OpenChess

Part four: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7813


OK, regardless of where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that Bob needs a break from Rybka forum.

kingliveson wrote:Part four: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7813


OK, regardless of where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that Bob needs a break from Rybka forum.

While I tend to agree that Bob's PR work has been double-edged, I'd like to see similar from the other principals on the Rybkaforum:
- Ed Schroder
- Chris Whittington
- Alan Sassler
- Derrière Pensée/sidserious/whoeverthefuckheis
- Jeroen
- Nelson Hernandez

should do it for starters.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

kingliveson wrote:Part four: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7813


OK, regardless of where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that Bob needs a break from Rybka forum.

While I tend to agree that Bob's PR work has been double-edged, I'd like to see similar from the other principals on the Rybkaforum:
- Ed Schroder
- Chris Whittington
- Alan Sassler
- Derrière Pensée/sidserious/whoeverthefuckheis
- Jeroen
- Nelson Hernandez

should do it for starters.

While I am not naive to the fact that this whole publication was a propaganda piece, at times it pays more when you say less. It's not every gibberish posted there that demands a response.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:While I tend to agree that Bob's PR work has been double-edged, I'd like to see similar from the other principals on the Rybkaforum:
- Ed Schroder
- Chris Whittington
- Alan Sassler
- Derrière Pensée/sidserious/whoeverthefuckheis
- Jeroen
- Nelson Hernandez

But that's not the only theme that they've been discussing. All of bob's posts on there have been about the case.

Also, you critiqued how Soren didn't mention he was a Rybka Forum moderator in previous parts of the article, but now that he does mention it, you critique it again. Focused too much on the negative?

Uly wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:While I tend to agree that Bob's PR work has been double-edged, I'd like to see similar from the other principals on the Rybkaforum:
- Ed Schroder
- Chris Whittington
- Alan Sassler
- Derrière Pensée/sidserious/whoeverthefuckheis
- Jeroen
- Nelson Hernandez

But that's not the only theme that they've been discussing. All of bob's posts on there have been about the case.

Also, you critiqued how Soren didn't mention he was a Rybka Forum moderator in previous parts of the article, but now that he does mention it, you critique it again. Focused too much on the negative?

That's a lame excuse -- let's see the post numbers, anyhow. You know as well as I do that, were it not for Alan, Derrière, Chris, Ed and Jeroen's extremely rude goading, Bob wouldn't have posted as much as he did. Those guys post, in general, a couple of non-Rybka/ICGA posts a day. I think we'd be able to get a general picture. I'm sure that we could even use software to figure out when they were posting in response to Bob to narrow it down a bit.

And heh? How do I critique it, except to take issue with his targeting of Bob Hyatt's posting patterns in an irrelevant attempt to make Rybka's accusers seem freaky and desperate?

Jeremy

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: were it not for Alan, Derrière, Chris, Ed and Jeroen's extremely rude goading, Bob wouldn't have posted as much as he did.

So bob can't be made responsible of his own actions?

Something like:

"It was not my fault that I posted so much about the case, it was Alan, Derrière, Chris, Ed and Jeroen's fault!"

IS a lame excuse.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:How do I critique it, except to take issue with his targeting of Bob Hyatt's posting patterns in an irrelevant attempt to make Rybka's accusers seem freaky and desperate?

Well, bob does seem freaky and desperate, what with telling people they should suicide and all that.

Uly wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: were it not for Alan, Derrière, Chris, Ed and Jeroen's extremely rude goading, Bob wouldn't have posted as much as he did.

So bob can't be made responsible of his own actions?

Something like:

"It was not my fault that I posted so much about the case, it was Alan, Derrière, Chris, Ed and Jeroen's fault!"

IS a lame excuse.

The point being: I think we can easily demonstrate that Bob's no freakier, and no more desperate, than the guys in that list. I guess I don't care, but I consider it a cheap, contemptuous shot in a poorly researched and/or deliberately misleading, cynical, but otherwise halfway polite piece of writing.

It has been interesting reading the heated and passionate debates about the issue at hand. I will first off mention that my programming skills are minimal to low but I honestly don't care since that is outside my expertise.
I am curious about the process in which the decision was made.
While the ICGA is a private organization and not specifically governed by the same rules and ethics as an official legal system there have been professional and financial ramifications of the decision made by the ICGA about Rybka that extend past the minor ICGA tournaments so this process becomes critical.

