I know Cock, I know his wife.
I don't know Harvey.
All I know he calls me a liar on a frequent base.
Today on the F/R matter he can't possibly judge.
And you neither.
So why upset about my CCC posting ?
While your full of it yourself
Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
But go ahead twist it as you wish - it is all you seem capable of these days. i saw your CCC post today this was a great reply to Bob in the thread:
The fact Ed was trying to challenge your skills instead of spending his efforts to refute the _real_ evidence just show how illintentioned he was. It seems to me like an agenda against the panel members or some interest in Rybka's selling....
Admittedly, I was one of those who were defending Vas until I read the evidence. Unfortunately, as Don well said for some people it is okay to make concessions to integrity and fairness if the chess program is on the top (Holdini is following Rybka steps)...
Ben-Hur Carlos Langoni Junior
Whats this engine Harvey ?
> Whats this engine Harvey ?
An engine that plays chess.
From the sourceforge:
"RedQueen is a free and open source chess program available for Windows and Linux. The code has been written in C++ using minimal library dependencies as possible, so that it could be easily ported to other OS.
RedQueen is an UCI chess engine which means that you will need to have installed on your computer a chess graphic interface such as Arena or XBoard/Winboard to be able to play with it.
The name RedQueen comes from the Red Queen character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass novel"
I think their best case is that I referred to some past CCC mods (not them) as little hitlers. First they accused me of calling them (the Secretariat) little hitlers as their excuse for their ban, then when they were unable to sustain that, they dropped it. But, in true Hyatt style, they misremember and remake the original charge again. Now it"s called "bad language use". How prissy can they get? And, a few days ago, the Useless Idiot one was accusing you and me (Ed + CW) of calling him a "fucking moron" which is absolutely untrue, a complete fabrication.
See the pattern? They invent lies and rubbish to try and condemn people. To Vas also. The Useless idiot, in particular, is quite shameless in his untruthful inventions.
But, think yourself well, the fact they need to do this shows their bankruptcy. Moral, spiritual and in the case of their attack war on computer chess, factually bankrupt too.
>Today on the F/R matter he can't possibly judge.
>And you neither.
That is quite an arrogant statement. As if only someone who's written a chess engine could judge...
With as much "involvement" that I have had with Rybka (starting with beta testing 2.x in summer 2006) and the amount of time researching the truth of this matter on various fora, I sure can! And I can stand before the Lord with a clear conscience re: "my conclusion". Took a number years to convince me... but I know what I believe now.
>All I know he calls me a liar on a frequent base.
Well is it true? Mark L. made the same accusation regarding where you supposedly had sent an email apology, and actually hadn't. True?
May hurt to be called a liar... but if it is true, then one should be more careful not to find themselves in that predicament.
Too bad you don't know Harvey. I have never known him to lie or attempt to deceive me.
I can’t say the same about Cock from some of the things I have seen him write.
> That is quite an arrogant statement. As if only someone who's written a chess engine could judge...
Speaking on behalf of David Levy.
And he is right.
More, you need to have a decent understanding of Assembler. Because in the end it's all about understanding this kind of code. Hence David called a Panel for that purpose. And the Panel did not do its job.
> With as much "involvement" that I have had with Rybka (starting with beta testing 2.x in summer 2006) and the amount of time researching the truth of this matter on various fora, I sure can! And I can stand before the Lord with a clear conscience re: "my conclusion". Took a number years to convince me... but I know what I believe now.
If you are a Christian you better should, agree (1 Tim 1:5).
> Well is it true? Mark L. made the same accusation regarding where you supposedly had sent an email apology, and actually hadn't. True?
He got it. Somewhere here on the forum.
> He got it. Somewhere here on the forum.
A clear lie as you posted, "I will send Mark an apology mail today."
No apology needed from you.
Did you mail him an apology later that day, as promised? we all know you did not.
Quite a pronouncement. You chose to pout rather than participate. Like a petulant child. Then you want to suggest we did not do our job. When you didn't participate in the discussions, the hundreds of emails, go through the evidence, work on the final report and evidentiary documents, or anything. Yet somehow you proclaim yourself able to pronounce, as a matter of fact, what the panel did and didn't do, and how we did it. Without participating. A worthless pronouncement if ever there was one...
There is nothing.
If you had checked the ASM code you would have found Zach making up non-existing Rybka variable names to make his document look more Fruity.
After 3 months intensive research I am pretty done with the issue.
Vas in his email to David simply spoke the truth.
I'm not really sure what to say. The Rybka source code is original. I used lots of ideas from Fruit, as I have mentioned many times. Both Fruit and Rybka also use all sorts of common computer chess ideas.
Aside from that, this document is horribly bogus. All that "Rybka code" isn't Rybka code, it's just someone's imagination.
> “Hi David,
> I'm not really sure what to say. The Rybka source code is original. I used lots of ideas from Fruit, as I have mentioned many times. Both Fruit and Rybka also use all sorts of common computer chess ideas.
> Aside from that, this document is horribly bogus. All that "Rybka code" isn't Rybka code, it's just someone's imagination.
> Best regards,
The way this quote reads to me, Vas is saying that, "yes Rybka is based on Fruit, but I changed it enough to consider Rybka an original program." Is that the way it reads to you, Ed? Of course the point of contention is whether it was changed enough to make it "original."
From Vas' statement about the code being someone's imagination, my guess is that Vas changed the Fruit code so that it would look a lot different, although it didn't change semantically.
You can think what ever you like but your are not Vas, so your thinking can never be the exact thinking of Vas.
If Vas writes down that he took a lot of ideas from Fruit then the only thing you can do is read it this way.
The panel behaved like a bunch of sheep.
Agreeingly bloating to every tune the CEO sheep whistled.
The code of Rybka was shaped to be looking like the Fruit code... that is simple how it was done.
The panel never realized this and just compared the two codes (if they actually did this...)
The fake make up code and the Fruit code.
And now they have blast the chess world into smithereens.
My EVAL on the panel has reached quiet a negative bonus.
> You can think what ever you like but your are not Vas, so your thinking can never be the exact thinking of Vas.
Yes, I agree that I am not a mindreader.
> The code of Rybka was shaped to be looking like the Fruit code... that is simple how it was done.
This is how the RE process works, though. It's the only way to do it without the actual Rybka source. And certainly the panel members must have known this.
If this is really the way how RE works than it is perhaps interesting to check the Fruit disassembly against the code which brought the Apollo 13 to the moon.
There are some touch points but i was ofcourse joking and i don't believe in whitch craft and something.
However i also don't believe in a 100% correct RE.
The process can be described technical and precise but i do not expect that two different but very skilled people can come up with exactly the same pseudo code.
By the way i am not acting. I am just wondering about all this turbulence.
Ed/Chris want to PRETEND that one can take the assembly language for program X, and turn it into a match for ANY other program. False. While I can't tell you that assembly A translates EXACTLY to C source B, I can tell you with 100% accuracy if assembly A does EXACTLY the same thing as C source B. And that is what the panel investigation was all about, investigating the claim, by the original group of 16 programmers, that Rybka was based on Fruit. With no rybka source, we had to rely on the rybka binary. But even with the source, there would not be EXACT matches due to the translation from mailbox to bitboard. But one can look at what is done in the mailbox program, how it is done, what steps are done in what order, what scores are used, etc. and compare that to what is done in the bitboard program, to see if the bitboard is simply a translation of the original mailbox program, or is it an original program that does things completely differently.
And that can be done quite precisely, regardless of what Ed/Chris would try to have you believe. They seem to be of the mentality "If I can't do it, nobody can do it." Not all of us fit into that rather sloppy category.
Your attack team had no justification for cut and paste of Fruit code into Rybka because THERE WAS NO RYBKA EQUIVALENT CODE in the Rybka executable.
Your attack team cheated, pure and simple.
You yourself then went on, using the cheated fantasy source code, to claim Rybka was not only behaving the same as Fruit (which it wasn't) but that this behaviour was "so unusual" that it proved copying. Unfortunately for your lie (one of many) the "behaviour" did not even exist and your defamation attempt on Vas now acts to defame you as cheat and liar.
Go bury your head under a stone. And get the hell out of computer chess. And apologise to Vas on the way out.
I won't be going anywhere, I won't be hiding. Eventually, you will be, however. Most will eventually see thru your nonsensical claims...
> I can't just make any asm file match any C source. Yet that is what is being implied, ...
Of course not. Are they really implying that? I thought maybe if Chris or Ed picked a small block of Fruit code (excluding the mailbox to bitboard code) that the report says is copied (which they don't think was copied), you could show how that block of code could be obtained from the Rybka binary. Of course if the argument is that semantically equivalent code does not prove copying, this won't convince anyone of anything...
What cheating lie are you going to come up with next? The values are NOT the same. ALL WEIGHTS ARE DIFFERENT.
Your continuous suggestions are just misleading, deliberately, the computer chess community. Of course if ALL variables were multiplied by the same constant right across both programs, then chessically, play would be identical. But this is NOT the case. The WEIGHTS used are wildly variant, such that the program evaluation functions have an enormous chessic disparity. If you even took just the PST tables as the SOLE EVALUATION, then a program using Fruit vales would play completely different chess, and completely different moves to a program using Rybka values. This disparity gets larger and larger as we consider more and more of the eval components.
Basically, you are just talking obfuscatory nonsense. Which you know to be nonsense. You are cheating the comp chess community. Get the hell out of it.
Talking about "obfuscatory nonsense" that IS a subject you are an expert in, as you practice it each and every day...
And stop trying to pretend that Rybka = Fruit with changed weights. Rybka ideas overlap with Fruit ideas. Rybka contains ideas that are not in Fruit. Fruit contains ideas that are not in Rybka. Ideas are implemented wildly differently. Bitboard/mailbox ensures even more differences. All strong programs overlap. The chessic stuff that works gives a relatively limited pool of ideas to work from. All programs are variations on a theme.
You are talking about two strong programs with similarites, just as all the strong programs have multiple similarities. That's the basis of good computer chess programs, they develop forwards from a known base and in parallel ways as they all discover stuff about each other and what works. Frankly, you may as well junk all computer chess on your repressed ideas of what is and what is not allowed.
Semantics you mean
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill