OpenChess

Chris Whittington wrote:

Adam Hair wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Rebel wrote:I emptied my mind (not easy) and started to read the documents again, now not hindered by the VIG prejudice but from the VII (Vas is innocent) point of view. And an amazing new world opened. Long story short and to use your own famous words, I went through the documents forwards and backwards and rejected many things.

At least you are honest about your incapacity to simply read the documents and make up your mind on that basis alone.

Jeremy

you really are a kid, aren't you? since that is potentially mean of me, I explain:

only a child, or perhaps a mathematician, believes that any human comes to a problem as a completely fair weighing machine able to view the problem in total isolation and without preconceptions.

Yet, it is possible to approach a problem without well-formed preconceptions of innocence or guilt.

If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "Vas is guilty", one will undoubtedly conclude that he is guilty.
If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "Vas is innocent", one will probably conclude that he is innocent. While there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, I am not aware of a singular piece that conclusively shows that Vas is guilty.

If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "I am uncertain if he is guilty or innocent", then the evidence can be judged properly. The conclusion reached by the reader will be based on how persuasive the evidence is. This is a reasonable and possible approach, despite actions of parties on either side of the dispute to influence the interpretation of the evidence.

I would posit that this particular "problem" is so complex, so multifaceted and even multidisciplinary that such a person is unlikely to exist. And, if he does, he is more than likely to be such a reasonable, fair, mild-mannered individual that he won't be appearing here or anywhere like it, since he will also realise that his chances of persuading the auditorium of anything more than they want to hear are about nil.

He would also be asking the "where are you going" question. You've already assumed the answer to that. Guilt or not guilt, of Vas. It is not my intention to flatter you, but you are a bright guy, and you can likely question whether the question itself is the right one. Whether there are others. Whether the question is asked within an appropriate framework. Where the line is. What are the motives of the protagonists. Cui bono. And, and, and.

And, finally, nobody in their right mind could possibly have yet arrived at a sensible final conclusion to the assumed question. Only part of the evidence has been critiqued. A key player is doing everything in his power to prevent any other agenda than "guilt" from being expressed, using any and every trick in the book to do so. You may know the famous Chairman Mao quote when asked about the consequences of the French revolution, replied "it is too early to tell", well, in this case it is also "too early to tell".

Chris,

If you do not mind, I will attempt to respond to your statements when I have access to my computer. I think tha the second paragraph is something all of the principals of the computer chess community should think about.

Adam

Chris Whittington wrote:

Adam Hair wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Rebel wrote:I emptied my mind (not easy) and started to read the documents again, now not hindered by the VIG prejudice but from the VII (Vas is innocent) point of view. And an amazing new world opened. Long story short and to use your own famous words, I went through the documents forwards and backwards and rejected many things.

At least you are honest about your incapacity to simply read the documents and make up your mind on that basis alone.

Jeremy

you really are a kid, aren't you? since that is potentially mean of me, I explain:

only a child, or perhaps a mathematician, believes that any human comes to a problem as a completely fair weighing machine able to view the problem in total isolation and without preconceptions.

Yet, it is possible to approach a problem without well-formed preconceptions of innocence or guilt.

If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "Vas is guilty", one will undoubtedly conclude that he is guilty.
If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "Vas is innocent", one will probably conclude that he is innocent. While there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, I am not aware of a singular piece that conclusively shows that Vas is guilty.

If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "I am uncertain if he is guilty or innocent", then the evidence can be judged properly. The conclusion reached by the reader will be based on how persuasive the evidence is. This is a reasonable and possible approach, despite actions of parties on either side of the dispute to influence the interpretation of the evidence.

I would posit that this particular "problem" is so complex, so multifaceted and even multidisciplinary that such a person is unlikely to exist. And, if he does, he is more than likely to be such a reasonable, fair, mild-mannered individual that he won't be appearing here or anywhere like it, since he will also realise that his chances of persuading the auditorium of anything more than they want to hear are about nil.

He would also be asking the "where are you going" question. You've already assumed the answer to that. Guilt or not guilt, of Vas. It is not my intention to flatter you, but you are a bright guy, and you can likely question whether the question itself is the right one. Whether there are others. Whether the question is asked within an appropriate framework. Where the line is. What are the motives of the protagonists. Cui bono. And, and, and.

And, finally, nobody in their right mind could possibly have yet arrived at a sensible final conclusion to the assumed question. Only part of the evidence has been critiqued. A key player is doing everything in his power to prevent any other agenda than "guilt" from being expressed, using any and every trick in the book to do so. You may know the famous Chairman Mao quote when asked about the consequences of the French revolution, replied "it is too early to tell", well, in this case it is also "too early to tell".

why don't you take a break from writing rambling nonsense and address this really _easy_ question for most:

"Did Vas copy Crafty 19.x to create Rybka 1.6.1?"

Then answer this:

"Did Vas clearly state, multiple times, that ALL versions of Rybka (even the early ones - his words) were original?"

Then answer this:

"Did Vas clearly violate Crafty's license agreement by entering 1.6.1 into an online tournament, and also by distributing it to rating lists to have its rating evaluated?"

Then answer this:

"In light of that, how can you say he did nothing wrong at all?"

Finally:

"Did you see where a FSF compliance engineer looked at the evidence and told Fabien this certainly looked like something the FSF could pursue? Do you believe he was biased, or that he knew anything about computer chess at all prior to seeing the evidence? So do you really think that an unbiased person will think innocent?"

I would say that any speculation concerning Ed's motives in this thread is in poor taste. Ed was worried from the beginning about any "tunnel-vision" of the process, and even wanted to make that clear to Levy when he signed the Open Letter.

Adam Hair wrote:I have forgotten about the 0.0 constant. I have to look back at the documents to refresh my memory.

I would say that this is not most significant one (it was later found that Rick Fadden was wrong about the comparison being >= as in Fruit, but was rather strict inequality). For "probative similarity" in the FSF/Fabien legal action, the copied code/structures of the iterative deepening (Appendix A of RYBKA_FRUIT) and search control (last part of 6.3.2, pages 15-16) will likely be the strongest "direct" aspects. In both cases there are semantic matches of code to go along with the data structures.

BB+ wrote:I would say that any speculation concerning Ed's motives in this thread is in poor taste. Ed was worried from the beginning about any "tunnel-vision" of the process, and even wanted to make that clear to Levy when he signed the Open Letter.

Adam Hair wrote:I have forgotten about the 0.0 constant. I have to look back at the documents to refresh my memory.

I would say that this is not most significant one (it was later found that Rick Fadden was wrong about the comparison being >= as in Fruit, but was rather strict inequality). For "probative similarity" in the FSF/Fabien legal action, the copied code/structures of the iterative deepening (Appendix A of RYBKA_FRUIT) and search control (last part of 6.3.2, pages 15-16) will likely be the strongest "direct" aspects. In both cases there are semantic matches of code to go along with the data structures.

There has been so much focus on PSTs and evaluation overlap that I have lost track of the other pieces of evidence. To be honest, that is probably because I have a better understanding of those concepts, and so they made a more lasting impression in my memory. I will look over everything again before I make another supposedly informed reference to the evidence.

Chris Whittington wrote:

Adam Hair wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Rebel wrote:I emptied my mind (not easy) and started to read the documents again, now not hindered by the VIG prejudice but from the VII (Vas is innocent) point of view. And an amazing new world opened. Long story short and to use your own famous words, I went through the documents forwards and backwards and rejected many things.

At least you are honest about your incapacity to simply read the documents and make up your mind on that basis alone.

Jeremy

you really are a kid, aren't you? since that is potentially mean of me, I explain:

only a child, or perhaps a mathematician, believes that any human comes to a problem as a completely fair weighing machine able to view the problem in total isolation and without preconceptions.

Yet, it is possible to approach a problem without well-formed preconceptions of innocence or guilt.

If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "Vas is guilty", one will undoubtedly conclude that he is guilty.
If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "Vas is innocent", one will probably conclude that he is innocent. While there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, I am not aware of a singular piece that conclusively shows that Vas is guilty.

If one reads the evidence with the mindset of "I am uncertain if he is guilty or innocent", then the evidence can be judged properly. The conclusion reached by the reader will be based on how persuasive the evidence is. This is a reasonable and possible approach, despite actions of parties on either side of the dispute to influence the interpretation of the evidence.

I would posit that this particular "problem" is so complex, so multifaceted and even multidisciplinary that such a person is unlikely to exist. And, if he does, he is more than likely to be such a reasonable, fair, mild-mannered individual that he won't be appearing here or anywhere like it, since he will also realise that his chances of persuading the auditorium of anything more than they want to hear are about nil.

Perhaps so. Actually, you are most likely right.

Chris Whittington wrote: He would also be asking the "where are you going" question. You've already assumed the answer to that. Guilt or not guilt, of Vas. It is not my intention to flatter you, but you are a bright guy, and you can likely question whether the question itself is the right one. Whether there are others. Whether the question is asked within an appropriate framework. Where the line is. What are the motives of the protagonists. Cui bono. And, and, and.

I appreciate that there are some philosophical differences in play here, though I will admit it has taken me some time to realize this.

My thought, limited to this particular situation of Vas and the ICGA, is that the ICGA has every right to judge whether or not Vas broke their intended rules. Also, circumstantial evidence, of sufficient quality and quantity, is enough for the ICGA to determine their verdict. In other words, direct proof should not be necessary for the ICGA to make a ruling. Furthermore, the burden of defense is on Vas, not the Panel. Finally, this involves a competition, complete with tangible benefits for the winner. I don't think the purpose of the competition was to award the person who was most sucessful at circumventing the rules. Therefore, I do believe that the question of guilty or not guilty is indeed the proper question in this context.

However, my thoughts about the broader situation of Vas, plagiarism, and the CCC (and if you will allow this, by CCC I mean the entire computer chess community, not the forum) is more complex and maybe not be vastly different than yours in certain aspects.

First of all, the composition of the principal characters of the community is a curious mix, at least to me. We have the interplay of academic, commercial, and amateur interests. Authors who want to share knowledge, and authors who favor secrecy, with a mix of authors falling between those two extremes. People who treat this solely as a hobby along side competitors. Not to mention that they comprise a diversive collection of nationalities and cultures. It is easy to see that one set of rules for all to abide by may be impossible to determine.

Add to all this diversity the end users and fans. If it was possible for the impossible to be made more impossible, this would be it.

In this context, judging Vas becomes more complex. Is he guilty? If he is, he is not alone. Yet, some of those who would also be found guilty seem to believe that they are innocent, much like Vas. I'm not sure that I can judge them. My concept of right and wrong are based on my locality and upbringing. I recognize that there may be some differences between my way of thinking and somebody else's and neither of us may be wrong. I am certain there should be some rules of conduct, but I am hesistant about advocating anything approaching a restrictive set of codes. Literal copying should be wrong. Non-literal copying? hmmm... I definitely feel there is a limit, if broached, which determines that too much non-literal copying was done. But how should that limit be determined? There are laws that give guidelines, but those laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I personally would fall back on the rules of conduct in academia, but others would not. I have no answers, only the suggestion to treat others as you would have them treat yourself. Unfortunately, not everyone would act according to that guideline.

Chris Whittington wrote: And, finally, nobody in their right mind could possibly have yet arrived at a sensible final conclusion to the assumed question. Only part of the evidence has been critiqued. A key player is doing everything in his power to prevent any other agenda than "guilt" from being expressed, using any and every trick in the book to do so. You may know the famous Chairman Mao quote when asked about the consequences of the French revolution, replied "it is too early to tell", well, in this case it is also "too early to tell".

Until recent days, the critiquing was of low quality. Even now, too much of the critiquing seems to have the intent of muddying the waters rather than highlight flaws and inconsistencies.

The key player you are referring to seems to feel so strongly that he is compelled to continuely reiterate his belief in Vas' wrongdoing. Yet, I feel your description of his actions is unfair and is an attempt to undermine him by calling his ethics into question. He has flaws (as do we all), but a distorted sense of ethics is not one of those flaws.

Adam

BB+ wrote:I would say that any speculation concerning Ed's motives in this thread is in poor taste. Ed was worried from the beginning about any "tunnel-vision" of the process, and even wanted to make that clear to Levy when he signed the Open Letter.

Correction...

When I signed the letter I was convinced Vas took Fruit as a base for Rybka.

The doubts came later.

My bad indeed.

hyatt wrote:why don't you take a break from writing rambling nonsense and address this really _easy_ question for most:

"Did Vas copy Crafty 19.x to create Rybka 1.6.1?"

Then answer this:

"Did Vas clearly state, multiple times, that ALL versions of Rybka (even the early ones - his words) were original?"

Then answer this:

"Did Vas clearly violate Crafty's license agreement by entering 1.6.1 into an online tournament, and also by distributing it to rating lists to have its rating evaluated?"

Then answer this:

"In light of that, how can you say he did nothing wrong at all?"

Finally:

"Did you see where a FSF compliance engineer looked at the evidence and told Fabien this certainly looked like something the FSF could pursue? Do you believe he was biased, or that he knew anything about computer chess at all prior to seeing the evidence? So do you really think that an unbiased person will think innocent?"

There are those with a vested interest in Vas being innocent, and they will cavil enlessly in the face of the most damning evidence. Then there are those sensitive souls who derive a safe moral comfort in resisting certitudes, no matter the tonnage of evidence knocking the scales off their balance and onto the floor. Naturally, one or another of those in the ranks of the former delight in using their puppetry skills to manipulate some in the ranks of the latter to make common cause. How righteous they all are.

The only thing that is not de ja vu here is the topic about which this dynamic is played out.