Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Fruit semantic equivalence of two code sections
Date 2012-01-18 20:33
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
Hyattism dualism strikes again ......
Rybka Fruit semantic equivalence of two code sections: throw out all differences until you get only the same bits left. Use this to claim Rybka copied Fruit.
Crafty Fruit semantic equivalence of two code sections: include and emphasise all differences. Use this to claim Crafty did not copy Fruit.
Dual standards. Or cheat as it is better known.
Rybka Fruit semantic equivalence of two code sections: throw out all differences until you get only the same bits left. Use this to claim Rybka copied Fruit.
Crafty Fruit semantic equivalence of two code sections: include and emphasise all differences. Use this to claim Crafty did not copy Fruit.
Dual standards. Or cheat as it is better known.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Thought you understood "abstraction - filtration - comparison"? Particularly the "abstraction" part.
There is no dual standard here. The code Ed pointed out was in Crafty in 2003, LONG before Fruit 2.1 was available. The 2003 code had 4 lines added in 22.2, namely, each line that looked like:
score -= bishop_trapped;
turned into two lines that looked like:
score_mg -= bishop_trapped;
score_eg -= bishop_trapped;
Everything else is IDENTICAL. And pre-dated fruit by 2+ years.
Next, Ed claimed my "trapped bishop scoring" was semantically equal to Fruit's. Sort of hard to make that case when Fruit has MUCH more code for trapped bishops.
In 2003 Crafty considered a bishop trapped if it stood on a7 with an enemy pawn on b6, or if the bishop stood on b8 with an enemy pawn on c7. This was repeated for the other corner, h7/g8. It "reused" that code by flipping the side inside the eval, as opposed to enumerating all 4 sets of corner squares as 4 separate blocks of code.
In 2005, Fruit's eval.cpp shows code that tests a7/b8, AND a6, where the new addition of a6 (compared to crafty) looks for an enemy pawn at b5. This, too, is enumerated for all 4 corner squares.
Only a complete IDIOT would claim that those two DIFFERENT approaches to a trapped bishop evaluation were semantically equivalent. Simple test. place a bishop at a7 with pawn at b6 and compare the evals. Same. Place a bishop at a6, pawn at b5 and repeat. DIFFERENT. NOT semantically equivalent.
Next significant dishonesty. Crafty 19.x existed PRIOR to fruit 2.1. Ergo, if that code (or idea, since the "idea" in fruit is not the same as in crafty) WAS copied, I wonder who had to copy whom?
Third bit of dishonesty. He takes THAT 2003 program, makes the above completely incorrect statements, and then takes a version from 6 years LATER, a version which came out 4 years AFTER fruit, and says "here, the bishop PST is an exact match." It is not exactly an "exact match" in the first place. Can't change the constants in Fruit's PST code to produce my numbers, as you can change them to produce Rybka's numbers. But that's a different point. This "match" is from a program that was released 6 years later than the first. But he implies that this is "all done in Crafty". That way of evaluating trapped bishops has not been used in Crafty since 2008 or 2009. That has changed. That PST was not used in Crafty PRIOR to 2009 or so.
As I said, TOTALLY dishonest. And there are others. In YOUR case, we did not "throw out all differences" in comparing Fruit to Rybka. ALL that was abstracted away was the board representation. Nothing more. Not, according to your hyperbole, "throw out all differences."
Ed and you have absolutely no clue about "semantic equivalence" and what it means. Some of us do. It does not mean "throw out half the code and then claim you have a perfect match with semantic equivalence." That's a lie. And he is becoming quite famous for same. And your support of his dishonesty is letting that impression rub off on you as well.
Carry on. BTW, since you and Ed are obviously "date challenged", please feel free how to explain the fact that the crafty code testing a7/b8 + the other black corner, which was in 2003 released versions of Crafty (BTW the SAME version of Crafty that Vas copied to make 1.6.1 IF you notice, the version of Rybka that existed way before Fruit was released) was somehow copied from a chess program that was not released for two years later? This ought to make for "interesting reading."
No standards at all. Or "lies" as it is better known...
There is no dual standard here. The code Ed pointed out was in Crafty in 2003, LONG before Fruit 2.1 was available. The 2003 code had 4 lines added in 22.2, namely, each line that looked like:
score -= bishop_trapped;
turned into two lines that looked like:
score_mg -= bishop_trapped;
score_eg -= bishop_trapped;
Everything else is IDENTICAL. And pre-dated fruit by 2+ years.
Next, Ed claimed my "trapped bishop scoring" was semantically equal to Fruit's. Sort of hard to make that case when Fruit has MUCH more code for trapped bishops.
In 2003 Crafty considered a bishop trapped if it stood on a7 with an enemy pawn on b6, or if the bishop stood on b8 with an enemy pawn on c7. This was repeated for the other corner, h7/g8. It "reused" that code by flipping the side inside the eval, as opposed to enumerating all 4 sets of corner squares as 4 separate blocks of code.
In 2005, Fruit's eval.cpp shows code that tests a7/b8, AND a6, where the new addition of a6 (compared to crafty) looks for an enemy pawn at b5. This, too, is enumerated for all 4 corner squares.
Only a complete IDIOT would claim that those two DIFFERENT approaches to a trapped bishop evaluation were semantically equivalent. Simple test. place a bishop at a7 with pawn at b6 and compare the evals. Same. Place a bishop at a6, pawn at b5 and repeat. DIFFERENT. NOT semantically equivalent.
Next significant dishonesty. Crafty 19.x existed PRIOR to fruit 2.1. Ergo, if that code (or idea, since the "idea" in fruit is not the same as in crafty) WAS copied, I wonder who had to copy whom?
Third bit of dishonesty. He takes THAT 2003 program, makes the above completely incorrect statements, and then takes a version from 6 years LATER, a version which came out 4 years AFTER fruit, and says "here, the bishop PST is an exact match." It is not exactly an "exact match" in the first place. Can't change the constants in Fruit's PST code to produce my numbers, as you can change them to produce Rybka's numbers. But that's a different point. This "match" is from a program that was released 6 years later than the first. But he implies that this is "all done in Crafty". That way of evaluating trapped bishops has not been used in Crafty since 2008 or 2009. That has changed. That PST was not used in Crafty PRIOR to 2009 or so.
As I said, TOTALLY dishonest. And there are others. In YOUR case, we did not "throw out all differences" in comparing Fruit to Rybka. ALL that was abstracted away was the board representation. Nothing more. Not, according to your hyperbole, "throw out all differences."
Ed and you have absolutely no clue about "semantic equivalence" and what it means. Some of us do. It does not mean "throw out half the code and then claim you have a perfect match with semantic equivalence." That's a lie. And he is becoming quite famous for same. And your support of his dishonesty is letting that impression rub off on you as well.
Carry on. BTW, since you and Ed are obviously "date challenged", please feel free how to explain the fact that the crafty code testing a7/b8 + the other black corner, which was in 2003 released versions of Crafty (BTW the SAME version of Crafty that Vas copied to make 1.6.1 IF you notice, the version of Rybka that existed way before Fruit was released) was somehow copied from a chess program that was not released for two years later? This ought to make for "interesting reading."
No standards at all. Or "lies" as it is better known...
Stop shouting.
Stop lying.
Stop projecting.
If you were to tell me to stop disagreeing with you, ok, but disagreement with Bob Hyatt != lying.
If you were to tell me to stop disagreeing with you, ok, but disagreement with Bob Hyatt != lying.
There IS a difference between disagreeing with me vs lying. Lying is knowingly making a statement as being true, KNOWING it is, in fact, false. And both You and Ed are guilty of that right and left.
No projecting, just a simple statement. I am in the midst of pointing out lie after lie by Ed. To the point that I don't have much time to worry with your nonsense at the moment, but when the time is right, or you actually choose to try to make factual statements again rather than just spouting gibberish that can not even be discussed...
