Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Another question for Vas
- - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-09 09:14
Hi Vas,

One of the main topics that keeps coming up again and again over and over is that people consider your refusal to defend yourself at the Panel as a strong sign of guilt. While I think anyone under suspicion has the right to silence not to incriminate himself we unfortunately are not in court and other rules apply, the rules of the common people and especially the rules of a private organization that more or less has denied you that right.

You could do yourself a big favor if you could explain yourself why you refused to defend your case as you now have done yesterday.

Why not back then?


PS, please let Vas posting first before commenting.
Parent - - By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) Date 2012-01-09 10:17

it was two things.

The first is that it was clear that the ICGA had no intention of handling things in a fair manner. They made loud and unnecessary public accusations. They put vocal Rybka critics in charge. They did not investigate any other engines. And so on.

The second is that I could always defend myself later. Obviously, the right to play in a tournament has no real value. It is the principle of the thing which matters.

Note also that eventually better tools for comparing executables will be developed. There will come a time when code copying cases are routine, and then code copying mysteries from the past will be cleared up. This will all take a while and we will get there in increments.

Best regards,
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-08-27 11:56
Thanks Vas for supplying the correspondence between you and David. Since the ICGA has no ethical problems to breach your privacy by publishing your emails and then cherry-pick what suits them, now with your permission and for transparency reasons and truth finding the whole conversation is made available at:


BTW, the ICGA has closed most of its public pages.
Parent - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-08-27 12:40
asked vas to join the forum/discussion about the issue,that was his answer...and for me,it doesnt seem very cooperative

From: Vasik Rajlich

To: David Levy

Cc: Larry Kaufman 

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:44 PM

Subject: Re: Open letter to the ICGA about the Rybka-Fruit issue

Hi David,

thanks for the email, I will think about it.

Best regards,


later emails,is vas who is using vague answers to avoid giving exact data/answers like David is asking him...
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) Date 2012-08-27 12:56
Levy is his own worst enemy.

I read the emails and he was so rude I wouldn't have bothered replying. No wonder Vas stopped communicating.
Parent - - By Mark (****) Date 2012-08-27 13:34
I assume Levy was getting frustrated because he wasn't getting any substantive responses from Vas.

When Vas said "Aside from that, this document is horribly bogus. All that "Rybka code" isn't Rybka code, it's just
someone's imagination" it's too bad he didn't provide a few examples.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-08-27 16:41
I can imagine when you are hunted and smeared for 5 years already and scrolling thru the alleged evidence you (for instance) arrive at:

It's a very powerful picture that suggest verbatim copying. And your stomach turns because you know all that code isn't in your program. To explain the picture, If "phase" is pre-calculated in the MIT (material imbalance table) then why is there a need to calculate it?

I have searched the binary for the code, no trace. And so I have asked Zach to explain, so far no response.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) Date 2012-08-27 16:47
so when Vas stated "all that code was just somebody's imagination and was not in Rybka" as a defence, he was being perfectly clear and honest because the code was imaginary and not in Rybka?

But Levy just ignored this accurate defence of Vas and declared Vas made no defence. What do you have to say about the evidence, asks Levy. But Vas had already answered. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

What a farce.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-08-27 17:13
Strange logic.  One can't copy the code that PRODUCES the table, then output the values and statically code them?  Strange opinion, IMHO>  Of course, this was the same argument about the Rybka pre-computed PST values.  Can't be copied.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-08-28 10:45
No objective observer understanding what is addressed here would gloss over the lack of evidence given by the accuser (Zach).

But I want to thank you for starting this discussion about phase. I overlooked another error in the document, like the 34 Panel members.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-08-28 17:13
There is no error in the document.  Both programs use EXACTLY the same computation for phase.  Yet another "nail in the coffin of unoriginal programming."
Parent - - By Mark (****) Date 2012-08-27 18:03
This probably isn't a good example, since there's really no difference if the code produces the pre-computed numbers.  Would it be that much different if the report compared the Fruit code to the Rybka MIT numbers, instead of the way they did it?  Anyway, Vas is in a much better position to pick out a good example.
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-08-28 10:17
I call the left-right visualization a scientific cheat. The reader is to believed (quoting the document): Rybka has the same formula as Fruit.

There is no mentioning Zach has checked all the values (25 combinations) of "phase" in the MIT to match the Fruit code, let alone that some form of evidence is given.

A further quote: It is interesting to note, however, that only 25 of the values are ever possible. Rybka could have simply stored the 0-25 phase without extrapolating to a larger range. Since the phase is used to index a table (see below), this means that there are 40*2 entries which are never accessed in this table. In my opinion, this makes it clear that the original code wasn't understood fully.

So Zach is blaming Vas not to have understood the Fruit code he allegedly copied while on the other hand Zach isn't even sure about the structure of the MIT following his own words:

Zach - The structure of the material table (at the source code level) isn't certain. It seems likely, based on the disassembly, that the data type is something like this:

And considering all the other mistakes Zach made with the MIT it's not Vas who did not understood but Zach not understanding Rybka's MIT.

But no word about this during the Panel deliberations.

> Anyway, Vas is in a much better position to pick out a good example.

No disagreements here.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Another question for Vas

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill