1
2
![[cn]](/mwf/v12/flags/cn.png "China")
When I first came to this forum there was active development of an exciting new engine, Rybka with an author who was actively posting in response to fans. The whole thing was backed by a strong IM who was working on the evaluation function and imputting new ideas. There were ongoing man vs. machine matches with and without odds.
Now there's bickering over crappy 'basement' tournaments, clones, PST values and the such like. People even justify the use of these 'clones'. Where did all the good times go?
Now there's bickering over crappy 'basement' tournaments, clones, PST values and the such like. People even justify the use of these 'clones'. Where did all the good times go?
When Rybka was termed "Clone"! No mystery there!
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
Ask Bob Hyatt, the lynch mob and the ICGA about this, they are the ones to blame....
![[cr]](/mwf/v12/flags/cr.png "Costa Rica")
Unfortunately, Vasik' activity on this forum was already bad much before this. To be precise: it began when Ippolit came to scene.
Regards,
Gaмßito.
Regards,
Gaмßito.
What is your reference to? It's not clear "clone" talk? Or attributing Robo to the RE of Rybka? If it is regarding clone talk then I would venture that was more a determination of Felix then Vas. If it regarding the RE of Rybka - I'd say he had grounds to make that claim.
[edit] I think what you might be referring to is his unwillingness to take a decisive action. Although from his point of view he had stated his position on the issue and that was that. I think a lot of members what more from him.
[edit] I think what you might be referring to is his unwillingness to take a decisive action. Although from his point of view he had stated his position on the issue and that was that. I think a lot of members what more from him.
Yes, you are right Robert. Let me explain: ''sarciness'' asked where did all the good times go? I could only tell him when they have gone:
It was because the ''RE'' of Rybka in 2009. Then, Vas decided stopped communicating with the forum as before, until today. The ''clone talk'' came after this, and continued while all Ippolit derivates began to appear.
About Felix and others policy: it was just horrible. Did not improve anything in the forum, quite the opposite.
Some members were upset because there was no freedom to speak about what really was happening, unless you were a member of the ''Edge''. The good times were gone..
Regards,
Gaмßito.
It was because the ''RE'' of Rybka in 2009. Then, Vas decided stopped communicating with the forum as before, until today. The ''clone talk'' came after this, and continued while all Ippolit derivates began to appear.
About Felix and others policy: it was just horrible. Did not improve anything in the forum, quite the opposite.
Some members were upset because there was no freedom to speak about what really was happening, unless you were a member of the ''Edge''. The good times were gone..
Regards,
Gaмßito.
I don't see anything productive at this point in dredging up the past. Right or wrong, I think Felix did what he thought was best for the forum in creating the Edge. We appreciated having that forum to express our views at the time and testing engines we otherwise would not have had the opportunity to test.
But there remains the elephant in the room, the Ippolit source code. It is there, as Hyatt states, "the cat is out of the bag"! If I understand this correctly it is not licensed-belongs to no one and yet to everyone. Nice coup - to have ripped off Rybka and then put it in open source successfully. Hyatt smiles like a Cheshire cat and got what he always wanted.
I am not a programmer. But, I don't think it matters how much one takes from that code- it is open game. If it is good for Komodo- it is good for Houdini! It is good for anyone who wants to dip their stick into it. Or no one at all. It is too late to balk! As far as I am concerned -let the good times role. Or close down the casino and throw the elephant out of the room and any engine that dipped into its shit.
But there remains the elephant in the room, the Ippolit source code. It is there, as Hyatt states, "the cat is out of the bag"! If I understand this correctly it is not licensed-belongs to no one and yet to everyone. Nice coup - to have ripped off Rybka and then put it in open source successfully. Hyatt smiles like a Cheshire cat and got what he always wanted.
I am not a programmer. But, I don't think it matters how much one takes from that code- it is open game. If it is good for Komodo- it is good for Houdini! It is good for anyone who wants to dip their stick into it. Or no one at all. It is too late to balk! As far as I am concerned -let the good times role. Or close down the casino and throw the elephant out of the room and any engine that dipped into its shit.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> I think Felix did what he thought was best for the forum in creating the Edge. We appreciated having that forum
The problem with that forum is that it was not open to everyone, first they put the "you have to have 500 posts for access" thing, so all the people that didn't have them weren't happy. Then I claimed that everyone that already knew about cloned names should have had access, and they agreed. But then they put an extra "you have to provide your real full name for access" requirement, and didn't tell anyone about it!
