A Crime by a Board of Old Imposters

Rolf Tueschen wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
The tournament rules say that you mustn't steal anyone else's code and
that you must co-operate with any investigations. Nobody knows whether
he's stolen anyone else's code because he hasn't revealed his source.
Everyone knows that he hasn't co-operated with an investigation,
though, and that's why he was disqualified.

Nope. He didn't cooperate because of his examins and because there was
no case.

You say "nope" yet you have contradicted nothing that I wrote. Free clue:
it doesn't matter why he didn't co-operate; what matters is that he was
given every opportunity to co-operate and did not do so.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Fluorescent Cheese (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a brick of cheese but it'll hurt
your eyes!

On 29 Nov 2003 00:07:04 GMT, (NoKetch) wrote:

To Whom it may concern:
snip
Yours
Firtz Reul


I suppose you know it's not legal to pose as someone else. Perhaps that's why
you misspelled "Fritz"?


Dave

Not to mention the email address of .

Tony

David Richerby wrote:

Rolf Tueschen wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
The tournament rules say that you mustn't steal anyone else's code and
that you must co-operate with any investigations. Nobody knows whether
he's stolen anyone else's code because he hasn't revealed his source.
Everyone knows that he hasn't co-operated with an investigation,
though, and that's why he was disqualified.

Nope. He didn't cooperate because of his examins and because there was
no case.

You say "nope" yet you have contradicted nothing that I wrote. Free clue:
it doesn't matter why he didn't co-operate; what matters is that he was
given every opportunity to co-operate and did not do so.

I deal only with the case that he's innocent. For that case I said that his
situation is incredibly crazy during the stress of the examins. And I accuse
the board still for their crime. Also because there is no law for the case the
allegation was made out of the blue or without sufficient evidence. I deal only
with that case. Like Prof. Hyatt says: they are exaggerating.

I do NOT deal with the case that Fritz Reul has violated the rules of
computerchess. And I am further convinced that he is innocent!

Another important point: perhaps Fritz has now initiated the change in the lead
of ICGA because if the allegation cannot be proven, then the board has
committed a terrible wrong.

Again Dave and you all outside who are reading this: take a few moments of
thought and try to imagine how you would feel if you knew that you were
innocent and were in your examinations and suddenly you get email that you
should send your code or arrive in person as soon as possible in Graz [!]. You
are very intelligent and you know that all what you _could_ do in a couple of
minutes wouldn't satisfy these people. But you couldn't send your code because
you are innocent and you dont want that people who do you such an allegation
get your code!

You can imagine the situation this man is in???

BTW Fritz has now reacted and he sent a message to the German forum CSS and he
confirmed the readers that he did NOT cheat.

The actual staff must leave office because they are in train of destroying a
young man's future.

All under the made caveat.

Because many people argue that the question is only if Fritz did cooperate. Not
if his prog were a clone. Let me clarify.

If you are innocent you can't cooperate because you don't want to make your
code public. You can't believe these board members. This is what nobody
realised until now.

Therefore I do also accuse the board of ICGA for not having contacted the
author of Crafty, Bob Hyatt. He is the expert who could say what is going on if
he saw the "evidence" brought forward - without even having seen the source
code of LIST.

If the board had contacted Hyatt they would have respected the personal
situation of Reul and still they had done the necessary after such an
allegation!

Rolf
I can't imagine why he should have done such a cheat.





Dave.

--
David Richerby Fluorescent Cheese (TM): it's
like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a brick of cheese but it'll hurt
your eyes!

henri Arsenault wrote:

In article ,
(Rolf Tueschen) wrote:


These points are not there or not yet published.

All we know at the present time is that there was "suspicion" that the
code was copied. We do not know who made the accusation, but to assume
without facts that the accusation was groundless is pure speculation.

Think about it for a minute. You start with the assumption that the
circumstantial evidence brought clear suspicion. But the author of Crafty,
perhaps the best expert available, refutated all mentioned arguments. So if he
would have been in that commission I suspect they would NOT have made the same
procedure.

You are a very easily influenced man. As we could see when you as almost the
only one enjoyed the faked confession by a Firtz Reul.

May I be allowed to inform you that the two "suspicions" (pro or against Reul)
have NOT the same probability or validity.

In our world, not only in court trials, we obey to the iron rule that without
substantiated reasons you can't accuse someone. Then you can't turn this around
and argue that the suspicion of someone's innocence were also an
unsubstantiated assumption! If you dont understand this then please rethink it
all over. Because then you are out of any reasonable discourse. Which would be
a pity.

I do not say that all might have been "groundless", but the step to direct a
request to Reul for opening his source code is by far exaggerated. And the main
reason is that there is no case. Thomas Mayer, a famous German gasbag and
proven liar, I had several encounters with him in German [!] so I can tell you
this with certainty, has published certain points of alleged importance, but
Bob Hyatt has contradicted these points in other messages. Until now there is
not one single known point which would be suitable for such a serious procedure
as the staff/commission there has done.

But the innocence of a human being is a precious value. It was already said
that envie is a possible and strong motif for other participants to accuse Reul
- simply because he's the strongest newcomer. Sjeng or better Deep Sjeng is
nothing surprising, Deep Diep is average as always before, Deeper Quark is weak
as it could be - but all these authors have a strong ego that they are the
future Wch. Then it hurts that Ruffian exists and now List. I dont say that one
of these has made the allegation, but the motif is open to be seen for many
participants. Perhaps this is all a concerted action by people who are unhappy
with the ChessBase Superiority.

Just my 2 cts.

If Fritz Reul has found a genial method of programming certain routines - that
have been invented by others long before - he cannot show bits of his code
without giving away his main discovery. Know what I mean. Of course I'm talking
as a lay, but I have some basic knowledge of math and science.





The fact is that the review board considered the accusation to be based
on sufficient grounds to apply the written rules for such cases.

Hyatt said that exactly such enforcable rules didn't exist and mo they were
impossible to enforce, unless you invest incredibly high costs.

Look, if Hyatt says that FRITZ contained a mass of Crafty code and that this
should be investigated, do you really think that ChessBase allowed that? Yes,
they have the economical power to file law suits. And they could claim business
damage.

But poor stud. cand. math. Reul has not even a damage to be claimed unless his
human dignity that is treated with foot kicks.



For
example if the accusation had been made by Professor Hyatt the
programmer of Crafty, they would have no choice but to start the
investigation. Same thing if the accusation was made by a credible
person who compared the moves played by LIST and saw that they were the
same moves that would be played by Crafty, whereas other programs did
not.

You see? That was exactly refutated by Hyatt! You're simply floating on hot
air. Same moves doesn't prove something, but different moves neither! So all
are guilty if that were the rule.



Note that if the accusation was groundless and that there is evidence
that it was done with intention of malice (i.e. the evidence was forged
or did not exist), the LIST programmer could sue the accuser for
damages.


Uhm, you're so kind. But either you are cynical or simply naive. Excuse me, no
insult intended. You are just talking nonsense. What damage a student could
have in a materialistic business world? In the end the one with the best
economy can cheat ad libitum.



But if the accuser acted in good faith as in the latter case
above,

Good faith? Envy! Dirt.



and it turned out that the code was not the same, the LIST
programmer would probably lose the case for damages.

Of course. And that makes you happy, yes? Human dignity for you seems to be
almost like ****. Get real, man!

Rolf


Henri

"Tommy" wrote

I appreciate your post and I think anyone else does.

I suppose you know it's not legal to pose as
someone else. Perhaps that's why you misspelled "Fritz"?

ok, if that was a fake, then... as already pointed out to you, this is
illegal.
Think about it twice next time.

Tommy

hmmm so this whole thing they did means that i can say " oh look at me
im going to accuse
fritz shredder or junior, they play like crafty move number 10 Nf3 omg
its a clone! oh and look its still the opening Nc3 and look crafty plays
this too but heck
im going to accuse them bc they make the same move..
ever hear of the thing called a good move for a certain position. fritz
and shredder
make alot of the same guesses at end game moves that doesnt mean they
cloned each
other now does it?... and what? they should get banned for 6 years
they should have looked into further with test positions, there is no
reason to ban and
mess up a authors reputation based on suspicion in either case which
ever way this turns out
someone is going to look really really stupid.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Yes, that is correctly described because there are no rules for what happens if
someone just takes his insinuations out of the blue.

Somehow the LIST affair and then later the Jonny present to SHREDDER and SMK
which was agreed by the tournament director Jaap vdH - all that will hopefully
lead to the retreat of these imposters. They simply have no longer the spirit
and sophistication to make correct decisions. They are - so to speak - blinded
by a whole army of blind spots resulting of their academic sluggishness.

Rolf

Rolf Tueschen wrote:

Yes, that is correctly described because there are no rules for what happens if
someone just takes his insinuations out of the blue.

Somehow the LIST affair and then later the Jonny present to SHREDDER and SMK
which was agreed by the tournament director Jaap vdH - all that will hopefully
lead to the retreat of these imposters. They simply have no longer the spirit
and sophistication to make correct decisions. They are - so to speak - blinded
by a whole army of blind spots resulting of their academic sluggishness.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you are a tournament director, you have the obligation to make
objective rulings in case of problems. As far as possible, you will have
to rely on the rules as set in the tournament's regulations. This is
what they did with the LIST incident; the tournament regulations
explicitly stipulate that you have to be prepared to show source code to
the tournament directorate in case of dispute. Mr. Reul failed to do so;
this left the directors with no choice other than to disqualify his entry.

As for the Shredder/Johnny threefold repitition: this case is not
clearly covered by the rules, so the tournament director must use his
best judgement in order to proceed. All this hinges on the fact that the
participants trust the tournament director to make a just and objective
call. If a participant does not subscribe to this, he should pack his
stuff and leave.

I've been a judge at an entirely non-related type of event (a
programming contest, if you want to know), and sometimes things happen
that are not planned. You then consult the rules and do your job, which
is to take hairy decisions in hairy situations. If you cannot do this,
or are not able to do this when push comes to shove, you shouldn't be in
that position.

As for your cheapshots at Prof. van der Herik's alleged "academic
sluggishness": I have met the man, and although I have no particular
like or dislike of him, I feel that he is the perfect man for the job
and would always try to pass objective judgement, within the framework
of the written rules if possible, but based on what is just in other
circumstances. I don't think you have a clue on his standing in the
computer chess community. I have his PhD thesis sitting in my bookshelf,
which is about using advanced search algorithms for chess endgames, he
wrote this when your parents probably didn't even conceive of conceiving
you. Who are you to judge this man?

Sidney Cadot
The Netherlands

Sidney Cadot wrote:

Rolf Tueschen wrote:

Yes, that is correctly described because there are no rules for what
happens if
someone just takes his insinuations out of the blue.

Somehow the LIST affair and then later the Jonny present to SHREDDER and
SMK
which was agreed by the tournament director Jaap vdH - all that will
hopefully
lead to the retreat of these imposters. They simply have no longer the
spirit
and sophistication to make correct decisions. They are - so to speak -
blinded
by a whole army of blind spots resulting of their academic sluggishness.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Let's see your arguments.



If you are a tournament director, you have the obligation to make
objective rulings in case of problems. As far as possible, you will have
to rely on the rules as set in the tournament's regulations. This is
what they did with the LIST incident; the tournament regulations
explicitly stipulate that you have to be prepared to show source code to
the tournament directorate in case of dispute.

Pardon me, you failed to show me a good argument since you forgot to mention
why a tournament director should ask for such a code. What happened before?
Know what I mean? And you are calling from a university? Uhem.



Mr. Reul failed to do so;



Yes, right. Because there was no case. And I gave other reasons why he was in
time pressure plus stress.


this left the directors with no choice other than to disqualify his entry.

Yes, if you define them as dickheads. Please read what a number one expert from
the USA is telling you about that decision. Knee jerking comes to mind. Of
course they had other possibilities. In special let LIST play to the end. And
research later.




As for the Shredder/Johnny threefold repitition: this case is not
clearly covered by the rules, so the tournament director must use his
best judgement in order to proceed. All this hinges on the fact that the
participants trust the tournament director to make a just and objective
call. If a participant does not subscribe to this, he should pack his
stuff and leave.

Objection, Sid. I would always believe Henk nut Henk had the wrong question he
answered. Jonny author wanted to play on although machine said REMIS. Know what
I mean? - You are correct. What Henk decided was ok. But the question was a
different one.
Please read what Hyatt wrote about it. And also Amir. Now Henk looks like a
clown(e).



I've been a judge at an entirely non-related type of event (a
programming contest, if you want to know), and sometimes things happen
that are not planned. You then consult the rules and do your job, which
is to take hairy decisions in hairy situations. If you cannot do this,
or are not able to do this when push comes to shove, you shouldn't be in
that position.


Right. I agree. But you must also be sure that you have the details of the
problem. That wasn't kosher for both cases. 1. No need to throw out LIST for
the last 3 rounds. 2. T.D. must ask what a player plans to do or did do.
Again read Hyatt, also a professor, Sid.




As for your cheapshots at Prof. van der Herik's alleged "academic
sluggishness": I have met the man, and although I have no particular
like or dislike of him, I feel that he is the perfect man for the job
and would always try to pass objective judgement, within the framework
of the written rules if possible, but based on what is just in other
circumstances. I don't think you have a clue on his standing in the
computer chess community. I have his PhD thesis sitting in my bookshelf,
which is about using advanced search algorithms for chess endgames, he
wrote this when your parents probably didn't even conceive of conceiving
you. Who are you to judge this man?


Actually I would be the best you can get. BTW I met him in person. Very
sympathetic man. His science is another problem. Here we are talking about a
spare time job. And you become old at times, Sid. You know what, you remember
me in your argumentation of the German Ingo Althöfer. Also a prof. And because
he's a prof for a field in mathematics he thinks that he can make the best
experiments in Dreihirn and stuff like that. But he forgets about the
documentation... Know what I mean?

Ingo is as amateurish as he can be. Brightness in maths seldom speaks for
talents in all other fields. But he always behaves as if he had something
important to decide with his vote.

With the same sluggishness Henk overlooked what I saw in seconds. Hyatt again:
there are no _rules_ for what happens when someone accuses a collegue of
plagiatism. But such rules should exist.

But if they don't then I have a new freedom to make decisions also in dubio pro
reo! Know what i mean?

Until now nobody said exactly what the reasons had been for suspicions. I must
conclude that there are no reasons. BTW if there had been strong reasons then
all is fine. But I tend to believe that Fritz Reul is kosher.

If you have doubts with my reasoning then please reflect how Henk would have
decided if someone had accused SHREDDER of having Crafty code. You believe Henk
had made the same decision???

Finally, all the best to your own career,

Rolf



Sidney Cadot
The Netherlands

Rolf Tueschen wrote:

If you are a tournament director, you have the obligation to make
objective rulings in case of problems. As far as possible, you will have
to rely on the rules as set in the tournament's regulations. This is
what they did with the LIST incident; the tournament regulations
explicitly stipulate that you have to be prepared to show source code to
the tournament directorate in case of dispute.

Pardon me, you failed to show me a good argument since you forgot to mention
why a tournament director should ask for such a code.

Because he is judging a dispute, and asking to see the code is the best
means of passing judgement; moreover, it is specifically stated in the
rules that this is within his jurisdiction. What's the problem?

What happened before? Know what I mean? And you are calling from a university? Uhem.

No, I don't know what you mean. Could you perhaps be a bit clearer?

Mr. Reul failed to do so;

Yes, right. Because there was no case.

There was a dispute. As to whether there is a case: You don't know and I
don't know.

And I gave other reasons why he was in time pressure plus stress.

If this is the reason he didn't comply, I'm truly sorry for him.
However, the tournament director is also in time pressu he has a
tournament to direct, after all.

I think the tournament director and Mr. Reul should meet and try to work
out the situation (including a code review) and issue a joint statement,
in a few weeks time, about how sorry they are that things went the way
they did. This would also clear Mr. Reul, assuming he is indeed in the
clear.

this left the directors with no choice other than to disqualify his entry.

Yes, if you define them as dickheads. Please read what a number one expert from
the USA is telling you about that decision.

Provide some references please.

Knee jerking comes to mind. Of course they had other possibilities.
In special let LIST play to the end. And research later.

Yes, this would also have been an option. However, as TD you have to
weigh: what if LIST must be disqualified afterwards, you'd have to
re-score the tournament, perhaps with consequences. The option chosen
now minimizes the influence of LIST on the end score. It's a though call.

As for the Shredder/Johnny threefold repitition: this case is not
clearly covered by the rules, so the tournament director must use his
best judgement in order to proceed. All this hinges on the fact that the
participants trust the tournament director to make a just and objective
call. If a participant does not subscribe to this, he should pack his
stuff and leave.

Objection, Sid. I would always believe Henk nut Henk had the wrong question he
answered.

I truly don't understand this sentence. Could you rephrase?

And who is this Henk nut Henk you speak about? I'm very much prepared to
discuss this issue with you, but please abstain from this childishness.

Jonny author wanted to play on although machine said REMIS. Know what
I mean? - You are correct. What Henk decided was ok. But the question was a
different one.
Please read what Hyatt wrote about it. And also Amir. Now Henk looks like a
clown(e).

No, I don't know what you mean. Who is Henk?

I've been a judge at an entirely non-related type of event (a
programming contest, if you want to know), and sometimes things happen
that are not planned. You then consult the rules and do your job, which
is to take hairy decisions in hairy situations. If you cannot do this,
or are not able to do this when push comes to shove, you shouldn't be in
that position.

Right. I agree. But you must also be sure that you have the details of the
problem. That wasn't kosher for both cases. 1. No need to throw out LIST for
the last 3 rounds.

If a competitor does not comply by the rules, there's little choice. Now
all the exam pressure and stuff, that's all very well, but you have to
be available for discussing issues with the TD, or otherwise appoint a
spokesperson. It's not like the TD didn't try to contact Mr. Reul.

2. T.D. must ask what a player plans to do or did do.
Again read Hyatt, also a professor, Sid.

Please provide a reference.

As for your cheapshots at Prof. van der Herik's alleged "academic
sluggishness": I have met the man, and although I have no particular
like or dislike of him, I feel that he is the perfect man for the job
and would always try to pass objective judgement, within the framework
of the written rules if possible, but based on what is just in other
circumstances. I don't think you have a clue on his standing in the
computer chess community. I have his PhD thesis sitting in my bookshelf,
which is about using advanced search algorithms for chess endgames, he
wrote this when your parents probably didn't even conceive of conceiving
you. Who are you to judge this man?

Actually I would be the best you can get.

What are your qualifications? Academically, and in the chess world?

BTW I met him in person. Very sympathetic man. His science is another problem.

I take it you mean "issue".

Here we are talking about a
spare time job. And you become old at times, Sid. You know what, you remember
me in your argumentation of the German Ingo Althöfer. Also a prof. And because
he's a prof for a field in mathematics he thinks that he can make the best
experiments in Dreihirn and stuff like that. But he forgets about the
documentation... Know what I mean?

No I don't know what you mean. In fact this entire paragraph doesn't
make much sense to me. Could you please be somewhat clearer?

Ingo is as amateurish as he can be. Brightness in maths seldom speaks for
talents in all other fields. But he always behaves as if he had something
important to decide with his vote.

And this Ingo fellow is relevant to our discussion because.... ?

With the same sluggishness Henk overlooked what I saw in seconds. Hyatt again:
there are no _rules_ for what happens when someone accuses a collegue of
plagiatism. But such rules should exist.

Ah, there's the mysterious "Henk" again.

Could you provide references to "Henk" and Hyatts reaction? The former I
doubt exists, the latter I haven't read.

But if they don't then I have a new freedom to make decisions also in dubio pro
reo! Know what i mean?

Golly, no. Please work a bit on your communication skills, this is
getting ridiculous. Feels a bit like I'm talking to a 1960's Lisa program.

Until now nobody said exactly what the reasons had been for suspicions. I must
conclude that there are no reasons.

No, you must not. It is perfectly normal not to publicise suspicions
without due process having taken place. In fact, it would be unethical
not to do so.

BTW if there had been strong reasons then all is fine. But I tend to believe
that Fritz Reul is kosher.

We can all agree, I think, that we hope this has all been a tragic
misunderstanding. But I have no reason to believe one way or another.

Of course Mr. Reul is innocent until proven guilty. However, given the
nature of the suspicions, he should cooperate to clear his name. I'm
sure the TD would be very, very willing to help in that respect.

If you have doubts with my reasoning then please reflect how Henk would have
decided if someone had accused SHREDDER of having Crafty code. You believe Henk
had made the same decision???

Do you mean Prof. van der Herik when you say "Henk" ?

If someone had presented founded suspicions to this effect, then, yes, I
think Prof. van der Herik would act similarly.

Finally, all the best to your own career,

Well, quite. Same to you then.

Sidney