Your questions don't bother me a bit because I already know the answers.
But it WOULD be nice if you were a bit more consistent. For example, Zach was dishonest because he "fruitified" the Rybka disassembly, but then Fadden was sloppy because he did NOT use Fruit names. I "violated" some mythical ethical standard by discussing the rybka investigation before it was completed, even though I had been discussing it before the investigation started, but now I have not said anything and you are wanting one of the panel members to discuss an open case publicly.
Pick a side and stay on it...
For BB+
Re: For BB+
You are funny, the panel member in question according to Jaap (already) has spoken publicly during the programmer meeting in Yokohama last August. Look at the OP, I am only asking for a conformation of what publicly has been said about this so called "open case" of 2 years old.hyatt wrote: I "violated" some mythical ethical standard by discussing the rybka investigation before it was completed, even though I had been discussing it before the investigation started, but now I have not said anything and you are wanting one of the panel members to discuss an open case publicly.
The question is not even directed at you.hyatt wrote:Your questions don't bother me a bit because I already know the answers.
Last, if you quote me quote correctly, quote what I have said, not what you seem to remember. Never called Zach dishonest. Driven by tunnel vision (see only what you already convinced of and leaning to short-sightedness for counter evidence) is a better description.
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Contact:
Re: For BB+
I don't have to "remember what you wrote". EVERYBODY remembers. Remember Richard complaining about your Fadden/Zach arguing from both ends of the stick comments???
Just one example:
(1) Don't get me started about Zach's analysis of the Material Table, one of the worst examples in Zach Wegner's document and another example of fruitification to make Rybka look like Fruit.
(2) Sure, I can guess what Fadden in his sloppiness likely meant myself.
Problem is, the charge states non-existing invented names. The defender is not responsible for the errors the prosecutor, Fadden and Watkins in this case. Instead the defender addresses the errors of the prosecutor, that's his job.
So, "fruitification" in one breath, "sloppiness because he did NOT 'fruitify'" in the next. More examples if you want 'em.
Just one example:
(1) Don't get me started about Zach's analysis of the Material Table, one of the worst examples in Zach Wegner's document and another example of fruitification to make Rybka look like Fruit.
(2) Sure, I can guess what Fadden in his sloppiness likely meant myself.
Problem is, the charge states non-existing invented names. The defender is not responsible for the errors the prosecutor, Fadden and Watkins in this case. Instead the defender addresses the errors of the prosecutor, that's his job.
So, "fruitification" in one breath, "sloppiness because he did NOT 'fruitify'" in the next. More examples if you want 'em.
Re: For BB+
I doubt thathyatt wrote:I don't have to "remember what you wrote". EVERYBODY remembers.
Statements are true, so exactly where did I call Zach dishonest?
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Contact:
Re: For BB+
Do I have to go search again? I remember the term "intellectually dishonest" more than one time... Here's a few quotes from posts suggesting dishonesty:
So when Zach talks about found similarities in eval I wonder how he (and the others) can say such things.
or
I protest to this kind of presentation of evidence as it is misleading for the average reader
or
It's pretty simple Bob, from the document:
Zach Wegner: Simply put, Rybka's evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's.
That's quite an accusation.
There is no reversed engineered C++ code of EVAL.
1. So you (and the Panel) just ASSUMED the disassembler interpretation was correct.
2. You (and the Panel) not even asked for the reversed engineered C++ interpretation.
Wrong science.
Shame on you and the Panel.
Seems like you believe him to be dishonest.
So when Zach talks about found similarities in eval I wonder how he (and the others) can say such things.
or
I protest to this kind of presentation of evidence as it is misleading for the average reader
or
It's pretty simple Bob, from the document:
Zach Wegner: Simply put, Rybka's evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's.
That's quite an accusation.
There is no reversed engineered C++ code of EVAL.
1. So you (and the Panel) just ASSUMED the disassembler interpretation was correct.
2. You (and the Panel) not even asked for the reversed engineered C++ interpretation.
Wrong science.
Shame on you and the Panel.
Seems like you believe him to be dishonest.
Re: For BB+
You are mistaken again, provided I have used the term "intellectually dishonesty" it must have been directed at you, not Zach.hyatt wrote:Do I have to go search again? I remember the term "intellectually dishonest" more than one time...
Next (derail) accusation please...
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Contact:
Re: For BB+
Here's ONE exact quote. Seems to be addressed to EVERYBODY BUT ME (since I didn't sign the Fabien letter):
HGM - What the ICGA secretariat posts is not very interesting. After all, they don't look very competent, and can easily be wrong.
There you go again, by your lack of knowledge of this case shooting your own argument into pieces. The ICGA secretariat were the ones responsible to write the report for the IGGA board who eventually would speak the verdict based on that report. If these secretariat people (Hyatt, Lefler, Williamson) were not very competent (your words) then why are you defending the indefensible?
2 facts of that secretariat report:
1. It wasn't offered to the Panel members for criticism. It was a 3 man show. Bob's finest hour so to say. The Panel members had nothing to do with it.
2. And among other things it contained a repeated lie, 3 times we read: Not a single panel member believed him innocent.
Indeed incompetent and all of it should make you think twice.
HGM - Rule #2 does not only cover code copying. It covers copying at higher levels as well.
About the latter, the same applies for the vast majority (if not all) of chess programmers of the last 50 years. We borrow (copy) ideas we hear / read and we code them in our own unique way, sometimes unmodified but most of the time with changes in our own data structure. And there is nothing wrong with that. It basically proofs that It covers copying at higher levels as well is the bankruptcy of rule #2 as interpreted in the Rybka case. If for instance it were the case the ICGA had a policy against RE it would cause a complete rewrite of ICGA history.
And now for the real story, what really happened.
1. This case was NEVER about rule #2, it was about "Vas copied Fruit". "Vas got his first 2700 elo for free". "Rybka started its life as Fruit". Read Zach's (sudden) posting of yesterday, he is honest about it. Bob too. It's about copying since day one. Compatible with the history of caught IGCA clones as well. Read it!
2. Read the Fabien letter, ask the programmers who signed it and why they signed it. They believed Vas copied and decided to punish him for that under less strict rules than copyright infringement. That's false when you use many ideas yourself from others or RE (steal) the work of others. The judgement should have been on the hard evidence of what they believed and that's copying Fruit. Instead they judged on a vague and out-dated rule open to many interpretations and they pushed that vague rule to its VIG limits to get the desired result. That's intellectual dishonesty.
BTW your claim that the board only used the report to judge was obviously wrong. We wrote the report as a summary, at the request of David, to make the evidence less technical and difficult to understand for the non-computing people. The report was a summary, a summary of the work the entire panel (those that participated) produced. You claim it was just the secretariat. You look pretty foolish.
Next attempt to recant/rewrite your words, please...
HGM - What the ICGA secretariat posts is not very interesting. After all, they don't look very competent, and can easily be wrong.
There you go again, by your lack of knowledge of this case shooting your own argument into pieces. The ICGA secretariat were the ones responsible to write the report for the IGGA board who eventually would speak the verdict based on that report. If these secretariat people (Hyatt, Lefler, Williamson) were not very competent (your words) then why are you defending the indefensible?
2 facts of that secretariat report:
1. It wasn't offered to the Panel members for criticism. It was a 3 man show. Bob's finest hour so to say. The Panel members had nothing to do with it.
2. And among other things it contained a repeated lie, 3 times we read: Not a single panel member believed him innocent.
Indeed incompetent and all of it should make you think twice.
HGM - Rule #2 does not only cover code copying. It covers copying at higher levels as well.
About the latter, the same applies for the vast majority (if not all) of chess programmers of the last 50 years. We borrow (copy) ideas we hear / read and we code them in our own unique way, sometimes unmodified but most of the time with changes in our own data structure. And there is nothing wrong with that. It basically proofs that It covers copying at higher levels as well is the bankruptcy of rule #2 as interpreted in the Rybka case. If for instance it were the case the ICGA had a policy against RE it would cause a complete rewrite of ICGA history.
And now for the real story, what really happened.
1. This case was NEVER about rule #2, it was about "Vas copied Fruit". "Vas got his first 2700 elo for free". "Rybka started its life as Fruit". Read Zach's (sudden) posting of yesterday, he is honest about it. Bob too. It's about copying since day one. Compatible with the history of caught IGCA clones as well. Read it!
2. Read the Fabien letter, ask the programmers who signed it and why they signed it. They believed Vas copied and decided to punish him for that under less strict rules than copyright infringement. That's false when you use many ideas yourself from others or RE (steal) the work of others. The judgement should have been on the hard evidence of what they believed and that's copying Fruit. Instead they judged on a vague and out-dated rule open to many interpretations and they pushed that vague rule to its VIG limits to get the desired result. That's intellectual dishonesty.
BTW your claim that the board only used the report to judge was obviously wrong. We wrote the report as a summary, at the request of David, to make the evidence less technical and difficult to understand for the non-computing people. The report was a summary, a summary of the work the entire panel (those that participated) produced. You claim it was just the secretariat. You look pretty foolish.
Next attempt to recant/rewrite your words, please...