On Dalke

[orgfert]

Loud and clear.
You were deliberately withholding crucial information since 2010. Worse, you hinting here Mark also knew. What you are saying here is that Mark deliberately left the false information in his document. Cheating the Panel. Cheating those who signed the Fabien letter. I signed the Fabien letter MAINLY because of:

FRUIT - if (movetime >= 0.0)
RYBKA - if (movetime >= 0.0)

As it was a clear sign of copying. And I wasn't told about the wrong decompile while the information was known. The truth: RYBKA - if (movetime > 0.0) is a bomb under "0.0" gate. And it was withhold. That's cheating.

And I know various programmers who signed the Fabien letter that took the same road as me, "0.0" greatly worked as a catalysator to accept the rest of the documents without much criticism. They can speak up for themselves if they feel that is the right thing to do. I would like to see Mark to clarify the matter. Can you blame me for having a hard time to believe your side of the story especially the Mark Watkins part ?

So a single ASCII character proves Bob and Mark are scheming, cheating liars who will stop at nothing to destroy a working man's livelihood. The bastards.

[User923005]

Loud and clear.
You were deliberately withholding crucial information since 2010. Worse, you hinting here Mark also knew. What you are saying here is that Mark deliberately left the false information in his document. Cheating the Panel. Cheating those who signed the Fabien letter. I signed the Fabien letter MAINLY because of:

FRUIT - if (movetime >= 0.0)
RYBKA - if (movetime >= 0.0)

As it was a clear sign of copying. And I wasn't told about the wrong decompile while the information was known. The truth: RYBKA - if (movetime > 0.0) is a bomb under "0.0" gate. And it was withhold. That's cheating.

And I know various programmers who signed the Fabien letter that took the same road as me, "0.0" greatly worked as a catalysator to accept the rest of the documents without much criticism. They can speak up for themselves if they feel that is the right thing to do. I would like to see Mark to clarify the matter. Can you blame me for having a hard time to believe your side of the story especially the Mark Watkins part ?

So a single ASCII character proves Bob and Mark are scheming, cheating liars who will stop at nothing to destroy a working man's livelihood. The bastards.

A teeny tiny fragment was used to show that Vas was cheating by direct copying. If this teeny tiny fragment was not correct that seems important to me.
FWIW, I do not think that Bob or Mark were willfully trying to railroad someone.
I do think that some of the panel members clearly do not like Vas.
Sometimes, that can color our judgment, even though we may mean to be fair.

My complaint is not with the board that met for fact finding. My complaint is with the fundamental design of the fault-finding process itself. It was poorly conceived, poorly constructed, poorly executed and the controversial results are the natural result of such a process.

[orgfert]

Loud and clear.
You were deliberately withholding crucial information since 2010. Worse, you hinting here Mark also knew. What you are saying here is that Mark deliberately left the false information in his document. Cheating the Panel. Cheating those who signed the Fabien letter. I signed the Fabien letter MAINLY because of:

FRUIT - if (movetime >= 0.0)
RYBKA - if (movetime >= 0.0)

As it was a clear sign of copying. And I wasn't told about the wrong decompile while the information was known. The truth: RYBKA - if (movetime > 0.0) is a bomb under "0.0" gate. And it was withhold. That's cheating.

And I know various programmers who signed the Fabien letter that took the same road as me, "0.0" greatly worked as a catalysator to accept the rest of the documents without much criticism. They can speak up for themselves if they feel that is the right thing to do. I would like to see Mark to clarify the matter. Can you blame me for having a hard time to believe your side of the story especially the Mark Watkins part ?

So a single ASCII character proves Bob and Mark are scheming, cheating liars who will stop at nothing to destroy a working man's livelihood. The bastards.

A teeny tiny fragment was used to show that Vas was cheating by direct copying. If this teeny tiny fragment was not correct that seems important to me.
FWIW, I do not think that Bob or Mark were willfully trying to railroad someone.

You are disrespecting Rebel's smoking blowpipe. He proved with a single byte that Bob (and probably Mark) are evil because Rebel used that one byte as his only justification for believing the accusations. Everyone else was fooled by the mountain of evidence but Rebel figured out that only the "=" implicated the accused. Now he has uncovered the plot that placed that "=" in the document. Holy keystroke Batman.

[Rebel]

Loud and clear.
You were deliberately withholding crucial information since 2010. Worse, you hinting here Mark also knew. What you are saying here is that Mark deliberately left the false information in his document. Cheating the Panel. Cheating those who signed the Fabien letter. I signed the Fabien letter MAINLY because of:

FRUIT - if (movetime >= 0.0)
RYBKA - if (movetime >= 0.0)

As it was a clear sign of copying. And I wasn't told about the wrong decompile while the information was known. The truth: RYBKA - if (movetime > 0.0) is a bomb under "0.0" gate. And it was withhold. That's cheating.

And I know various programmers who signed the Fabien letter that took the same road as me, "0.0" greatly worked as a catalysator to accept the rest of the documents without much criticism. They can speak up for themselves if they feel that is the right thing to do. I would like to see Mark to clarify the matter. Can you blame me for having a hard time to believe your side of the story especially the Mark Watkins part ?

So a single ASCII character proves Bob and Mark are scheming, cheating liars who will stop at nothing to destroy a working man's livelihood. The bastards.

A teeny tiny fragment was used to show that Vas was cheating by direct copying. If this teeny tiny fragment was not correct that seems important to me.
FWIW, I do not think that Bob or Mark were willfully trying to railroad someone.

You are disrespecting Rebel's smoking blowpipe. He proved with a single byte that Bob (and probably Mark) are evil because Rebel used that one byte as his only justification for believing the accusations. Everyone else was fooled by the mountain of evidence but Rebel figured out that only the "=" implicated the accused. Now he has uncovered the plot that placed that "=" in the document. Holy keystroke Batman.

I feel chated and just want an explanation. And it's not me who brought up the subject here.

When a "dot-typo" on a 1920x1080 screen becomes a big issue among chess programmers as evidence for code-theft and it becomes known that counter evidence was withhold then yes, I have a big problem with that. It does not mean the whole case against Vas has gone up in smoke as you like to conclude, there is enough stuff left to disagree about. This is about one specific point.

Now before you start to judge me again please read http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm#C6 make sure you understand what's said over there and I am happy to take your questions.

[orgfert]

Loud and clear.
You were deliberately withholding crucial information since 2010. Worse, you hinting here Mark also knew. What you are saying here is that Mark deliberately left the false information in his document. Cheating the Panel. Cheating those who signed the Fabien letter. I signed the Fabien letter MAINLY because of:

FRUIT - if (movetime >= 0.0)
RYBKA - if (movetime >= 0.0)

As it was a clear sign of copying. And I wasn't told about the wrong decompile while the information was known. The truth: RYBKA - if (movetime > 0.0) is a bomb under "0.0" gate. And it was withhold. That's cheating.

And I know various programmers who signed the Fabien letter that took the same road as me, "0.0" greatly worked as a catalysator to accept the rest of the documents without much criticism. They can speak up for themselves if they feel that is the right thing to do. I would like to see Mark to clarify the matter. Can you blame me for having a hard time to believe your side of the story especially the Mark Watkins part ?

So a single ASCII character proves Bob and Mark are scheming, cheating liars who will stop at nothing to destroy a working man's livelihood. The bastards.

A teeny tiny fragment was used to show that Vas was cheating by direct copying. If this teeny tiny fragment was not correct that seems important to me.
FWIW, I do not think that Bob or Mark were willfully trying to railroad someone.

You are disrespecting Rebel's smoking blowpipe. He proved with a single byte that Bob (and probably Mark) are evil because Rebel used that one byte as his only justification for believing the accusations. Everyone else was fooled by the mountain of evidence but Rebel figured out that only the "=" implicated the accused. Now he has uncovered the plot that placed that "=" in the document. Holy keystroke Batman.

I feel chated and just want an explanation. And it's not me who brought up the subject here.

When a "dot-typo" on a 1920x1080 screen becomes a big issue among chess programmers as evidence for code-theft and it becomes known that counter evidence was withhold then yes, I have a big problem with that. It does not mean the whole case against Vas has gone up in smoke as you like to conclude, there is enough stuff left to disagree about. This is about one specific point.

Now before you start to judge me again please read http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm#C6 make sure you understand what's said over there and I am happy to take your questions.

Okay but your comment on the specific if (movetime >= 0.0) evidence is, That's no good reason to strip someone of 4 world titles and brand him as a fraud in the worldwide media. It is as though this one point is the whole case as far as you are concerned. Every small point is inflated out of all proportion into extreme conclusions. Now you dare to whisper that Mark Watkins is an evil conspirator (unless he can please respond and calm you down). ???

Wojciech Jaruzelski!

[Rebel]

It's Bob who incriminated Mark, not me.

And as I said I have a hard time to believe the story.

The story broke here, 5 days ago.

http://74.220.23.57/forum/viewtopic.php ... 7d8#456992

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

Stop right here Bob. You are incriminating Mark here to hold up your point. Mark would NEVER do such a thing. If he had noticed that as you say it would be in his document and it is not.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

So if you think I am after Mark you have that wrong. I just want the truth.

[Rebel]

A teeny tiny fragment was used to show that Vas was cheating by direct copying. If this teeny tiny fragment was not correct that seems important to me.
FWIW, I do not think that Bob or Mark were willfully trying to railroad someone.
I do think that some of the panel members clearly do not like Vas.
Sometimes, that can color our judgment, even though we may mean to be fair.

My complaint is not with the board that met for fact finding. My complaint is with the fundamental design of the fault-finding process itself. It was poorly conceived, poorly constructed, poorly executed and the controversial results are the natural result of such a process.

Good to see you active again in computer chess. You were missed.

[orgfert]

It's Bob who incriminated Mark, not me.

And as I said I have a hard time to believe the story.

The story broke here, 5 days ago.

http://74.220.23.57/forum/viewtopic.php ... 7d8#456992

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

Stop right here Bob. You are incriminating Mark here to hold up your point. Mark would NEVER do such a thing. If he had noticed that as you say it would be in his document and it is not.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

So if you think I am after Mark you have that wrong. I just want the truth.

Mark (and Zach if memory serves) admitted the document didn't get the final edit that it should have had. You know this already for a long time. But that didn't stop you saying breathlessly that "Mark would never do such a thing". He already told everyone he "did such a thing". But if, as Bob says, Mark made the error plain in the panel discussions then Mark did his duty to the panel and did not try to hide the error. (If Bob is mistaken and nobody knew about the error at the time, then there is still no conspiracy.) But you conveniently forget what Mark said about lack of time for the big job of a final document edit, implying a conspiracy to falsely implicate. This looks very dishonest and grasping on your part.

Aslo, please explain why you avoid the issue that you think this one aspect (>= versus >) causes the whole case to stand or fall. You imply as much at your own link, and you blow your stack on this forum on the same point with your eyes sticking out on stems exclaiming, "I feel cheated". How can you feel cheated when even your opponents agree it is an error? You already answered that this was the only point that persuaded you to sign the letter. It was not the mountain of evidence that persuaded you, only this one very little piece. Mountains cannot move you so much as the lowly mole hill. They the forest and they the jungle but you the single tree would invoke to sign the letter. They the beam but you the mote.

[Rebel]

It's Bob who incriminated Mark, not me.

And as I said I have a hard time to believe the story.

The story broke here, 5 days ago.

http://74.220.23.57/forum/viewtopic.php ... 7d8#456992

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

Stop right here Bob. You are incriminating Mark here to hold up your point. Mark would NEVER do such a thing. If he had noticed that as you say it would be in his document and it is not.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

So if you think I am after Mark you have that wrong. I just want the truth.

Mark (and Zach if memory serves) admitted the document didn't get the final edit that it should have had. You know this already for a long time. But that didn't stop you saying breathlessly that "Mark would never do such a thing". He already told everyone he "did such a thing". But if, as Bob says, Mark made the error plain in the panel discussions then Mark did his duty to the panel and did not try to hide the error. (If Bob is mistaken and nobody knew about the error at the time, then there is still no conspiracy.) But you conveniently forget what Mark said about lack of time for the big job of a final document edit, implying a conspiracy to falsely implicate. This looks very dishonest and grasping on your part.

Aslo, please explain why you avoid the issue that you think this one aspect (>= versus >) causes the whole case to stand or fall. You imply as much at your own link, and you blow your stack on this forum on the same point with your eyes sticking out on stems exclaiming, "I feel cheated". How can you feel cheated when even your opponents agree it is an error? You already answered that this was the only point that persuaded you to sign the letter. It was not the mountain of evidence that persuaded you, only this one very little piece. Mountains cannot move you so much as the lowly mole hill. They the forest and they the jungle but you the single tree would invoke to sign the letter. They the beam but you the mote.

Your question first, that sentence you dislike so much. It has been there ever since the release of that page (October/November last year). I even held 0.0 against Vas when I turned from VIG to VII, see: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=22679

In retrospect I blame myself for losing my objectivity due to the volume of the alleged evidence initiated by that absurd and damning "0.0" thing which explanation on one good day you should whisper in my ear.

That was August last year. So there you have its importance. And you don't have the right to downplay my decision forming process as it as valid as anybody else who took the VII or VIG road.

Now let's return to the facts.

1. The document (March 2011) falsely state >= while Bob suggests the error was already known in 2010. Worse he is finger pointing at Mark. Not me. Bob.

2. There wasn't any talk in the Panel about 0.0 let alone about the false information. I have access to the Panel talks and there is nothing.

But it's easy for me to sent a group mail to the Panel members to verify if the error was mentioned in email or so which BTW would be a breach of the ICGA stipulations. But I prefer to await Mark's reaction first.

[hyatt]

Bob was not the whole panel, but it takes a lot of faith to believe that the panel could have deviated from his views.

You should ask a few panel members about my participation. I did not push anyone. I didn't try to persuade anyone to vote "yes". I helped when looking at the crafty / rybka 1.6.1 evidence, because I certainly understood my code. I helped with writing parts of the final report. But ask around to see how much influence I tried to exert. I suppose I could simply copy and paste every post I made on the Wiki during the investigation, which would reveal just how far off the mark your last paragraph goes...

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...