Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Rise like a Phoenix: CB. in defense of Rybka against ICGA
Once again David Levy, is wrong on the facts. He states:
Next consider the investigation report where it refers to Zach Wegner’s analysis found at https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html
“From looking at the piece evaluation of both engines, we find that they are almost identical.” A partial listing of Fruit identical terms:
Identical formulas for calculating piece-square tables for:
. pawns
. knights
. bishops
. rooks
. queens.
This is just plain wrong. The formula for calculating PSTs in Rybka is NOT the same as in Fruit for any of these PSTs except for the trivial rook PST which has only three values. For each of the others, the third to fifth order generating polynomial is the same, but the coefficients are NOT the same, resulting in significantly different tables. It should be noted that by changing coefficients, a very large number of highly distinct PSTs can be generated. In fact, the only non-trivial PST that has been shown to use an identical formula is the Crafty bishop PST, which is an exact copy from Fruit with a constant offset of 8.
The rest of David Levy's claims are equally bogus, but it is disturbing that the ICGA won't fix even it's fatally flawed lead-off claim to at least give the appearance of being interested in putting out an accurate report. David Levy should be ashamed of himself for sanctioning this libelous hoax.
Next consider the investigation report where it refers to Zach Wegner’s analysis found at https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html
“From looking at the piece evaluation of both engines, we find that they are almost identical.” A partial listing of Fruit identical terms:
Identical formulas for calculating piece-square tables for:
. pawns
. knights
. bishops
. rooks
. queens.
This is just plain wrong. The formula for calculating PSTs in Rybka is NOT the same as in Fruit for any of these PSTs except for the trivial rook PST which has only three values. For each of the others, the third to fifth order generating polynomial is the same, but the coefficients are NOT the same, resulting in significantly different tables. It should be noted that by changing coefficients, a very large number of highly distinct PSTs can be generated. In fact, the only non-trivial PST that has been shown to use an identical formula is the Crafty bishop PST, which is an exact copy from Fruit with a constant offset of 8.
The rest of David Levy's claims are equally bogus, but it is disturbing that the ICGA won't fix even it's fatally flawed lead-off claim to at least give the appearance of being interested in putting out an accurate report. David Levy should be ashamed of himself for sanctioning this libelous hoax.
I wonder if this could have been their reason for not posting this rebuttal on Chessbase.
I doubt Chessbase would publish it. It is full of specious claims that have been thoroughly rebutted.
By the way, this is not a rebuttal by David Levy. It is a restatement of claims that have been shown to be factually inaccurate.
In view of what you stated I went a head and changed the Thread title to "responds" since it reflects more accurately his actions.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
It's interesting that Rybka critics still don't understand what Vas did. It was obvious to me early on, since I had a similar background in grad school, but his critics are still completely blind.
Maybe you should finish reading the full article before you allude to what he "did"?
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Crap photo of Soren,in real life he has a more distinguished appearance than this or at least he did when i met him.
You didn't understand me Nelson, I'm on your side.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> You didn't understand me Nelson, I'm on your side.
I guess your above post would be like this?
"It's interesting that Rybka critics still don't understand [t]hat Vas [is innocent]. It was obvious to me early on, since I had a similar background in grad school, but his critics are still completely blind."
That's close
That's a relief.
I'd rather have a German division in front of me, than a French one behind.
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
Some people like to start the new year with a fart...
Sorry, no offense intended. This line, which was falsely attributed to George S. Patton (one of Nelson's hero's), immediately sprung to mind when I saw Akorps ambiguous post above.
another best post of the night,as a brit i know exactly what you mean.
one night i will get a one liner against you.
one night i will get a one liner against you.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
I read the article. I'm disappointed to see a mathematician producing something like that. I'm not used too something poor like that, even not by a mathematics student. In first place, mathematicians are doing prooves and not writing stories. And seeing that he is "arguing" with questions is just disappointing.
I would have expected something like: Proposition:....Proof:.... Q.E.D.
Seeing such an outcome from an mediocre-rybka-fan would have been fine for me, but not from an mathematician.
It's just disappointing.
I would have expected something like: Proposition:....Proof:.... Q.E.D.
Seeing such an outcome from an mediocre-rybka-fan would have been fine for me, but not from an mathematician.
It's just disappointing.
