OpenChess

Today is a sad day for computer chess because this individual is very talented in his own rights. The severity of the sentence was not expected in all sincerity. But given the preponderance of evidence and lack of cooperation, the final judgment was inevitable.

kingliveson wrote:Today is a sad day for computer chess because this individual is very talented in his own rights. The severity of the sentence was not expected in all sincerity. But given the preponderance of evidence and lack of cooperation, the final judgment was inevitable.

Well said, it's not like Vas put up any kind of defense to prove the other side wrong. In fact his fanboys could only give their theories but offered no proof for his defense either.

Ted Summers wrote:

kingliveson wrote:Today is a sad day for computer chess because this individual is very talented in his own rights. The severity of the sentence was not expected in all sincerity. But given the preponderance of evidence and lack of cooperation, the final judgment was inevitable.

Well said, it's not like Vas put up any kind of defense to prove the other side wrong. In fact his fanboys could only give their theories but offered no proof for his defense either.

I think it's also important to consider that the WCCC is, in essence, a programming competition, where the task is to write the most convincing/strongest chess-playing simulator. If you don't do the programming, and I mean all of the programming, yourself (or cite the work that your program relies on), you really have no business competing there -- you haven't satisfied the minimum reasonable requirement for entry -- and shouldn't be outraged when you get your ass handed to you and shown the door.

jb

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Ted Summers wrote:

kingliveson wrote:Today is a sad day for computer chess because this individual is very talented in his own rights. The severity of the sentence was not expected in all sincerity. But given the preponderance of evidence and lack of cooperation, the final judgment was inevitable.

Well said, it's not like Vas put up any kind of defense to prove the other side wrong. In fact his fanboys could only give their theories but offered no proof for his defense either.

I think it's also important to consider that the WCCC is, in essence, a programming competition, where the task is to write the most convincing/strongest chess-playing simulator. If you don't do the programming, and I mean all of the programming, yourself (or cite the work that your program relies on), you really have no business competing there -- you haven't satisfied the minimum reasonable requirement for entry -- and shouldn't be outraged when you get your ass handed to you and shown the door.

jb

The keyword here is programming competition, so it is comparable to academic integrity misdeeds which is why perhaps the hammer came down hard.

hyatt wrote:What are you talking about? The report goes far beyond 1.0 beta in its analysis and conclusions...

Sure. I read the reports posted on this forum on the 1.0 beta/Fruit issue, so I assumed first that all the evidence is based on these reports and failed to notice the 2.3.2a/1.0 beta comparison...
However I think that "we demand the prizes back" part is still unjustified.

ThinkingALot wrote:

hyatt wrote:What are you talking about? The report goes far beyond 1.0 beta in its analysis and conclusions...

Sure. I read the reports posted on this forum on the 1.0 beta/Fruit issue, so I assumed first that all the evidence is based on these reports and failed to notice the 2.3.2a/1.0 beta comparison...
However I think that "we demand the prizes back" part is still unjustified.

You enter a program into a competition under false pretenses and win. Your fraud is discovered. Of course you have to give the prizes back! The fact that you won doesn't diminish the fact that you cheated -- Rybka should never have been allowed to compete, and if Vas had not lied when preparing Rybka's application, none of this would ever have happened.

Again, this has nothing to do with chess or Rybka's strength. It's about competition rules and enforcement.

Jeremy

German article in Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/games/0, ... 20,00.html. Nothing new, but the story is getting widespread attention, not just in CC hangouts.

Nothing new, but the story is getting widespread attention, not just in CC hangouts.

Should be good publicity for the Rybka Cluster.

I'm not in the loop, but I kinda expect that Levy (or maybe Jaap van den Herik) will write something more complete about the decision, both concerning the evidence in this case, and general expectations for entrants, etc. Depending on the nature of such a writing, it would likely be more suited for the ICGA Journal than (say) ChessVibes, but no one can predict the publicity trajectory at this juncture.

Many people defend Vas at this moment is understood they have feeling for Vas....... I can not understand why all these people like Nelson Hernandez , Graham Banks blame on IGGA they need to understand what VAS did wrong to the other programmers ...... Thats why VAS don't defend him self.
he is a Thief not matter what side are you and he has to pay for it.
For those people dont't know what open-source mean

There are 10 core principles of open-source software:

1 Software must be free to redistribute.
2 The program must include source code.
3 The licence must allow people to experiment with and redistribute modifications.
4 Users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using.
5 There should be no discrimination against any person or group.
6 The licence must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field.
7 No-one should need to acquire an additional licence to use or redistribute the program.
8 The licence must not be specific to a product.
9 The licence must not restrict other software.
10 The licence must be technology-neutral

and Rybka have to be open-source

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/cross ... -code.html

jb