On Dalke

[hyatt]

Will you PLEASE stop with the lies. I did not "finger-point." I recalled, after you raised the issue, that this had been mentioned. I posted that as an honest statement. I then said "I think it might have been Mark." That is NOT "finger-pointing". I did not remember. I even asked Mark directly, and he answered that he recalled it being discussed on CCC in mid-2010. I posted that response. Yet you STILL say I am finger-pointing? you are simply a liar. An outright liar. Because you know the statement was originally an "I think it was ..." and as soon as Mark replied, I corrected it specifically and you commented on it. yet you keep up this "finger-pointing" bullshit? I don't know why I feel surprised, of course...

Thank you for the confirmation that the info was known mid-2010 but not in the document. But let's leave Mark out of the discussion for the moment and concentrate on your role as ICGA official in charge of truth finding.

How is it then you failed to mention that >= actually is wrong whenever 0.0 came up in hundreds of postings. You had 100+ chances to inform your debating partners about the truth of one of the hottest debated issues and you did not. In fact you 2 months ago in reply to Miguel posted the false info:

What part of "I didn't remember" don't you understand? I would think that is self-explanatory. As I ALSO mentioned, the ICGA report does not mention the 0.0 issue anywhere. You do know that? Zach's report contains no 0.0 reference. Mark mentioned it, but in the context of the block of code setting up time information. One sentence in one place, one in another, out of 26 pages?

The first looks like this:

some commonality of UCI parsing code, including a spurious “0.0” float-based comparison in the integer-based time management code of Rybka.

The second is here, discussing 2.3.2a rather than 1.0 beta

moved much of any complaint here.
I have not bothered to see when/if the UCI parsing was changed, though
a crude check19 finds code similarities in Rybka 2.3.2a (June 2007). The use
of “0.0” in time management is also still extant in Rybka 2.3.2a.

There are a couple of other 0.0 strings, but they are in the code he includes.

So that is a HUGE part of the evidence to you? A part that was not even mentioned in the ICGA report nor in Zach's paper? And the fact that there is an error in the comparison is therefore proof of innocence, even though it was never mentioned as proof of guilt in the final report? Why didn't I mention it? Since there was no discussion about that topic at all on the Wiki, nothing jogged my memory until YOUR post.

Let me remind you, you had the chance to participate. You chose to run and hide in a temper tantrum when Chris was not admitted. YOU made that decision, not the ICGA. Now you want to complain because something YOU considered major was not discussed. Would you have mentioned it if you had remained on the panel? Whose fault is it that you did not? A temper tantrum on your part does not constitute wrongdoing on our part.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid396697

Implausible.

The code was

if (movetime >= 0.0)

While all the time knowing (or you should have known!!) this would be a bomb under 0.0 gate?

There was no "0.0 gate" except with you, apparently. The panel didn't consider it important enough to even mention it in the report. So obviously it did not weigh on our deliberations in any significant way. If 3 characters convinced you of guilt, that says something is wrong with your reasoning abilities, not the ICGA process...

Remember how Zach felt about 0.0

Coming back to R1/Fruit, yes, if you look at each example in detail, you can't say there is much hard evidence of direct code copying. As I said to Vas, I'm only completely certain that three characters were copied ("0.0").

If needed I will go to the bottom of this, I will ask each Panel member a) how strongly they felt about 0.0 and b) if they were informed that the info in Mark's document was wrong.

For sure, I would not have signed the Fabien letter.

Says a lot about you, then. I would not convict ANYONE on a single piece of circumstantial evidence. I chose to look at the entire body of evidence, where the 0.0 doesn't mean much at all..

[hyatt]

It does not even matter so much what happened inside the panel. The point is that Vas had no reason to trust the process, if only for your presence. Just look at your posts from 2010.

That was his choice. It seems the ICGA was not so amused by it. Normally, if one is accused of something they are not guilty of doing, they respond. To date, he has not. Not in any forum. Not in private with the ICGA...

Normally if one is accused, one gets a fair trial.[/quote]

The trial was as fair as it could possibly be, given the fact that the accused chose to offer no defense of any kind. This happens in real courtrooms as well. The ICGA judge/jury had no conflicts of interests, they had no reason to want to take this action because it doesn't help things at all publicly, although it might tend to make future competitions less likely to see derivative programs enter.

[hyatt]

Suppose those tiny pieces had been copied with full permission from Fabien. Would Vas then have infringed Rule 2 for not entering Fabien's name as co-author on the form? I think not. (Note that Fabien (not) giving permission is not an element of Rule 2: whether he gave it or not does not change whether Vas violated Rule 2 or not.)

Since both competed in the same event, yes it violates rule 2.

Assuming he violated Rule 2, do you agree that Vas would have still violated Rule 2 if he had had Fabien's full permission? Still "close derivates" in the same tournament, still not "all other authors" named?

Advance warning: the next step will be reminding you of people entering engines with code copied from crafty with your permission.

1. The ICGA rules have been clear. Toga was entered with Fabien's permission, as one example.

Was Fabien named as author on the entry form?

I suppose he was: rule 2 is not about Fabien giving his permission, it is about Fabien being named as author. (Of course naming him as author requires his permission, but there are two things here.)

I don't have access to that stuff. however, it was discussed when it came up, and the ICGA was involved with the discussion. I therefore assume that everything was done correctly. Personally, I don't care what the entry form says, if a program's authorship is known and the original author approves. And we KNOW that was the case at the least. The entry form I can't address.

2. Programmers discussed the "shared code" idea several times. Consensus was that things like egtb.cpp were acceptable to everyone, and that's been allowed. Simplistic ideas like rotated bitboards, or 0x88, and such have also been allowed, including actual copying of some bits of code.

I'd like to have a better understanding of what "simplistic" means. Crafty contains over 15k lines of code written by others. Have you entered Nalimov, Kadatch and Edwards as co-authors of crafty on the ICGA entry form?

No, because that has been SPECIFICALLY addressed at ICGA meetings. Participants were unanimous in their support for allowing both nalimov's code, and Edward's egtb code prior to Nalimov's being released.

"simplistic" has generally been defined as "one input, one output". The lock functions I use have been used by many. The MSB/LSB functions I have used were used by others. Given a 64 bit value with N bits set, the most significant bit, or the least significant bit is a pre-determined value. Ditto for popcnt. Rotated bitboards is another example, you take a set of occupied squares and look up the set of bits that indicate which squares a sliding piece attack. Same for magic. Not for move generation, because once you have the set of squares, there are too many options as to what you can do. IE my generate nothing but captures or generate everything but captures approach. Which piece do you do first? Which square do you generate first? None of that is allowable.

If not, then those 15k lines are all "simplistic" and from the point of view of rule 2 everybody is free to include that kind of code in his program without mentioning the author on the entry form.

First, 1/2 of that 15 K lines of code is generally compiled out of Crafty when I participate. That is the EPD stuff Steven wrote and made public. He actually added it to Crafty for me. It doesn't play chess, nor is it used during a game. I do not define "-DEPD" myself because I don't use EPD stuff. Ditto for Nalimov where I don't use endgame tables in tournaments because I discovered they do not help or hurt, and by leaving them out, things are simpler for me to use a cluster node to participate.

(I KNOW that you have permission from Nalimov, Kadatch and Edwards, but rule 2 requires all authors to be named on the entry form, even those that gave permission. Leaving them out is only allowed if they are not an "author" in the sense of rule 2, so only if their contributions are "simplistic".)

Now the question arises: why was the fen parsing and UCI protocol parsing stuff investigated at all? This is all "simplistic" code of the kind found in those 15k lines.

Because UCI parsing, Fen parsing, time allocation, etc are not "one in one out" functions. A rotated bitboard move generation is one fairly complex line of code. Two table lookups + an OR to combine the two rays (for bishops/rooks, queens use both bishop/rook lookups and then OR that together for a more complex single line of code. The two ideas are not the same. And the ICGA case is NOT based on the FEN parsing code. Or the UCI interface code. Those represent a tiny part of the body of evidence. It is the search and eval issues that make this unacceptable. The rest is just supporting evidence showing that other pieces of code were copied as well.

[Rebel]

I am not interested in your insults and mind guessing of the Panel members.

You kept false information hidden that would hurt your VIG stance. Show me at least the evidence you shared the correct information with the Panel members.

Remember your words at CCC - Engine Origins:

This >= vs > was mentioned by Mark Watkins during the panel discussions I believe.

You misremembered ?

[marcelk]

It does not even matter so much what happened inside the panel. The point is that Vas had no reason to trust the process, if only for your presence. Just look at your posts from 2010.

That was his choice. It seems the ICGA was not so amused by it. Normally, if one is accused of something they are not guilty of doing, they respond. To date, he has not. Not in any forum. Not in private with the ICGA...

Normally if one is accused, one gets a fair trial.

The trial was as fair as it could possibly be,

And that doesn't make it fair.

given the fact that the accused chose to offer no defense of any kind. This happens in real courtrooms as well. The ICGA judge/jury had no conflicts of interests, they had no reason to want to take this action because it doesn't help things at all publicly, although it might tend to make future competitions less likely to see derivative programs enter.

You had a vested interest in the outcome:

1. Revenge for the discovery that in an unrelated situation Crafty was used.

2. Revenge for the realization that Crafty's influence was ditched in favor of Fruit's ideas. Realization that Crafty has fallen so much behind that none if it had any value anymore in the eyes of a peer who would dominate the field for half a decade to come.

3. The possibility that you would be shown wrong. You already had your mind setup and the worst thing that can happen in your world view is to be shown incorrect. Your personality doesn't accept such a scenario and you will fight it religiously.

Staying way from the kangaroo court is one of the most sensible things Vas could do.

[hyatt]

I am not interested in your insults and mind guessing of the Panel members.

You kept false information hidden that would hurt your VIG stance. Show me at least the evidence you shared the correct information with the Panel members.

Remember your words at CCC - Engine Origins:

This >= vs > was mentioned by Mark Watkins during the panel discussions I believe.

You misremembered ?

Disingenuity is becoming your trademark.

1. The >= vs > was not discussed in the wiki, because the 0.0 was not discussed. It was not in the final report. It was not in Zach's report. It was not given an "honorable mention" in anything except for Mark's paper.

2. "was mentioned ... i believe". You see that "I believe" on the end? Means I am not sure. I simply asked mark directly via email and he said it was discussed in mid-2010 on CCC. For me, that ended the issue, and I posted that on CCC the NEXT DAY. Yet you want to continue about something being hidden. It was not. It was completely forgotten by me. Sue me. I didn't remember something mentioned 2 years prior to the ICGA report being written.

3. I did not "keep information hidden." You want to continue to call me a liar. I'll return the favor. You are an outright liar here. I kept NOTHING that I remembered from the panel... Had no reason to.

4. How can I show you evidence I mentioned it to the panel when I have ALREADY clearly stated that I did not, because I did not remember it. I would assume Mark did not remember it either. Be interesting to find the thread to see if YOU posted in it. Maybe YOU were also keeping it hidden???

[hyatt]

It does not even matter so much what happened inside the panel. The point is that Vas had no reason to trust the process, if only for your presence. Just look at your posts from 2010.

That was his choice. It seems the ICGA was not so amused by it. Normally, if one is accused of something they are not guilty of doing, they respond. To date, he has not. Not in any forum. Not in private with the ICGA...

Normally if one is accused, one gets a fair trial.

The trial was as fair as it could possibly be,

And that doesn't make it fair.

given the fact that the accused chose to offer no defense of any kind. This happens in real courtrooms as well. The ICGA judge/jury had no conflicts of interests, they had no reason to want to take this action because it doesn't help things at all publicly, although it might tend to make future competitions less likely to see derivative programs enter.

You had a vested interest in the outcome:

1. Revenge for the discovery that in an unrelated situation Crafty was used.

Had forgotten about that. Took Doc's DeLorean into the future to the point where we actually discovered the 1.6.1 issue in March of 2011, then went back to 2006 and decided I was going to "take him down" for copying my program, right? That is the ONLY way I could have known that 1.6.1 had copied my code, because we didn't discover it until roughly March or so, after we were well into the investigation. So yes, I had a vested interest in the outcome, thanks to time-travel that let me see what we found in the investigation before the investigation started. Otherwise, your statement is simply bullshit. Which seems more likely? Time travel or bullshit. I know what I believe.

2. Revenge for the realization that Crafty's influence was ditched in favor of Fruit's ideas. Realization that Crafty has fallen so much behind that none if it had any value anymore in the eyes of a peer who would dominate the field for half a decade to come.

Now you look just as bad as Ed. If the two of you REALLY think like you are posting, I am glad that I don't have to deal with either of you on a personal basis. You both lack character in the extreme. Not all people think in terms as "petty" as you seem to think. Which suggests that there is something terribly wrong with the way you perceive life and pursuit of happiness. point 2 is more bullshit.

3. The possibility that you would be shown wrong. You already had your mind setup and the worst thing that can happen in your world view is to be shown incorrect. Your personality doesn't accept such a scenario and you will fight it religiously.

Staying way from the kangaroo court is one of the most sensible things Vas could do.

Enough bullshit there to fertilize and feed a third-world country.

[Rebel]

I am not interested in your insults and mind guessing of the Panel members.

You kept false information hidden that would hurt your VIG stance. Show me at least the evidence you shared the correct information with the Panel members.

Remember your words at CCC - Engine Origins:

This >= vs > was mentioned by Mark Watkins during the panel discussions I believe.

You misremembered ?

Disingenuity is becoming your trademark.

1. The >= vs > was not discussed in the wiki, because the 0.0 was not discussed. It was not in the final report. It was not in Zach's report. It was not given an "honorable mention" in anything except for Mark's paper.

So you misremembered.

2. "was mentioned ... i believe". You see that "I believe" on the end? Means I am not sure. I simply asked mark directly via email and he said it was discussed in mid-2010 on CCC. For me, that ended the issue, and I posted that on CCC the NEXT DAY. Yet you want to continue about something being hidden. It was not. It was completely forgotten by me.

Odd.

Sue me.

Sue ?

And I always thought your name is Bob and you are male.

I didn't remember something mentioned 2 years prior to the ICGA report being written.

Odd.

You the all-knowing one ?

3. I did not "keep information hidden." You want to continue to call me a liar.

Fact is that the information was hidden for the members of the Fabien letter, the Panel and in all the public discussions. Missing zillions of chances to reveal truth and it did not happen until the VII camp discovered it themselves.

As for calling you a liar, well, no. In your own way you are honest and you can justify the selective forgetfulness to yourself. Doesn't mean the rest of the world subscribes to your version of honesty.

[hyatt]

I am not interested in your insults and mind guessing of the Panel members.

You kept false information hidden that would hurt your VIG stance. Show me at least the evidence you shared the correct information with the Panel members.

Remember your words at CCC - Engine Origins:

This >= vs > was mentioned by Mark Watkins during the panel discussions I believe.

You misremembered ?

Disingenuity is becoming your trademark.

1. The >= vs > was not discussed in the wiki, because the 0.0 was not discussed. It was not in the final report. It was not in Zach's report. It was not given an "honorable mention" in anything except for Mark's paper.

So you misremembered.

2. "was mentioned ... i believe". You see that "I believe" on the end? Means I am not sure. I simply asked mark directly via email and he said it was discussed in mid-2010 on CCC. For me, that ended the issue, and I posted that on CCC the NEXT DAY. Yet you want to continue about something being hidden. It was not. It was completely forgotten by me.

Odd.

Sue me.

Sue ?

And I always thought your name is Bob and you are male.

I didn't remember something mentioned 2 years prior to the ICGA report being written.

Odd.

You the all-knowing one ?

3. I did not "keep information hidden." You want to continue to call me a liar.

Fact is that the information was hidden for the members of the Fabien letter, the Panel and in all the public discussions. Missing zillions of chances to reveal truth and it did not happen until the VII camp discovered it themselves.

Whine away. According to Mark, this was discussed on CCC. You had the opportunity to read it just as I did. I forgot about it and didn't remember until YOU brought it up. At which point I honestly pointed out that it had been discussed previously. I just did not remember where/when. whoop-de-do.

BTW, YOU signed the Fabien letter, not me. YOU apparently signed because of one line of code, not most of the others. Most seemed to do due diligence and looked at all the evidence and made up their mind that copying had been done. You did a quickee look instead, and based your opinion on one line of code. A lack of effort on your part doesn't compromise a lack of honesty on my part. On the contrary, it just shows a lack of effort on your part and nothing more. If this was mentioned in CCC, and I plan on trying to search when I get home tonight, it will be interesting to see if you posted in the thread and if YOU also "forgot." Then we have "pot" and "kettle"...

As for calling you a liar, well, no. In your own way you are honest and you can justify the selective forgetfulness to yourself. Doesn't mean the rest of the world subscribes to your version of honesty.

I simply stated what happened. I don't give a rat's a$$ what you think about my honesty.

[marcelk]

Enough bullshit there to fertilize and feed a third-world country.

The Rybka investigation encompassed sufficient corruption to run one.