> I would have expected something like: Proposition:....Proof:.... Q.E.D.
I'm disappointed that you missed that there's a second part coming.
It's pretty hard to prove a negative. Usually the party making the accusation is expected to provide the proof...
Your logic is so simple and correct it is renders all further discussion moot.
The point that it all boils down to is there was a dramatic increase in elo on average
for many programs right after Fruit was released to the public. End of story. Moving on...
for many programs right after Fruit was released to the public. End of story. Moving on...
Just because the second part is coming, it doenst mean, that the first part is good :P
I am wondering how somebody can leave the domain of math, for a pick of just ca. 2300 elo in chess. (this is offtopic, but I would still be interested. I think it would be a much greater story to know how he started to turn away from math too chess. Because the way he was writing that article indicates that he lost contact with (real/serious) math.)
I am wondering how somebody can leave the domain of math, for a pick of just ca. 2300 elo in chess. (this is offtopic, but I would still be interested. I think it would be a much greater story to know how he started to turn away from math too chess. Because the way he was writing that article indicates that he lost contact with (real/serious) math.)
> Just because the second part is coming, it doenst mean, that the first part is good :P
oh but the first part was real good though. You do realize that CB never published a word of the ICGA story, now they are doing a 3 part (?) article attacking the ICGA. You don't see Levy and Hyatt reeling from that kick in the ass especially after the CB people were supposedly part of the ICGA's "unanimous" panel?
> I think it would be a much greater story to know how he started to turn away from math too chess.
chess is a great game (much more fun than math), you should try playing it sometime.
you missed what i said.
I said for a mediocre-rybka-fan it would be a good story.
But not for a mathematician, because the autor seems to have a PhD in mathematics.
I know what it means to be a mathematician, that's why I am perplex to see such an outcome.
It even not funny for me, and I can not understand how that could happen.
I said for a mediocre-rybka-fan it would be a good story.
But not for a mathematician, because the autor seems to have a PhD in mathematics.
I know what it means to be a mathematician, that's why I am perplex to see such an outcome.
It even not funny for me, and I can not understand how that could happen.
I think he's a human being first and mathematician second. I'll bet he is just fine at equations and proofs in the classroom. What he is explaining to the general public in these articles is not a matter of equations and proofs, though. Are you saying a mathematician must necessarily write in the same manner as a mathematical thesis?
Soren is a wide ranging guy,i believe an equal hobby for him along with chess is magic.
Being a mathematician is certainly not the key to understanding Bob's incoherent arguments. Maybe he should try getting stinking drunk...
Bob, as he has already told us, is a strict teetotaler. I conclude he is just high on life.
it seems you never met an real mathematician. (not the one that you meet at school)
And he was writing an "official article". A "normal" mathematican would even not as a joke write in an anonymous forum such a bad and wothless article. I mean "worthless" from the point of view of an scientist.
You, the ones who probably never did research, never worked on top-level, you are to ones to hit on dr. hyatt?
a lot of comments of dr. hyatt here in the forum have by far much more "content" and value then the article of soren.
The contribuation that dr. hyatt did with his open source chess engine, was and his a great step in computer chess. Like me, and i guess like most, if not all, have looked very carefully at the crafty code and trying to learn as much as possible, and analyzing it step by step.
A lot of the success of todays chess-programmers and engines, if also because dr. hyatt opened the source code. The same is valid for fabian when opening the source code of fruit. And also the programmers of Stockfish.
That's why new chess-programmers can rise up and develop chess even further, because they are "sitting on the shoulders of gigants" like dr. hyatt and faiban.
Do you think that if you are hitting on somebody a lot more intelligent than you, make you look intelligent too? Or what other reason do you have to hit on a gigant like dr. hyatt? If you are not programmers, and especially not chess-programmers, why do you start commenting about chess-programming and contradicting him, when he is a famouse chess programmer, and you are even not programmers?
That behaviour is really ridiculous, and it remind me of a friend, contradicting me related to the theory of relativity when I was the physicist, and he heard about theory of relativity just from the TV (eg. Star Trek).
I really dont understand the reason for such stupid behaviour. Might it be the "little-man-complex" ?
An advice to all: try not to do subjective comments. Try to make them as much as possible objective.
sapere aude.
And he was writing an "official article". A "normal" mathematican would even not as a joke write in an anonymous forum such a bad and wothless article. I mean "worthless" from the point of view of an scientist.
You, the ones who probably never did research, never worked on top-level, you are to ones to hit on dr. hyatt?
a lot of comments of dr. hyatt here in the forum have by far much more "content" and value then the article of soren.
The contribuation that dr. hyatt did with his open source chess engine, was and his a great step in computer chess. Like me, and i guess like most, if not all, have looked very carefully at the crafty code and trying to learn as much as possible, and analyzing it step by step.
A lot of the success of todays chess-programmers and engines, if also because dr. hyatt opened the source code. The same is valid for fabian when opening the source code of fruit. And also the programmers of Stockfish.
That's why new chess-programmers can rise up and develop chess even further, because they are "sitting on the shoulders of gigants" like dr. hyatt and faiban.
Do you think that if you are hitting on somebody a lot more intelligent than you, make you look intelligent too? Or what other reason do you have to hit on a gigant like dr. hyatt? If you are not programmers, and especially not chess-programmers, why do you start commenting about chess-programming and contradicting him, when he is a famouse chess programmer, and you are even not programmers?
That behaviour is really ridiculous, and it remind me of a friend, contradicting me related to the theory of relativity when I was the physicist, and he heard about theory of relativity just from the TV (eg. Star Trek).
I really dont understand the reason for such stupid behaviour. Might it be the "little-man-complex" ?
An advice to all: try not to do subjective comments. Try to make them as much as possible objective.
sapere aude.
Trust us. We are not hitting on Dr. Hyatt. Not now, not ever!
But of course you are right! No doubt Vas is carefully looking through Crafty as we speak, looking for nuggets that he can copy into Rybka 5 to give his program the boost it needs to overcome Houdini!
But of course you are right! No doubt Vas is carefully looking through Crafty as we speak, looking for nuggets that he can copy into Rybka 5 to give his program the boost it needs to overcome Houdini!
"Trust us. We are not hitting on Dr. Hyatt. Not now, not ever!"
Really you are not? Then open your eyes and look one comment below: "Hyatt is a troll -just like you- nothing more, nothing less."
Really you are not? Then open your eyes and look one comment below: "Hyatt is a troll -just like you- nothing more, nothing less."
OK, we have a language issue here.
In American English (don't know about English English), hitting on someone means that you are trying to form a relationship. We are definitely not interested in forming a relationship with Bob. Perhaps what was meant was 'striking out at Bob'.
In American English (don't know about English English), hitting on someone means that you are trying to form a relationship. We are definitely not interested in forming a relationship with Bob. Perhaps what was meant was 'striking out at Bob'.
Hyatt is a troll -just like you- nothing more, nothing less.
> Hyatt is a troll -just like you- nothing more, nothing less.
He has a hill to climb to just be a troll. Actually he is a self-absorbed and jealous liar who in the end will have egg in his face (hopefully rotten ones) over this whole fiasco. I myself caught him in 3 lies concerning the Rybka issue, and I told him before it was over, it would come full circle right back and slap him in the face. He fueled the fires, then fanned the flames. And I hope he suffers the consequences of his actions. And I do not apologize for feeling this way. Justice would be that he had to pay a monetary sum to Vas for any possible lost sales and/or damage to his reputation.
Best,
george
Good to hear from you George, I hope you are well, I wish you a fantastic 2012.
Well, I for one have never criticized Hyatt's achievements and positive contributions to computer chess programming. By all accounts Crafty was a major step forward in the art, and he did help many programmers over the years (including Rajlich). Is he a giant? Several years ago, when I first got into this hobby, yes. (At the time he'd already been in the hobby almost 35 years.)
The problem is that I think he has gone a long way to diminish his legacy, and if you don't believe that, you haven't been reading his posts closely enough. Hyatt's legacy rests on his reputation not merely as a programmer but as a human being. And as a human being I can only recoil at his unjust, fanatical, wrong-headed attack on a great talent who happened to surpass him.
The whole thing reminds me of Internet predators who do terrible things online because they don't have to face the person they are hurting face to face, looking them right in the eyes. It's all remote and, to these sociopaths, a clean operation. But the truth is that if Vas was standing there ready to answer your challenges 90% of his cowardly critics would blow away like autumn leaves, and the 10% that remained would soon realize they were barking up the wrong tree.
Soren's article is a bracing and generous dose of Reality.
The problem is that I think he has gone a long way to diminish his legacy, and if you don't believe that, you haven't been reading his posts closely enough. Hyatt's legacy rests on his reputation not merely as a programmer but as a human being. And as a human being I can only recoil at his unjust, fanatical, wrong-headed attack on a great talent who happened to surpass him.
The whole thing reminds me of Internet predators who do terrible things online because they don't have to face the person they are hurting face to face, looking them right in the eyes. It's all remote and, to these sociopaths, a clean operation. But the truth is that if Vas was standing there ready to answer your challenges 90% of his cowardly critics would blow away like autumn leaves, and the 10% that remained would soon realize they were barking up the wrong tree.
Soren's article is a bracing and generous dose of Reality.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
because they are "sitting on the shoulders of gigants" like dr. hyatt
Really, this is already the joke of the year 2012
How much is Crafty behind the top programs at the moment?
Really, this is already the joke of the year 2012
How much is Crafty behind the top programs at the moment?
It seems you didnt understand the sense of my writing. Try to find the quotes of Isaac Newton and try to understand them. Then you will understand why dr. hyatt is one of the gigants of chess programming.
I remember try to make a chess engine alone. It was a very big fail. After looking at crafty i started to understand chess programming better.
I think crafty was one of the first engines being open source and also being quite strong.
I think it was the most major tribute the chess programming. I doubt that today we would have so many good open source chess engines, if crafty would have keep being closed source.
If you are starting from scratch, and knowing such some "basic ideeas about chess programming", and then you find suddenly an fully open source engine like crafty, you start feeling like you would have grabbed god by his leg. I was an amazing feeling. You all didnt feel that, that's why you dont understand the contribution of dr. hyatt.
Why all know that Vas started with Crafty.
Can you imagine where would be Vas today if Crafty and Fruit wouldn't have been open source? The chances would have been very big that he would have given up pretty soon chess programming being frustrated.
That's why dr. hyatt is a gigant. Sitting on his shoulders we all could look more far away.
We can now look more far away (in chessprogramming) because somebody sacrified many years of his life to develop the computer chess, and to help others grow. He could have spent that time for working in the industry and making big money but he prefered the other way and Crafty is the proof of his kindness.
It's same for your behaviour, especially because you dont have an direct interest like Vas. And I'm sure even Vas would not dare to talk like that about dr. hyatt
Sapere Aude!
I remember try to make a chess engine alone. It was a very big fail. After looking at crafty i started to understand chess programming better.
I think crafty was one of the first engines being open source and also being quite strong.
I think it was the most major tribute the chess programming. I doubt that today we would have so many good open source chess engines, if crafty would have keep being closed source.
If you are starting from scratch, and knowing such some "basic ideeas about chess programming", and then you find suddenly an fully open source engine like crafty, you start feeling like you would have grabbed god by his leg. I was an amazing feeling. You all didnt feel that, that's why you dont understand the contribution of dr. hyatt.
Why all know that Vas started with Crafty.
Can you imagine where would be Vas today if Crafty and Fruit wouldn't have been open source? The chances would have been very big that he would have given up pretty soon chess programming being frustrated.
That's why dr. hyatt is a gigant. Sitting on his shoulders we all could look more far away.
We can now look more far away (in chessprogramming) because somebody sacrified many years of his life to develop the computer chess, and to help others grow. He could have spent that time for working in the industry and making big money but he prefered the other way and Crafty is the proof of his kindness.
It's same for your behaviour, especially because you dont have an direct interest like Vas. And I'm sure even Vas would not dare to talk like that about dr. hyatt
Sapere Aude!
So you feel a sense of gratitude toward Dr. Hyatt. That's fine. I don't criticize you for that.
But now imagine if Dr. Hyatt had written over 4,000 public posts wherein he called you a liar, cheater, plagiarist, copier, ingrate, etc, etc, and was doing everything in his power to destroy your reputation.
Are you saying that just because Dr. Hyatt says it is so, it must be true?
But now imagine if Dr. Hyatt had written over 4,000 public posts wherein he called you a liar, cheater, plagiarist, copier, ingrate, etc, etc, and was doing everything in his power to destroy your reputation.
Are you saying that just because Dr. Hyatt says it is so, it must be true?
Yes, you complain about dr. hyatt saying the most obvious after the analysis.
But do you forget, that Vas did the same with FireBird, Robbolito, Strelka, Houdini....
Vas was making that accusations without giving any argument and fighting them with all his power, and managed to stop that engines to appear in computer chess rating lists.
While in the case of dr. hyatt he is basing he accusation on a very deep and technical report made by the one of the best chess-programmers in the world.
Do you now see the difference?
As I understood you took the interview of Vas. What do you think, will he accept to do another interview but this time connected to a lie detector (polygraph)?
But do you forget, that Vas did the same with FireBird, Robbolito, Strelka, Houdini....
Vas was making that accusations without giving any argument and fighting them with all his power, and managed to stop that engines to appear in computer chess rating lists.
While in the case of dr. hyatt he is basing he accusation on a very deep and technical report made by the one of the best chess-programmers in the world.
Do you now see the difference?
As I understood you took the interview of Vas. What do you think, will he accept to do another interview but this time connected to a lie detector (polygraph)?
Its the Ippolit rag! But without the music. Put it to music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GerIRWGa5bE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GerIRWGa5bE
If you believe in polygraphs you probably believe in anything.
As for the ICGA report being "very deep and technical" I guess you aren't reading the ChessBase articles. "One of the best chess programmers in the world" doesn't mean "one of the most truthful and objective people in the world".
I have no plans to interview Vas again. That doesn't mean I wouldn't, it just means "no plans". As far as I'm concerned the "Vas is guilty" side has been really hammered by the fact that ChessBase enthusiastically published Soren's article. There may be further skirmishing and sour nit-picking from the bitter-enders but basic reality has to hit them soon: this hateful war is finally over and thank goodness. Now maybe tempers can cool and computer chess can more in a constructive path instead a continually and endlessly destructive one. Civilization is all about BUILDING, not DESTROYING.
There are some people who love the verbal combat more than anything. That's definitely not my thing. What I want to see is a healthy hobby with bona fide, recurring world championship matches that reflect the current leading-edge state of the art. What I wish most of all is that all the contending parties and institutional interests would let this crazy Rajlich thing go, now that his side has had a fair say, and unite around a sensible and hobby-enhancing post-war modus vivendi. Now isn't that a pregnant thought?
As for the ICGA report being "very deep and technical" I guess you aren't reading the ChessBase articles. "One of the best chess programmers in the world" doesn't mean "one of the most truthful and objective people in the world".
I have no plans to interview Vas again. That doesn't mean I wouldn't, it just means "no plans". As far as I'm concerned the "Vas is guilty" side has been really hammered by the fact that ChessBase enthusiastically published Soren's article. There may be further skirmishing and sour nit-picking from the bitter-enders but basic reality has to hit them soon: this hateful war is finally over and thank goodness. Now maybe tempers can cool and computer chess can more in a constructive path instead a continually and endlessly destructive one. Civilization is all about BUILDING, not DESTROYING.
There are some people who love the verbal combat more than anything. That's definitely not my thing. What I want to see is a healthy hobby with bona fide, recurring world championship matches that reflect the current leading-edge state of the art. What I wish most of all is that all the contending parties and institutional interests would let this crazy Rajlich thing go, now that his side has had a fair say, and unite around a sensible and hobby-enhancing post-war modus vivendi. Now isn't that a pregnant thought?
I didnt say i believe in polygrahs. That's one of the problems of many people. They are reading what was not written.
And yes, I would love to see the result of the polygraph.
Look at me, you can ask me to give an interview and being connected to the polygraph. Without any problems. Can do Vas the same?
I'm even willing to pay all the costs, and also his time and everything.
you can ask me the same, and i will do it without any money.
(As a side remark: you write about build and destroying. You perhaps missed, that destroying is something very important.)
You say:
"One of the best chess programmers in the world" doesn't mean "one of the most truthful and objective people in the world".
Can you imagine how i wonder about that sentence? Like my mathematical-analysis teacher would have wondered if i would have told him: "You are a world wide famouse mathematician, but perhaps your analysis-results are wrong and perhaps you are not the most objective mathematician in the world".
He would have answered i guess like that: Stupid guy, if you think i did somewhere a mistake, then proove it, till then you cant say anything against.
So dear nelson, i dont want to insult you, because i guess you are not a mathematician, and I guess you dont have an scientific research education. But I guess you can understand that it's not possible to invalidate a scientic work with words like "but perhaps they are not objective".
Vas is a programmer (with academic degree), so if he wants to defend himself, he can do it better than the "amateuer advocates" on this forum who write stuff that might look "acceptable/logical" to people withotu scientific education.
You didnt resond how you like what Vas did with the so-called "clones"!? Banning them from computer chess rating lists, and without giving any proof showing that they are indeed clones.
And yes, I would love to see the result of the polygraph.
Look at me, you can ask me to give an interview and being connected to the polygraph. Without any problems. Can do Vas the same?
I'm even willing to pay all the costs, and also his time and everything.
you can ask me the same, and i will do it without any money.
(As a side remark: you write about build and destroying. You perhaps missed, that destroying is something very important.)
You say:
"One of the best chess programmers in the world" doesn't mean "one of the most truthful and objective people in the world".
Can you imagine how i wonder about that sentence? Like my mathematical-analysis teacher would have wondered if i would have told him: "You are a world wide famouse mathematician, but perhaps your analysis-results are wrong and perhaps you are not the most objective mathematician in the world".
He would have answered i guess like that: Stupid guy, if you think i did somewhere a mistake, then proove it, till then you cant say anything against.
So dear nelson, i dont want to insult you, because i guess you are not a mathematician, and I guess you dont have an scientific research education. But I guess you can understand that it's not possible to invalidate a scientic work with words like "but perhaps they are not objective".
Vas is a programmer (with academic degree), so if he wants to defend himself, he can do it better than the "amateuer advocates" on this forum who write stuff that might look "acceptable/logical" to people withotu scientific education.
You didnt resond how you like what Vas did with the so-called "clones"!? Banning them from computer chess rating lists, and without giving any proof showing that they are indeed clones.
I don't know if I should bother with a person who doesn't consistently capitalize the first letter of a name or sentence, has issues with apostrophes, and spells a bit erratically.
You asked the wrong guy about polygraphs. I took one several years ago. According to the examiner, I lied when I answered in the negative to "have you ever committed a major crime?" Let me tell you: it is very, very hard to persuade someone you're innocent when there are no charges other than you did "something". Following that very unpleasant experience I concluded that the whole process is just a con-job designed to bamboozle credulous victims into yielding incriminating evidence about themselves on an open-ended basis. ("The machine knows! The squiggly lines mean I can't hide the truth!") Polygraphs are really an interrogation tool designed to elicit confessions. Professionals are free to disagree with me but after my experience I know from personal experience the total unreliability of polygraphs and why they are inadmissable evidence in court.
As for your calling Hyatt's work "scientic" [sic], all I can say is that you use that term very loosely. And I might also add that you put way too much trust in credentials and not enough in your own common sense.
You asked the wrong guy about polygraphs. I took one several years ago. According to the examiner, I lied when I answered in the negative to "have you ever committed a major crime?" Let me tell you: it is very, very hard to persuade someone you're innocent when there are no charges other than you did "something". Following that very unpleasant experience I concluded that the whole process is just a con-job designed to bamboozle credulous victims into yielding incriminating evidence about themselves on an open-ended basis. ("The machine knows! The squiggly lines mean I can't hide the truth!") Polygraphs are really an interrogation tool designed to elicit confessions. Professionals are free to disagree with me but after my experience I know from personal experience the total unreliability of polygraphs and why they are inadmissable evidence in court.
As for your calling Hyatt's work "scientic" [sic], all I can say is that you use that term very loosely. And I might also add that you put way too much trust in credentials and not enough in your own common sense.
seems you still read what i dont write :-)
I write i would like to see if vas would accept to be plugged to the polygraph (and i never said that all the results are true or false, but you know that polygraphs are used in trials too).
And I said I would always accept such an invitation.
Related to "scientif work": I was meaning the "rybka-investigation" which contains analysis of the binary code, which was not done by dr. hyatt.
I dont know how you manage to give importance to the fact, that i use to write very often everything small (wihout capital letter, my name included), but you didnt answer to the more interesting question, how you like Vas behaviour related to the so called "clones", fighting Robbolito, Strelka, FireBird, Houdini... and so on. He used all his power to stop them appearing on computer chess rating lists. (And he even didnt give a proof that they were clones, he just used his power to censor them).
I would like to know your opinion to this question.
I write i would like to see if vas would accept to be plugged to the polygraph (and i never said that all the results are true or false, but you know that polygraphs are used in trials too).
And I said I would always accept such an invitation.
Related to "scientif work": I was meaning the "rybka-investigation" which contains analysis of the binary code, which was not done by dr. hyatt.
I dont know how you manage to give importance to the fact, that i use to write very often everything small (wihout capital letter, my name included), but you didnt answer to the more interesting question, how you like Vas behaviour related to the so called "clones", fighting Robbolito, Strelka, FireBird, Houdini... and so on. He used all his power to stop them appearing on computer chess rating lists. (And he even didnt give a proof that they were clones, he just used his power to censor them).
I would like to know your opinion to this question.
My opinion is that you first need definitional clarity on what is a "clone" and what is a "derivative". And then you need some kind of objective continuum to distinguish the degree of derivation--some derivatives are very close to clones, while others have family resemblances but are hard to precisely pinpoint as unoriginal. A big part of the conceptual problem we've had is that people throw these words around imprecisely on both sides. It is not a question of semantics. The tools we use to communicate--words--are simply inadequate or being poorly used.
I ask something you answer to something else. I was asking how you evaluate the bevaiour of Vas.
Seems it seems i didn't ask clear enough, I try it again:
Vas used all his power to stop chess eingines like Houdini,FireBird, Robbolito, Strelka,... to appear on computer chess rating lists. He just said that they are clones, but without giving proofs.
How do you evaluate that behaviour? Was it good, was it bad?
(And dont forgot that in an upper post you showed that you didnt like that dr. hyatt called Vas a plagiator based on the results of a very technical binary code analysis. Vas on his turn called others plagiators, but with the diffrence that he didn't even try to give proofs).
So the question is again:
How do you evaluate the behaviour of Vas related to what I wrote in the sentences before?
Seems it seems i didn't ask clear enough, I try it again:
Vas used all his power to stop chess eingines like Houdini,FireBird, Robbolito, Strelka,... to appear on computer chess rating lists. He just said that they are clones, but without giving proofs.
How do you evaluate that behaviour? Was it good, was it bad?
(And dont forgot that in an upper post you showed that you didnt like that dr. hyatt called Vas a plagiator based on the results of a very technical binary code analysis. Vas on his turn called others plagiators, but with the diffrence that he didn't even try to give proofs).
So the question is again:
How do you evaluate the behaviour of Vas related to what I wrote in the sentences before?
And I repeat what I said. You miss the significance of what I bring up and why it is relevant. If Vas calls a program a "clone" that is not a clone, then that is loose language. If someone calls Rybka a "clone", when it is obviously not a clone, that is loose language. If instead a program is a "derivative" (a much more accurate, though more emcompassing word), then you need to define the degree of similarity. For example, in WCCC Rule 2 it is considered that a "close derivative" is unacceptable. Which is fine, except there is a complete lack of precision in that phrase. We all have an intuitive sense of what it means, but no two concepts or definitions would be the same, would they? There is no clear standard of acceptability, no threshold you cannot cross, and currently, no objectivity in the application of that word.
Once again, you cite Dr. Hyatt's "very technical binary code analysis". What if it turns out that the whole thing is an elaborate put on by someone with an axe to grind? Why not read tomorrow's Part IV and then talk to me, will you?
Once again, you cite Dr. Hyatt's "very technical binary code analysis". What if it turns out that the whole thing is an elaborate put on by someone with an axe to grind? Why not read tomorrow's Part IV and then talk to me, will you?
It seems i still could not explain good enough, i try again :-) :
If somebody copied all rybka, or copied just a little, or copied nothing, has nothing to do with the question.
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.
That was the question.
It's a fact, that vas started a big censorship related to these engines. How do you evaluate his behaviour. Do you agree with what he did? Or do you disagree.
If somebody copied all rybka, or copied just a little, or copied nothing, has nothing to do with the question.
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.
That was the question.
It's a fact, that vas started a big censorship related to these engines. How do you evaluate his behaviour. Do you agree with what he did? Or do you disagree.
> 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.
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Rise like a Phoenix: CB. in defense of Rybka against ICGA
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill