attributed thoughts and actions to me which are contradicted by my words expressed in this forum and by my actions.

I have attempted to honestly and directly address your grievances more than once, Norman. I am sorry, but I will make no further attempts to do so. If you do need any more ammunition to direct towards me, just let me know. I can give you my wife's e-mail address. She can provide all the ammo that you would need.

Adam

[kranium]

That is called 'hear-say', and a court would not consider it proof. He could just have been bragging. Even if it were true it would not proof corruption, because that would also require you to prove that these gifts were the reason for 'professional misconduct'. Furthermore, even if George was found to be corrupt it would be illegal to brand the organization for which he works as corrupt. That would requireyou toprove he controls that organization.

You cannot accuse people of crimes just because someone else tells you they are criminals. A lawyer would really tear you to threads...

"He could just have been bragging."
now there's some real hear-say!

i beleive there are many forms of being 'corrupt'...
i.e. it does not necessarily mean some 'crime' has been committed.
in this thread i specifically mean: dishonest, lacking integrity, not being fairly inclusive, receiving undue compensation, etc.

perhaps (maybe) collusion (especially if any testers at CCRL were in communication with and blindly cooperating with Vas. R.'s false statement that
Ippolit was clone of Rybka3)

[lkaufman]

For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your characterization of these three fine groups as "corrupt", I do agree that one (and only one) Ivanhoe does deserve to be included on the rating lists.

Larry-

as co-author of Rybka3, you benefited from the fact that CCRL, CEGT, IPON, (et al.) banned Ippolit.

in addition you (and Don) were extremely active and vocal in the frenzied CCC anti-Ippolit agenda of the last years...
truthfully, i believe you're even (at least partially) entitled to take some credit for this fact.

that being said:

even though Komodo will now also (very likely) benefit from the current abysmal and corrupt situation which has been perpetrated upon the masses...
i do greatly appreciate the fact that you now seem to be recognizing Ippolit as a legitimate effort,
and are advocating that IvanHoe be tested by the aforementioned testing groups.

for that i am grateful

I think it makes no sense to treat Houdini 1.5 or 2.0 as more legitimate than its precursor Ippolit. Now that Houdini is significantly different from Ivanhoe it makes sense to test and rate both (as SWCR already does).

[kranium]

I have attempted to honestly and directly address your grievances more than once, Norman.
Adam

my grievances are with the CCRL, not with you...why are you addressing them?
it seems you have taken on the point man responsibility to defend the group, although you insist again and again you speak only for yourself.
(this seeming has become the de-facto standard CCRL disclaimer to prevent a members poor judgment from reflecting on the group as a whole)

anyway, i'm well aware of your attempts to 'address my grievances'
the pattern is clear:

i criticize CCRL
you dig up my past and throw mud

it seems that logic and persuasive counter argument is quickly abandoned in preference to this tactic.
(actually it makes sense as a last resort considering you and the group don't have a leg to stand on)

IMO,
i believe the correct (and prudent) course of action to be:
you and the CCRL should simply admit your mistakes, address the improprieties that have occurred (so that they do not happen again),
adjust your ratings lists to include IvanHoe, and move on...

but i'm quite skeptical this will ever happen considering the desperate effort to save face at all cost mentality, and the 'we don't answer to anybody' culture.
clearly the CCRL, CEGT, etc are deeply enough entrenched in the community to survive, regardless
i guess it all just comes down to integrity and doing the right thing or not...

[hgm]

I wouldn't test any engies of people that call me corrupt, that's for sure! In fact it would be a good reason to delete their engines from my rating list if they were already there!

We can only hope CCRL takes the same stance.

[Graham Banks]

I do not know why I am responding to this. I do not know why I follow anything you write.

Adam - my advice is don't. It's not worth it.

[hgm]

I did feel that it was pertinent to explain why Harm was calling you a "code thief".

Note that technically speaking I did not call him anything at all. I just dropped the term "code thief". If other people recognize themself in that description, they only have themselves to blame!