Sure, you were happy because you had the 500 posts, but I'm sure if you didn't you would have exploded because there was a zone in the forum you couldn't read and there was no way for you to gain access.
I think that members that had their threads deleted without reason still are owed an apology, and that the best thing that happened to the Forum was when Felix got a girlfriend and things changed for the better, I'd just wish it had happened before.
Yes, things weren't perfect back then. It was a very confusing time- you take what you can get and go with it- short of going to Germany and holding Felix hostage at gun point. Beyond that I don't get how dredging up past policies of the Edge is going to help remedy the current problems this forum faces. Unless you think isolating issues once again is the answer? Otherwise what is the point of going back in time.
> Beyond that I don't get how dredging up past policies of the Edge is going to help remedy the current problems this forum faces.
Huh, what problems? I think the forum doesn't have any problems currently and I'd like to thank TheHug (and Felix's girlfriend
) for that.Problems like "Vas isn't posting anymore" or "discussions about the irrelevancy of the WBCCC or how Vas's scandal was a farce is the only thing people talk about" aren't Forum problems, they are member's problems (the members don't know what to discuss about, if they did, they'd create such threads and discuss them) due to the state of Computer Chess, and no change in the forum would change that.
See, at one point the discussions with bob (you know what discussions) came to a full stop. Did that make people discuss something else? Nope, the forum just went very inactive, until Vegan brought back the discussions with bob and I pointed out Junior won the "WCCC".
Apparently the new main forum is Computer Chess, go see:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/board_show.pl?bid=13
Threads of interest:
Komodo 4 is about to be released.
CEGT keeps posting their updates.
Discussion about Stockfish's parameters and Contempt of engines.
Discussion about what is the latest in Computer Chess hardware.
SCCT keeps posting their updates.
Discussion about Houdini's bugs.
Jeroen updates his test Suite.
Jeroen updates his test Suite (Yes, we have two stickied threads about it).
People still overclock their computers.
That part seems like always.
I would have to fully agree with you here. No doubt. The topics are more poignant and of greater importance to the general membership!
good-times come and go... :) it is the way of things.
True, Ippolit was a big step in changing the atmosphere of computer chess. Some might say that computer chess is better off with Ippo/Robo etc. but I am not one of them.
If thanks to Ippolit we have as strong engines as Stockfish and Critter 1.2, with radical different playing styles from Rybka, then, I'm very happy about it.
It's called progress.
It's called progress.
> Ask Bob Hyatt, the lynch mob and the ICGA about this, they are the ones to blame....
Really?
Yes.
If I have this right,Tom, there is absolutely no factual proof that Vas copied any Fruit code. None. The only curse Vas can be accused of is when he first started out he used Crafty as a model base as per Hyatt's recommendation on his website. The program Vas programmed in performed miserably taking 53rd place to Hyatt's First place.
Hyatt, acquired a copy of that engine from a gent who had it in his private collection - All assertions and assumptions there in based on that copy. No factual evidence exists beyond that just hypothetical assertions. Vas no doubt scrapped using Crafty as a bases for a model directly after that failed experiment.
Hyatt, acquired a copy of that engine from a gent who had it in his private collection - All assertions and assumptions there in based on that copy. No factual evidence exists beyond that just hypothetical assertions. Vas no doubt scrapped using Crafty as a bases for a model directly after that failed experiment.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
> Ask Bob Hyatt, the lynch mob and the ICGA about this, they are the ones to blame....
Wow! The situation is so simple and easy?
Things seemed to be more complex, all participants seemed to be not white or black but some distinct kind of grey!
Nevertheless simple and easy?
Quap
There are some controversial issues and sometimes big discussions about them, in several forums, but that is not representative for computer chess in total. I have seen interesting developements in 2011.
(oops)
(oops)
![[it]](/mwf/v12/flags/it.png "Italy")
Already it is true. And what did the Centaur tournaments? The tournament "Freestyle", I have no more heard of it. It was a nice idea. All finished?
Indeed :(
Sorry to hear the sad news about Vas being banned for life by the ICGA, as I was away from the forum for several months.
One wonders if Vas is now under pressure to make a quantum leap with Rybka 5, will he try to come up with some original new ideas of his own,
or will he try to decompile Houdini, and take its best ideas...
Also, a case could be made that Houdini is a cloan (plagarism) of Rybka or another top engine.
I believe that Integrity is more important than winning, and I'm beginning to like Stockfish as an engine,
just because its authors have integrity, and publish their work for the public good with the gnu public license,
and its ELO rating is close to the top anyway.
One wonders if Vas is now under pressure to make a quantum leap with Rybka 5, will he try to come up with some original new ideas of his own,
or will he try to decompile Houdini, and take its best ideas...
Also, a case could be made that Houdini is a cloan (plagarism) of Rybka or another top engine.
I believe that Integrity is more important than winning, and I'm beginning to like Stockfish as an engine,
just because its authors have integrity, and publish their work for the public good with the gnu public license,
and its ELO rating is close to the top anyway.
> or will he try to decompile Houdini, and take its best ideas...
No need for that, he just needs to check the Robbolito open source code.
I wish he did, for one thing, he could get rid of Rybka's terrible time management if he copied the ideas of the implementation of TM from other open source engines. Say, from Fruit that didn't need different parameters depending on the time control, time control type, hardware or even opponent. Or from Glaurung, that if I recall correctly had an impressive time management that used the same average time per move in the whole game (so no time was left unused on incremental time control, but Glaurung didn't run low on time while doing it, the opposite of Rybka 4's cases...)
> or will he try to decompile Houdini, and take its best ideas...
No need for that, he just needs to check the Robbolito open source code.
You've been listening to Hyatt for too long. Houdini didn't get to the top by copying...
No need for that, he just needs to check the Robbolito open source code.
You've been listening to Hyatt for too long. Houdini didn't get to the top by copying...
> You've been listening to Hyatt for too long. Houdini didn't get to the top by copying...
Do your research, Houdini 1.0 == Robbolito .009.
Just check this picture:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1897/robbolitohoudinieval.jpg
And you can wade though this thread and others at OpenChess:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1647
Where kingliveson shows Houdini is Robbolito without a doubt.
Houdini is about 10% original code, but that 10% is really darn good, that's why with so many strong open source code around nobody else has been able to match Houdart yet.
I hope Critter manages to do it on the 1.3 version.
(And who knows how many original ideas are in the new code, those ideas are what count)
Do your research, Houdini 1.0 == Robbolito .009.
Where you start the race isn't that important. The key thing is where you end up. I'm not sure what percentage of Houdini is original, but it's clearly a cut above the rest, so a tip of the Stetson to Mr. Houdart for his efforts.
I suspect that Critter will make good progress in its next version, given its author's proven ability to pull good ideas out of other engines.
Where you start the race isn't that important. The key thing is where you end up. I'm not sure what percentage of Houdini is original, but it's clearly a cut above the rest, so a tip of the Stetson to Mr. Houdart for his efforts.
I suspect that Critter will make good progress in its next version, given its author's proven ability to pull good ideas out of other engines.
> I'm not sure what percentage of Houdini is original, but it's clearly a cut above the rest, so a tip of the Stetson to Mr. Houdart for his efforts.
The point is that if he started from a weaker source, his ideas would only have helped him to a point in where he'd not be the best and we wouldn't be talking about him. Then you wouldn't be tipping him.
And, anyway, at the very least he could be honest about it, instead of keep denying any direct connection.
There's no doubt that you are right that he was able to make faster progress by leaning on strong existing engines rather than starting from scratch. And maybe he could be more forthcoming when discussing this. But even with these stipulations, you have to admit that he has the strongest released engine out there, and by a pretty good margin, and this can't be attributed to copying stuff that was available to everyone else as well.
> Where you start the race isn't that important. The key thing is where you end up. I'm not sure what percentage of Houdini is original, but it's clearly a cut above the rest, so a tip of the Stetson to Mr. Houdart for his efforts.
Really? If you start a marathon at mile 25 and win, should we award you the gold medal?
Poor analogy. That would be like starting a chess game with a mate in 10 showing. No gold medal for that.
A much better analogy would be starting to train for marathons at age 30 and becoming a champion a few years later. And yes, if someone did this they would and should be awarded a gold medal.
A much better analogy would be starting to train for marathons at age 30 and becoming a champion a few years later. And yes, if someone did this they would and should be awarded a gold medal.
Better analogy: trained for a race by taking drugs. Later stopped using the drugs but kept the muscles.
A much better analogy would be that of Guglielmo Marconi who, " ...built upon previous experimentation and the commercial exploitation of ideas by others such as Hertz, Maxwell, Faraday, Popov, Lodge, Fessenden, Stone, Bose, and Tesla."
Hah, nice.
It must also be remembered that his contributions to the development of the wireless telegraphy didn't stop him from being jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics along with Karl Ferdinand Braun in 1909. P.S. and yes a lot of his patents were hotly contested but a number of them stood the test of time.
There is a strong case against the ICGA verdict, some very reputable people think it is plain wrong. Some think it is a sham. I think it is a sham.
Rybka is already full of Vas's original ideas and his integrity is intact in my view. Of course he needs more ideas now to take the number 1 crown back.
Rybka is already full of Vas's original ideas and his integrity is intact in my view. Of course he needs more ideas now to take the number 1 crown back.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
The state of computer chess is quite obvious. This outcome was predictable after a group of losers and mean-spirited people decided to band together to commit a heinous injustice.
The questions now are:
1. What needs to happen now to set the hobby on a harmonious course?
2. What needs to happen that would build interest in the hobby and leave the current dark times behind?
I believe:
1. The accusers need to be confronted and decisively defeated. There is no other way. Evil must be defeated and somebody has to do it, at whatever cost. The good news: that is going to happen. It is already happening. Trust me.
2. Computer chess must establish an entirely new regime and set of organizing and animating principles. Those need to be widely articulated. The problem: #1 is independent of #2, and building is always far harder than destroying. Right now there is no indication that anything like #2 is in the offing.
However, there is one thing for sure. Whether or not #2 happens, time will elapse and something *will* happen. We simply cannot see what, at this point.
The questions now are:
1. What needs to happen now to set the hobby on a harmonious course?
2. What needs to happen that would build interest in the hobby and leave the current dark times behind?
I believe:
1. The accusers need to be confronted and decisively defeated. There is no other way. Evil must be defeated and somebody has to do it, at whatever cost. The good news: that is going to happen. It is already happening. Trust me.
2. Computer chess must establish an entirely new regime and set of organizing and animating principles. Those need to be widely articulated. The problem: #1 is independent of #2, and building is always far harder than destroying. Right now there is no indication that anything like #2 is in the offing.
However, there is one thing for sure. Whether or not #2 happens, time will elapse and something *will* happen. We simply cannot see what, at this point.
> Whether or not #2 happens, time will elapse and something *will* happen. We simply cannot see what, at this point.
I just hope it's not that it's announced someone managed to hit an algorithm that solves chess on the fly (at least on the sense that it guarantees to avoid any losing move in a given position), that would kill computer chess with one shot.
And I think the chance of that happening is virtually 0, but not 0.
> that would kill computer chess with one shot
You're missing the whole point. First you kill chess, then you kill computer chess. Problem solved! Throw a wild party! Mission accomplished! Then we can all learn how to play Go and solve that game!
> First you kill chess, then you kill computer chess.
No, I think it's the other way around. Computer Chess dies first, because all games end in draw, and it's no longer interesting to play flawed engines against each other, and after you know what percentage of games one perfect engine wins against the imperfect ones, there's nothing left to do. Chess dies later, perhaps much later as players can still go at the game regardless of its solution, just like they keep playing Checkers today even after it was solved.
5 in a row was also solved, and people still play it. Dots and Boxes (Paddocks) is trivially to solve on the fly regardless of the size of the board used, and people still play it (because the guys that outsmarts the other player wins, and that's what it's about!).
So I expect chess to live on after it is solved, unless the algorithm is so simple to understand that a 7 year old can learn it and mimic the perfect engine after learning how the pieces move, but I really doubt that's the case.
And no, I won't make a party, having to find a new hobby as addicting is going to be a hassle...
>Then we can all learn how to play Go and solve that game!
I learned Go. I got bored of it. Really, after having 6 pieces with different movements on Chess, Go feels very limited with only one piece...
(I keep missing the whole point because to me Computer Chess is a recreational game that entertains me, not a problem to solve.)
We are ants in the process of building a mountain in our small, limited and mortal ways. I see the end-goal to be solving chess but realize it won't happen in this century. However if motivated people keep emerging then steady progress can be made toward that end-goal. I am optimistic that it will someday happen. Look at all the progress that has been made in 25 years (one generation).
I wonder how long it'll take to solve chess. I used to think it'd happen in my lifetime with the way technology is developing, but now I doubt it. In a way, when it is "solved" it will be nigh-on impossible to learn it by rote though as I guess almost all major openings are probably a theoretical draw. This is my guess anyhow.
There is already a HUGE amount of opening theory and, with engines and databases to help, the amount isn't going to decrease! Eventually though, you reach a stage where it's more beneficial to spend your time on tactics, strategy and endgames. Thank God! I think this will always be the case. Wasting all of your time memorising "perfect" chess leave you open to get stuffed as it's only a matter of time before your opponent gets you out of "book"!
There is already a HUGE amount of opening theory and, with engines and databases to help, the amount isn't going to decrease! Eventually though, you reach a stage where it's more beneficial to spend your time on tactics, strategy and endgames. Thank God! I think this will always be the case. Wasting all of your time memorising "perfect" chess leave you open to get stuffed as it's only a matter of time before your opponent gets you out of "book"!
> There is already a HUGE amount of opening theory
I should know. And I totally disagree with you. Let's assume you could round up every reasonably high quality game that has ever been recorded on any platform or venue. How many games would you have? Counting higher-quality games played on Chess.com, Yahoo!, FICS, Playchess, plus all the other game sources we're familiar with...all of these sources combined.
Do you really think a hypothetical number of 1 billion games would be a "huge" amount of theory?
You'd be surprised. People would still be easily able to find a way out of book in under ten moves and while avoiding a lost position.
What's more, existing theory in a fairly large book today (let's say a million games) would, on average, only be pushed out maybe 5 plies further. (Much higher in some lines, less in many others.) A quick reflection on the nature of exponentials will quickly explain my point.
Be serious. GMs spend half of their time looking at opening theory so they don't get crushed on move 25 of a Najdorf!
Your comment fails to note that Najdorf is easily the most analyzed opening of them all and there is a difference between theory (actual games and published material) and preparation (the type of work people privately do on tools like Aquarium). You also missed the significance of the word "average". There are extremes.
OK, take the Ruy Lopez or the Italian Game or the Grunfeld... Even take some less common openings like the Dutch, or the London System. When do you expect to be out of book when playing natural moves? Move 10, move 15? Yes, you can play 1.b3 or something and be out of book early, of course you can avoid theory if you want to. That doesn't mean it's not out there, it just means you're purposely side-stepping it.
> When do you expect to be out of book when playing natural moves? Move 10, move 15?
Actually I have a mathematical formula to answer just that question. The answer for my entire book is about 14 moves at the present time. If we looked only at B90 that number would be much higher, of course. Also bear in mind this is a much lower number than I would expect playing on Playchess, where certain specific opening lines are tried thousands of times and progressively deepened. On the other end of the scale, if GMs played against my book without realizing what they were facing the number would be closer to 11 moves. If a human was trying deliberately to get out of book without a losing position, or they were relatively unskilled and made unconventional moves, the number would be 6 or 7 moves.
An interesting point is that when my book was a tenth of its present size it was about one move less deep. Based on 10x games = 1 book move deeper it is reasonable to infer that if you had several billion of games in book you might expect to average 16 book moves in all lines on average. (Note the caveats above.) You see how hard it is to add value just with published games when one additional book move is roughly 10^x. (I am just guessing at that number, by the way; I'd need considerable resources to calculate more accurately.)
If you like, you can challenge your own book against what I would call "good IM (opening expert) knowledge". I suggest a long match with comfortable time controls, avoiding time issues, e.g. 5m+5s or 10m+3s or the like.
I assume your book is CTG. Book options from my viewpoint would be normal, min. games=3.
http://members.aon.at/computerschach/Balanced-16CTG.7z
My book is designed for "normal", IOW for variety and will certainly fail against top-tuned Najdorf books.
I assume your book is CTG. Book options from my viewpoint would be normal, min. games=3.
http://members.aon.at/computerschach/Balanced-16CTG.7z
My book is designed for "normal", IOW for variety and will certainly fail against top-tuned Najdorf books.
You assume wrong on the book format, it isn't .ctg and never has been. However what you propose isn't impossible as obviously we can test it against other books. The trouble is that I have much higher priorities right now which I am sure you would appreciate if you knew what they were.
I did a quick scrimmage between your book and mine. I played black. First game: you exited book in a position where I had over 12,000 games. Second game: same thing, 56,000 games. Your book-exits were OK, as far as they went. The question is whether pure theory with no hand-customization can establish a durable advantage against a strong engine after that. The answer depends a lot on how the book works. If it is .ctg the advantage may not be as much as people think! Of course, time control has an important influence too.
Anyway, on reflection I couldn't do this test and share the games. That would reveal too much.
Anyway, on reflection I couldn't do this test and share the games. That would reveal too much.
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill