OpenChess

hyatt wrote:

kingliveson wrote:Should Vasik's case be picked up by the FSF, he may want to consider contacting this individual:

Code: Select all

Mark A. Lemley, a Stanford law professor who specializes in science and technology issues, wrote in an e-mail that because Fruit and Crafty are freely available may mean that Mr. Rajlich is not guilty of misconduct if he copied some of the code. But, Mr. Lemley added, “I can see why the Computer Gaming Association might want to prohibit it under its rules.”

Source : New York Times

Guy spoke without knowing what he was talking about. Crafty and Fruit are not "free software". They both have licenses. Which makes _all_ the difference in the world.

It is possible the reporter asked the question in a way suggesting Crafty and Fruit were public domain, because the GPL is quite clear. But then I would expect "a Stanford law professor who specializes in science and technology issues" to do a little home work before responding in an email. Or maybe he really meant what he said...

Sounds like legal-speak to me. "not guilty of misconduct... yet I can see why ICGA..." Aren't those two statements somewhat at odds with each other? If he can see why the ICGA reacted, doesn't that imply misconduct according to their rules? If he doesn't see misconduct, then how could the ICGA reaction be reasonable? I interpret this to be intentionally vague and confusing, because both sides of that statement can't possibly be true.

“In my opinion, there was reasonable basis for the disqualification of Rybka 1 and any tournament victories that occurred within a year or so of its release,” Mr. Kaufman wrote. “By the time Rybka 3 came out, it was for all practical purposes a completely new program,” he said."

Just to enlarge upon the second half here -- some of the Panel did indeed feel the same regarding Rybka 3 [though no investigatory evidence was specifically adduced], and in some sense the disqualifications of Rybka for 2008-10 (and/or the recommendation of this in the Panel report -- though not everyone agreed, and as I say elsewhere, any punishment would be a Board matter) were probably based as much on "manifestations of disrespect" toward the ICGA [in particular, refusing to participate at any stage in the process] as anything else.

If Rajlich's brief sentences of email had bothered to include even something minimal, such as a simple and direct: I specifically think that there is no possible Fruit issue for Rybka 3 and later, as Larry Kaufman rewrote the evaluation from scratch, the verdict for the later years might have been different.

Looks as if the ICGA is on the ball with their re-writing of history:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/game.php?id=1

Edition	Variant	Event	#	Rounds	Games	Records	Winner
19	Tilburg 2011					
18	Kanazawa 2010	 10	9	45	45	Rondo
17	Pamplona 2009	 10	9	45	45	
16	Beijing 2008	 10	9	45	45	
15	Amsterdam 2007	 12     11	66	66	Zappa

BB+ wrote:

“In my opinion, there was reasonable basis for the disqualification of Rybka 1 and any tournament victories that occurred within a year or so of its release,” Mr. Kaufman wrote. “By the time Rybka 3 came out, it was for all practical purposes a completely new program,” he said."

Just to enlarge upon the second half here -- some of the Panel did indeed feel the same regarding Rybka 3 [though no investigatory evidence was specifically adduced], and in some sense the disqualifications of Rybka for 2008-10 (and/or the recommendation of this in the Panel report -- though not everyone agreed, and as I say elsewhere, any punishment would be a Board matter) were probably based as much on "manifestations of disrespect" toward the ICGA [in particular, refusing to participate at any stage in the process] as anything else.

If Rajlich's brief sentences of email had bothered to include even something minimal, such as a simple and direct: I specifically think that there is no possible Fruit issue for Rybka 3 and later, as Larry Kaufman rewrote the evaluation from scratch, the verdict for the later years might have been different.

I thought for the record some of the Levy - Rajlich emails should be included. Here is one from about half way through the investigation an another from when Levy sent Rajlich the Secretariat report. There were several others, and at every turn Levy asked (almost begged_ Rajlich to join the wiki and put up a defense. The only vague defensive remark he made was citing some games where Rybka made different moves than Fruit, which is pretty much meaningless.


> Date: Monday, April 4, 2011, 10:44 PM
> Hi Vas,
>
> As you know, the ICGA Clone and Derivative Investigation
> Panel has been considering allegations that have been
> levelled at you, regarding various versions of the program
> Rybka and their alleged similarities to the programs Fruit
> and Crafty.
>
> Up to now you have not seen fit to join the forum and
> defend yourself against these allegations, and in our
> previous email correspondence you indicated to me that you
> did not wish to comment until a later stage of the ICGA's
> investigative process. This is, of course, your right, but
> in case you wish to reconsider that decision I am providing
> here some of the evidence that has been submitted to the
> forum in support of the allegations made against you. One of
> the attached documents contains some questions to which
> which the Secretariat would appreciate your answers.
>
> In order to access some items in the attachments you will
> need to join the forum.
>
> If you intend to comment on any of this evidence before the
> current stage of the panel's investigation has been
> completed and the Secretariat's report has been submitted to
> the ICGA, you may join the forum by visiting
> www.icga.wikispaces.com and then view all of the allegations
> and evidence that have been submitted there. And should you
> wish to comment at this stage you need to advise me
> accordingly, not later than April 18th 2011, and to submit
> at least your initial comments to the panel not later than
> May 4th 2011. We will then keep the forum open for as long
> as we feel is appropriate, in order to give you an adequate
> opportunity to put your own evidence and counter-arguments,
> and to allow those in the forum an opportunity for rebuttal
> to your comments, and so on.
>
> If you do not advise me earlier that you intend to avail
> yourself of these opportunities to offer a defence at this
> stage of the process, the forum will be closed to new
> allegations and evidence on April 19th 2011 and the
> Secretariat will then prepare and submit its report to the
> ICGA for consideration. In any event the Secretariat's
> report will also be submitted to you for your comments and
> any defence you might wish to present at that time, prior to
> the ICGA considering the report and delivering its verdict.
> The ICGA will, of course, take into consideration any
> comments you might make on the contents of the report. You
> and the Secretariat will be given the opportunity for
> rebuttal arguments on the report and for counter-rebuttal,
> etc.
>
> I very much hope that you will reconsider your earlier
> decision and provide a considered response at this stage of
> the investigative process.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> David Levy
> [President - ICGA]
Rybka_FruitMar11.pdf was attached
The main wiki Rybka-Fruit Controversy page was attached
A list of questions from the panel members was attached. None of these were ever answered by Rajlick

another email:

13 May 2011:
Hi Vas,

The ICGA investigation panel has completed its investigation and the report of the panel's Secretariat is attached.

Up to now you have not responded positively to my invitations to respond to the various allegations that have been made against you during the course of this investigation. I am now requesting you to do so. You will find all of the linked documents referred to in the report available to you on the wiki, for which you need to register if you wish to read those documents.

In due course the ICGA will consider the attached report, together with any defence, counter-evidence or pleas for mitigation that you may care to offer. Anything that you wish the ICGA to take into consideration when doing so must reach me not later than one month from today, i.e. June 14th.

I should emphasize here that the ICGA is interested only in one question, namely whether or not you violated the ICGA tournament rules by failing to declare the true provenance of Rybka in your entry form submissions for the various World Computer Chess Championships in which the program participated.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Levy
The Secretariat final report was attached

After some followup emails, Levy sent this and here was the response:

----- Original Message ----
> From: David Levy
> To: Vasik Rajlich
> Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 9:46:53 PM
> Subject: Re: ICGA investigation
>
> Hi Vas,
>
> So what are you saying about the evidence submitted to the panel?
>
> Kind regards,
> David


Hi David,

I'll probably address that stuff a little bit later.

Best regards,
Vas

Note he never did address anything.

I can't say it's my cup of tea, but ChessVibes now has a cartoon up: http://www.chessvibes.com/cartoons/rybbedka/

mjlef wrote:I thought for the record some of the Levy - Rajlich emails should be included.

Well, no one can argue that he was left out of the loop... I assume that he's busy working on a fat contract with ChessBase for Cloud Rybka and simply couldn't care less.

Jeremy

That excuse doesn't pass the "smell" test. Nobody would want the ICGA to label them as a cheater if there was any way to avoid it. But if it is hopeless, then silence is better as it blows over that much sooner..

hyatt wrote:That excuse doesn't pass the "smell" test. Nobody would want the ICGA to label them as a cheater if there was any way to avoid it. But if it is hopeless, then silence is better as it blows over that much sooner..

I agree that it's unbelievable. On the other hand, if he has decided that his financial future has nothing to do with consumer sales, and everything to do with corporate sales, to corporations which don't care if he copied code... (e.g. Silver and Friedel were on the panel, Chessbase news has yet to mention to story). I'm just speculating, though.

Jeremy

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

hyatt wrote:That excuse doesn't pass the "smell" test. Nobody would want the ICGA to label them as a cheater if there was any way to avoid it. But if it is hopeless, then silence is better as it blows over that much sooner..

I agree that it's unbelievable. On the other hand, if he has decided that his financial future has nothing to do with consumer sales, and everything to do with corporate sales, to corporations which don't care if he copied code... (e.g. Silver and Friedel were on the panel, Chessbase news has yet to mention to story). I'm just speculating, though.

Jeremy

Hahaha, you really expect ChessBase to mention the article?! lol