No projecting, just a simple statement. I am in the midst of pointing out lie after lie by Ed. To the point that I don't have much time to worry with your nonsense at the moment, but when the time is right, or you actually choose to try to make factual statements again rather than just spouting gibberish that can not even be discussed...
You are just plain ridiculous. Your entire internal ideology is based on nonsense.
First you believe you "have been brought up properly" and by definition that allegedly means that your natural response is "right" and anyone who disagrees is "wrong" or "lying". Unfortunately, the "properly" in the above refers to a Southern USA Alabama upbringing, with history of, well we won't go into that ....
Secondly, you believe you have no need for any externally defined Code of Ethics, not just in this case but in general, because, you have "the Bible", and, having read that, of course, au naturelle, your responses are going to be "right" again etc. as any crusader know.
Thirdly, you believe your ridiculous world view is to be imposed on an international level, when most of the rest of the world regards that with about as much horror as any other fundamentalist world view from any other Ayatolla.
Go back to Alabama, Hyatt and stay there, where perhaps you can do no harm. But get the hell out of computer chess, and take your death fantasies, suicidal death wishes and destructive tendencies with you.
First you believe you "have been brought up properly" and by definition that allegedly means that your natural response is "right" and anyone who disagrees is "wrong" or "lying". Unfortunately, the "properly" in the above refers to a Southern USA Alabama upbringing, with history of, well we won't go into that ....
Secondly, you believe you have no need for any externally defined Code of Ethics, not just in this case but in general, because, you have "the Bible", and, having read that, of course, au naturelle, your responses are going to be "right" again etc. as any crusader know.
Thirdly, you believe your ridiculous world view is to be imposed on an international level, when most of the rest of the world regards that with about as much horror as any other fundamentalist world view from any other Ayatolla.
Go back to Alabama, Hyatt and stay there, where perhaps you can do no harm. But get the hell out of computer chess, and take your death fantasies, suicidal death wishes and destructive tendencies with you.
Given the choice of Alabama, or ANY other location on planet earth that is nowhere near you, I would choose ANYWHERE that is not near you as a place I would want to be.
No problem. Just go away and leave computer chess to sort out its problems minus your goodself, if it can. It would have been better had you retired with some respect a few years ago, but you let your destructive death fantasies play out too long and way past your sell by date. Should be clear even to you, it's time for you to leave, Bob.
I'm not going anywhere. In fact, it appears that YOU have been the one that "bailed out" last time I looked? Entered a computer chess tournament in 10 years? Written any ICGA articles in 10 years (or ever)? Organized any sort of CC event?
Sort of funny, when you think about it, because I have done ALL of those, and still am.
And I find it funny that helping to expose one of the most significant examples of cheating in CC history is a bad thing. I guess the folks that exposed Madoff were also "rejects from humanity" since they caused him to exit the financial world, enter prison, and broke him financially? You have an extremely twisted view of reality and ethics. But don't let that stop you. Most of "US" are interested in this issue because WE are still competing. YOU haven't done ANYTHING in years, except whine and complain. I wonder who should be considered more seriously?
Sort of funny, when you think about it, because I have done ALL of those, and still am.
And I find it funny that helping to expose one of the most significant examples of cheating in CC history is a bad thing. I guess the folks that exposed Madoff were also "rejects from humanity" since they caused him to exit the financial world, enter prison, and broke him financially? You have an extremely twisted view of reality and ethics. But don't let that stop you. Most of "US" are interested in this issue because WE are still competing. YOU haven't done ANYTHING in years, except whine and complain. I wonder who should be considered more seriously?
Hyatt: "I'm not going anywhere."
Yes, we can see that. Only downhill if anywhere. That's why at your age, or my age for that matter, it was better to exit on a high. Just giving you the benefit of my experience. Best if you quit now, too late to salvage your broken reputation, but better late than never.
And you've not exposed any "cheating" by Vas. The jury is still out, but reasonable people (that's not you of course) can see that there's no proof one way or the other, difficult case, shades of grey, and, coupled with your catastrophic process, leaves only one verdict. Not guilty.
Yes, we can see that. Only downhill if anywhere. That's why at your age, or my age for that matter, it was better to exit on a high. Just giving you the benefit of my experience. Best if you quit now, too late to salvage your broken reputation, but better late than never.
And you've not exposed any "cheating" by Vas. The jury is still out, but reasonable people (that's not you of course) can see that there's no proof one way or the other, difficult case, shades of grey, and, coupled with your catastrophic process, leaves only one verdict. Not guilty.
The ONLY debate point I have seen raised was the severity of the punishment. The "jury is not still out" on the evidence. Those that have looked and studied it have been convinced. The rest? If they are interested, they can read for themselves rather than letting Ed and you provide them with distorted/incorrect stuff left and right.
> The ONLY debate point I have seen raised was the severity of the punishment.
This is a lie.
> The "jury is not still out" on the evidence.
This is a lie, since it implies that an impartial jury came to a decision. But there was never an impartial jury vote in the ICGA.
> Those that have looked and studied it have been convinced.
This is a lie.
So far, 3 sentences, 3 lies.
> The rest? If they are interested, they can read for themselves rather than letting Ed and you provide them with distorted/incorrect stuff left and right.
Incoherent logic. You ask people to make up their own mind, but then you suggest they do not read certain things so as not to be "provided" with wrong stuff (hinting that people are, in fact, incapable of making up their own mind).
Equivalent to a prosecutor asking the jury not to listen to anything the defense has to say, but instead make up their mind after only listening to the prosecutor. You would be laughed out of court!
Please re-read. "I" did not use the term "jury". I replied to a poster that said "the jury is still out." Which implies some OTHER jury than the ICGA board, which rendered the verdict after judging the evidence. The "other jury" he is implying is apparently "the jury of public opinion." That "jury" does NOT include chess programmers, based on the comments within the panel, and since...
The "thing" to read is the ICGA report and the included evidence. THAT is the material that shows that rule two was broken many times, and that code was copied in violation of the license agreements of two different programs... If you want to question a jury's verdict, look at the "trial transcript." Not at the newspapers and such. 9 out of 10 people here that criticize the ICGA have OBVIOUSLY not read the ICGA report. Because they post statements that are directly contradicted by simply reading the report.
In this "trial" the defense did not SAY anything. Don't forget that "small detail."
The "thing" to read is the ICGA report and the included evidence. THAT is the material that shows that rule two was broken many times, and that code was copied in violation of the license agreements of two different programs... If you want to question a jury's verdict, look at the "trial transcript." Not at the newspapers and such. 9 out of 10 people here that criticize the ICGA have OBVIOUSLY not read the ICGA report. Because they post statements that are directly contradicted by simply reading the report.
In this "trial" the defense did not SAY anything. Don't forget that "small detail."
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
You have clearly said that the ICGA jury was impartial. We KNOW it is not and it never was.
The ICGA "jury" was the board. Do you maintain that David and group were not impartial? Or are you trying to again distort the truth and call the ICGA "panel" the "jury" instead.
Do you maintain that David and group were not impartial?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Based on what? Why would david want to create such a firestorm in computer chess? He doesn't compete. Why would he want to raise an issue that we all knew would drag on and on? What is the up-side for him or the other board members? Does it somehow help the ICGA to get rid of Vas/Rybka? If you believe that, wouldn't it have been even better to get rid of Belle, Cray Blitz, HiTech, and deep thought? They were almost impossible for the micro-programs to beat over the long-run. So why would the ICGA board want to get rid of Vas, but not Ken Thompson or Feng Hsu?
Makes absolutely no sense.
Makes absolutely no sense.
It does make sense but I doubt that the longer version of this input would be appreciated.
Not if it is the usual nonsensical stuff, no.
Levy has shown himself to be very biased on several occasions. One of the easiest to point out is the ban of cluster software to please some other participant(s). He also wrote some PR with it, claiming that 'nobody should be allowed to buy the WCCC title', which is extremely silly, and not only because of the fact that he imposed this rule only for chess.
Has 'being of help' been an issue for Levy anytime in the past? No. I have been at WCCC's several times and I have seen with my very own eyes how badly run this organisation is and what a bad job they are doing in the world of computer chess. No live coverage, no PR, nothing.
Has 'being of help' been an issue for Levy anytime in the past? No. I have been at WCCC's several times and I have seen with my very own eyes how badly run this organisation is and what a bad job they are doing in the world of computer chess. No live coverage, no PR, nothing.
During the WCCC in Graz it was consense between Bob and me that Levy & Jaap had been acting like crazy elephants in their mistreatment of a participant Reul and even his mother (sic!) when they tried to contact the student right during his university examinations.
The next scandal they produced was their tolerating that Zwanzger, BTW a player of master strength, was allowed to throw a _factually_ drawn game to Shredder, so that this program got into a final tie and actually won against Fritz. All that looked very much like corruption. Never ever I would mention a financial connect between Levy and the Amir Ban creation Junior. I dont want to be painted as, well, kind of absurd, since David lives in Britain as I'm been informed, so that a direct contact can be faithfully excluded.
The next scandal they produced was their tolerating that Zwanzger, BTW a player of master strength, was allowed to throw a _factually_ drawn game to Shredder, so that this program got into a final tie and actually won against Fritz. All that looked very much like corruption. Never ever I would mention a financial connect between Levy and the Amir Ban creation Junior. I dont want to be painted as, well, kind of absurd, since David lives in Britain as I'm been informed, so that a direct contact can be faithfully excluded.
Another nice example was Paderborn 1999, where the ICGA tried to pay Ed and me money to enter the Advances in Computer Chess conference.
So there are many examples of the ICGA's behaviour, which (to put it mildly) do not confirm Hyatt's 'high level of fairness and ethics' in this organisation.
So there are many examples of the ICGA's behaviour, which (to put it mildly) do not confirm Hyatt's 'high level of fairness and ethics' in this organisation.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
Bob, with posts like this, you continue to lose credibility. You have drawn a very sharp distinction between the ICGA board and the panel, as though they were from two different planets. There is zero chance that the board was gonna go against the panel's finding and find Vas innocent.
Bob, you guys did not have the money or did not want to spend the money to have a panel made up of completely independent and neutral experts writing up unbiased report(s). What you did was good enough for ICGA, but it doesn't nearly meet the general PUBLIC's expectation of fairness. So now instead of looking like the good guys, all of you, especially you and Levy look like a bunch of a.holes and liars. Well done sir.
Bob, you guys did not have the money or did not want to spend the money to have a panel made up of completely independent and neutral experts writing up unbiased report(s). What you did was good enough for ICGA, but it doesn't nearly meet the general PUBLIC's expectation of fairness. So now instead of looking like the good guys, all of you, especially you and Levy look like a bunch of a.holes and liars. Well done sir.
You are right the ICGA could have paid Watkins and Thompson to come to the same conclusions. I would love to see it go to court Thompson v the 2 has beens Twitty and Ed. Plus you of course as you are obviously an expert!
btw to answer your post of yesterday. The FSF will not make a ruling that is not their purpose. They have already said they will support Fabien. However I think the FSF is quite a small organisation with a backlog of cases. So if it ever goes to court I doubt it will be soon.
btw to answer your post of yesterday. The FSF will not make a ruling that is not their purpose. They have already said they will support Fabien. However I think the FSF is quite a small organisation with a backlog of cases. So if it ever goes to court I doubt it will be soon.
- Thompson isn't listed as an author of any of the documents. He appears to be an old man who agreed to sit on the panel to help provide some gravitas to an otherwise sad proceeding. You appear to be abusing his name for effect.
- Chris and Ed are very impressive guys, and don't have a vested interest in the outcome. They would be devastating as expert witnesses.
- Congratulations for being the only one in your camp to realize that the FSF never makes findings or rulings. Maybe you also know they have made recoveries in only a few cases against large companies with very deep pockets. More importantly, they are not in the business of recovering money for people using the GPL license, only for their own organization. They are in the business of getting violators of GPL to provide open source. Fabien therefor has zero chance of getting money from any FSF action, however unlikely.
- The FSF's budget is about a million dollars a year. That is a pittance in the legal business. The FSF concentrates on going after companies with deep pockets like Cisco. They certainly won't bother with Vas or even Chessbase. The same economics work against Fabien, and he doesn't even have people doing pro bono work for him.
- Likewise, it's very unlikely that Vas will be taking any action for the libelous press package that was distributed, because neither the ICGA, nor its principals, have deep pockets.
- Chris and Ed are very impressive guys, and don't have a vested interest in the outcome. They would be devastating as expert witnesses.
- Congratulations for being the only one in your camp to realize that the FSF never makes findings or rulings. Maybe you also know they have made recoveries in only a few cases against large companies with very deep pockets. More importantly, they are not in the business of recovering money for people using the GPL license, only for their own organization. They are in the business of getting violators of GPL to provide open source. Fabien therefor has zero chance of getting money from any FSF action, however unlikely.
- The FSF's budget is about a million dollars a year. That is a pittance in the legal business. The FSF concentrates on going after companies with deep pockets like Cisco. They certainly won't bother with Vas or even Chessbase. The same economics work against Fabien, and he doesn't even have people doing pro bono work for him.
- Likewise, it's very unlikely that Vas will be taking any action for the libelous press package that was distributed, because neither the ICGA, nor its principals, have deep pockets.
A man who is probably younger than Chis and Ed who I met with Fred Friedel in London December 2010. Fred told me, and Mark Uniacke, in dec 2011 in London that Ken still says Rybka 1 has Fruit in it.
btw Ken has the coolest email address i have ever seen - can't paste it here but it is fab!
I make no comment on what the FSF may or may not be doing as that would be information I can not share.
btw Ken has the coolest email address i have ever seen - can't paste it here but it is fab!
I make no comment on what the FSF may or may not be doing as that would be information I can not share.
Ken will be 69 in a few weeks. Yes, his email is very short although I'm not sure I would consider it 'cool'. Of course it's fine for him to believe whatever he wants, but I don't think his value as an expert witness would be extraordinarily high.
In any event, despite what you may have been led to believe, obtaining a finding of software copyright infringement isn't trivial in the US (and I suspect it's no easier in Germany or Poland). At the end of the day, you are generally trying to convince non-experts of very technical details, and it is much easier to play defense in these matters.
If I were Vas, I certainly wouldn't be losing any sleep over what the FSF will do. Maybe they will send him some letters. He's already proven to be adept at ignoring this type of distraction. And that will be that, unless they decide to go after bigger fish.
In any event, despite what you may have been led to believe, obtaining a finding of software copyright infringement isn't trivial in the US (and I suspect it's no easier in Germany or Poland). At the end of the day, you are generally trying to convince non-experts of very technical details, and it is much easier to play defense in these matters.
If I were Vas, I certainly wouldn't be losing any sleep over what the FSF will do. Maybe they will send him some letters. He's already proven to be adept at ignoring this type of distraction. And that will be that, unless they decide to go after bigger fish.
Harvey my dear friend, why do you keep lying? Did Thompson do the investigation and write up the report? If not, then why do you lie? Thompson and a couple of other independent unbiased experts would have been excellent, but not the Hiarcs guy, not the Shredder guys, not anybody who competed against Vas or spoke in a negative way about him in any of the forums.
The fact that you and Bob failed to put together an unbiased panel is not my fault so you should not be so hostile towards me. I am not an expert in anything, nothing at all, but I feel flattered that you and Bob keep calling me an expert. My personal opinion though (please note, not expert opinion, just my personal opinion) is that you and Bob are two dishonest a.holes. Good day my friend.
The fact that you and Bob failed to put together an unbiased panel is not my fault so you should not be so hostile towards me. I am not an expert in anything, nothing at all, but I feel flattered that you and Bob keep calling me an expert. My personal opinion though (please note, not expert opinion, just my personal opinion) is that you and Bob are two dishonest a.holes. Good day my friend.
The investigation was done before the report was written. Ken was part of the investigation. For a doctor you do not read very well.
It is not just you that makes this mistake it was the same in the CB article:
But the ICGA Secretariat Report was written *after* the panel members voted!
It is not just you that makes this mistake it was the same in the CB article:
> Riis: It really goes without saying that the panel members voted based on
> the findings of the ICGA report...
But the ICGA Secretariat Report was written *after* the panel members voted!
Without allowance to read there I challenge you here right now to show as a proof a single contribution Ken Thompson has sent to the secratariat where you figured as postal officer. Contribution meant of course as in context of the question of the relevance and validity of the accusations against Vas. Just one example because I dont believe you that such a note does exist. Ken isnt that stupid that he supported your allegations. Already now I want to tell you, stop trying to obfuscate the rigged process of your 3 months work prior to the verdict of the ICGA. Because of this the names of the programmers and spectators that finally voted in the panel are hidden, because from their names alone the manipulation were obvious. In fact they were not even programmers all around there! In other words, pants down and show the evidence.
He posted on the wiki but of course you have not read that. He also exchanged several emails.
> He posted on the wiki but of course you have not read that.
Ken's contribution on the Wiki:
yes.
yes.
2 words.
If you knew the questions, Harvey had asked Ken!
1) By doing too much sports, Ken, could you have been the creator of the tsunami that then caused the Fukushima reactor to explode?
Yes.
2) Did you then get the Japan (Nobel) Prize for your magic achievement?
Yes.
In its shortness (brevity of statements) lies the secret of our wisest men.
Like in the Bible already:
your speech
should be
Ay ay,
and
nay nay.
1) By doing too much sports, Ken, could you have been the creator of the tsunami that then caused the Fukushima reactor to explode?
Yes.
2) Did you then get the Japan (Nobel) Prize for your magic achievement?
Yes.
In its shortness (brevity of statements) lies the secret of our wisest men.
Like in the Bible already:
your speech
should be
Ay ay,
and
nay nay.
Thank you sir for looking that up and posting it here. Clearly Thompson was a major contributor!
Harvey, I don't wanna go in circles with you. If you have a cycling race, it's preferable not to have one team in charge of conducting a doping test of another team. I am stating the obvious. I have no doubt that some of your tech. analysis is correct, but I believe that the process did not meet the basic public threshold for fairness, especially when you are talking about a man's sole means of providing for his family. Again, you have to be extremely fair and careful when you are talking about jeopardizing a man's livelihood. I am sorry but I just feel uncomfortable seeing the Shredder, Hiarcs, Fruit, etc, guys as voting members of the panel, although you conveniently bring everything back to Thompson.
Anyways, what's done is done, let's move on.
Anyways, what's done is done, let's move on.
> If you have a cycling race, it's preferable not to have one team in charge of conducting a doping test of another team. I am stating the obvious.
It is just staggering that they can't see this, and furthermore that they think there is nothing irregular about the process they used.
It is just staggering that they can't see this
Of course they know it, but if you are 2 pieces down in a hopeless position, you might as well sacrifice another two to create some confusion :-).
Any court will crush this case without hesitation, no doubt about it.
Of course they know it, but if you are 2 pieces down in a hopeless position, you might as well sacrifice another two to create some confusion :-).
Any court will crush this case without hesitation, no doubt about it.
If the vote of the panel was in any way binding I might agree with you but it was only advisory. Other programmers have families to feed as well. I wonder how much potential income Vas stole from them by cheating?
Harvey, I don't know the answer. I wonder about a lot of things myself. Presumably, if you had a strong case showing theft and financial damages, you would have already taken Vas and his partners to court.
'I' certainly have suffered no financial loss or gain from Comp Chess so I will not be taking anyone to court. The ICGA has ruled that Rybka broke its rules. The only people that can take the case to court are Fabien and/or the FSF.
Edit: I have suffered financial loss by paying to attend many events and my huge electricity bill :) Not sure I can sue anyone for the money though :(
Edit: I have suffered financial loss by paying to attend many events and my huge electricity bill :) Not sure I can sue anyone for the money though :(
If the vote of the panel was in any way binding I might agree with you but it was only advisory. Other programmers have families to feed as well. I wonder how much potential income Vas stole from them by cheating?
It's easy enough to make excuses for poor performance. But six years later, Vas still has the strongest engine and a lot of new strong engines have been taking advantage of his work, just as many engines gained strength after the release of Fruit. Guys like Larry are happy enough to reveal that his team has tested out ideas from all of the top engines, keeping what works for their engine. Teams that can't work in this environment are doomed to extinction.
It's easy enough to make excuses for poor performance. But six years later, Vas still has the strongest engine and a lot of new strong engines have been taking advantage of his work, just as many engines gained strength after the release of Fruit. Guys like Larry are happy enough to reveal that his team has tested out ideas from all of the top engines, keeping what works for their engine. Teams that can't work in this environment are doomed to extinction.
Teams that can't work in this environment are doomed to extinction.
Exactly. So far Uniacke has shown that he doesn't know how to write cluster software (solution: have the ICGA ban cluster software) and to incorporate the new knowledge (solution: ban those income spoilers). When I study Hiarcs' main lines, scores and search behaviour, I can clearly see that Uniacke is trying Robbo/Strelka/Rybka stuff, but also has no clue how to make it work. Therefore the top engines still beat Hiarcs easily by 75-80%.
It must be extremely frustrating for HW to see Uniacke's dominating position in the pre-Rybka times disappear like snow in the sun, but alas, it is the harsh truth.
Exactly. So far Uniacke has shown that he doesn't know how to write cluster software (solution: have the ICGA ban cluster software) and to incorporate the new knowledge (solution: ban those income spoilers). When I study Hiarcs' main lines, scores and search behaviour, I can clearly see that Uniacke is trying Robbo/Strelka/Rybka stuff, but also has no clue how to make it work. Therefore the top engines still beat Hiarcs easily by 75-80%.
It must be extremely frustrating for HW to see Uniacke's dominating position in the pre-Rybka times disappear like snow in the sun, but alas, it is the harsh truth.
> Other programmers have families to feed as well. I wonder how much potential income Vas stole from them by cheating?
Here you show true colors; it's not about code copying but frustration. Everybody understands that Vas didn't become the clear #1 for years by copying Fruit. If Rybka would have had the strength of Fruit for years it would have been an insignificant engine and this discussion would never have been raised. All the talk about taking ideas vs copying is just BS. Look at what Critter and Komodo do. They try and test every idea from other engines and if it works they keep it. Would Critter and Komodo have risen to the strength they have today so fast without 'taking many things' from Fruit, Rybka etc? Ofcourse not! Yet they are considered perfectly legit.
> Everybody understands
Clearly untrue
Sure, keep diving. Copy Fruit to Rybka does not deliver hundreds of elo points in strength. If this is the level of discussion you want to entertain, try Talkchess.
When I was at School a teacher told me nothing is obvious and 'everyone' never understands.
It's certainly not obvious how Rybka copied its way to the top for five years.
But it is a fact that it is 'banned for life' and will stay that way no matter how many posts there are here.
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Fruit semantic equivalence of two code sections
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill