Misinformation about RAJAH in the ICCA
Valavan Manohararajah
I am posting this as a note to reader's of the ICCA journal:
In the editorial section of ICCA the following paragraph appears,
"...the Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in
in the 16th Open Dutch Computer-Chess Championship
(Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was entered. Both
programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available code
of the program CRAFTY."
And there is more nonsense in the article about giving acknowledgement
to proper sources of programs. RAJAH is in no way based on CRAFTY. It
was written by me over the last few months as a hobby project.
I am not sure how such misinformation could have been published - one
wonders what other "truths" the ICCA journal has been publishing. It is
also more appalling that this article was written by an individual of
considerable stature in computer chess: Jaap van den Herik. One would
assume some one of his likeness would have learned to get his sources correct
over the years of publishing articles/research papers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
man...@ecf.utoronto.ca | 3rd year Comp Eng., University of Toronto
Valavan Manohararajah |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hyatt
Valavan Manohararajah (man...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: I am posting this as a note to reader's of the ICCA journal:
: In the editorial section of ICCA the following paragraph appears,
: "...the Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in
: in the 16th Open Dutch Computer-Chess Championship
: (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was entered. Both
: programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available code
: of the program CRAFTY."
: And there is more nonsense in the article about giving acknowledgement
: to proper sources of programs. RAJAH is in no way based on CRAFTY. It
: was written by me over the last few months as a hobby project.
: I am not sure how such misinformation could have been published - one
: wonders what other "truths" the ICCA journal has been publishing. It is
: also more appalling that this article was written by an individual of
: considerable stature in computer chess: Jaap van den Herik. One would
: assume some one of his likeness would have learned to get his sources correct
: over the years of publishing articles/research papers.
one learns to not expect *anything* nowadays. :) In any case, you and I
have chatted several times, my impression is that you have "done your own
thing" from scratch. No idea where this nonsense came from. You should
certainly write them and correct the misinformation of course, and chide
Jaap for writing something casually without checking information...
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>one learns to not expect *anything* nowadays. :) In any case, you and I
>have chatted several times, my impression is that you have "done your own
>thing" from scratch. No idea where this nonsense came from. You should
>certainly write them and correct the misinformation of course, and chide
>Jaap for writing something casually without checking information...
I think the ICCA would never come to the idea of misinforming people !
Ha Ha Ha !!
mclane
man...@ecf.toronto.edu (Valavan Manohararajah) wrote:
>I am posting this as a note to reader's of the ICCA journal:
>In the editorial section of ICCA the following paragraph appears,
> "...the Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in
> in the 16th Open Dutch Computer-Chess Championship
> (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was entered. Both
> programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available code
> of the program CRAFTY."
>And there is more nonsense in the article about giving acknowledgement
>to proper sources of programs. RAJAH is in no way based on CRAFTY. It
>was written by me over the last few months as a hobby project.
>I am not sure how such misinformation could have been published - one
>wonders what other "truths" the ICCA journal has been publishing. It is
>also more appalling that this article was written by an individual of
>considerable stature in computer chess: Jaap van den Herik. One would
>assume some one of his likeness would have learned to get his sources correct
>over the years of publishing articles/research papers.
Jaap van den Herik ??
He is a person with a very very godd reputation. How can you attack
him here in this ugly way ?!
Please specify your problems. Jaap is a honorable man....
Robert Hyatt
mclane (mcl...@prima.ruhr.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
Misinforming implies intentional misinformation. I don't believe this
happened, as there is *nothing* to be gained from doing so. I simply
believe he reported something without properly checking. It happens.
Again, it doesn't happen often in the ICCA Journal. And it's not like it
was a big deal... so long as it is corrected properly and in the Journal.
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
But FOR ME, maybe you understand this, it was very funny to read here
about !!
Intentional or not intentional. I had some good minutes reading it....
Robert Hyatt
I understand. :)
Valavan Manohararajah
In article <E866y...@news.prima.ruhr.de>,
mclane <mcl...@prima.ruhr.de> wrote:
>man...@ecf.toronto.edu (Valavan Manohararajah) wrote:
>
>>I am posting this as a note to reader's of the ICCA journal:
>
>>In the editorial section of ICCA the following paragraph appears,
>
>> "...the Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in
>> in the 16th Open Dutch Computer-Chess Championship
>> (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was entered. Both
>> programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available code
>> of the program CRAFTY."
>
>>And there is more nonsense in the article about giving acknowledgement
>>to proper sources of programs. RAJAH is in no way based on CRAFTY. It
>>was written by me over the last few months as a hobby project.
>
>>I am not sure how such misinformation could have been published - one
>>wonders what other "truths" the ICCA journal has been publishing. It is
>>also more appalling that this article was written by an individual of
>>considerable stature in computer chess: Jaap van den Herik. One would
>>assume some one of his likeness would have learned to get his sources correct
>>over the years of publishing articles/research papers.
>
>
>Jaap van den Herik ??
>He is a person with a very very godd reputation. How can you attack
>him here in this ugly way ?!
>
>Please specify your problems. Jaap is a honorable man....
The only reason I post this in a public forum is that it was published in the
ICCA and a lot of programmers/aficanados of computer chess here read this
magazine. Maybe you have not read the article that was published by the ICCA
in its current issue. There is some discussion in the article about
GUNDA-1 and RAJAH being based on CRAFTY. No one from the ICCA or even
Japp van den Herik ever approached me and asked about my program. One then
wonders how they can publish this information.
Also I was quite angry about having my efforts on RAJAH diminished by the
article. A lot of hard work has gone into RAJAH and it is rather disheartening
to read such stuff.
brucemo
Valavan Manohararajah wrote:
> The only reason I post this in a public forum is that it was published in the
> ICCA and a lot of programmers/aficanados of computer chess here read this
> magazine. Maybe you have not read the article that was published by the ICCA
> in its current issue. There is some discussion in the article about
> GUNDA-1 and RAJAH being based on CRAFTY. No one from the ICCA or even
> Japp van den Herik ever approached me and asked about my program. One then
> wonders how they can publish this information.
>
> Also I was quite angry about having my efforts on RAJAH diminished by the
> article. A lot of hard work has gone into RAJAH and it is rather disheartening
> to read such stuff.
I forwarded your original post to Tony Marsland. Someone else had spotted this
already and forwarded it to him before I did. They are contacting Jaap in order
to figure out what prompted him to write this stuff.
I haven't see what they wrote, since I haven't gotten my ICCAJ yet.
This will get straightened out, obviously.
bruce
mclane
man...@ecf.toronto.edu (Valavan Manohararajah) wrote:
>>Please specify your problems. Jaap is a honorable man....
>The only reason I post this in a public forum is that it was published in the
>ICCA and a lot of programmers/aficanados of computer chess here read this
>magazine. Maybe you have not read the article that was published by the ICCA
>in its current issue. There is some discussion in the article about
>GUNDA-1 and RAJAH being based on CRAFTY. No one from the ICCA or even
>Japp van den Herik ever approached me and asked about my program. One then
>wonders how they can publish this information.
Normally one should research or find out before one writes something.
But from my experience in several PRINT MEDIA over the years I can
tell you, that very very often people write without knowing anything.
Some are so beloved by their own writings, that for them the words are
more imortant, than the fact if the information in the article is true
or not.
>Also I was quite angry about having my efforts on RAJAH diminished by the
>article. A lot of hard work has gone into RAJAH and it is rather disheartening
>to read such stuff.
>--
No - I don't read the articles in this ICCA-journal. I only study the
nice pictures there, and the text below the photographs, e.g.
Edition Vol.19 No.4 , page 278,
Picture with Jaap van den Herik:
EASY WORK: A TOURNAMENT WITHOUT DISPUTES
These comic-like photo-stories are much better than Spiderman or
Dr.Strange....
mclane
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Valavan Manohararajah wrote:
SNIP
>>
>> Also I was quite angry about having my efforts on RAJAH diminished by the
>> article. A lot of hard work has gone into RAJAH and it is rather disheartening
>> to read such stuff.
>I forwarded your original post to Tony Marsland. Someone else had spotted this
>already and forwarded it to him before I did. They are contacting Jaap in order
>to figure out what prompted him to write this stuff.
>I haven't see what they wrote, since I haven't gotten my ICCAJ yet.
>This will get straightened out, obviously.
Obviously ! Straighten it bruce. BRUCE FOR ICCA PRESIDENT.
Take Bruce as TD instead of Jaap. Pay him for doing it.
We talk about it in den haag, together with Jaap and bruce !
Ha - that will be a nice TALK.
I have an eletric-shocker against robbers, I will better take this
with me. Or my UZZI.Or my Walter PP8. Or my G7.
Whatever...
>bruce
Jaap van den Herik
APOLOGY
=======
Mr. Valavan Manohararajah has informed me and also the readers of
rec.games.chess.computer that I published some misinformation on his
program RAJAH by stating that it was "based on Hyatt's world-wide
available code of the program CRAFTY" (ICCA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.
2).
The information came from reliable sources, which I would not like to
blame. I have not triple checked it with the author simply because I
used
the information to honour Bob Hyatt's contribution, and in no way to
belittle Mr. Valavan Manohararajah's program.
Neverthesless, I apologize for giving unintended misinformation on the
program RAJAH.
Jaap van den Herik
Editor of the ICCA Journal
Jack Nerad
Jaap van den Herik wrote:
>
> APOLOGY
> =======
>
> Mr. Valavan Manohararajah has informed me and also the readers of
> rec.games.chess.computer that I published some misinformation on his
> program RAJAH by stating that it was "based on Hyatt's world-wide
> available code of the program CRAFTY" (ICCA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.
> 2).
>
> The information came from reliable sources, which I would not like to
> blame. I have not triple checked it with the author simply because I
> used
triple checked? Verifying the sources' information would have been
checking. Verifying twice would have been double checking. Verifying
three times would have been triple checking. It seems to me Mr. van den
Herik didn't even bother to *check* his sources (assuming that he had
more than one).
mclane
Jack Nerad <JNE...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> The information came from reliable sources, which I would not like to
>> blame. I have not triple checked it with the author simply because I
>> used
>triple checked? Verifying the sources' information would have been
>checking. Verifying twice would have been double checking. Verifying
>three times would have been triple checking. It seems to me Mr. van den
>Herik didn't even bother to *check* his sources (assuming that he had
>more than one).
Nevertheless !! :-)
mclane
Jaap van den Herik <he...@cs.unimaas.nl> wrote:
>APOLOGY
>=======
>Neverthesless, I apologize for giving unintended misinformation on the
>program RAJAH.
> Jaap van den Herik
> Editor of the ICCA Journal
Boah !! He can speak ! He can apologize. He must be a human, not a
god.
Brian J. Ritzel
In article <334A47...@concentric.net>,
Jack Nerad <JNE...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Jaap van den Herik wrote:
>>
>> APOLOGY
>> =======
>>
>> Mr. Valavan Manohararajah has informed me and also the readers of
>> rec.games.chess.computer that I published some misinformation on his
>> program RAJAH by stating that it was "based on Hyatt's world-wide
>> available code of the program CRAFTY" (ICCA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.
>> 2).
>>
>> blame. I have not triple checked it with the author simply because I
>> used
>
>triple checked? Verifying the sources' information would have been
>checking. Verifying twice would have been double checking. Verifying
>three times would have been triple checking. It seems to me Mr. van den
>Herik didn't even bother to *check* his sources (assuming that he had
>more than one).
Agreed. An apology that refuses to accept blame, and, worse, makes
disingenious (or, shall I say, fabricated?) excuses, is an empty apology.
It's bad enough that Mr. van der Herik unintentionally libelled Mr.
Manohararajah. This un-apology simply adds insult to that injury.
>> the information to honour Bob Hyatt's contribution, and in no way to
>> belittle Mr. Valavan Manohararajah's program.
>>
Robert Hyatt
Brian J. Ritzel (rit...@prairienet.org) wrote:
: In article <334A47...@concentric.net>,
: Jack Nerad <JNE...@concentric.net> wrote:
: >Jaap van den Herik wrote:
: >>
: >> APOLOGY
: >> =======
: >>
: >> Mr. Valavan Manohararajah has informed me and also the readers of
: >> rec.games.chess.computer that I published some misinformation on his
: >> program RAJAH by stating that it was "based on Hyatt's world-wide
: >> available code of the program CRAFTY" (ICCA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.
: >> 2).
: >>
: >> The information came from reliable sources, which I would not like to
: >> blame. I have not triple checked it with the author simply because I
: >> used
: >
: >triple checked? Verifying the sources' information would have been
: >checking. Verifying twice would have been double checking. Verifying
: >three times would have been triple checking. It seems to me Mr. van den
: >Herik didn't even bother to *check* his sources (assuming that he had
: >more than one).
: Agreed. An apology that refuses to accept blame, and, worse, makes
: disingenious (or, shall I say, fabricated?) excuses, is an empty apology.
: It's bad enough that Mr. van der Herik unintentionally libelled Mr.
: Manohararajah. This un-apology simply adds insult to that injury.
Libeled is the wrong term. That implies telling something false with
the *intent* of causing that person some sort of harm, such as harm to
their character, name, reputation, etc. Nothing like that was done.
There was obviously *no* intent of any kind here... as the sentence
below this clearly points out....
: >> the information to honour Bob Hyatt's contribution, and in no way to
: >
brucemo
Brian J. Ritzel wrote:
> It's bad enough that Mr. van der Herik unintentionally libelled Mr.
> Manohararajah. This un-apology simply adds insult to that injury.
I'm not going to defend what Jaap wrote in the ICCAJ, it was wrong.
But "libel" is an intentionally damaging act, so to unintentionally
libel someone makes no sense.
Just so everyone knows, here is the relevant part of what he said in
the ICCAJ:
"The question posed above theoretically has been partially answered in
recent practice. In the 14th WMCC [sic] (Jakarta, 1996), the
Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in the 16th Open Dutch
Computer-Chess Championship (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was
entered. Both programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available
code of the program CRAFTY. Since both teams gave due credit to
CRAFTY as their original source, it is comparable to using ideas from
articles while giving appropriate reference. Nevertheless, the
question remains to what extent can we prolong the similarity of
publications and programs. For articles, we do not allow plagiarism.
For algorithms and programs I believe we are in a state of flux.
Yet, the researcher who is the originator of the ideas whould always
be given pride of place."
I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
Manohararajah of any unethical act.
If this had happened to me, I would have been upset. I would
have probably written something to the ICCA, and I would probably have
also made some comment here in the newsgroup, like Manohararajah did.
Rajah is clearly an original program, not derivative.
But any comment to the affect that Jaap has "accused" or "damaged"
Manohararajah is too much. It was a mistake he shouldn't have made,
but some of the negative comments you will read here in this thread
are quite similar to the reaction you get from the crowd at a baseball
game after a questionable call against the home team -- sustained
extreme negative reaction after the umpire does ANYTHING for the rest
of the game, no matter whether the call is good, bad, or unclear.
Now that I have said some stuff that will get me flamed by the usual
people, I would like to say some more stuff, the substance of which
they may ignore.
I oppose the entry of source-code derivative programs in ICCA events.
Gunda was a weird case because it was produced by the host country,
as its only entry, and because there had been miscommunication between
Bob, the folks doing Gunda, and the ICCA. In this case you grit your
teeth, frown, shake your head, and say "yes". In other cases, I would
argue that if someone wants to enter a program in an ICCA tournament,
they should write it.
For this reason, I would also be opposed to another point Jaap made in
his editorial. He mentions the case of Nimzo, which can have its
positional weights tweaked by the user. Donninger is on record as
saying he wouldn't oppose entry of a tweaked Nimzo into a tournament.
I would like to say that I oppose this, there is a lot more to a
program than positional weights.
bruce
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Brian J. Ritzel (rit...@prairienet.org) wrote:
>: In article <334A47...@concentric.net>,
>: Jack Nerad <JNE...@concentric.net> wrote:
>: >Jaap van den Herik wrote:
>: >>
>: >> APOLOGY
>: >> =======
>: >>
>: >> Mr. Valavan Manohararajah has informed me and also the readers of
>: >> rec.games.chess.computer that I published some misinformation on his
>: >> program RAJAH by stating that it was "based on Hyatt's world-wide
>: >> available code of the program CRAFTY" (ICCA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.
>: >> 2).
>: >>
>: >> The information came from reliable sources, which I would not like to
>: >> blame. I have not triple checked it with the author simply because I
>: >> used
>: >
>: >triple checked? Verifying the sources' information would have been
>: >checking. Verifying twice would have been double checking. Verifying
>: >three times would have been triple checking. It seems to me Mr. van den
>: >Herik didn't even bother to *check* his sources (assuming that he had
>: >more than one).
>: Agreed. An apology that refuses to accept blame, and, worse, makes
>: disingenious (or, shall I say, fabricated?) excuses, is an empty apology.
>: It's bad enough that Mr. van der Herik unintentionally libelled Mr.
>: Manohararajah. This un-apology simply adds insult to that injury.
>Libeled is the wrong term. That implies telling something false with
>the *intent* of causing that person some sort of harm, such as harm to
>their character, name, reputation, etc. Nothing like that was done.
>There was obviously *no* intent of any kind here... as the sentence
>below this clearly points out....
>: >> the information to honour Bob Hyatt's contribution, and in no way to
>: >> belittle Mr. Valavan Manohararajah's program.
>: >>
>: >> Neverthesless, I apologize for giving unintended misinformation on the
>: >> program RAJAH.
>: >>
>: >> Jaap van den Herik
>: >> Editor of the ICCA Journal
>: >
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is another oversight/logical error/ (un?)intended shift of arguments and so
on of our most prominent and loved computer freak Bob Hyatt.
Bob's thinking (?) as lifetime defendent of ICCA officers is absolutely and
100% wrong.
Maybe it's sort of *cultural* (mclanr) fall out -- I don't know.
Proof:
Valavan quoted in his first article the following from ICCAJ:
"...the Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in
in the 16th Open Dutch Computer-Chess Championship
(Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was entered. Both
programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available code
of the program CRAFTY."
Now let's take a closer look.
In some way RAJAH was compared with GUNDA-1, alright?
They were both based on ...
If I remember right, GUNDA-1 was almost a 99% identical clone of Crafty. So
identical that Bob -- in the time back in last autoumn -- didn't know exactly
which were the differences ...
Maybe some different book tuning .. I don't know.
Now, if you take this for granted, RAJAH remains as a prg that was NOT created
by a programmer on his own but copied, prepared and renamed. (I personally
don't know nothing about RAJAH.)
It is right, that neither the cloning of GUNDA-1 nor *that* of RAJAH -- if it
were true -- would have been wrong in itself. Bob made clear a lot of times
that he had nothing against it apart from some unintentional bad side effects
when taking part in the same tournament. Remember that GUNDA once looked
*better* than Crafty himself. :)
I'd like to add that I thought the participation of a Crafty clone under the
flag of the hosting country really a very good idea. Not joking.
Being compared and falsely compared with this clone the REPUTATION of Valavan
Manohararajah was not at all *belittled* (Jaaap) or *harmed* (Bob)? With or
without a friendly *Mr.* in front of his name?
Intended or whatelse -- all this stinks/tastes/smells of an *allowed*-thought
superfluous, elitarian, western, colonial, and what more degradation of the
creative work of a *not so important* (?) and *not so well-known* (?)
programmer collegue *from down under*.
BTW, Bob, this *the information to honour Bob Hyatt's contribution* sounds like
a tricky/cooked/sought manipulation, no? You don't need that. What the hell did
you learn from your kids coming from all parts of the world? I mean ...
Logic is world wide the same. The habits are different. We shouldn't act
without necessity as tricky Dicks. :)
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: It is another oversight/logical error/ (un?)intended shift of arguments and so
: on of our most prominent and loved computer freak Bob Hyatt.
: Bob's thinking (?) as lifetime defendent of ICCA officers is absolutely and
: 100% wrong.
: Maybe it's sort of *cultural* (mclanr) fall out -- I don't know.
: Proof:
: Valavan quoted in his first article the following from ICCAJ:
: "...the Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in
: in the 16th Open Dutch Computer-Chess Championship
: (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was entered. Both
: programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available code
: of the program CRAFTY."
: Now let's take a closer look.
: In some way RAJAH was compared with GUNDA-1, alright?
: They were both based on ...
: If I remember right, GUNDA-1 was almost a 99% identical clone of Crafty. So
: identical that Bob -- in the time back in last autoumn -- didn't know exactly
: which were the differences ...
: Maybe some different book tuning .. I don't know.
neither do I, and it doesn't matter.
: Now, if you take this for granted, RAJAH remains as a prg that was NOT created
: by a programmer on his own but copied, prepared and renamed. (I personally
: don't know nothing about RAJAH.)
: It is right, that neither the cloning of GUNDA-1 nor *that* of RAJAH -- if it
: were true -- would have been wrong in itself. Bob made clear a lot of times
: that he had nothing against it apart from some unintentional bad side effects
: when taking part in the same tournament. Remember that GUNDA once looked
: *better* than Crafty himself. :)
: I'd like to add that I thought the participation of a Crafty clone under the
: flag of the hosting country really a very good idea. Not joking.
: Being compared and falsely compared with this clone the REPUTATION of Valavan
: Manohararajah was not at all *belittled* (Jaaap) or *harmed* (Bob)? With or
: without a friendly *Mr.* in front of his name?
: Intended or whatelse -- all this stinks/tastes/smells of an *allowed*-thought
: superfluous, elitarian, western, colonial, and what more degradation of the
: creative work of a *not so important* (?) and *not so well-known* (?)
: programmer collegue *from down under*.
: BTW, Bob, this *the information to honour Bob Hyatt's contribution* sounds like
: a tricky/cooked/sought manipulation, no? You don't need that. What the hell did
: you learn from your kids coming from all parts of the world? I mean ...
: Logic is world wide the same. The habits are different. We shouldn't act
: without necessity as tricky Dicks. :)
I took it at face value. Many people seem much more excited about my
releasing the source to crafty than I am myself. I don't see this as
any big deal. I thought awarding me the Novag award for doing this didn't
make a lot of sense, and I don't need continual pats on the back for
releasing it. None of that is the *reason* I did it. It was a personal
decision, it is a personal decision, and whether or not I continue to
release the source will be a personal decision.
I'm waiting for your 100% wrong proof however... nothing you've said
contradicts my definition of "libel" which comes from Webster's...
There has to be intent. I don't see any intent to harm anyone. I
see intent to "pat Bob on the back" which was not needed, but I don't
see any intent to defame the reputation of another chess programmer.
I consider him a friend of sorts, even though we've never met, because
we converse all the time electronically.
Why does every little faux pas made by an ICCA person result in red
flags, air raid warnings and scud missles? I make many mistakes. You
made one in misattributing something about CSTal's Nxf2 being unsound,
which I didn't say. And it's no big deal to keep rehashing over, and over,
and over, and over....
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <334D6C...@nwlink.com>, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
: >Just so everyone knows, here is the relevant part of what he said in
: >
: >"The question posed above theoretically has been partially answered in
: >recent practice. In the 14th WMCC [sic] (Jakarta, 1996), the
: >entered. Both programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available
: >articles while giving appropriate reference. Nevertheless, the
: >question remains to what extent can we prolong the similarity of
: >publications and programs. For articles, we do not allow plagiarism.
: > For algorithms and programs I believe we are in a state of flux.
: >Yet, the researcher who is the originator of the ideas whould always
: >be given pride of place."
: >
: >I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
: >to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
: >I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
: >that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
: >Manohararajah of any unethical act.
: no it is NOT simply a mis-attribution of a program; it is a
: mis-attribution of questionable conduct. van den Herik clearly
: implied that the behavior which he (wrongly) attributed to
: Manohararajah was less honorable or less valuable than original
: work. he indirectly likened it to plagiarism.
How exactly do you come up with this bullshit? He didn't liken it to
plagarism. It's perfectly acceptable to borrow an idea from someone
or some article, and then cite the original source. Can you spell
"bibliography" and/or "footnote"???
this is really stretching things. It was a mistake. An honest mistake.
It did not attempt to defame or belittle anyone. To make it anything else
is idiocy...
: van den Herik didn't say it was unethical, but the public
: will draw their own conclusions from his (false) facts.
And whatever impressions the public draws will be modified by the
next issue of the JICCA. You did notice Jaap asked him to even write a
short article about Rajah? And promised to publish it along with his
appology in the JICCA? Just exactly what other steps should he take?
Perhaps 30 second slots on US and European TV stations?
: suppose i were to publish an article that discusses a troublesome
: new trend among chess programmers, they tend to sodomize small
: rodents; and i give as an example Bruce Moreland the author of
: FERRET. but nowhere did i say that it is unethical to sodomize small
: rodents. would you say i am just mis-attributing a program?
: [...]
: >Rajah is clearly an original program, not derivative.
: >
: >But any comment to the affect that Jaap has "accused" or "damaged"
: >Manohararajah is too much. It was a mistake he shouldn't have made,
: >but some of the negative comments you will read here in this thread
: >are quite similar to the reaction you get from the crowd at a baseball
: >game after a questionable call against the home team -- sustained
: >extreme negative reaction after the umpire does ANYTHING for the rest
: >of the game, no matter whether the call is good, bad, or unclear.
: in baseball, objective truth doesn't matter, the umpire is always
: right. but that's not true in real life.
: >Now that I have said some stuff that will get me flamed by the usual
: >people, I would like to say some more stuff, the substance of which
: >they may ignore.
: [...]
: interesting. apparently you believe people should not be allowed
: to do what van den Herik accused Manohararajah of doing. presumably
: you believe it is less honorable? yet you simultaneously claim that
: the accusation was not damaging?
There's a *big* difference between making an accusation and making an
idle statement that turns out to be incorrect. A *big* difference...
: IMHO it is ironic that in writing an article about the issue of
: giving credit where credit is due, van den Herik failed to do so himself.
: and his lame apology half-blaming others and half-excusing himself,
: exhibits a failure to accept blame where blame is due.
Don Fong
van den Herik didn't say it was unethical, but the public
will draw their own conclusions from his (false) facts.
suppose i were to publish an article that discusses a troublesome
new trend among chess programmers, they tend to sodomize small
rodents; and i give as an example Bruce Moreland the author of
FERRET. but nowhere did i say that it is unethical to sodomize small
rodents. would you say i am just mis-attributing a program?
[...]
>Rajah is clearly an original program, not derivative.
>
>But any comment to the affect that Jaap has "accused" or "damaged"
>Manohararajah is too much. It was a mistake he shouldn't have made,
>but some of the negative comments you will read here in this thread
>are quite similar to the reaction you get from the crowd at a baseball
>game after a questionable call against the home team -- sustained
>extreme negative reaction after the umpire does ANYTHING for the rest
>of the game, no matter whether the call is good, bad, or unclear.
in baseball, objective truth doesn't matter, the umpire is always
right. but that's not true in real life.
>Now that I have said some stuff that will get me flamed by the usual
>people, I would like to say some more stuff, the substance of which
>they may ignore.
[...]
interesting. apparently you believe people should not be allowed
to do what van den Herik accused Manohararajah of doing. presumably
you believe it is less honorable? yet you simultaneously claim that
the accusation was not damaging?
IMHO it is ironic that in writing an article about the issue of
James B. Shearer
brucemo posted:
>I'm not going to defend what Jaap wrote in the ICCAJ, it was wrong.
>But "libel" is an intentionally damaging act, so to unintentionally
>libel someone makes no sense.
Not according to my dictionary. Libel is defined in part as
"a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys
an unjustly unfavorable impression". I don't believe intent enters
into it. What authority do you and Hyatt have for your claim to the
contrary?
As for derivative programs I do not think a blanket ban makes
sense. Suppose A and B write a program together and then split up each
producing individual programs based on their joint program. Which
would you allow? What about programs like gnuchess which have been
modified by many people?
However I do think it is reasonable for tournaments to reject
entries without significant original content.
James B. Shearer
James B. Shearer
Robert Hyatt
James B. Shearer (j...@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: brucemo posted:
: >I'm not going to defend what Jaap wrote in the ICCAJ, it was wrong.
: >But "libel" is an intentionally damaging act, so to unintentionally
: >libel someone makes no sense.
: Not according to my dictionary. Libel is defined in part as
: "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys
: an unjustly unfavorable impression". I don't believe intent enters
: into it. What authority do you and Hyatt have for your claim to the
: contrary?
follow the tree thru "defame"...
It comes from US court decisions about libel and slander. Doesn't have to
be false, in fact. A true statement can still lead to a slander judgement
if the statement is made with the intent to defame...
: As for derivative programs I do not think a blanket ban makes
: sense. Suppose A and B write a program together and then split up each
: producing individual programs based on their joint program. Which
: would you allow? What about programs like gnuchess which have been
: modified by many people?
I ignore it all. I think enforcement would be hopeless...
: However I do think it is reasonable for tournaments to reject
bru...@nwlink.com
In article <5im1dg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
> I took it at face value. Many people seem much more excited about my
> releasing the source to crafty than I am myself. I don't see this as
> any big deal. I thought awarding me the Novag award for doing this didn't
> make a lot of sense, and I don't need continual pats on the back for
> releasing it. None of that is the *reason* I did it. It was a personal
> decision, it is a personal decision, and whether or not I continue to
> release the source will be a personal decision.
I don't know if anyone else responded (on your behalf or otherwise) to
that call for nominations for this award, but I did.
I nominated you for this award because I figured Crafty had helped a lot
of people, and that you deserved recognition for this. Also, I figured
that if I didn't do this, someone would get the award for writing some
paper on some arcane sub-variant of conspiracy-number search or
something.
It's not just that people can see a high-quality chess engine, learn how
it works, and improve their own, I think that the existence of Crafty may
also spur other research, since people have something they can perform
various experiments with. This thing you are doing with Newborn,
involving searching that test suite out to 14 plies, is an example.
I also mentioned your contribution via this newsgroup and via the chats
on channel 64 on ICC. All nonsense involving politics and the ICCA and
bazookas, etc., it's obvious that you are helping a lot of people by
talking.
I know lots of people who've gotten further than they otherwise would
have had you not done this stuff. Myself included, obviously.
bruce
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
bru...@nwlink.com
In article <5imdv3$6...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>
> Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
> : In article <334D6C...@nwlink.com>, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> : >"The question posed above theoretically has been partially answered in
> : >recent practice. In the 14th WMCC [sic] (Jakarta, 1996), the
> : >Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in the 16th Open Dutch
> : >Computer-Chess Championship (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was
> : >entered. Both programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available
> : >code of the program CRAFTY. Since both teams gave due credit to
> : >CRAFTY as their original source, it is comparable to using ideas from
> : >articles while giving appropriate reference. Nevertheless, the
> : >question remains to what extent can we prolong the similarity of
> : >publications and programs. For articles, we do not allow plagiarism.
> : > For algorithms and programs I believe we are in a state of flux.
> : >Yet, the researcher who is the originator of the ideas whould always
> : >be given pride of place."
> : >
> : >I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
> : >to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
> : >I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
> : >that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
> : >Manohararajah of any unethical act.
>
> : no it is NOT simply a mis-attribution of a program; it is a
> : mis-attribution of questionable conduct. van den Herik clearly
> : implied that the behavior which he (wrongly) attributed to
> : Manohararajah was less honorable or less valuable than original
> : work. he indirectly likened it to plagiarism.
>
> How exactly do you come up with this bullshit? He didn't liken it to
> plagarism. It's perfectly acceptable to borrow an idea from someone
> or some article, and then cite the original source. Can you spell
> "bibliography" and/or "footnote"???
Upon reflection, my comment about mis-attributing a program is wrong.
There is more to it than this. If he had said, "person X wrote this",
when in fact person Y did, that would be mis-attribution. But this is
brought up in the context of whether or not to allow derivative entries,
which is not the same thing.
In the former case, someone else gets credit for your program. In the
latter case, you get credit for having not written your program, which is
worse.
So, Fong's point is taken, to that extent.
I am not in favor of admiting derivative entries in computer chess
tournaments, as it would be very difficult to assess the degree to which
the entry was original. Case in point: Gunda. Nobody knows what they
did to Crafty, if anything, to create that. So we may have had a
double-entry.
Personally I would view any derivative entry with disfavor, since I would
question the degree to which the original program was tweaked. The
potential that others would feel disfavor toward Manohararajah for r of
admiting derivative entries in computer chess tournaments, as it would be
very difficult to assess the degree to which the entry was original.
Case in point: Gunda. Nobody knows what they did to Crafty, if
anything, to create that. So we may have had a double-entry.
Personally I would view any derivative entry with disfavor, since I would
question the degree tor of admiting derivative entries in computer chess
tournaments, as it would be very difficult to assess the degree to which
the entry was original. Case in point: Gunda. Nobody knows what they
did to Crafty, if anything, to create that. So we may have had a
double-entry.
Personally I would view any derivative entry with disfavor, since I would
question the degree to which the original program was tweaked. The
potential that others would feel disfavor toward Manohararajah for
participated, and in the 16th Open Dutch
> : >Computer-Chess Championship (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was
> : >entered. Both programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available
> : >code of the program CRAFTY. Since both teams gave due credit to
> : >CRAFTY as their original source, it is comparable to using ideas from
> : >articles while giving appropriate reference. Neverthele5ibnnt$6cd$2...@news.nyu.edu> <wheeler-ya0232800...@news.jussieu.fr>
chrisw
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote in article <334D6C...@nwlink.com>...
>
> Brian J. Ritzel wrote:
>
> > It's bad enough that Mr. van der Herik unintentionally libelled Mr.
> > Manohararajah. This un-apology simply adds insult to that injury.
>
> I'm not going to defend what Jaap wrote in the ICCAJ, it was wrong.
> But "libel" is an intentionally damaging act, so to unintentionally
> libel someone makes no sense.
It is absolutely *not* the case that libel has to be intentional. It simply
has to be damaging. Since this issue of 'intentionality' is being used, in
several replies, as part of your defence of the ICCAJ - you should take
more care to use the language correctly.
It is probably a moral defense to making a damaging statement about
somebody to say that it was not intentional, but it is certainaly not a
legal defense.
Chris Whittington
>
> Just so everyone knows, here is the relevant part of what he said in
> the ICCAJ:
>
> "The question posed above theoretically has been partially answered in
> recent practice. In the 14th WMCC [sic] (Jakarta, 1996), the
> Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in the 16th Open Dutch
> Computer-Chess Championship (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was
> entered. Both programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available
> code of the program CRAFTY. Since both teams gave due credit to
> CRAFTY as their original source, it is comparable to using ideas from
> articles while giving appropriate reference. Nevertheless, the
> question remains to what extent can we prolong the similarity of
> publications and programs. For articles, we do not allow plagiarism.
> For algorithms and programs I believe we are in a state of flux.
> Yet, the researcher who is the originator of the ideas whould always
> be given pride of place."
>
> I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
> to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
> I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
> that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
> Manohararajah of any unethical act.
>
> If this had happened to me, I would have been upset. I would
> have probably written something to the ICCA, and I would probably have
> also made some comment here in the newsgroup, like Manohararajah did.
>
> Rajah is clearly an original program, not derivative.
>
> But any comment to the affect that Jaap has "accused" or "damaged"
> Manohararajah is too much. It was a mistake he shouldn't have made,
> but some of the negative comments you will read here in this thread
> are quite similar to the reaction you get from the crowd at a baseball
> game after a questionable call against the home team -- sustained
> extreme negative reaction after the umpire does ANYTHING for the rest
> of the game, no matter whether the call is good, bad, or unclear.
>
> Now that I have said some stuff that will get me flamed by the usual
> people, I would like to say some more stuff, the substance of which
> they may ignore.
>
chrisw
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<5in4nu$g...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> James B. Shearer (j...@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
> : brucemo posted:
> : >I'm not going to defend what Jaap wrote in the ICCAJ, it was wrong.
> : >But "libel" is an intentionally damaging act, so to unintentionally
> : >libel someone makes no sense.
>
>
> : Not according to my dictionary. Libel is defined in part as
> : "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys
> : an unjustly unfavorable impression". I don't believe intent enters
> : into it. What authority do you and Hyatt have for your claim to the
> : contrary?
>
> follow the tree thru "defame"...
>
> It comes from US court decisions about libel and slander. Doesn't have
to
> be false, in fact. A true statement can still lead to a slander
judgement
> if the statement is made with the intent to defame...
This is true, but its a (endlessly typical Hyattian) sidestep from the
original.
Legal status:
1. Any untrue written statement which is damaging is a libel, intentional
or not.
2. A true written statement, published with the intention to defame, can
also be a libel. This is more legally contentious since the defense of
'fair comment' then arises. It is quite difficult, but not impossible, to
get libel damages out of a court for a 'true statement' libel.
However, the argument is not about case 2. ( as Bob is trying to switch
towards), but case 1. - an allegedly untrue written statement.
Additionally considered is the level of damage. Normally libel actions get
reserved for serious defamation (financial, sexual etc.). If RAJAH is a
'fun' program, the author a student, no intention to ever publish, nor use
the program for research or career development; then there is probably not
much damage, and hence libel is too big a word.
If the author has career development plans within computer chess, then the
ICCAJ statement is damaging, and can never be fully repaired. The offending
issues of the ICCAJ will always be in circulation, future readers may well
spot the original article and not any correction and so on. An unscrupulous
competitor might use the article to undermine a deal being made for this
program.
Chris Whittington
Tom King
[snip]
>
>Rajah is clearly an original program, not derivative.
>
>But any comment to the affect that Jaap has "accused" or "damaged"
>Manohararajah is too much. It was a mistake he shouldn't have made,
>but some of the negative comments you will read here in this thread
>are quite similar to the reaction you get from the crowd at a baseball
>game after a questionable call against the home team -- sustained
>extreme negative reaction after the umpire does ANYTHING for the rest
>of the game, no matter whether the call is good, bad, or unclear.
>
>Now that I have said some stuff that will get me flamed by the usual
>people, I would like to say some more stuff, the substance of which
>they may ignore.
>
>I oppose the entry of source-code derivative programs in ICCA events.
> Gunda was a weird case because it was produced by the host country,
>as its only entry, and because there had been miscommunication between
>Bob, the folks doing Gunda, and the ICCA. In this case you grit your
>teeth, frown, shake your head, and say "yes". In other cases, I would
>argue that if someone wants to enter a program in an ICCA tournament,
>they should write it.
>
I agree. But how could this be enforced?
Maybe for future computer chess tournaments competitors should sign a
declaration that the program they are entering is their own, and
contains code they have written. This could be taken further so that
some programs, chosen at random, would have to show their source code to
the TD.. A bit like dope testing in other sports?!
I for one wouldn't want to enter my little chess program into a
tournament where the competitors are crafty clones and nimzo tweaks. And
not just because the crafty clones and Nimzo tweaks would be rather
strong ;-) Half the fun of these tournaments is discussing programming
ideas with the opposition during the game, and what would the operator
of a crafty clone have to say?
Didn't a little birdy mutter some time ago on this newsgroup that two of
the German programs playing in Jakarta were in fact the same program? I
don't like this, and would like to see steps taken to avoid this kind of
thing happening in the future.
--
Tom King
Ed Schroder
From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
[ big snip ]
: There's a *big* difference between making an accusation and making an
: idle statement that turns out to be incorrect. A *big* difference...
I fully agree with Bob.
The ICCA editor made a mistake. He apologized publicly. I assume the
apology will be in the next issue of the journal too. End of story to me.
- Ed Schroder -
Robert Hyatt
chrisw (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Additionally considered is the level of damage. Normally libel actions get
: reserved for serious defamation (financial, sexual etc.). If RAJAH is a
: 'fun' program, the author a student, no intention to ever publish, nor use
: the program for research or career development; then there is probably not
: much damage, and hence libel is too big a word.
: If the author has career development plans within computer chess, then the
: ICCAJ statement is damaging, and can never be fully repaired. The offending
: issues of the ICCAJ will always be in circulation, future readers may well
: spot the original article and not any correction and so on. An unscrupulous
: competitor might use the article to undermine a deal being made for this
: program.
: Chris Whittington
However, on the flip side, mistakes happen all the time in top-quality
journals, in books, in news stories and articles and so forth. And in
the US, the courts have generally found that it takes "intent" to win a
judgement. An alternative defense has also been "neglect" as in hearing
or reading something in this newsgroup, and then making that into a 6pm
news story on TV without carefully checking details. In the case of
Rajah, this last certainly happened. The intent part did not. At least
here, our juris system is not intended to punish technical mistakes that
did not cause other than incidental harm, and which were made in a casual
and unintentional way. I'd suspect that if I had been at a computer chess
event, and heard a couple of people say that Rajah was based on Crafty, or
was based on gnuchess, or was based on ... that I would likely remember
that, and I might mention it without thinking, when writing about the
authors of gnuchess, or myself for example, because the topic was not
Rajah at all... it was Crafty. As to the 500 copies of the ICCA journal
causing lasting damage, I don't buy it. Otherwise scientific journals
would be hopelessly bound up in the legal system, because they print
corrections, retractions, modifications, and so forth all the time since
they are printing things that are "leading edge"...
However, back to the main point. The author of Rajah has already accepted
Jaap's appology, and has said he intends to write a small blurb for the next
ICCA journal. If it's good enough for him, why's everyone else jumping into
the frey. It's almost difficult to decide who thinks they were harmed by
this. In fact, it looks like the typical "aha, here's another ICCA mistake,
let's keep fanning the flames so that it doesn't go out..." Under *your*
system, I get run over by a car, and settle with the person that did it, yet
you continue to keep this "in the news." Who should *really* be the ones to
settle this? Jaap and Rajah's author? Or you and the rest of the anti-ICCA
gang? It seems like the latter, from reading here...
Robert Hyatt
Tom King (t...@hatbulb.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I agree. But how could this be enforced?
: Maybe for future computer chess tournaments competitors should sign a
: declaration that the program they are entering is their own, and
: contains code they have written. This could be taken further so that
: some programs, chosen at random, would have to show their source code to
: the TD.. A bit like dope testing in other sports?!
: I for one wouldn't want to enter my little chess program into a
: tournament where the competitors are crafty clones and nimzo tweaks. And
: not just because the crafty clones and Nimzo tweaks would be rather
: strong ;-) Half the fun of these tournaments is discussing programming
: ideas with the opposition during the game, and what would the operator
: of a crafty clone have to say?
: Didn't a little birdy mutter some time ago on this newsgroup that two of
: the German programs playing in Jakarta were in fact the same program? I
: don't like this, and would like to see steps taken to avoid this kind of
: thing happening in the future.
: --
: Tom King
I've always been "anti-clone".. Gunda was originally going to be *the*
Crafty playing there. But lack of communication convinced me that I had
better enter Crafty or else would not see it play at all. I did. They
entered at the last minute. It was a problem. We both finished in 4th
place I believe or 4th-5th tied, or whatever. And it was not particularly
fair to others playing there, regardless of whether you consider Crafty a
strong or weak program. If you enter 4 duplicate weak programs, chances
are pretty good that one will do pretty well.
I have no idea how to enforce this. If we aren't careful, there can be *no*
new programs, because all of the neat recursive alpha/beta variants have been
used, and published already. So you can't do a new search. You can add an
extension here or there, but is that "new"?? Hard to see. Evaluation is the
same thing. Cray Blitz was the first program with square of the king code for
passed pawns. This was working in 1974. Does that mean no one else can use
that idea? Ken Thompson was the first I remember that used the recapture
extension... Slate/Atkin introduced iterated search, Greenblatt introduced
transposition tables (hashing).
The problem is, then, how to figure this out, and I don't see a way. I could
look at most anyone's source and tell whether the basic idea came from Crafty,
because there are few bitmap programs, and even fewer using rotated bitmaps.
So far as I know, rotated bitmaps to compute the attack vectors was something
that was discovered by me as I worked on the original bitmap version of Crafty.
I reported it here and at least one other program took the idea and implemented
it before I did.
Hopefully you see the problem with detecting "clones" since if you were to take
the "union" of all chess programs, you get a substantial part of all of them
already. It's the {myprogram} - union({myprogram},{yourprogram}) that is the
interesting part. What have you added? One line? or 10,000 lines?
It's a difficult, if not impossible, thing to work out. It's hard enough to
catch students copying code when the programs are only 500 lines long. In a
30,000 line + chess program, it might be impossible without spending a *lot* of
time wading through everyone's source...
Robert Hyatt
Ed Schroder (rebc...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: From: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
: [ big snip ]
: - Ed Schroder -
You didn't see the private email, but Jaap also invited the author of
Rajah (note I don't post his name here because I don't want to butcher
the spelling.. :) ) to submit a short article on Rajah, which he promised
to publish along with Jaap's appology. I think this was the best that could
be done, other than to never have made the mistake in the first place. I
think Jaap's done a great job in the JICCA. One small mistake doesn't wipe
out all the good he's done. A small wart on a spotless run as editor for
many years is *not* a big deal. If every issue had similar mistakes, it
would be different. So far we've seen two flame wars here, one about the
Botvinnik article, which might should have been reviewed better before it was
published (but with Botvinnik's reputation, it would be unlikely that someone
would have challenged him) and now this.
I have a huge stack of these things in my office. That's a low percentage...
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: In article <334D6C...@nwlink.com>, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>: >I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
>: >to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
>: >I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
>: >that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
>: >Manohararajah of any unethical act.
>: no it is NOT simply a mis-attribution of a program; it is a
>: mis-attribution of questionable conduct. van den Herik clearly
>: implied that the behavior which he (wrongly) attributed to
>: Manohararajah was less honorable or less valuable than original
>: work. he indirectly likened it to plagiarism.
>How exactly do you come up with this bullshit? He didn't liken it to
>plagarism. It's perfectly acceptable to borrow an idea from someone
>or some article, and then cite the original source. Can you spell
>"bibliography" and/or "footnote"???
Pardon me, but if you had to enter your article in full content into your
footnote, wouldn't it damage your reputation as honoroble/creative/interesting
author?
Let's not play dirty. We all know that GUNDA wasn't a *big* invention, no?
Although it was allowed. But going on world tourney wouldn't be appreciated,
no? And that is the point. The author of RANJA was hurt in his reputation NOT
because he might have done something scandalously forbidden but something that
could be laughed at. And there are people outside the sphere of ICCA officers
who certainly do care about not losing their *face* in public. World wide
acting officers of ICCA should be able of taking care of this fundamental fact.
Period.
>this is really stretching things. It was a mistake. An honest mistake.
That's a big damn lie.
>It did not attempt to defame or belittle anyone.
No, absolutely not.
>To make it anything else
>is idiocy...
Oh boy, these strong words ...
But nevertheless then I must stand for this *idiocy*.
Because it was something else.
>: van den Herik didn't say it was unethical,
No? For me he put it in the equal category/sort of plagiasm.
>: but the public
>: will draw their own conclusions from his (false) facts.
>And whatever impressions the public draws will be modified by the
>next issue of the JICCA.
Six months later?
> You did notice Jaap asked him to even
(!)
>write a
>short
(!)
>article about Rajah? And promised to publish it along with his
>appology in the JICCA? Just exactly what other steps should he take?
:))) --
Do you really want to know my opinion?
The actual board should retire.
>Perhaps 30 second slots on US and European TV stations?
Nope. Not accepted. It must at least be a printing into the next Jupiter
expedition CDRom with personal fingerprints and DNA code for further detection.
No more no less.
snips
>: interesting. apparently you believe people should not be allowed
>: to do what van den Herik accused Manohararajah of doing. presumably
>: you believe it is less honorable? yet you simultaneously claim that
>: the accusation was not damaging?
>There's a *big* difference between making an accusation and making an
>idle statement that turns out to be incorrect. A *big* difference...
As already stated, behind three walls of chuckles there certainly was an
accusation. Sort of being touched disagreeably by a not forbidden but
disturbing and soiling acting against the sound principles of the guardians of
the holy scientifical standards ...
>: IMHO it is ironic that in writing an article about the issue of
>: giving credit where credit is due, van den Herik failed to do so himself.
>: and his lame apology half-blaming others and half-excusing himself,
>: exhibits a failure to accept blame where blame is due.
Clear case of the wrong man being in the wrong position, no?
Correct, not a big deal compared with the cases of hundreds of misused children
by real professors, but we shouldn't forget about those principles well known
in science in our good old western world ...
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>I'm waiting for your 100% wrong proof however... nothing you've said
>contradicts my definition of "libel" which comes from Webster's...
>There has to be intent. I don't see any intent to harm anyone. I
>see intent to "pat Bob on the back" which was not needed, but I don't
>see any intent to defame the reputation of another chess programmer.
>I consider him a friend of sorts, even though we've never met, because
>we converse all the time electronically.
>Why does every little faux pas made by an ICCA person result in red
>flags, air raid warnings and scud missles? I make many mistakes. You
>made one in misattributing something about CSTal's Nxf2 being unsound,
>which I didn't say. And it's no big deal to keep rehashing over, and over,
>and over, and over....
Just to put the definitions right.
For a possible damage of one's reputation there's no need of *intent* or
whatever included.
But in this case *I* see a clear intent. A political intent by an ICCA officer
to change something that might have become apparent with Gunda last year. Now
the Rajah incident at Leiden was shown as sort of increase of a wrong
development. Although not forbidden yet this *should* be banned likewise
plagiarism is already treated in scientific articles.
But the damaging attack lay also in another context.
To make this a bit clearer let's presume a well known author of computer chess
like Moreland or Hyatt would have been put in the tradition of Gunda which was
a 99% clone of Crafty ...
For me the scandal lay in the fact that in this case the ICCA officer surely
would have checked the details with the persons mentioned.
But in case of the indian author that same precision wasn't important.
What Herink tried to belittle with his forgotten triple checking was in fact
the main thing to do. Only that it had to be the first instead of the third
check. In case of other names it would have been.
And finally. To all the defenders of the ICCA staff. There's no justification
to point at *scud missile actions*. This is another slap into the face of
someone who *was* and *felt* hurt and damaged. There's no need to hurry by in
cowboy attitude and to yell *but that was not at all damaging anyone*. Did
these people ever think of this: if some people at Leiden were convinced that
Rajah was simply a crafty clone, that might have given some eye blinks, head
shrinks, open laughter down the hall behind the back of Rajah's author, no??
All this which ended up into a typical sophisticated article in a scientifical
journal could be simply effacicated by a 30% apology which repeated sort of
arrogance ...?
All these reactions seem to be lacking smartness to understand different
attitudes worldwide, instinct for decency and the right words at the right
place ...
Surely the responsible officer who started this mess should take his hat.
That's common praxis -- worldwide. But to even suppose that ICCA officers could
loose their publical image seems out of the realm of imagination of some of our
usenet friends.
But don't blame me, I'm only the reporter.
Rolf Tueschen
brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Brian J. Ritzel wrote:
>> It's bad enough that Mr. van der Herik unintentionally libelled Mr.
>> Manohararajah. This un-apology simply adds insult to that injury.
>I'm not going to defend what Jaap wrote in the ICCAJ, it was wrong.
>But "libel" is an intentionally damaging act, so to unintentionally
>libel someone makes no sense.
I would like to point at the may be ironical content of putting together these
apparently contradicting notions.
And I even go further. For me it was clearly an intended changing of politics
where Ranjah and his *author* (in the ironical sense of the ICCAJ author) was
just an example of increase agter the well known Gunda example.
>Just so everyone knows, here is the relevant part of what he said in
>the ICCAJ:
>"The question posed above theoretically has been partially answered in
>recent practice. In the 14th WMCC [sic] (Jakarta, 1996), the
>Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in the 16th Open Dutch
>Computer-Chess Championship (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was
>entered. Both programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available
>code of the program CRAFTY. Since both teams gave due credit to
>CRAFTY as their original source, it is comparable to using ideas from
>articles while giving appropriate reference. Nevertheless, the
>question remains to what extent can we prolong the similarity of
>publications and programs. For articles, we do not allow plagiarism.
> For algorithms and programs I believe we are in a state of flux.
>Yet, the researcher who is the originator of the ideas whould always
>be given pride of place."
>I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
>to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
>I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
>that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
>Manohararajah of any unethical act.
How do you know?
Being compared with GUNDA. And not being in the hosting commitee of an Wch
event? Travelling around the world with my program which is a 99% clone of
Crafty? Wouldn't this be hurting my reputation as serious programmer?
>If this had happened to me, I would have been upset.
Yes, and you know why? Because the scandal is that someone -- no, an officer of
ICCA -- could make this assumption publicly without checking/asking you
personally, no? Can't you see that Herink's *mistake* came out of the damned
sure opinion that *this* *author* fitted the momentary political needs of the
publisher? In case of others programmer he surely would have checked a bit
closer.
But now it's too late. He did hurt the public image of a programmer for
days/weeks and months. And the reaction should be to retire this man from his
job in ICCA. Because with aplogizing (and in that *half* way) and an article
six months later it's not done.
Note:
If you're in official mission such errors which in effect did hurt someone
important should lead to retirement even if you personally are not guilty
because you relied too much on some information of your aids. Period.
>I would
>have probably written something to the ICCA, and I would probably have
>also made some comment here in the newsgroup, like Manohararajah did.
>Rajah is clearly an original program, not derivative.
>But any comment to the affect that Jaap has "accused" or "damaged"
>Manohararajah is too much.
Reading this again do you feel the same disgust I realize just now?
How one could explain to you that the way Valavan published his post he must
have felt wrongly accused and damaged in his good reputation?
Who gave you mandat to judge that it wasn't so much in effect?
You needn't any mandat to say your opinion?
Ok, then why did you titulate the other posters as follows?
>It was a mistake he shouldn't have made,
>but some of the negative comments you will read here in this thread
>are quite similar to the reaction you get from the crowd at a baseball
>game after a questionable call against the home team -- sustained
>extreme negative reaction after the umpire does ANYTHING for the rest
>of the game, no matter whether the call is good, bad, or unclear.
>Now that I have said some stuff that will get me flamed by the usual
>people, I would like to say some more stuff, the substance of which
>they may ignore.
>I oppose the entry of source-code derivative programs in ICCA events.
> Gunda was a weird case because it was produced by the host country,
>as its only entry, and because there had been miscommunication between
>Bob, the folks doing Gunda, and the ICCA. In this case you grit your
>teeth, frown, shake your head, and say "yes".
I had some other thoughts that could have made me really content in a way. No
gritting and frowning.
>In other cases, I would
>argue that if someone wants to enter a program in an ICCA tournament,
>they should write it.
>bruce
Don Fong
In article <8608401...@dejanews.com>, <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Upon reflection, my comment about mis-attributing a program is wrong.
>There is more to it than this. If he had said, "person X wrote this",
>when in fact person Y did, that would be mis-attribution. But this is
>brought up in the context of whether or not to allow derivative entries,
>which is not the same thing.
>
>In the former case, someone else gets credit for your program. In the
>latter case, you get credit for having not written your program, which is
>worse.
>
>So, Fong's point is taken, to that extent.
thanks, that is what i was trying to say... i admit i may have
over-reacted. i have a tendency to do that when i see people (like
Bob Hyatt) understating the harm that was done.
>I am not in favor of admiting derivative entries in computer chess
>tournaments, as it would be very difficult to assess the degree to which
>the entry was original.
for what it's worth, i agree. but how do you stop it?
Don Fong
In article <8608401...@dejanews.com>, <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Upon reflection, my comment about mis-attributing a program is wrong.
>There is more to it than this. If he had said, "person X wrote this",
>when in fact person Y did, that would be mis-attribution. But this is
>brought up in the context of whether or not to allow derivative entries,
>which is not the same thing.
>
>In the former case, someone else gets credit for your program. In the
>latter case, you get credit for having not written your program, which is
>worse.
>
>So, Fong's point is taken, to that extent.
thanks, that is most of what i was trying to say... i admit i may
have over-reacted. i have a tendency to do that when i see people (like
Bob Hyatt) understating the harm that was done.
>I am not in favor of admiting derivative entries in computer chess
>tournaments, as it would be very difficult to assess the degree to which
>the entry was original.
for what it's worth, i agree. but how do you enforce it?
Don Fong
In article <5ioaol$v...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>However, back to the main point. The author of Rajah has already accepted
>Jaap's appology, and has said he intends to write a small blurb for the next
>ICCA journal. If it's good enough for him, why's everyone else jumping into
>the frey. It's almost difficult to decide who thinks they were harmed by
>this. In fact, it looks like the typical "aha, here's another ICCA mistake,
>let's keep fanning the flames so that it doesn't go out..."
Bob, IMHO it is you who are "stirring the embers", by continually
understating the harm that was done by the mistake. i for one would
have said nothing about the issue had it not been for the usual gang
of ICCA-defenders trying to pooh-pooh the matter.
>Under *your*
>system, I get run over by a car, and settle with the person that did it, yet
>you continue to keep this "in the news." Who should *really* be the ones to
>settle this? Jaap and Rajah's author? Or you and the rest of the anti-ICCA
>gang? It seems like the latter, from reading here...
hmmm, if you get run over by a car, it is not just between you
and the driver. the public has an interest in getting that driver
off the road.
chrisw
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<5ioaol$v...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> However, back to the main point. The author of Rajah has already
accepted
> Jaap's appology, and has said he intends to write a small blurb for the
next
> ICCA journal. If it's good enough for him, why's everyone else jumping
into
> the frey. It's almost difficult to decide who thinks they were harmed by
> this. In fact, it looks like the typical "aha, here's another ICCA
mistake,
> let's keep fanning the flames so that it doesn't go out..." Under *your*
> system, I get run over by a car, and settle with the person that did it,
yet
> you continue to keep this "in the news." Who should *really* be the ones
to
> settle this? Jaap and Rajah's author? Or you and the rest of the
anti-ICCA
> gang? It seems like the latter, from reading here...
Bollocks, Bob. I'm merely correcting your (false) posting that libel has to
intent based.
I've posted hardly anything on this thread, you've posted the usual ten
million, who is fanning flames ? This is a duscussion medium, we can talk,
no ? If Rajah's author has allegedly accepted Japp's apology, that's fine
by me; in the same circumstances, I'ld have accepted it too - not much else
could have been done.
But please, let's stop this personal jibing, where anybody who says
anything remotely anti-icca has to be cast into some pit of your making
..., hmmm ?
Chris Whittington
>
>
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <8608401...@dejanews.com>, <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
: >Upon reflection, my comment about mis-attributing a program is wrong.
: >There is more to it than this. If he had said, "person X wrote this",
: >when in fact person Y did, that would be mis-attribution. But this is
: >brought up in the context of whether or not to allow derivative entries,
: >which is not the same thing.
: >
: >In the former case, someone else gets credit for your program. In the
: >latter case, you get credit for having not written your program, which is
: >worse.
: >
: >So, Fong's point is taken, to that extent.
: thanks, that is most of what i was trying to say... i admit i may
: have over-reacted. i have a tendency to do that when i see people (like
: Bob Hyatt) understating the harm that was done.
I didn't understate the harm. You immensely overstated it. Last ICCA
shows about 500 paid subscriptions. Out of a total of what? Not
exactly like an NBC news broadcast. It didn't harm his reputation
at all. Most recognized that was not true up front, at least those
that know him or his program. That shrinks the group even further.
I write it off to the typical hyperbole that frequents this group.
Something minor happens, someone escalates it, someone escalates
that, pretty soon we are on the edge of mass genocide, or nuclear
war...
And after an apology is published, it gets even worse. Go figure...
: >I am not in favor of admiting derivative entries in computer chess
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <5ioaol$v...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
: >However, back to the main point. The author of Rajah has already accepted
: >Jaap's appology, and has said he intends to write a small blurb for the next
: >ICCA journal. If it's good enough for him, why's everyone else jumping into
: >the frey. It's almost difficult to decide who thinks they were harmed by
: >this. In fact, it looks like the typical "aha, here's another ICCA mistake,
: >let's keep fanning the flames so that it doesn't go out..."
: Bob, IMHO it is you who are "stirring the embers", by continually
: understating the harm that was done by the mistake. i for one would
: have said nothing about the issue had it not been for the usual gang
: of ICCA-defenders trying to pooh-pooh the matter.
: >Under *your*
: >system, I get run over by a car, and settle with the person that did it, yet
: >you continue to keep this "in the news." Who should *really* be the ones to
: >settle this? Jaap and Rajah's author? Or you and the rest of the anti-ICCA
: >gang? It seems like the latter, from reading here...
: hmmm, if you get run over by a car, it is not just between you
: and the driver. the public has an interest in getting that driver
: off the road.
*not* if it was an accident...
Valavan Manohararajah
>But "libel" is an intentionally damaging act, so to unintentionally
>libel someone makes no sense.
>
>Just so everyone knows, here is the relevant part of what he said in
>the ICCAJ:
>
>"The question posed above theoretically has been partially answered in
>recent practice. In the 14th WMCC [sic] (Jakarta, 1996), the
>Indonesian program GUNDA-1 participated, and in the 16th Open Dutch
>Computer-Chess Championship (Leiden, 1996) the program RAJAH was
>entered. Both programs were based on Hyatt's world-wide available
>code of the program CRAFTY. Since both teams gave due credit to
>CRAFTY as their original source, it is comparable to using ideas from
>articles while giving appropriate reference. Nevertheless, the
>question remains to what extent can we prolong the similarity of
>publications and programs. For articles, we do not allow plagiarism.
> For algorithms and programs I believe we are in a state of flux.
>Yet, the researcher who is the originator of the ideas whould always
>be given pride of place."
>
>I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
>to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
>I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
>that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
>Manohararajah of any unethical act.
>
>If this had happened to me, I would have been upset. I would
>have probably written something to the ICCA, and I would probably have
>also made some comment here in the newsgroup, like Manohararajah did.
>
>Rajah is clearly an original program, not derivative.
>
>But any comment to the affect that Jaap has "accused" or "damaged"
>Manohararajah is too much. It was a mistake he shouldn't have made,
>but some of the negative comments you will read here in this thread
>are quite similar to the reaction you get from the crowd at a baseball
>game after a questionable call against the home team -- sustained
>extreme negative reaction after the umpire does ANYTHING for the rest
>of the game, no matter whether the call is good, bad, or unclear.
>
>Now that I have said some stuff that will get me flamed by the usual
>people, I would like to say some more stuff, the substance of which
>they may ignore.
>
>I oppose the entry of source-code derivative programs in ICCA events.
> Gunda was a weird case because it was produced by the host country,
>as its only entry, and because there had been miscommunication between
>Bob, the folks doing Gunda, and the ICCA. In this case you grit your
>teeth, frown, shake your head, and say "yes". In other cases, I would
>argue that if someone wants to enter a program in an ICCA tournament,
>they should write it.
>
>For this reason, I would also be opposed to another point Jaap made in
>his editorial. He mentions the case of Nimzo, which can have its
>positional weights tweaked by the user. Donninger is on record as
>saying he wouldn't oppose entry of a tweaked Nimzo into a tournament.
> I would like to say that I oppose this, there is a lot more to a
>program than positional weights.
>
>bruce
Just to sort out the arguments flying around here....
I have indeed received a written apology from Jaap van den Herik, and have
sorted out the matter with him.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
man...@ecf.utoronto.ca | 3rd year Comp Eng., University of Toronto
Valavan Manohararajah |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valavan Manohararajah
In article <8608357...@dejanews.com>, <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>In article <5im1dg$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Also, let me add that Crafty is quickly becoming something of a
"Standard" chess program across many platforms. And in many ways
I suspect that Crafty speeds up research/experiments into new
algorithms. Many times I have seen papers in ICCA giving data about
some new algorithm, but all that data comes from some program that
was written from scratch - and at times the program does not have the
current techniques (e.g. Null move) and one wonders about the data
they publish in the context a "real" program. With Crafty source
available, one can and probably should test his ideas in the context
of a "real" program.
mclane
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
>Why does every little faux pas made by an ICCA person result in red
>flags, air raid warnings and scud missles? I make many mistakes. You
>made one in misattributing something about CSTal's Nxf2 being unsound,
>which I didn't say. And it's no big deal to keep rehashing over, and over,
>and over, and over....
The point maybe is, that Rolf and I are "famous" for our repetitions.
The second point is, that we "flag" red about Jaap, and suddenly, what
a nice synchronicity, this happens.
For me: I just laugh about it, and think: ha - thats karma !
Maybe Rolf is not so good in laughing about something....
He Rolf - laugh a little, dance a little, let the children play a
little....
Tom C. Kerrigan
Tom King (t...@hatbulb.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Maybe for future computer chess tournaments competitors should sign a
> declaration that the program they are entering is their own, and
> contains code they have written. This could be taken further so that
> some programs, chosen at random, would have to show their source code to
> the TD.. A bit like dope testing in other sports?!
Code they have written... like a command to make Crafty beep?
Trying to do something like this may be sillier than deciding who's
amateur and professional. We could even come up with a 25% rule for this,
as in 25% of the program must be original code.
I don't like the situation any more than you do, but it's been around for
a while and not caused too horrible a problem. GNU Chess was around long
before Crafty and a manageable number of clones played in tournaments. So
far Gunda is the only rip-off of Crafty that I know of, and Crafty has
been around for ~1.5 years, I think. That's an average I could live with.
If the problem starts getting noticably worse, then I'm totally in favor
of doing something about it, but I don't see that happening yet...
Cheers,
Tom
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: hmmm, if you get run over by a car, it is not just between you
>: and the driver. the public has an interest in getting that driver
>: off the road.
>*not* if it was an accident...
... and the driver was drunken. Ok, we got your message.
We learnt again that a worldwide heroe (in computer chess programming) could
have at the same time a conscience huge as a pea.
PS. It's not that your statistics was wrong pointing out that one error could
not break a longtime good record. But to the not so friendly *ape* behavior
(mclane) there's this typical disgusting apology behaviour of the actual ICCA
officers. Their words simply stink through walls thicker than two meters of
stained steel at least ... If you can understand how angry I am. <big howling
woolf>
And it's a tragedy seeing you waving the white sheet in front of them.
PPS.
Or was it blackmail?? Tell me, dear Bobby, what your actions really were for.
Together we're strong!
Let your bride and her constant insults on her iron bed, leave your place in
the hide under it and come to Europe. Here you could start a new life in
freedom. BTW, where did your anchestors come from? More Ireland or Bavaria?
It doesn't matter, we're just in train to build the new state of Europe.
If you start right now you could be here at the beginning of AEGON.
We all wait for you.
r. (an anonymous adorer) ;-)
Don Fong
In article <5iqr05$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>: >Under *your*
>: >system, I get run over by a car, and settle with the person that did it, yet
>: >you continue to keep this "in the news." Who should *really* be the ones to
>: >settle this? Jaap and Rajah's author? Or you and the rest of the anti-ICCA
>: >gang? It seems like the latter, from reading here...
>
>: and the driver. the public has an interest in getting that driver
>: off the road.
>
>*not* if it was an accident...
however, in the case at hand, it was negligence.
basically i don't buy your argument that the settlement is of
concern only between van den Herik and Manojararajah. for example,
supposedly the "settlement" provides that ICCA will publish an
article about RAJAH. that is a concern to all readers of the
journal, because the program might not otherwise be worthy of an
article. the association is forced to use resources (printing the
article) in order to make up for its mistakes. that is a valid
concern of the membership.
van den Herik was writing an article that talked about the giving
credit where credit is due. ironically, he himself failed to give
proper credit to someone (Manohararajah) in his article. when his
error was caught, he issued a lame apology blaming someone else.
so he also failed to accept blame where blame was due.
Don Fong
In article <5iqqv1$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>: thanks, that is most of what i was trying to say... i admit i may
>: have over-reacted. i have a tendency to do that when i see people (like
>: Bob Hyatt) understating the harm that was done.
>
>I didn't understate the harm. You immensely overstated it. Last ICCA
>shows about 500 paid subscriptions. Out of a total of what? Not
>exactly like an NBC news broadcast. It didn't harm his reputation
>at all.
>I write it off to the typical hyperbole that frequents this group.
it's easy for you to write it off; you weren't the victim.
>Something minor happens, someone escalates it, someone escalates
>that, pretty soon we are on the edge of mass genocide, or nuclear
>war...
you complained about people fanning the flames, but you are
keeping this thread alive, by continually saying things like the above,
``It didn't harm his reputation at all.'' baloney. the article
wrongly put Manojararajah's program in the category that the article
identified as less deserving. moreover, the article used his program
as an EXAMPLE of the category.
>And after an apology is published, it gets even worse. Go figure...
it got worse because it was a totally lame apology. and because
you and other ICCA apologists continue posting such lame arguments.
Don Fong
In article <5imdv3$6...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
>: mis-attribution of questionable conduct. van den Herik clearly
>: implied that the behavior which he (wrongly) attributed to
>: Manohararajah was less honorable or less valuable than original
>: work. he indirectly likened it to plagiarism.
>
>How exactly do you come up with this bullshit? He didn't liken it to
>plagarism. It's perfectly acceptable to borrow an idea from someone
>or some article, and then cite the original source. Can you spell
>"bibliography" and/or "footnote"???
first, we are not talking about just borrowing ideas. we are
talking about deriving one program from another. GUNDA didn't just
borrow ideas from CRAFTY. do you admit there is a difference?
second, i claim he likened it to plagiarism because after
discussing RAJAH and GUNDA he said:
``For articles, we do not allow plagiarism. For algorithms and
programs I believe we are in a state of flux.'' either he is
likening it to plagiarism or he is making a horrible non-sequitur.
notice i didn't claim he said it was exactly the same as plagiarism.
but there is clearly a suggestion that the two are conceptually similar.
if he wasn't likening it (the supposed derivation of RAJAH from
CRAFTY) to plagiarism, then what do you think he DID mean by this
juxtaposition?
[...]
>And whatever impressions the public draws will be modified by the
>next issue of the JICCA. You did notice Jaap asked him to even write a
>short article about Rajah? And promised to publish it along with his
>appology in the JICCA? Just exactly what other steps should he take?
>Perhaps 30 second slots on US and European TV stations?
well, he could issue a sincere apology accepting responsibility
for the mistake, no excuses.
but actually, the reason i'm continuing to write about this
is NOT because i really want HIM to do anything. the reason is
i want YOU and the other ICCA apologists to stop understating
the harm that was done to the author of RAJAH.
[...]
>There's a *big* difference between making an accusation and making an
>idle statement that turns out to be incorrect. A *big* difference...
i suspect the difference is a lot smaller on the "receiving" end.
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <5iqr05$1...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
: >: >Under *your*
: >: >system, I get run over by a car, and settle with the person that did it, yet
: >: >you continue to keep this "in the news." Who should *really* be the ones to
: >: >settle this? Jaap and Rajah's author? Or you and the rest of the anti-ICCA
: >: >gang? It seems like the latter, from reading here...
: >
: >: hmmm, if you get run over by a car, it is not just between you
: >: and the driver. the public has an interest in getting that driver
: >: off the road.
: >
: >*not* if it was an accident...
: however, in the case at hand, it was negligence.
: basically i don't buy your argument that the settlement is of
: concern only between van den Herik and Manojararajah. for example,
: supposedly the "settlement" provides that ICCA will publish an
: article about RAJAH. that is a concern to all readers of the
: journal, because the program might not otherwise be worthy of an
: article. the association is forced to use resources (printing the
: article) in order to make up for its mistakes. that is a valid
: concern of the membership.
Wait. I think *everyone* agrees Jaap made a mistake. The question
boils down to the *degree* of the mistake. I still feel that it's a
minor issue in the overall scheme of things. Were I Manojararajah, I'd
be *more* upset about it, because it would be more personally related to
me. However, he's seemingly accepted the appology and has closed this as
a point of contention. Whether a page of a journal with a circulation
of 500 members is a big issue or not is open to discussion, but I don't
think it is a big deal. 1/2 page blurbs are there all the time. Most
anyone can write a letter to the journal, commenting on inaccuracies in
a prior article and the letters are published regularly, so this isn't
something new and expensive. It's another flavor of something that has
happened dozens of times before.
: van den Herik was writing an article that talked about the giving
: credit where credit is due. ironically, he himself failed to give
: proper credit to someone (Manohararajah) in his article. when his
: error was caught, he issued a lame apology blaming someone else.
: so he also failed to accept blame where blame was due.
I think he simply told the truth. IE, you walk up behind a bunch of
computer chess enthusiasts talking (random names: me, Slate, Moreland,
Stanback, Kittinger, etc.) informally, you hear a couple talking about
a new program that is based on Crafty, and you report it. You might be
tempted to write that in a casual comment, as Jaap did, because you heard
it from a group that you are pretty sure knows what's going on. And you'd
be wrong. If you were writing about Rajah itself, you should certainly check
the sources of information carefully. But if you were writing about Crafty,
and you heard several make statements (let's take Gunda-1 at Jakarta) about
the program, you might work one of those statements in and then find it was
incorrect. Since the focus of his comments was not on Rajah, I consider it
less of an oversight than if he'd been writing a tournament results report
and printed that Rajah was a Crafty clone...
I'm looking at not only what he said, but where he said it, and the context
surrounding what he said... And he was (apparently) told that here's another
program that was derived from Crafty, so while mentioning Crafty I'll add this
as another case.
In that light, it is much less intentional, although still just as incorrect.
Rolf Tueschen
mcl...@prima.ruhr.de (mclane) wrote:
>hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
>>Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
----------------------------------------------
About academical carreers, Hitler and Bill Gates.
(All on-topic for rgcc!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, commander, minor correction. Not completely true your historical review.
When you already jumped in with your satisfied laughs, I wasn't interested at
all.
Misch jeit un jing dae aap nix aan. :)
(That's an inner-german saying in the idiom of Cologne, called *koelsch* like
the beer.)
I'm interested each time proxies and god in person fly in to build a wall of
fog to hide these ICCA officers. This time BM took Fong's -- as always -- top
arguing. Remained our god. What Chris as expert could see with a glimpse, I
have still to work out a little bit. Bob is famous for his trying to shift and
corrupt the original content. He's very inventive in creating new
words/notions/assumptions.
Jaap did an *honest mistake.*
Aha, but when I myself did confuse unintentionally two ICCA VIP's and you
corrected me, the same god jumped up and down and justified the wish for
apologies with this terrible compairison with the case of a violated little
girl.
Two possibolities:
He's really that specialized on cc and minor educated in other spheres ...
Or he has a real motive connected with the ICCA and his officers ...
If you know what I mean ...
Problem with Bob is this certain discrepancy.
And I fear we have to discuss another topic earlier or later.
The academical carreer of top specialists.
If the normal growth of moral and human thinking is neglected in favour of a
said more important special talent you might observe this.
It's simply impossible to repeat in a fortnight hurry-up just for the
examinations the long-term education in democracy.
Also I would always applaude the late academical carreer of people. But these
shouldn't be taken for reference in fields they surely are as innocently
trained as anyone at the bus-stop.
You'll also find the same deficiency in *normal* academical specialists.
If you studied maths, natural sciences, jurisprudence or medicine especially,
you're not necessarily equally trained in political/moral/human thinking.
But if you studied the latter topics you're still not automatically *a better
human*.
Hey mclane, you see, here we are again. You remember the last thread where I
mentioned the importance of an educated elite and the *lost* innocent normal
people when they are forced to rely on academics and their titles ...?!
But if you allow each artist who's able to create ships out of zillions of
matches to become professor of informational vessel engineering and this man
jumps into politics you might kill every system.
Same thing with Hitler. If you buy each talented orator from the market-place
more so he's eidetically gifted, and enable him to foundate political parties,
you must be aware that he might fall in pieces in fundamental questions of
human life. At the end he says bye-bye and leaves you and the people in your
shit.
I named Hitler, but in today's multimedia world many more talented fakers could
win the masses. In US you could become a philosophical future politician just
by the record of your income. Look at Bill Gates. Also german media are greedy
of some of his words about *the* future. Although he did nothing but making a
new medium more -- others say *less* -- easier. That's ridiculous. No, it's
dangerous!
It's the same as if the chinese inventor(s) of paper later called himself or
WAS Kung Fu Dse. Would you believe this possible?
Tell me your opinions. Sometimes you seem to be a *natural born* all around
educated man of sciences. Flexible like a bunji cord. With or without official
titles ...
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <5imdv3$6...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
: >Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: >: no it is NOT simply a mis-attribution of a program; it is a
: >: mis-attribution of questionable conduct. van den Herik clearly
: >: implied that the behavior which he (wrongly) attributed to
: >: Manohararajah was less honorable or less valuable than original
: >: work. he indirectly likened it to plagiarism.
: >
: >How exactly do you come up with this bullshit? He didn't liken it to
: >plagarism. It's perfectly acceptable to borrow an idea from someone
: >or some article, and then cite the original source. Can you spell
: >"bibliography" and/or "footnote"???
: first, we are not talking about just borrowing ideas. we are
: talking about deriving one program from another. GUNDA didn't just
: borrow ideas from CRAFTY. do you admit there is a difference?
: second, i claim he likened it to plagiarism because after
: discussing RAJAH and GUNDA he said:
: ``For articles, we do not allow plagiarism. For algorithms and
: programs I believe we are in a state of flux.'' either he is
: likening it to plagiarism or he is making a horrible non-sequitur.
: notice i didn't claim he said it was exactly the same as plagiarism.
: but there is clearly a suggestion that the two are conceptually similar.
if you look at it that way, possibly. I read it differently: copying
words is one thing, but copying and modifying a program is completely
different, and we don't understand much about what it means, how to detect
it, if it is even wrong, and what to do about it if it is...
: if he wasn't likening it (the supposed derivation of RAJAH from
: CRAFTY) to plagiarism, then what do you think he DID mean by this
: juxtaposition?
No idea... I (personally) simply write exactly what I wrote right after I
discovered that we had two crafty's in jakarta. I didn't like it, because
I didn't think it was fair. I was pretty sure Crafty would play decent
chess, because it had thousands of games "under its belt." And I don't think
it's fair to enter a program twice, ala' the old days of Mephisto, Fidelity
and Saitek doing battle, rigging games and outcomes, and so forth. I don't
like the idea of "clones". I do like the idea of someone starting off with
Crafty and then going their own direction over time, as they will likely
end up with something very different. Gunda was likely not so different
however, as the time was too short.
I'm not sure what to do about this problem. I'm not even sure anything can
be done about it. And so I'll likely ignore it completely. If necessary I
can easily confirm that a program is a relative of crafty, even without the
source, because there are many binary "signatures" in crafty that would be
nearly impossible to remove without rewriting very complex parts of the
engine (the rotated bitmap stuff would be easy to find in a binary file
for example due to all the constants in the compact_attacks stuff.)
If you have ever read the JICCA, you will find a substantial amount of idle
rambling in the first page. Not meant to be insulting, but only factual. And
if you read enough of those, you might think (as I think) that he simply put
fingers in motion before putting brain in gear, and rambled off and said something
that he'd like to have back. I do it all the time. In here, usually. :)
: [...]
: >And whatever impressions the public draws will be modified by the
: >next issue of the JICCA. You did notice Jaap asked him to even write a
: >short article about Rajah? And promised to publish it along with his
: >appology in the JICCA? Just exactly what other steps should he take?
: >Perhaps 30 second slots on US and European TV stations?
: well, he could issue a sincere apology accepting responsibility
: for the mistake, no excuses.
: but actually, the reason i'm continuing to write about this
: is NOT because i really want HIM to do anything. the reason is
: i want YOU and the other ICCA apologists to stop understating
: the harm that was done to the author of RAJAH.
you might ask him how "harmed" he feels. And how it can be repaired.
Personally, writing something for the ICCA can only help him...
: [...]
: >There's a *big* difference between making an accusation and making an
: >idle statement that turns out to be incorrect. A *big* difference...
: i suspect the difference is a lot smaller on the "receiving" end.
possibly...
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
: >Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <334D6C...@nwlink.com>, brucemo <bru...@nwlink.com> wrote:
: >: >I saw this thread before I got my copy of the ICCAJ. I was all ready
: >: >to read some angry tirade accusing Manohararajah of stealing. Instead
: >: >I find this, which is CLEARLY incorrect, but which at least doesn't go
: >: >that far. All he did was mis-attribute a program, he didn't accuse
: >: >Manohararajah of any unethical act.
: >: no it is NOT simply a mis-attribution of a program; it is a
: >: mis-attribution of questionable conduct. van den Herik clearly
: >: implied that the behavior which he (wrongly) attributed to
: >: Manohararajah was less honorable or less valuable than original
: >: work. he indirectly likened it to plagiarism.
: >How exactly do you come up with this bullshit? He didn't liken it to
: >plagarism. It's perfectly acceptable to borrow an idea from someone
: >or some article, and then cite the original source. Can you spell
: >"bibliography" and/or "footnote"???
: Pardon me, but if you had to enter your article in full content into your
: footnote, wouldn't it damage your reputation as honoroble/creative/interesting
: author?
: Let's not play dirty. We all know that GUNDA wasn't a *big* invention, no?
: Although it was allowed. But going on world tourney wouldn't be appreciated,
: no?
I've voiced my opinion on this subject often enough. No I don't think it
should have been admitted. It was. No I'm not going to go through life
remembering losing to it in Round 1. Mike Byrne, who designed and wrote
the time allocation code we used in Jakarta went ballistic when we lost
to Gunda-1 in round 1. If you recall, he even posted his own "standings"
treating that game as a non-game. :) He eventually calmed down too.
: And that is the point. The author of RANJA was hurt in his reputation NOT
: because he might have done something scandalously forbidden but something that
: could be laughed at. And there are people outside the sphere of ICCA officers
: who certainly do care about not losing their *face* in public. World wide
: acting officers of ICCA should be able of taking care of this fundamental fact.
: Period.
I have agreed that Jaap made a mistake. And that leaving things "as they are"
would not be good. But the bottom line is, that Rajah is going to be better-
known *after* the mistake, because the author is going to write up a small
description about the program, and it will get more publicity, sooner, than
if this had not happened. No, before you ask, I don't think this is the way
to recognize new programs. :) I think this should (and will) be avoided in
the future. But I think that after the mistake was made, and after it was
pointed out, subsequent events have done everything possible to rectify the
mistake...
: >this is really stretching things. It was a mistake. An honest mistake.
: That's a big damn lie.
what's a lie? You think Jaap made his statement intentionally to defame
the program Rajah? If it wasn't a mistake, it must have been intentional?
Or is there another way to interpret your "big damn lie"???
: >It did not attempt to defame or belittle anyone.
: No, absolutely not.
: >To make it anything else
: >is idiocy...
: Oh boy, these strong words ...
: But nevertheless then I must stand for this *idiocy*.
: Because it was something else.
: >: van den Herik didn't say it was unethical,
: No? For me he put it in the equal category/sort of plagiasm.
in one narrow sense of interpretation, maybe. He also pointed out
this issue has come up more than once, and that software is quite
a bit different, and "plagarism" of software is actually very
unlikely for most, because the "plagarized" programs get modified
and eventually "morph" into something completely new and different.
Otherwise *all* current programs are plagarized from the likes of
chess 4.x...
: >: but the public
: >: will draw their own conclusions from his (false) facts.
: >And whatever impressions the public draws will be modified by the
: >next issue of the JICCA.
: Six months later?
: > You did notice Jaap asked him to even
: (!)
: >write a
: >short
: (!)
: >article about Rajah? And promised to publish it along with his
: >appology in the JICCA? Just exactly what other steps should he take?
: :))) --
: Do you really want to know my opinion?
: The actual board should retire.
I disagree. our votes cancel... :)
: >Perhaps 30 second slots on US and European TV stations?
: Nope. Not accepted. It must at least be a printing into the next Jupiter
: expedition CDRom with personal fingerprints and DNA code for further detection.
: No more no less.
: snips
: >: interesting. apparently you believe people should not be allowed
: >: to do what van den Herik accused Manohararajah of doing. presumably
: >: you believe it is less honorable? yet you simultaneously claim that
: >: the accusation was not damaging?
: >There's a *big* difference between making an accusation and making an
: >idle statement that turns out to be incorrect. A *big* difference...
: As already stated, behind three walls of chuckles there certainly was an
: accusation. Sort of being touched disagreeably by a not forbidden but
: disturbing and soiling acting against the sound principles of the guardians of
: the holy scientifical standards ...
accusation is the wrong word. indirect accusation, maybe. Don't forget, that
when you read the paragraph, Rajah wasn't the subject. Crafty was. An
incorrect statement, indicating that Rajah was a modified version of Crafty,
just like Gunda-1. His point was the popularity of the source code of Crafty,
indirectly it turned into a put-down of Rajah due to incorrect info. He's trying
to correct the mistake. Let's let 'im...
: >: IMHO it is ironic that in writing an article about the issue of
: >: giving credit where credit is due, van den Herik failed to do so himself.
: >: and his lame apology half-blaming others and half-excusing himself,
: >: exhibits a failure to accept blame where blame is due.
: Clear case of the wrong man being in the wrong position, no?
: Correct, not a big deal compared with the cases of hundreds of misused children
: by real professors, but we shouldn't forget about those principles well known
: in science in our good old western world ...
I'd bet that Jaap would be more than willing to let *anyone* take over the
editorship of the JICCA. It pays exactly *0* US dollars per year... and is
one hell of a lot of work. I can show you a couple of dozen emails between
Jaap and myself about the current issue with the parallel cray blitz article.
Jaap even helped me with wording changes, suggesting ways to shorten the paper,
asking for clarification here, more information there, a reference over there...
All on his own time. Would you take that job? And guarantee a journal every
3 months, with the same quality we've had for 10+ years? And for the same
salary? I wouldn't...
It's easy to throw stones, but dangerous in glass houses. If you are willing to
invest the time to do it better, by all means volunteer. But know going in it is
a time-consuming task. And all it does is take your time, without giving you
anything back *but* "satisfaction"...
Don Fong
In article <5itv04$a...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>I think *everyone* agrees Jaap made a mistake. The question
>boils down to the *degree* of the mistake. I still feel that it's a
>minor issue in the overall scheme of things.
there are two ways to look at a mistake. you are now arguing
about (1) the "cause" of the mistake. ie, that it was easy to *make*
such a mistake. but my main disagreement with you is over (2) the
"effect" of the mistake. ie, that the mistake was NOT harmless to
the victim as you and other ICCA apologists have claimed.
>Were I Manojararajah, I'd be *more* upset about it, because it would
>be more personally related to me. However, he's seemingly accepted
>the appology and has closed this as a point of contention.
as i pointed out before, sometimes it is awkward for the victim
to be his own advocate. perhaps he is inhibited by modesty or deference
to elders. even so, the fact remains that it was a gaffe by a major
ICCA official, and constitutes valid grounds for criticism.
>Whether a page of a journal with a circulation
>of 500 members is a big issue or not is open to discussion, but I don't
>think it is a big deal. 1/2 page blurbs are there all the time. Most
>anyone can write a letter to the journal, commenting on inaccuracies in
>a prior article and the letters are published regularly, so this isn't
>something new and expensive. It's another flavor of something that has
>happened dozens of times before.
[...]
>I think he simply told the truth. IE, you walk up behind a bunch of
>computer chess enthusiasts talking (random names: me, Slate, Moreland,
>Stanback, Kittinger, etc.) informally, you hear a couple talking about
>a new program that is based on Crafty, and you report it. You might be
>tempted to write that in a casual comment, as Jaap did, because you heard
>it from a group that you are pretty sure knows what's going on. And you'd
>be wrong. If you were writing about Rajah itself, you should certainly check
>the sources of information carefully. But if you were writing about Crafty,
>and you heard several make statements (let's take Gunda-1 at Jakarta) about
>the program, you might work one of those statements in and then find it was
>incorrect.
Bob, what you just described is negligence (IMHO). it might be
acceptable for USENET postings (?), but not for a journal.
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <5itv04$a...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
: >I think *everyone* agrees Jaap made a mistake. The question
: >boils down to the *degree* of the mistake. I still feel that it's a
: >minor issue in the overall scheme of things.
: there are two ways to look at a mistake. you are now arguing
: about (1) the "cause" of the mistake. ie, that it was easy to *make*
: such a mistake. but my main disagreement with you is over (2) the
: "effect" of the mistake. ie, that the mistake was NOT harmless to
: the victim as you and other ICCA apologists have claimed.
hmmm... I don't remember *anyone* saying it was "harmless". The issue
was not that at all. It was, rather, just how much "harm" was done, and
that I'd say (let me give this a number between +1.000 which means it
actually helped his cause a lot and -1.000 which means it hurt his cause
a lot. At present, I'd say -.3 or -.4, maybe. But after he publishes
a description of Rajah in the JICCA, I'd suspect it will end up at +.3
or so, which was my point all along. Leaving it like it is would not
be fair, but Jaap never proposed doing that. He offered a public
apology here, a personal one to Manojararajah, and is going to publish
one in the JICCA adjacent to a "real" description of Rajah.
: >Were I Manojararajah, I'd be *more* upset about it, because it would
It *was* negligence, IMHO too. But there is *no* journal I've ever read, and
I read a bunch, that has *zero* defects. The JICCA has been very good. And I'm
sure it will continue to be very good. A minor defect here and there are not only
normal, but expected, and they should not outweigh all the good things that Jaap
has done in the Journal. As I've mentioned, however, he is in charge of producing
4 high-quality journal issues per year, and gets paid nothing (yes, he got paid
for being a TD in Jakarta, but that's another issue altogether from this.) It's
a *huge* amount of work. Apparently he likes doing it. It'd be a shame to run
him off for one mistake out of many years worth of journals. Because I doubt
anyone could replace him, would replace him, nor would they keep the same rigid
standards he's managed to keep...
Don Fong
In article <5j34u5$e...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
>
>: In article <5itv04$a...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
>: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
>: >I think *everyone* agrees Jaap made a mistake. The question
>: >boils down to the *degree* of the mistake. I still feel that it's a
>: >minor issue in the overall scheme of things.
>
>: there are two ways to look at a mistake. you are now arguing
>: about (1) the "cause" of the mistake. ie, that it was easy to *make*
>: such a mistake. but my main disagreement with you is over (2) the
>: "effect" of the mistake. ie, that the mistake was NOT harmless to
>: the victim as you and other ICCA apologists have claimed.
>
>hmmm... I don't remember *anyone* saying it was "harmless".
this is what you said before:
Robert Hyatt wrote:
|I didn't understate the harm. You immensely overstated it. Last ICCA
|shows about 500 paid subscriptions. Out of a total of what? Not
|exactly like an NBC news broadcast. It didn't harm his reputation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|at all.
^^^^^^
[...]
>: Bob, what you just described is negligence (IMHO). it might be
>: acceptable for USENET postings (?), but not for a journal.
>
>It *was* negligence, IMHO too. But there is *no* journal I've ever
>read, and I read a bunch, that has *zero* defects. The JICCA has
>been very good.
[...]
>It'd be a shame to run him off for one
>mistake out of many years worth of journals.
personally i am not trying to "run him [Jaap] off". i just think
the author of RAJAH deserves a better apology from him. and a better
acknowledgement from the ICCA-defenders that harm WAS done. again,
that is the main reason i jumped into this thread.
Robert Hyatt
Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: In article <5j34u5$e...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
: >Don Fong (df...@cse.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: In article <5itv04$a...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
: >: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
: >: >I think *everyone* agrees Jaap made a mistake. The question
: >: >boils down to the *degree* of the mistake. I still feel that it's a
: >: >minor issue in the overall scheme of things.
: >
: >: there are two ways to look at a mistake. you are now arguing
: >: about (1) the "cause" of the mistake. ie, that it was easy to *make*
: >: such a mistake. but my main disagreement with you is over (2) the
: >: "effect" of the mistake. ie, that the mistake was NOT harmless to
: >: the victim as you and other ICCA apologists have claimed.
: >
: >hmmm... I don't remember *anyone* saying it was "harmless".
: this is what you said before:
: Robert Hyatt wrote:
: |I didn't understate the harm. You immensely overstated it. Last ICCA
: |shows about 500 paid subscriptions. Out of a total of what? Not
: |exactly like an NBC news broadcast. It didn't harm his reputation
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: |at all.
: ^^^^^^
In that context, you can take that as you suggest. My context is the
situation after the apology. which was public, and which obviously
cleared up the mistake, technically. After the JICCA publication it
will actually end up helping him I suspect...
: [...]
Don Fong
Bob, i'm afraid your explanation does not make sense.
consider the following 2 statements.
Bob Hyatt statement (A):
|It didn't harm his reputation at all.
Bob Hyatt statement (B):
|hmmm... I don't remember *anyone* saying it was "harmless".
now Bob Hyatt says:
>In that context, you can take that as you suggest. My context is the
>situation after the apology. which was public, and which obviously
>cleared up the mistake, technically. After the JICCA publication it
>will actually end up helping him I suspect...
OK, there are 2 possible contexts:
(1) pre-apology, and (2) post-publication.
in context (1),
your statement (A) is incorrect, and your statement (B) is inconsistent.
in context (2),
your statement (A) may be defensible (although i would argue against),
but then your statement (B) is complete nonsense. because you are
(once again) affirming the very thing that (B) denies.
Rolf Tueschen
hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
Yes, and I'd like to make clear that I respond:
(a) because I don't like to see you having the last word vs Fong
resp. me
(b) because I'm 100% convinced that your logic of arguing in these more
political matteres isn't that worthy as your technical writings (and for me
that's an heavy attack on your scientifical integrity, Bob)
{Note especially to BH and Cameron ..
THIS WAS NOT WRITTEN BY BH BUT ME THORSCHEUN ROLF :)}
My hopefully last needed commentary on this one.
Dear Bob, you will please keep in mind that (1) crafty, (2) the participation
of gunda and (3) the arguing about how much gunda resembled crafty --
all this as such is not at all the problem in this rajah thread.
But it is very well a topic that Jaap did compare the rajah-crafty connection
with the *better known* gunda-crafty connection. And although he metioned sort
of *flux* in the definition about *equal or equally looking prgs* (my words) he
discussed the whole thing the same time he said that plagiarism is well known
in writings in magazines. And that this form would be condemned if detected.
Ok.
Now remember please, you came up very quickly with this judging the whole stuff
as not so important. An error, but neither intentional nor (very) damaging in
consequence. brucemo did follow you at first.
Please try to understand the following precisesly. Neither Don nor Rolf did a
jump on Jaap for whatever he might have done nor how we might judge the
consequences for Valavan and his Rajah. The only one who was *laughing* with
satisfaction was TC and he must have had some reason to do so.
Both, Don and Rolf observed an illegal :) acting in YOUR postings and judging
about this topic. That was my motive at least.
I detected sort of blindness for the effects Jaap's lines might have had for
Valavan. And I saw the well known shifting of BH.
-- not so harmful
-- already taken the apology
-- honest mistake
-- heavy job with hours of work the whole year long without recompensation
-- minor number of known abonents/readers of the journal
-- the positive effects of the whole affair in bonus for Valavan and his prg
-- attacks on *anti ICCA GANGS*
and so on.
You even invented a special notion for which you could then define that it was
equall to *intentional* falsely writing ...
With this you possibly tried to eliminate the foreigners out of the debate. But
CW demonstrated that your use wasn't correct because there was no need for
intentions at all ...
But your worst oversight was to misinterprete the continuous writings of Don
and me. We clearly attacked you yourself for extreme defending an ICCA officer
again with these shifting arguments.
You tried to disqualify Don especially for staying tuned while the two main
people already had found a *peace*.
But Don stayed because it now looked like as if there was nothing wrong in the
affair, the half apology included.
But it's a public affair. Even if Valavan wrote that he appreciated the whole
thing with multiple orgasms in his third year at the university the topic
was'nt at his natural end at all. Because it's now a debate between you and
your extended claims and the opposing side.
>: And that is the point. The author of RANJA was hurt in his reputation NOT
>: because he might have done something scandalously forbidden but something that
>: could be laughed at. And there are people outside the sphere of ICCA officers
>: who certainly do care about not losing their *face* in public. World wide
>: acting officers of ICCA should be able of taking care of this fundamental fact.
>: Period.
>I have agreed that Jaap made a mistake. And that leaving things "as they are"
>would not be good. But the bottom line is, that Rajah is going to be better-
>known *after* the mistake, because the author is going to write up a small
>description about the program, and it will get more publicity, sooner, than
>if this had not happened. No, before you ask, I don't think this is the way
>to recognize new programs. :) I think this should (and will) be avoided in
>the future. But I think that after the mistake was made, and after it was
>pointed out, subsequent events have done everything possible to rectify the
>mistake...
Ok, but your after burners aren't invisible at all actually. And these points
are in question, not the health state of Valavan and/or his Raja (see at
AEGON).
>: >this is really stretching things. It was a mistake. An honest mistake.
>: That's a big damn lie.
>what's a lie?
Please read carefully: It's a lie to attribute the notion honest to this
negligent action. And the damn was to attack you especially for telling us this
bull.
>You think Jaap made his statement intentionally to defame
>the program Rajah? If it wasn't a mistake, it must have been intentional?
No, it was an unacceptable negligent (arrogant?) writing in a scientifical
journal. And a veteran for 20 years shouldn't write that way.
>Or is there another way to interpret your "big damn lie"???
>: >It did not attempt to defame or belittle anyone.
>: No, absolutely not.
>: >To make it anything else
>: >is idiocy...
>: Oh boy, these strong words ...
>: But nevertheless then I must stand for this *idiocy*.
>: Because it was something else.
>: >: van den Herik didn't say it was unethical,
>: No? For me he put it in the equal category/sort of plagiasm.
>in one narrow sense of interpretation, maybe.
Bob, we could easily detect your ignorance for juridical matters here.
For the possible outer effects it's sufficient to demonstrate a possible
damaging effect/consequence of the wrong arguing of the author.
To make it very clear: if an author writes something correctly and a possible
effect could be harm for someone it's not the same thing! The judgment about a
wrong writing however must be negative if a possible interpretation could be
harmful. Ok?
>He also pointed out
>this issue has come up more than once, and that software is quite
>a bit different, and "plagarism" of software is actually very
>unlikely for most, because the "plagarized" programs get modified
>and eventually "morph" into something completely new and different.
>Otherwise *all* current programs are plagarized from the likes of
>chess 4.x...
Not accepted. Don't spray colours of yellow and violet on the monitor.
The equitation was Gunda=crafty and rajah like gunda, but that meant
rajah=crafty. And the conclusion was 100%: Rajah is not at all a new prg but a
joke by an indian *programmer* who would be better called an impostor.
I will never accept your shifting around this fact that Rajah was compared to
gunda in the context of their nearness to crafty. And the whole story wether
you were upset about the appearence of Gunda-1 or how much you were NOT upset
is absolutely uninteresting for the verdict.
>: >: but the public
>: >: will draw their own conclusions from his (false) facts.
>: >And whatever impressions the public draws will be modified by the
>: >next issue of the JICCA.
>: Six months later?
>: > You did notice Jaap asked him to even
>: (!)
>: >write a
>: >short
>: (!)
>: >article about Rajah? And promised to publish it along with his
>: >appology in the JICCA? Just exactly what other steps should he take?
>: :))) --
>: Do you really want to know my opinion?
>: The actual board should retire.
>I disagree. our votes cancel... :)
Thanks for your :).
>: >Perhaps 30 second slots on US and European TV stations?
>: Nope. Not accepted. It must at least be a printing into the next Jupiter
>: expedition CDRom with personal fingerprints and DNA code for further detection.
>: No more no less.
>: snips
>: >: interesting. apparently you believe people should not be allowed
>: >: to do what van den Herik accused Manohararajah of doing. presumably
>: >: you believe it is less honorable? yet you simultaneously claim that
>: >: the accusation was not damaging?
>: >There's a *big* difference between making an accusation and making an
>: >idle statement that turns out to be incorrect. A *big* difference...
>: As already stated, behind three walls of chuckles there certainly was an
>: accusation. Sort of being touched disagreeably by a not forbidden but
>: disturbing and soiling acting against the sound principles of the guardians of
>: the holy scientifical standards ...
>accusation is the wrong word. indirect accusation, maybe. Don't forget, that
>when you read the paragraph, Rajah wasn't the subject. Crafty was. An
>incorrect statement, indicating that Rajah was a modified version of Crafty,
>just like Gunda-1.
But gunda wasn't modified at all. Apart from his new name.
>His point was the popularity of the source code of Crafty,
>indirectly it turned into a put-down of Rajah due to incorrect info. He's trying
>to correct the mistake. Let's let 'im...
I let let let him, but wouldn't like to let let let let you to continue. :)
>: >: IMHO it is ironic that in writing an article about the issue of
>: >: giving credit where credit is due, van den Herik failed to do so himself.
>: >: and his lame apology half-blaming others and half-excusing himself,
>: >: exhibits a failure to accept blame where blame is due.
>: Clear case of the wrong man being in the wrong position, no?
>: Correct, not a big deal compared with the cases of hundreds of misused children
>: by real professors, but we shouldn't forget about those principles well known
>: in science in our good old western world ...
>I'd bet that Jaap would be more than willing to let *anyone* take over the
>editorship of the JICCA.
You demonstrate clearly your innocence about the ego problems of title
*holders*. Perhaps you never experienced the speedy effects of a functioneer's
*power*. The following description sounds correct but your conclusion seems to
be incorrect.
>It pays exactly *0* US dollars per year... and is
>one hell of a lot of work. I can show you a couple of dozen emails between
>Jaap and myself about the current issue with the parallel cray blitz article.
>Jaap even helped me with wording changes, suggesting ways to shorten the paper,
>asking for clarification here, more information there, a reference over there...
>All on his own time. Would you take that job? And guarantee a journal every
>3 months, with the same quality we've had for 10+ years? And for the same
>salary? I wouldn't...
But Bob.
It's not the question wether this special job is being paid or not. Being an
officer of the ICCA staff is sufficient for ballance. And does pay indirectly,
I'm sure. Don't flame or ask me for details.
Nice flights and warm beds. And the maximizing of one's title list as an
expert.
That's life of an academical individual. Never heard about it? Look at him. At
AEGON Jaap did the introductionary speach.
>It's easy to throw stones, but dangerous in glass houses. If you are willing to
>invest the time to do it better, by all means volunteer.
You've coming to the natural end of errors of disputing. To judge and write
about a topic doesnt necessarily mean to be able to do better.
>But know going in it is
>a time-consuming task. And all it does is take your time, without giving you
>anything back *but* "satisfaction"...
How stupid Jaap was to take this trip? :)
And what AEGON editors did mean by attributing jaap's interest in working out a
computerizing of making verdicts in juridical cases? (For further details
contact the homepage of AEGON in www).
So, Jaap seems to have a lot of time to do all these things at the same
time... :)))
chrisw
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<5j2rj2$8...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
I agree with Teuschen, that's 2-1 now.
Actually, they will retire because there will be new elections.
We can talk about the 'democratic' nature of these and who is allowed to
vote, and who not, in due course, no doubt.
Chris Whittington
chrisw
Just a little aside:
I spoke the the Rajah programmer at AEGON. He had flown out from Canada
especially to attend.
He also flew from Canada to attend the Dutch open (which was the tourney
where it was suggested that his program==crafty).
This is a big effort for one guy, much travelling, long distances.
Now, van den Herik works at the university at Maastricht, not a long way
from the Dutch open site.
Shame he didn't talk to the programmer there, huh ?
Or are the generals now too detached from the troops, that they report on
third hand gossip from the junior officers instead ?
Chris Whittington
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in article
<5j5oc5$3...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
chrisw
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Don Fong <df...@cse.ucsc.edu> wrote in article
<5j33mu$e...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>...
> In article <5itv04$a...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>,
> Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
> >I think *everyone* agrees Jaap made a mistake. The question
> >boils down to the *degree* of the mistake. I still feel that it's a
> >minor issue in the overall scheme of things.
>
> there are two ways to look at a mistake. you are now arguing
> about (1) the "cause" of the mistake. ie, that it was easy to *make*
> such a mistake. but my main disagreement with you is over (2) the
> "effect" of the mistake. ie, that the mistake was NOT harmless to
> the victim as you and other ICCA apologists have claimed.
>
> >Were I Manojararajah, I'd be *more* upset about it, because it would
> >be more personally related to me. However, he's seemingly accepted
> >the appology and has closed this as a point of contention.
>
> as i pointed out before, sometimes it is awkward for the victim
> to be his own advocate. perhaps he is inhibited by modesty or deference
> to elders. even so, the fact remains that it was a gaffe by a major
> ICCA official, and constitutes valid grounds for criticism.
>
> >Whether a page of a journal with a circulation
> >of 500 members is a big issue or not is open to discussion, but I don't
> >think it is a big deal. 1/2 page blurbs are there all the time. Most
> >anyone can write a letter to the journal, commenting on inaccuracies in
> >a prior article and the letters are published regularly, so this isn't
> >something new and expensive. It's another flavor of something that has
> >happened dozens of times before.
>
> [...]
> >I think he simply told the truth. IE, you walk up behind a bunch of
> >computer chess enthusiasts talking (random names: me, Slate, Moreland,
> >Stanback, Kittinger, etc.) informally, you hear a couple talking about
> >a new program that is based on Crafty, and you report it. You might be
> >tempted to write that in a casual comment, as Jaap did, because you
heard
> >it from a group that you are pretty sure knows what's going on. And
you'd
> >be wrong. If you were writing about Rajah itself, you should certainly
check
> >the sources of information carefully. But if you were writing about
Crafty,
> >and you heard several make statements (let's take Gunda-1 at Jakarta)
about
> >the program, you might work one of those statements in and then find it
was
> >incorrect.
Sounds like
a) there's a load of gossip going on.
b) ICCA editor listens to the gossip.
c) ICCA editor doesn't check
Conclusion: they run on gossip; live 50 miles behind the front lines, and
don't talk to the troops. Sounds like an arrogant, out of touch, detached
clique who've outlived their usefulness to me.
Chris Whittington
Robert Hyatt
chrisw (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Sounds like
: a) there's a load of gossip going on.
: b) ICCA editor listens to the gossip.
: c) ICCA editor doesn't check
: Conclusion: they run on gossip; live 50 miles behind the front lines, and
: don't talk to the troops. Sounds like an arrogant, out of touch, detached
: clique who've outlived their usefulness to me.
: Chris Whittington
I don't think they run on gossip. This was written on what I'd normally call
the "editorial" page. Even in good journals, there are often references to
"rumor", "speculation" or whatever. That's the purpose of that part of any
journal. If you don't like some of them then a response should be fired off
for the next issue. I see these regularly already, no reason why a letter
with sharp criticism couldn't be written if you feel strongly...
chrisw
--
http://www.demon.co.uk/oxford-soft
Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote in article
<5j911e$q...@juniper.cis.uab.edu>...
> chrisw (chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>
> : Sounds like
>
> : a) there's a load of gossip going on.
> : b) ICCA editor listens to the gossip.
> : c) ICCA editor doesn't check
>
> : Conclusion: they run on gossip; live 50 miles behind the front lines,
and
> : don't talk to the troops. Sounds like an arrogant, out of touch,
detached
> : clique who've outlived their usefulness to me.
>
> : Chris Whittington
>
>
> I don't think they run on gossip.
Well, I do. If you listen to gossip, print the gossip, and don't check it
out - you are running on gossip, no ?
I suppose the next obvious question is: 'are they generators of gossip also
?'
> This was written on what I'd normally call
> the "editorial" page. Even in good journals, there are often references
to
> "rumor", "speculation" or whatever.
The RAJAH allegation was prefaced by 'this is a speculation' ? Really ? You
are quite sure about this ?
> That's the purpose of that part of any
> journal.
No. This editorial section could arguably be used as a non-libelous
editor's opinon page - but not as a rumour-mill. But even this is a problem
in this day and age - no automatic right of reply, three months till the
next issue, and so on.
> If you don't like some of them then a response should be fired off
> for the next issue. I see these regularly already, no reason why a
letter
> with sharp criticism couldn't be written if you feel strongly...
We've been through this before. Since the response rate to my letters has
been 6 unanswered and 1 answered or whatever, I do not propose to humiliate
myself by writing letters to them again.
Furthermore, I think the leadership clique, and their magazine as currently
constructed, have outlived their usefulness, and I don't propose to
participate in a dying medium. Times have changed.
Chris Whittington
>
>
Robert Hyatt
Rolf Tueschen (TUESCHEN.MEDIZ...@t-online.de) wrote:
: But Don stayed because it now looked like as if there was nothing wrong in the
: affair, the half apology included.
: But it's a public affair. Even if Valavan wrote that he appreciated the whole
: thing with multiple orgasms in his third year at the university the topic
: was'nt at his natural end at all. Because it's now a debate between you and
: your extended claims and the opposing side.
If you reread my posts, you won't find me saying this was not a mistake. You
also won't find me saying it was ok to do that and that it should happen again.
You will find me saying that it doesn't appear to be "intentional" and that after
the mistake was pointed out, Jaap did everything reasonable to rectify the
mistake. There is *no* way to undo it. The mistake *can* be softened by the
steps Jaap took. Exactly what else do you propose? You keep complaining, but
you don't offer any concrete suggestion for "what should Jaap do next to repair
this as best he can?" Without suggestions, the rhetoric is meaningless.
Kennedy was shot in a parade. We can't undo that. we can (and did) hopefully
learn from the event to avoid repeating it where possible. However, after a
mistake (be it large or small) all that can be done is some form of damage-
control to minimize the effects.
I claim that the steps taken will basically make this seem as though it never
happend, and everyone will end up knowing Rajah is an up-and-coming program,
not related to Crafty at all (other than via private discussions we've had).
That appears to make more positive than negative out of the whole thing. So
why not drop it? Or is there another motive working here?
: >: And that is the point. The author of RANJA was hurt in his reputation NOT
: >: because he might have done something scandalously forbidden but something that
: >: could be laughed at. And there are people outside the sphere of ICCA officers
: >: who certainly do care about not losing their *face* in public. World wide
: >: acting officers of ICCA should be able of taking care of this fundamental fact.
: >: Period.
: >I have agreed that Jaap made a mistake. And that leaving things "as they are"
: >would not be good. But the bottom line is, that Rajah is going to be better-
: >known *after* the mistake, because the author is going to write up a small
: >description about the program, and it will get more publicity, sooner, than
: >if this had not happened. No, before you ask, I don't think this is the way
: >to recognize new programs. :) I think this should (and will) be avoided in
: >the future. But I think that after the mistake was made, and after it was
: >pointed out, subsequent events have done everything possible to rectify the
: >mistake...
: Ok, but your after burners aren't invisible at all actually. And these points
: are in question, not the health state of Valavan and/or his Raja (see at
: AEGON).
: >: >this is really stretching things. It was a mistake. An honest mistake.
: >: That's a big damn lie.
: >what's a lie?
: Please read carefully: It's a lie to attribute the notion honest to this
: negligent action. And the damn was to attack you especially for telling us this
: bull.
and now the "motive" for the post becomes known. Once again, you want to attack
an ICCA-affiliated person, regardless of the merits of the attack. You question
his honesty with no supporting information at all. He explained how it happened.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I accept his explanation and the steps
he's taken to correct the mistake...
: >You think Jaap made his statement intentionally to defame
: >the program Rajah? If it wasn't a mistake, it must have been intentional?
: No, it was an unacceptable negligent (arrogant?) writing in a scientifical
: journal. And a veteran for 20 years shouldn't write that way.
but above you said it wasn't "honest" (at least in your words, it's a lie to
attribute the notion honest to this..)
: >Or is there another way to interpret your "big damn lie"???
: >: >It did not attempt to defame or belittle anyone.
: >: No, absolutely not.
: >: >To make it anything else
: >: >is idiocy...
: >: Oh boy, these strong words ...
: >: But nevertheless then I must stand for this *idiocy*.
: >: Because it was something else.
: >: >: van den Herik didn't say it was unethical,
: >: No? For me he put it in the equal category/sort of plagiasm.
: >in one narrow sense of interpretation, maybe.
: Bob, we could easily detect your ignorance for juridical matters here.
: For the possible outer effects it's sufficient to demonstrate a possible
: damaging effect/consequence of the wrong arguing of the author.
: To make it very clear: if an author writes something correctly and a possible
: effect could be harm for someone it's not the same thing! The judgment about a
: wrong writing however must be negative if a possible interpretation could be
: harmful. Ok?
never disagreed...
: >He also pointed out
: >this issue has come up more than once, and that software is quite
: >a bit different, and "plagarism" of software is actually very
: >unlikely for most, because the "plagarized" programs get modified
: >and eventually "morph" into something completely new and different.
: >Otherwise *all* current programs are plagarized from the likes of
: >chess 4.x...
: Not accepted. Don't spray colours of yellow and violet on the monitor.
: The equitation was Gunda=crafty and rajah like gunda, but that meant
: rajah=crafty. And the conclusion was 100%: Rajah is not at all a new prg but a
: joke by an indian *programmer* who would be better called an impostor.
No it doesn't. If you read the information about Gunda-1, they claimed to
have made significant changes to Crafty. I have no way of knowing whether
it was 99% crafty or 1% crafty when they competed. Neither does anyone else
except for the Gunda-1 team. So your above is unprovable and is not an
assumed fact by me, because I don't know.
: I will never accept your shifting around this fact that Rajah was compared to
: >: Six months later?
: >: (!)
: >: >write a
: >: >short
: >: (!)
: Thanks for your :).
: >: snips
How do you know this? The Gunda-1 team claimed to make changes. They discussed
some of this in the previous JICCA volume. Not specifics about what they had
done, but that they had made changes..
: >His point was the popularity of the source code of Crafty,