It seems to me that Vas Rajlich has been essentially convicted of a "crime" by a "court" and the law and process that this was done under is critical and should be examined carefully since the outcome was not just about a computer program but the livelihood and reputation of a person.

My questions revolve around in how the decision was made.

Were the members of the " prosecution" group allowed to vote in the proceedings?
There can be no doubt that several members at the ICGA already had decided that Vas Rajlich was guilty before the ICGA meeting was held. Based on what I have read so far there were several participants that has also leveled charges against Vas Rajlich, thus had already decided that Rajlich was guilty. If they were allowed voting rights in the meeting this would ,to me, be that this is a basic violation in ethics. Voting on a verdict while having a vested , financial or emotional, interest in an particular outcome is unethical. Even a small chance of a perceived bias can taint the decision of the whole group.

Was the evidence presented and allowed to be reviewed by an independent, unbiased peer group without outside influences?

Were members allowed time to independently review the documents presented?
How much time?
The accusers had spent years preparing their evidence and as they admit that much of it is very technical in its presentation.
Were the members of this board allowed reasonable time (if so how long to review something that took years to present)

I also find it odd that refusal to vote was just ignored or glossed over. I don't understand how a group can be called together to make a decision, then more than half that group abstain then the remaining minority votes be counted as valid. If this defacto jury (Which is clearly was to me) and less than half the participants could come to an agreement shouldn't the outcome be considered a hung jury and no official decision made?

Does the ICGA have a rule about minimum number of votes required for a decision based on the participants present?

If ICGA would like to have their decision validated they should present their evidence to an independent group for review. It seems to me that the 'defense' has appeared ready to present their case so the situation and resulting decision would be more balanced.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:The point being: I think we can easily demonstrate that Bob's no freakier, and no more desperate, than the guys in that list.

Please easily demonstrate it, what I'd expect you to find is:

bob replying to most posts of those people, therefore, if each of these posted 1000 posts about it, and bob replied to all of them, bob would have 5000 posts about it, looking 5 times as "freaky" and "desperate" (your words) as any of these individuals.

adding to the procedural issueshttp://www.chessvibes.com/reports/progr ... uit-issue/
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/rybk ... gation.pdf

Also Opinions of Panel Members

Since so much attention has been around obscuring the truth I would like to know the details of the proceedings.
Especially considering the panel consisted of the following members:
Open letter to the ICGA about the Rybka-Fruit issue signers
"We believe as an unauthorized Fruit derivative Rybka's entry into ICGA events has been contrary to the ICGA rules and the rules of fair play."
Fabien Letouzey, Zach Wegner, Mark Uniacke, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, Ed Schröder, Don Dailey, Christophe Theron, Richard Pijl, Amir Ban, Anthony Cozzie, Tord Romstad, Ralf Schäfer, Gerd Isenberg, Johannes Zwanzger
It is also clear that both
RYBKA - FRUIT PANEL
Albert Silver, Amir Ban, Charles Roberson, Christophe Theron, Dariusz Czechowski ,
Don Dailey ,Fabien Letousky ,Frederic Friedel ,Gerd Isenberg ,Gyula Horvath ,Ingo Bauer ,Jan Krabbenbos ,Kai Himstedt , Ken Thompson ,Marcel van Kervinck ,Maciej Szmit ,Mark Watkins ,Mark Uniacke, Mincho Georgiev ,Olivier Deville, Omid David,Peter Skinner ,Ralf Schäfer,Richard Vida ,Richard Pijl ,Stefan Meyer-Kahlen,Thomas Mayer,Tord Romstad,Tom Pronk,Vladan Vuckovic,Wylie Garvin,Yngvi Björnsson,Zach Wegner

Also 1.3 Investigation Procedure. This investigation is peer reviewed, and led by a Secretariat of three members (including one past World Champion) appointed by the ICGA President and Board.

Shouldn't the members that had already made up their minds about the investigation have recused themselves from the proceedings if they were meant to be a fair and impartial investigation:
Purpose: To investigate claims that the chess playing program Rybka is a derivative of the chess programs Fruit and Crafty and violated International Computer Games Association (ICGA) Tournament rules. Rybka is a program by Vasik Rajlich.
Fruit was written by Fabien Letouzey. Crafty was written by Robert Hyatt


I again am not taking sides but want the truth to be as untainted as possible by bais. Can the proceedings and decisions by this group really be considered unbais?
Now that other programmers with equally substantial credentials are coming forward to raise concerns about the validity of the decision by ICGA I have to examine how the decision was made in addition to the presented evidence.