That was one of the two possible solutions considered - as stated by Levy. Nothing creative about it whatsoever. That decision could have been seamlessly extended to full disqualification, after further study. Instead they chose to burn their bridges, rather than keep their options open - which does not seem like 'normal' decision making to me.

<You're inventing a narrative that never existed.>

It is a narrative that circulated 'uncorrected' in the Rybka forums.

<1)Which business model? As I understand it the ICGA isn't a "for-profit" organisation, more competition among chess engines >

Why are non-commercial engines not in the tournament. Every hobbyist making rating lists includes them; but an official organisation chooses to ignore them. No comment? I suspect that there are various entry fees for the publicity - & the publicity is not positive if one guy keeps winning. As for 'not-for-profit', please check Levy's business history - say with Ray Keene. Read what his ex-wife has to say about him on the Keene page here.

<Rybka's no longer the best engine around.>

...what embarrassing dominance? Four consecutive victories in the WCCC, with a likely fifth stopped by disqualification? You have to go back a quarter of century for back to back wins - & then they were probably due Cray XMP hardware. Rybka last won in 2010 - which in my calendar is not several years ago.

<Since March 2011 at the latest Rybka has not been considered the highest rated engine, neither by the results of the CCRL 40/40 tournament or the IPON tournament. Houdini was.>

And was Houdini entered in the 2011 WCCC? No. Since I was discussing dominance OF THAT EVENT, the sudden emergence of Houdini is not relevant. Incidentally the first salvos Levy fired were on 19 February 2011 - 'Attack of the clones'. Houdini had barely been released for 5 months, so I doubt Levy was heaving a huge sigh of relief.

No - it is clear that we have rather different impressions of what constitutes 'normal' behaviour. If you were in court, I'm sure you would wish the jury thought more like me than like you!

<You can read more about the ICGA at their website:>

Yes, I too have Google.

<If you want to portray it as a commercial juggernaut threatened by Rybka I suppose you can, but that's just your fantasy.>

If you read what Rajlich himself wrote about Strelka you'll see he thought much more like me than like you.

On Levy: how good or bad a businessman he is has no relevance whatsoever, leaving aside the fact Keene's sister or Keene himself are somewhat less than unbiased witnesses (or 100% reliable in the latter's case, but as you have Google I won't add references).

As far Junior being relevant, it is not, and neither is the ICGA's World Computer Chess Championship tournament. As I also indicated earlier, the seven currently top rated engines in the CCRL 40/40 tournament did not participate, and that's like FIDE labeling a tournament a World Championship tournament without the top seven rated players participating.

Why didn't these engines, including Houdini, participate? I don't know, I'm sure the developers have their reasons. But not having these engines participate renders the tournament meaningless as far as labeling it the World Computer Chess Championship tournament.

Interesting. In analyzing an argument between human beings, you want to leave out the human beings completely. I guess you never play the man, only the board?

The problem with the 'facts' is that they are in dispute. Until that dispute is resolved, selecting the facts you believe is equivalent to selecting the people you believe.

<On Levy: how good or bad a businessman he is has no relevance>

I was discussing the ICGA championship that Levy presides over. That is what Rybka has been banned from after winning in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 & being 138 Elo stronger than Junior the default 2011 'winner'. So Rybka's dominance is pretty current because it is THAT event that I was arguing about - not which engine is 'strongest'.

<As far Junior being relevant, it is not, and neither is the ICGA's World Computer Chess Championship tournament.>

In this, I agree with you completely. The emergence of Stockfish, Critter, Komodo & Houdini has made both a complete irrelevance. But the ICGA championship still exists - so any competitor banned from it has be to compared to its rivals IN THAT TOURNAMENT. With Houdini 2.0 turning commercial, it will be interesting to see the welcome it gets - if entered.

<And just to make my opinion clear, I DO believe that, based on the information presented, Rybka incorporated code from both Crafty and Fruit at various times.>

But saying that a program contains code derived from other programs and saying that the program is derived from another program are not the same thing. Much depends, IMO, on the starting point of the source code base. If Rajlich had started with the Fruit 2.1 source code, modified it, and called it Rybka, then I would say that Rybka was derived from Fruit 2.1. But if the Rybka code was already developed and running, and then Rajlich took some source code from Fruit 2.1, copied it into Rybka, and possibly modified it, then I would not say that Rybka was derived from Fruit 2.1. At least not in the general sense.

I meant a consensus within the entire community, not just the inquisition. By initially awarding joint trophies, they would have sparked debate within the community and a consensus would have been reached. Further sanctions were possible afterwards. Instead they have split the community & tarnished its image at the same time.

Rybka 1.0 beta's time management & UCI coding appears Fruit derived - maybe even the point scoring tables (but they have a scaling factor allowing much finer tuning). The evaluation function appears different. Rybka 3 is different on all counts.

Exactly. The code should still be referenced - but the term 'clone' is entirely inappropriate.

<"Each program must be the original work of the entering developers.">

<I think that it would have been desirable to exclude from the investigation panel any individuals that developed programs that competed against Rybka in any of the ICGA tournaments>

<I notice you still have no explanation for Schroeder's stance - no comment on Levy's history - & no explanation for why Rybka was stronger than Fruit. But facts that don't fit are always less welcome than the facts that do.>

Utterly meaningless rhetoric (again). I said I think Schroeder's website just disproves something that was never claimed. If you're asking why can one programmer think something that others don't then you might as well ask why one scientist supports a conspiracy theory and others don't. Or again, of course, he might have some personal motivation blah, blah, blah - but what's the point of speculation?

The same goes for Levy. It's utterly irrelevant whether he's Jesus or the Antichrist. The ICGA process was transparent and, as far as I can see, fair. Your ICGA narrative (about a dark plot to make money by killing off Rybka) is obvious nonsense, but other than that what possible benefit can come from pure speculation about the motives of those involved?

<no explanation for why Rybka was stronger than Fruit>

So members of private clubs can make public denunciations with complete impunity?

<(and if it wasn't in Rajlich's favour you still wouldn't be satisfied)>

You presume to speak for me? Let me tell you, if every AI expert ruled against Rajlich I would defer to their expertise. Only when there is disagreement between them, do I try to exercise judgement.

Would YOU accept a decision against your opinion? Given that I am only asking for a deferral of decision, whilst you insist on the accuracy of your own ...

<For the sort of "consensus" you want we'd have to wait to the end of human history,>

For a consensus among programmers? I doubt it. But what you are admitting to, is that there isn't one currently & it is unlikely to arise soon. Which was precisely my point.

<Utterly meaningless rhetoric>

The opinions of an expert dissenter are not meaningless. A man was suspicious enough to add his name to the doubters - and then changed his mind.

<The same goes for Levy. It's utterly irrelevant whether he's Jesus or the Antichrist. The ICGA process was transparent and, as far as I can see, fair.>

So 'processes' work in a transparent & fair manner, despite the ethics of the people implementing them? It seems that people play a pretty small role in your view of the world.

<I've said all along Rajlich took the Fruit code and improved on it - that doesn't stop taking the code from breaking the ICGA championship rule and/or the Fruit licence.>

"Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director."

To start with, the phrase "original work" is subject to wide interpretation. Does it apply to source code, object code, ideas, or any combination of the three? And the second sentence directly contradicts the first sentence; if any programming team admits that its code is derived from or includes "game-playing code" (whatever the definition of that is), then it cannot be considered "original work" and would presumably be automatically disqualified. Seems like a requirement for self-incrimination.