>> I asked you to evaluate the behaviour of Vas , which means, he used all his power/influence to stop other engines like Houdini,Strelka,Robbolito,... appearing on computer chess rating lists.
> He did not do that.
I can corroborate that.
Vas didn't try to influence CCRL (can't speak for other testing groups) in any way whatsoever.
The link to ccrl was always very big on the first page on his website.
After they add also houdini and other engines to their rating lists, Vas removed that link. And on his page he has now a region called "major group rating lists" and there is just one link to a very small webpage where Critter, Komodo, Stockfish dont appear, and of course Houdini, Robbolito, Firebird also dont appear.
On that rating list is Rybka on place 1, second is Naum,... and so on , here is the link to that great rating list http://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htm
And here is where I found that link on the page of Vas: http://rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Links
Yes indeed, Vas is not censoring anybody :-) and not putting pressure on the chess rating lists admins to delete the engines he doesnt like.
> It seems it would be interesting to contact the guys from ccrl and ask them what influence vas had (if he had).
> The link to ccrl was always very big on the first page on his website.
> After they add also houdini and other engines to their rating lists, Vas removed that link. And on his page he has now a region called "major group rating lists" and there is just one link to a very small webpage where Critter, Komodo, Stockfish dont appear, and of course Houdini, Robbolito, Firebird also dont appear.
> On that rating list is Rybka on place 1, second is Naum,... and so on , here is the link to that great rating list http://ssdf.bosjo.net/list.htm
> And here is where I found that link on the page of Vas: http://rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Links
> Yes indeed, Vas is not censoring anybody :-) and not putting pressure on the chess rating lists admins to delete the engines he doesnt like.
I believe that the decision to ask CEGT, CCRL and some other testing groups not to post in the Rybka forum (and to remove links to their sites) was that of Felix. From my understanding Vas had nothing to do with it.
We've not been advised that this situation has changed, which is why we still don't post here.
> They changed the policy silently, but there would be no problem if you kept posting the CCRL results on the forum.
Thanks Uly, but I'd like to hear that from Felix before I feel happy doing that. Nothing against you of course.
But the reason the CCRL was not allowed to be posted was because it contained the name "Houdini", now, the name "Houdini" is even posted in the main page as an ad, so it's obvious the reason the CCRL was not allowed is gone.
You can't expect Felix to tell every person that was censored that it's now okay to post the name "Houdini", or a link to a site that mentions "Houdini" when it's evident.
1. Felix is not an active Mod anymore.
2. As one of a very few active mods, feel free to post your results friend.
That kind of censorship is no longer here.
> you can do that :)
Thanks Felix. Now you better get back to that woman!
anyway, how can you then explain that the link to ccrl disappeared from his webpage, after ccrl decide to take also other engines in their list.
As I explained in another post, he replaced it with another link, a "major group rating list" :-)) http://rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Links
which is a link to http://ssdf.bosjo.net/
I'm very curious how you will explain again :-)
> anyway, how can you then explain that the link to ccrl disappeared from his webpage, after ccrl decide to take also other engines in their list.
That was Felix's job and Vas jad nothing to do with it.
Rybka's webpage belongs to Felix and he can decide to do whatever he wishes with it.
> And who gave Felix that job?
I don't know who, but as I said several times this kind of censorship by Felix and others was childish and harmful.
> He did also design/write the page of Vas www.rybkachess.com ?
He's the webmaster there, yes.
>Vas didnt notice what happened to his homepage?
It's Felix's home page, about Rybka, and Felix didn't ask Vas if the links to CCRL should be removed, he just went and did it. The page is Rybka's official home page but it doesn't belongs to Vas, just like the Forum is official Rybka's Forum but it belongs to Dadi, not Vas.
>And Vas can not change it back?
Vas can't make any change on the page, he has to ask Felix to make changes, and I don't think Vas cares whether the CCRL is there or not.
You can apply math in nearly every subject (even in psychologie, biology,...and and and a lot more),
and you can apply math especially in programming.
And when you want to give arguments how do you want to do it without math (logic is part of math)?
When there is a problem to solve, the mathematician translates it in his mathematical language and solves it if he can.
That's what a real mathematician does.
I guess for anyone that has scientific education (math, physics,...) the article of soren looks just "incredible". How can an mathematician write something like that.... it's still a big question.
What follows is BB+'s opinion on the article:
'I respond to the ChessBase part 1 of Dr. Riis. Among various extraneous parts, he brings up two things of import. Firstly, he claims that Rybka implements concepts and algorithms learned from Fruit” appears to be the most correct and accurate formulation -- this opinion was essentially considered and rejected by the ICGA process. The conclusion was that Rajlich did more than just "implement concepts and algorithms learned from Fruit". Secondly, he quotes Rajlich as saying: When two modern top chess programs play against each other maybe 95% of the programs are algorithmically the same. What is classing is the other 5%. I find these numbers almost laughable, unless the word "algorithmically" is couched quite carefully. Dr. Riis seems to assume that the evaluation function is part of this "algorithmic" quantity, whereas the ICGA process found that there was wide scope for creativity therein. Quoting Rajlich himself: As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework. The juxtaposition of this with the 95% number seems obscure.
Finally, after giving a selection of Rybka highlights over the years (his article is in part to defend the reputation of Rajlich, and thus does not deal only with the ICGA process), Dr. Riis plays the role of lawyer, essentially asking how the ICGA can interpret its own rules, how exactly this should be done, etc. One might as well ask how any quasi-judicial process might occur if it relies on "subjective" or "interpretative" aspects. The typical legal adage here usually relies on the fact that the law need not over-specify every offense, as then the capacity of man for mischief would necessitate legal manuals that would inundate the world. As an example, I refer him to the information page regarding "plagiarism" at Queen Mary (his home institution) -- do they define this any better than the ICGA? [There is presumably an accompanying body of regulations and procedures, but I doubt they shed any light on the initial definition]. I particularly note #10: If in doubt, ask! If in doubt always speak to a member of staff before submitting your work – it’s too late after the work has been submitted. Oh how such a norm of behaviour could have prevented this mess!
Here is a more itemised list of quibbles, some of picayune import:'
>The latest public edition of Rybka (Rybka 4.1) is more than 400 Elo points stronger than the top competitors that existed in late 2005 on comparable hardware.
'I'm not quite sure what the comparison is (or its basis), as the "top competitors" are not mentioned. The "self-Rybka" comparison is closer to a 250-300 Elo gain on a 1cpu 64-bit basis. I can't find enough records of whether R1 was already 100-150 Elo ahead of everyone (and 32-bit might be a better comparison standard). As noted elsewhere, of the 250-300 Elo gained by Rybka since R1, approximately 100 of this was between 1.0 and 1.2f (May 2006), then 50 to R2.3.2a (SMP was also added), then 100 in R3 (when LK re-wrote the eval), and the rest with R4.'
>Rybka went on to become a commercial engine in 2006.
'Rybka was already a commercial engine in 2005. See CCC posts from Dec 2005 (e.g. this link).'
>[Rajlich] refused to be drawn into a protracted dispute with his accusers or mount a comprehensive defense.
'Indeed. Calling the subsequent result a "gross miscarriage of justice" when the accused fails to defend himself is, well, a gross misuse of the English language.'
>Judging from the Wiki which they used during their investigation, approximately seven of these 34 experts actively participated in the discussions.
'I am not aware that Dr. Riis had access to said the internal part of said wiki, nor is quantity a measure of much (posting is more of an indicator of "free time" than anything else ). In any event, it was the warrant of the Board to make any decision in the end.'
>None of the actual Rybka versions that participated in the four WCCC tournaments were investigated, although a very close version (Rybka 2.3.2a) was examined following a laborious process of reverse-engineering.
'The former was the choice of Rajlich (possibly by necessity, in that they no longer exist). Dr. Riis slightly errs when he says "four" WCCC tournaments, as 2006 was also considered.'
>It is argued within the paper that this rule is vague on key points and become obsolete for several reasons, and that the overarching reason it has passed into obsolescence is that there has been a paradigm shift in computer chess programming in the past decade which the rule does not take into account.
'If the rule is vague, it is at least partially the responsibility of the entrant to ask for guidance. Furthermore, for an outsider(?) such as Dr. Riis to declare an ICGA rule to be "obsolete" is odd to say the least. The ICGA has no compulsion to follow "paradigm shifts", in its interpretation of rules, or otherwise.'
>Based on the evidence I will present, a person can form a very credible alternative conclusion: that the implementation of similar evaluation concepts and algorithms in a computer chess program will inherently lead to code similarities even if no code is copied. Thus, the statement “Rybka implements concepts and algorithms learned from Fruit” appears to be the most correct and accurate formulation—a semantically subtle difference that nonetheless completely overturns the ICGA’s conclusion. It is important to understand that the implementation of ideas and algorithms learned from other programs is universal practice in chess programming as well as many other types of programming. The issue in contention in this case is whether source code was copied from one program to the next.
'OK, we finally get to something of merit. Dr. Riis is quite right to make this distinction. However, the ICGA process also realised the crucial nature of it, and the conclusion was that Rybka did more than just "implement concepts and algorithms learned from Fruit".'
>Here’s the main point: to convict and sentence a man due to his presumed ethical failings and then attempt to ruin him on a world stage you need a very high standard of evidence. The ICGA claims its evidence is of a high standard. We shall explore the veracity of that claim.
'To "convict and sentence" a man who decides not to defend himself is hardly a great leap. Furthermore, the implication that the ICGA "attempt[ed] to ruin [Rajlich] on a world stage" seems unfounded -- the media will do what they want (such as ignore it, if convenient). Finally, the phrase "its evidence" is odd (meaning the ICGA's), as the evidence doesn't exactly belong to anyone. If anything, the evidence is support of Letouzey's complaint.'
>In early 2011 sixteen chess programmers, many of whose programs were in direct competition with Rybka, signed a letter wherein they asserted that Rajlich copied programming code from another engine [...]
'Dr. Riis makes it sound like only non-competitors should have signed such a letter?!'
>Rajlich "When two modern top chess programs play against each other maybe 95% of the programs are algorithmically the same. What is classing is the other 5%."
'This is simply not true. Maybe if you render "algorithmically" to mean the generic alpha-beta search framework, ignore evaluation, etc., you might justify this number, but even then the amount of pruning concepts that have been introduced are quite large. I seriously doubt that (say) Komodo and R3 are "95% the same". Given that Dr. Riis then uses this quotation to conclude (bluntly) that Rule #2 is obsolete, I find his argument essentially baseless.
As an additional rebuttal to this, I will simply quote Rajlich, who writes: "As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework." To claim that that all engines are "95% algorithmically the same" while Rybka is "very original" is a bit undecipherable (and, as with many things, Rajlich seems undesirous of any clarification).
I have yet to decide whether a PDF is a better way to address Mr. Schröder's website. [In reality, I am tempted to simply let it speak for itself, but as Dr. Riis quotes it as "extensive", a response is perhaps due].
Finally, Dr. Riis attempts to show that ICGA's Rule #2 is "absurd", though he seems to be creating as many obstacles as possible.'
>To make Rule 2’s absurdity as clear as possible, let me pose some straightforward questions:
> * Given the great algorithmic overlap between modern chess programs, what is the definitional distinction between “original” and “non-original” work?[/quote]
'The ICGA found that the evaluation overlap between Rybka 1.0 Beta and Fruit 2.1 more than sufficed in the case at hand. The evaluation function is not an "algorithm" in the strict sense of input->output, but rather there is a large capacity for choice by the implementor. This is fairly well adumbrated in (say) the EVAL_COMP write-up. Dr. Riis also seems to accept Rajlich's claim of "95% algorithmically the same", while I find it nearly laughable (unless codified more).
I might add that I think this is the main basis for his erroneous conclusion -- he accepts that most computer chess programs are "essentially the same", while the ICGA programmers, Panel, and Board, all appear to disagree.'
>A modern computer chess program can consist of tens of thousands of lines of code. Which of these lines can a programmer feel certain are in public domain and therefore exempt from Rule 2, and which are not?
'The programmer should ask the ICGA for clarification. The ICGA might canvass its members, make a decision based upon precedent, etc.'
>What exactly is meant by “game playing code” and on what basis does the ICGA make its distinction?
>What exactly is the definition of a “close derivative”? Is this phrase entirely a “we know it when we see it” construct, and if not, then what sensible, consistent, well-defined and articulated principles is such a determination based upon?
'Dr. Riis is essentially trying to argue that the ICGA is not capable of interpreting its own rules. He might as well argue that all law itself is de facto moot, as it depends on interpretation. Again, one can note that a competitor typically has the responsibility to ask for clarification when there is an issue. In his piece in the ICGA Journal, Levy essentially noted this, recalling that Rajlich was present in Turin with the LION++ disqualification, and certainly was not unaware of the ICGA interpretation. [The LION++ team could similarly argue that the ICGA rules were "vague" or "unclear", and what do they exactly mean].'
>Does Rule 2 require all competitors to maintain a copy of any source code they used in competition for an indefinite number of years?
>Can Rule 2 be invoked after tournaments are completed without any time limitation whatsoever? (In law, there is a defense called laches, which certainly applies to the Rajlich/Rybka case.)
'The start of the "clock" for a statute of limitations usually only starts when the offense comes to light. For instance, Letouzey will have 3 (or 4 years) from Jan 2011 [the date of discovery] to pursue Rajlich in court regarding copyright infringement. The alternative, where entrants tried to hide their misdeeds until enough time passed, would be "absurd" to say the least.'
>Finally, what safeguards exist to prevent ex post facto interpretations of rules which are not fully consistent with what competitors understood at the time the tournament took place?
'I think most of the other competitors (but wait -- I thought their opinions were to be excluded, due to "bias"?!) in, say, 2007, understood the rules. If Rajlich had a different understanding, he should, again, have asked for a clarification.'
>It seems to me rather imperative that a tournament billing itself a “world championship” have crystal-clear rules.
'No matter "clear" they are, people will find exceptions. See: Elista, toilet.'
>These rules should evolve in response to circumstances, contain well-defined procedures and credible enforcement mechanisms, and be designed to protect the integrity of the competition and the title.
'I think the disqualfication of Rajlich, at least for 2006 and 2007, did exactly this. Admittedly, I think it would have been (much) better to simply change the entry name to "Fruit/Rybka" with similar "Rajlich/Letouzey" attribution, but this did not seem to be a possible endpoint, given the circumstances.'
>approximately 100 of this was between 1.0 and 1.2f (May 2006)
'I think I meant between 1.0 and 1.1 of March 16 2006, though that uses CEGT numbers I think, and CCRL is a bit different'
If Mark wants to discuss the significant algorithmic similarities between engines, he ought to talk with Zach who has repeatedly stated that everyone is doing pretty much the same thing, and that the differences are mainly due to tuning. The quote from Vas about the originality of Rybka's search and evaluation is also a little on the silly side. Most would construe this as meaning that Rybka has original search and evaluation features, which it does (see his conversation with Anthony C. on this forum, where Anthony ticks them off).
References to future litigation by Fabien and the FSF also appear. These are laughable, and neither will ever materialize, but since Mark can always claim the door is still open, the references help provide cover for a poorly constructed report.
Just curious-how does one request clarification of rule #2 if one doesn't believe at the time that one is in breach of said rule?
>'The programmer should ask the ICGA for clarification. The ICGA might canvass its members, make a decision based upon precedent, etc.'
That should have been the ICGA's first step in the process of evaluating itself.
Since when did any entrant go before the ICGA and request that their code be evaluated for compliance, because they made some advancements in programming, and wanted the lords of tradition to look at their code for want of fear of establishing a precedent against the ICGA's vaguely defined rule #2. What a ridiculous notion that is.
>'To "convict and sentence" a man who decides not to defend himself is hardly a great leap.
Oh! Pleased! That was a travesty of justice. That was a shark feeding frenzy with Hyatt running around howling at the moon as Watkins threw out on the cyber sea- with his own commentary- bits of data that fed the sharks. Only a fool would have committed himself to a process the only intention of which was to hang him and make it legitimate by having him present for the hanging.
>Furthermore, the implication that the ICGA "attempt[ed] to ruin [Rajlich] on a world stage" seems unfounded..
Right that is of course after David Levy puts on the internet a published letter calling for an inquisition with a posted petition.
Maybe some one should inform Watkins that the Arab Spring of rebellions were fueled via the internet. And that most communications to date take place on the internet. Most news today is acquired via the internet with frightening speed.
>... the media will do what they want (such as ignore it, if convenient).
They certainly did, didn't they! After the coup de théâtre came the coup de grâce!
>'The start of the "clock" for a statute of limitations usually only starts when the offense comes to light. For instance, Letouzey will have 3 (or 4 years) from Jan 2011 [the date of discovery] to pursue Rajlich in court regarding copyright infringement. The alternative, where entrants tried to hide their misdeeds until enough time passed, would be "absurd" to say the least.'
They dragged poor Letouzey out of a 5 year coma to have him make this complaint- now they have him signed on for four more years.
The least Levy could do is give him signed copy of his book, " Love and Sex with Robots".
> . Hyatt is the one with the most to fear here although
And you see now why he conveniently had an excuse for not signing the original complaint letter to ICGA. His signature shows up NOWHERE. And he never claimed any research work was "officially his". He's a slick little wormy shit.
This topic is soooooooo 2011!
I know that's your forum (open-chess) and hopefully the traffic over there will pick up for you, but I just couldn't get through any of your post, sorry about that.
> I know that's your forum (open-chess)
It's not, I just moderate there and think that it's a great place in case Rybka Forum becomes a Censorshiphole again, or something.
Besides, they do without this threaded system that made me go insane, I wished all of us would be posting there...
If there had been ANY development Bob et al would have jumped right at it.
>'Indeed. Calling the subsequent result a "gross miscarriage of justice" when the accused fails to defend himself is, well, a gross misuse of the English language.'
Looks like BB+ doesn't accept basic human rights.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill