Bob, don't you know that at our age we have stopped growing, we shrink now
But it's OK. I have been mean to you, especially regarding the gasoline thing. It happens more when I am angry. I don't regret it, just saying it's your good right to do some catching up now. I probably deserve it.
> For the Rybka 1.0 beta / Fruit comparison, I think Zach's and Mark's writeups are quite clear. Zach's gives side-by-side analysis of blocks of code showing how they are either (a) identical or (b) do the same things in the same order with the same numbers -- Robert Hyatt
> If you go through the suggested evidence regarding the Piece Square Tables (PST) then what's your impression ?
> Left the Fruit code, right the Rybka code. They look so similar it must be true Vas is a copy-boy.
> Tell you a secret, none of the listed Rybka code is present in Rybka 1.0 beta. It's imaginary best-guess-made-up code by Zach.
> Has Zach been dishonest? No. You will have to read through the lines, it's programmer language:
> Also, note that here too that the PST values are hardcoded into the Rybka executable file, they are not calculated at startup like Fruit's. The code shown here is simply the functional equivalent; it calculates the Rybka PSTs -- Zach Wegner
> I protest to this kind of presentation of evidence as it is misleading for the average reader certainly when the "read the document" yell repeatedly is used in order to make a point. It's a very technical document, you almost must be a chess programmer to understand and I hope it will be rewritten. You can not list non-existence code this way.
> Just for the record, I do not doubt the document, that is, not yet.
Zach's speech is different than Bob. Zach's evidence, which involved a lot of careful work, is compatible with Zachs' theory that Vas started with Fruit, and kept modifying it until obtaining R1. Note that I said it is compatible, if it is a demonstration, it is another issue (let's not go into that yet). In other words, Zach's evidence and his interpretation is a valid explanation. The key question here should be: Is it the only explanation? That is where the effort should be placed. Bob's speech imply a blatant cut and paste.
Zach's evidence was impossible to be discussed and analyzed when presented in CCC because it was drowned by hooligans. I complained about it, nothing was done, and I gave up. I have other things to do than getting into a mud fights with punks. There were and are lots of things to analyze. I will mention this, and I will get back to other things hopefully.
Regarding _this_ specific piece of data (PSTs), I do not see how this proves any wrong behavior (others maybe). We know that Vas studied Fruit (that is not wrong). Whatever it is claimed here that was copied, it is of a very low complexity. It is claimed 384 numbers are the same! This is a huge exaggeration. If I tell you that 100 numbers are copied, and then you see that the numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... 100, you did not copy 100 items, you copy the concept "increase the parameters linearly". i.e. you define the copy material as y = x. You see the PSTs are made of very basic (crude) numbers that establish a framework, and then the whole thing is modified with weights. The flavor here are the weights, not that "Knights have values increasing linearly until 6th rank and then decreasing". Vas could have easily got that concept, and tune with weights everything else. Also that the weights look quite specific, so it is possible that all those weights come from tuning (and we have strong evidences that he has done a lot of tuning). This is like copying 1,3,3,5,9 values for pieces and then you tune all the bonuses and penalties. The original numbers mean nothing. In fact, as CW pointed out, the relative factors are not even the same. You know that what is important in a PST is not so much the absolute number, but the relative values. In fact, this also explains why R1 has a different style than Fruit, defined by the fact that they do not look _that_ similar compared to other engines (this has been statistically demonstrated in CCC with data from at least three people).
One thing is what I could or I do believe, another is what I could demonstrate. That line is blurred with this PSTs, at best. As a "jury" a I would disregard it completely.
could you please specifically name who are the "hooligans" that you are refering to? In what specific manner did they "drown" the evidence? May I ask to whom specifically you directed your complaint? Did you talk to that person or email him and what was his response?
I take it that you are an engine programmer, correct? Do you have a position in the ICGA by any chance?
Finally, where do you stand on this? Am I right to interpret that you don't feel Vas is guilty of cheating, and what is that opinion based on? Sounds like you are an awfully busy man, answer only if you have the time. Thanks
It is a tactic that has been around forever...
"yap yap yap yap"
>Here you have to deal with the opposition for the first time.
Derrière... you have no idea how knee-slappin' funny that is.
A) like he's never had to deal with any opposition in his life and
B) pull your head out of the sand for a moment and trot over to Talkchess as... well... you would see... (and I know you won't as all you monkeys need to be at the same table).
I've identified at least Alan, Rolf, Nelson and Derrière Pensée...
yes very nice!
Where have I heard this story before... hmmm
He saw the "mjlef" and it might as well have been "abcde" to him.
You can have my "killer Chihuahua" pic... that and maybe with an "humorous" description could work.
Or might I suggest you pose a technical question to Robert (to which of course he will have no reply)...
As long as there is some “truth” to what you say to refute his fiction… that should earn you a spot.
If you have a degree from a university, might I assume that you major was "Hyperbole"???
"Dr. Hyatt is extremely laid back and personable but highly opinionated so careful what you say. The truth is he scarily intelligent so don't let his accent fool you. His lectures are very focused upon real world information and experience with a large mix of Hattiesburg, COD4, XBOX and his chess program thrown in. Not the typical pompous jerk."
"Oh my God!!! do not take this stinking loser for any course...his tests are NOT representative of the class material...reading the book will actually hurt you...dumbasses (with old tests) will ace this class while you get a B or C"
You really do not have anything to bring to the table but personal insults, correct? No facts. No computer science expertise? No nothing but personal insults?
Why are you here, then?
> Then cite your source... or shut up...
The evaluations I consider are those that come from students _after_ they graduate. Or just before they graduate after they have interviewed for a few jobs. And they discover that they know more than most BS-level students because of the comments from the interviewers.
BTW I could probably go back to my 03 operating systems course and find the one person that failed and match him up with that online survey. :)
> Get real...
(I just wanted to post Arrière Pensée's source since I thought it was not respectful on his part to post such an image without source, considering he tends to post photoshoped images all the time)
> You know that these are not student evaluations? Anyone can evaluate any professor they want without ever having had the professor on this site.
Exactly! So true Capa.
We live in a computer age where individuals can create webpages and carryout activities there. Still doesn't make the created webpages and the contents real or official. As you've noted, student evaluations are seen by Deans, Chair person, and the Professor. Bob stated this to the, apparently, uneducated individual. The fact that Bob had to reiterate this common University knowledge (known by students who attended higher education) to the one who initially posted the supposedly "Dr. Hyatt's student ratings" here, goes to show the poster's low IQ or otherwise, his high illiteracy.
It all makes sense now; the eradict on-line behaviour, irrational resoning and thought-process, inability to debate intelligently, personal attacks & name-calling, emotional outburst - if unable to refute opposing views...
The comment itself is quite revealing as anyone who takes a college course knows (or should know) what matters is the material the prof. lectures on. THAT is the important material... and the book is more of a supplementary / reference. Books are fine and dandy… but you better be taking notes!
Of course, this doesn't apply to the prof. that works straight out of "the book" for lecture & assignments.
Nice try Robert D.
> One thing to keep in mind also (which Bob alludes to, and certainly the student does) is the person who doesn't do well and to be vindictive, blames the prof.
> The comment itself is quite revealing as anyone who takes a college course knows (or should know) what matters is the material the prof. lectures on. THAT is the important material... and the book is more of a supplementary / reference. Books are fine and dandy… but you better be taking notes!
> Of course, this doesn't apply to the prof. that works straight out of "the book" for lecture & assignments.
> Nice try Robert D
Agreed on all your point, Watchman.
If it were an intelligent person displaying such public foolishness, it would be comforting to think at some point in the future, this person would realize his/her foolishness and learn...
The same can't be said or hoped for this "Robert D". But it doesn't end here. We'll be hearing a lot more of his folly. Count on it.
One guess is he's too used to students cow towing and feeding his ego in telling him what he wants to hear or he will hammer you until you say "uncle" or just give up. He doesn't like to be proved wrong or concede he has acted immoderately- which is what I think he did here.
Unless you are sure he is 100% correct in his assessment. But judging from the Crafty stuff- a less severe stance could have been taken. My guess is he knows he needs to maintain that extreme point of view in order to tie it in with the Fruit stuff to make it look like it is bigger than it is.
It's not affiliated with anything other than computer chess enthusiasts.
I am a "fake newcomer" as you put it. I have been waiting for my opportunity to infiltrate this forum and now I have it!
Who am I? What is my true identity? I am whoever you say I am since obviously you don't let silly things like facts and truth get in the way of your posts. Have a wonderful weekend, mine will continue to be filled with tennis and house cleaning (actually the truth is that I am going to stake out Vas's house and throw some toilet papers in his trees when no one is looking....but let that be our little secret)
Thanks for making a dissenting post while remaining reasonable as usual. :)
I agree that 384 is a huge exaggeration. Probably the best thing to say is that 9 out of 9 tables with 8 weights each were copied, as well as one other value (KnightTrapped is 100 in Fruit, 3200 in Rybka, which is 1 pawn in both programs). There are some number of weights that were not copied (the exact number is hard to say, since after throwing out 0's neither set of weights is a subset of the other). Something like 20. Now, how much information is contained in those numbers? Hard to say. I think it's certainly way more than 1-3-3-5-9--those are _very_ standard numbers, mentioned in countless chess books, etc. The Fruit tables _are_ unique--what other program uses them that isn't acknowledged to have taken them from Fruit? Of course, with the weights, the match isn't exact, so it's a grey area.
A lot of the evaluation is that way--just a fuzzy, but still rather obvious match. It's hard to say whether it crosses the line, and it's mostly going to be a matter of opinion. If the evaluation code was the only piece of evidence, it would certainly be a tough call. The reason why it's so clear to me is the totality of the evidence. It makes me wish I had spent more time writing up reports about the non-evaluation stuff...
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill