Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / The Handicap of Mathematicians and Programmers in RL
Through my yearlong talks (mainly by asking questions) with Bob Hyatt, I noticed that if such experts have a blind spot then it is hidden very likely in the relation between internal logic that I cant seriously doubt anyways and the overall relevance for the logic and justice standards in the rest of the world. I wished others could add their opinions.
Here I have two bad examples and two better one that give hope.
The bad examples are quoted both out of the OF after the CV webpage had given an additional survey to the scandalous ban against Vas. The good ones came from the same source.
1. Mark Watkins
Furthermore, he [S. Rijs is meant] is similarly lacking in any knowledge of the relevant aspects of copyright law, particularly the Abstraction- Filtration-Comparison Test that formed a basis for one part of the ICGA Panel analysis. He appears to apply a minimalist copy/paste standard to what “copying” might mean, ignoring any other creative aspects. Finally, he consistently refuses to apply any inferential capability regarding likely scenarios; combining this with an artificially impossible standard of proof, he is reduced to the pedantry of repeatedly asserting that no one can prove that Rajlich directly copy/pasted Fruit source code, when this was never the issue to start.
2. Mark Watkins
One can expect this essentially to become a Rorschach test. Those on one side will say that it shows that the investigation did indeed take pains to look hard at the evidence, rather than just accept everything that was "thrown together". Those on the other side will say that the fact this "evidence" was even included at a preliminary phase shows that the whole thing was shambolic from the start.
3. one anon Stephen
I am not an interested party in any of this, I am not a chess programmer although I am a commercial programmer.
From what I understand the disqualification was effected several years after the event and retrospectively. Was there or is there no statute of limitations for these tournaments ? If there was then the programmer has no excuse for not keeping his source until that period expired. If there was no such period then it hardly seems reasonable to expect him to keep his source indefinitely unless the rules explicitly say so.
It seems to me that without the actual source code there is no proof of wrongdoing. The best that can be done is to make inferences based on the compiled object code. Although statistically you may prove some similarities I would think that it would be a long way from being actual proof.
As such, in my humble opinion, he may be guilty in fact, but as there is a reasonable doubt i.e. no way to definitely prove it, his innocence must be assumed. Not to do so, is contrary to most people's idea of the way justice works. The fact that he has been found guilty by his peers doesn't change that in my opinion.
It's sad that even something as irrelevant and trivial to the world at large as chess programming can cause such bitter feuding between people that were once friends and colleagues, I know that money is involved etc. but really it does seem rather childish doesn't it ?
4. Andrew Dalke
The dissassembled code from Rybka is quite clearly different than the equivalent code in Fish, at least from the point of copyright.
The strstr functions take different parameters ("moves" instead of "moves "), the fen parser function takes one parameter instead of two, and in Rybka the fen parser code is alway called with the "startpos" board and then if there is a fen string it's called again, while the Fruit code does one case or the other. Interestingly, this difference is removed from the quoted Fruit code, and its omission has the consequence of highlighting the similarities.
The author says the evidence of copying is not in the actual working code, but is the moves[-1] = '\0' code, which does nothing in Fruit and so should not be needed in Rybka. I verified that in Fruit, but I also know that that idiom is useful in detecting bugs early on in parser development, so it could be a remnant of some protection code.
In any case, the author didn't show that 1) the added NUL does nothing in Rybka, nor 2) that Rybka doesn't have a pattern of using that idiom elsewhere. Interestingly, Fruit does use that idiom in one other spot, so a proper analysis would check to see if Rybka also uses that idiom there, and only there.
In conclusion, this one point of the evidence for copying, which seems to be part of the ancillary evidence to strengthen the main hypothesis, is quite fundamentally flawed. It shows that the two programs use different algorithms, and the analysis does not provide evidence that the method to detect copying is itself valid. If this is characteristic of type of analysis which went into this claim of rule violation, then no wonder there is such an uproar - even if the claim is true, the methods to detect that claim are suspect.
Here I have two bad examples and two better one that give hope.
The bad examples are quoted both out of the OF after the CV webpage had given an additional survey to the scandalous ban against Vas. The good ones came from the same source.
1. Mark Watkins
Furthermore, he [S. Rijs is meant] is similarly lacking in any knowledge of the relevant aspects of copyright law, particularly the Abstraction- Filtration-Comparison Test that formed a basis for one part of the ICGA Panel analysis. He appears to apply a minimalist copy/paste standard to what “copying” might mean, ignoring any other creative aspects. Finally, he consistently refuses to apply any inferential capability regarding likely scenarios; combining this with an artificially impossible standard of proof, he is reduced to the pedantry of repeatedly asserting that no one can prove that Rajlich directly copy/pasted Fruit source code, when this was never the issue to start.
2. Mark Watkins
One can expect this essentially to become a Rorschach test. Those on one side will say that it shows that the investigation did indeed take pains to look hard at the evidence, rather than just accept everything that was "thrown together". Those on the other side will say that the fact this "evidence" was even included at a preliminary phase shows that the whole thing was shambolic from the start.
3. one anon Stephen
I am not an interested party in any of this, I am not a chess programmer although I am a commercial programmer.
From what I understand the disqualification was effected several years after the event and retrospectively. Was there or is there no statute of limitations for these tournaments ? If there was then the programmer has no excuse for not keeping his source until that period expired. If there was no such period then it hardly seems reasonable to expect him to keep his source indefinitely unless the rules explicitly say so.
It seems to me that without the actual source code there is no proof of wrongdoing. The best that can be done is to make inferences based on the compiled object code. Although statistically you may prove some similarities I would think that it would be a long way from being actual proof.
As such, in my humble opinion, he may be guilty in fact, but as there is a reasonable doubt i.e. no way to definitely prove it, his innocence must be assumed. Not to do so, is contrary to most people's idea of the way justice works. The fact that he has been found guilty by his peers doesn't change that in my opinion.
It's sad that even something as irrelevant and trivial to the world at large as chess programming can cause such bitter feuding between people that were once friends and colleagues, I know that money is involved etc. but really it does seem rather childish doesn't it ?
4. Andrew Dalke
The dissassembled code from Rybka is quite clearly different than the equivalent code in Fish, at least from the point of copyright.
The strstr functions take different parameters ("moves" instead of "moves "), the fen parser function takes one parameter instead of two, and in Rybka the fen parser code is alway called with the "startpos" board and then if there is a fen string it's called again, while the Fruit code does one case or the other. Interestingly, this difference is removed from the quoted Fruit code, and its omission has the consequence of highlighting the similarities.
The author says the evidence of copying is not in the actual working code, but is the moves[-1] = '\0' code, which does nothing in Fruit and so should not be needed in Rybka. I verified that in Fruit, but I also know that that idiom is useful in detecting bugs early on in parser development, so it could be a remnant of some protection code.
In any case, the author didn't show that 1) the added NUL does nothing in Rybka, nor 2) that Rybka doesn't have a pattern of using that idiom elsewhere. Interestingly, Fruit does use that idiom in one other spot, so a proper analysis would check to see if Rybka also uses that idiom there, and only there.
In conclusion, this one point of the evidence for copying, which seems to be part of the ancillary evidence to strengthen the main hypothesis, is quite fundamentally flawed. It shows that the two programs use different algorithms, and the analysis does not provide evidence that the method to detect copying is itself valid. If this is characteristic of type of analysis which went into this claim of rule violation, then no wonder there is such an uproar - even if the claim is true, the methods to detect that claim are suspect.
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
I believe I have their blind spot analysed, at least for the "semantic equivalent" approach they used. I've been banging on about it for months, but they ignore - probably because it goes to the heart of their problem and they can't acknowledge that for obvious reasons. Ed has the understanding, but he is expressing it in particular terms (specific examples), I can try again to express in generalised terms (the principle of the logic/process failure), easy for lays to understand. Later on that ..... too lazy to write a post right now ;-)
Your anon Stephen, below, gets to the heart of another problem.
As such, in my humble opinion, he may be guilty in fact, but as there is a reasonable doubt i.e. no way to definitely prove it, his innocence must be assumed. Not to do so, is contrary to most people's idea of the way justice works.
Your anon Stephen, below, gets to the heart of another problem.
As such, in my humble opinion, he may be guilty in fact, but as there is a reasonable doubt i.e. no way to definitely prove it, his innocence must be assumed. Not to do so, is contrary to most people's idea of the way justice works.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
For the record, this would be a civil issue. which only requires that the evidence lean SLIGHTLY in one direction or the other to reach a verdict. No "reasonable doubt" applies to civil issues. The common term is "preponderance of the evidence". Just to point out ONE flaw in his statement. Reasonable doubt only applies in criminal cases. If the FSF chooses to make this a criminal issue, then the standard is raised to "beyond reasonable doubt" to obtain a conviction.
The FSF can't make this a criminal case. You are a fountain of misinformation.
The FSF CAN, as they would be the ones to file the criminal complaint with justice. They are the ones "damaged" since they produced the GPL and since Fabien assigned the Fruit rights to them.
In fact, I don't believe any legal action would happen without a "victim" in the first place.
In fact, I don't believe any legal action would happen without a "victim" in the first place.
Wrong. Copyright doesn't become a criminal issue until there is either a criminal complaint from DoJ or an indictment. Neither of these come from the FSF.
A private organization, or citizen, can walk into the local US attorney's office and say "I have a copyright infringement case that should be pursued criminally." The DOJ will look at it and decide whether to prosecute or not. They don't just "jump in" because they would have no way to know about it unless the injured party is willing to press the issue... Don't know how it works where YOU are, but that is how it works HERE.
Of course they don't just jump in. In fact, they only jump in very special circumstances, which have nothing to do with the current dispute. In any event, there is no criminal case until DoJ personnel choose to file a complaint or obtain an indictment.
DOJ doesn't "file a complaint." They accept them and then choose whether to take it to a federal grand jury or drop it...
Wrong. Criminal complaints for criminal copyright violation are the domain of the FBI, which was a part of DoJ last I checked.
Again, the FBI does not INITIATE the action unless they see it. MOST FBI cases come from private people filing a complaint.
Check it out ! And check your shit at the door!
Did you EVER consider that the feds received multiple complaints from the people holding the copyrights???
Of course not.
Of course not.
Don't try and weasel your way out of this - the cops down your block act in the same way as the Fed's if they receive a complaint they act on it. If they witness a crime or get leads to a criminal offense they act on it. They don''t sit around in the kind of La la land that you CLAIM NOW TO HAVE OCCUPIED !
No idea what your rambling means. As I said, if the FSF contacts DOJ about a copyright infringement, the DOJ will investigate and decide whether to prosecute or not. If the FSF does NOT inform DOJ, they would have NO WAY to know it happened and could not do ANYTHING.
Seems simple. It is almost like you have a room full of monkeys typing, and they occasionally put together sentences that are sort of grammatically correct, but totally devoid of any content.
Seems simple. It is almost like you have a room full of monkeys typing, and they occasionally put together sentences that are sort of grammatically correct, but totally devoid of any content.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
The last thing the feds will do is go after some nonsense copy job of 1.6.1. You think you are far too important.
The universe revolves are Bob's big head and Crafty is the most important piece of software ever developed by mankind.
The FBI has multiple task forces that originate criminal complaints. The DoJ site is chock full of them.
I know zero about criminal law, never having dealt with anything more serious than a minor moving violation, and of course never having served on a jury. You on the other hand know much less than zero, making me a genius by comparison...
I know zero about criminal law, never having dealt with anything more serious than a minor moving violation, and of course never having served on a jury. You on the other hand know much less than zero, making me a genius by comparison...
You are a genius only if you compare yourself to yourself. Not by ANY other standard. The majority of criminal complaints originate with the victim.
Smooth change of subject. When did we start talking about where they originated? We were discussing your ridiculous statement on If the FSF chooses to make this a criminal issue.
It WON't be a criminal issue if the FSF doesn't file a complaint. Think the relevant US attorney is a psychic?
Backwards as usual. The FSF won't file a criminal complaint because their people are much smarter than you are.
4. Andrew Dalke
The dissassembled code from Rybka is quite clearly different than the equivalent code in Fish, at least from the point of copyright.
The strstr functions take different parameters ("moves" instead of "moves "), the fen parser function takes one parameter instead of two, and in Rybka the fen parser code is alway called with the "startpos" board and then if there is a fen string it's called again, while the Fruit code does one case or the other. Interestingly, this difference is removed from the quoted Fruit code, and its omission has the consequence of highlighting the similarities.
Confirmed.
Also:
Fruit: "fen "
Rybka: "fen"
Rolf, where did you find this post ?
The dissassembled code from Rybka is quite clearly different than the equivalent code in Fish, at least from the point of copyright.
The strstr functions take different parameters ("moves" instead of "moves "), the fen parser function takes one parameter instead of two, and in Rybka the fen parser code is alway called with the "startpos" board and then if there is a fen string it's called again, while the Fruit code does one case or the other. Interestingly, this difference is removed from the quoted Fruit code, and its omission has the consequence of highlighting the similarities.
Confirmed.
Also:
Fruit: "fen "
Rybka: "fen"
Rolf, where did you find this post ?
Sorry, although it might be unimportant, but I took these quotes out of the openchess page, which is mainly the place where BB+ is writing who is now reveiled to be Mark Watkins. There is this thread about the news of a "balanced" summary of the ICGA scandal on Chessvibes. The reason for the quotings still is the discovery of the bias in the speech of Watkins whom I had taken as BB+, without the knowledge that he's a somewhat important fellow of mathematics/stats researcher down under.
However now after all these allegedly purest evidence articles of BB+ after the refutation by already established maths expert Soren Rijs the two experts Dalke and Stephen brought back all these twisted because falsely applied expertises by BB+ on the background of real life, the legal justice aspects not to forget, and it became clear (to me) that the ICGA panel and then decision of the staff mainly presented by David Levy, was a total hoax without scientifical proof.
In the meantime we spectators know that the whole investigation was done in violation of decent scientifical methods. The exacz pointsa have been made in our many forums. In short it boils down to a preconfigured cheat that led to the intended results when science demands a complete lack of bias in the procedures. Of course scientists have theories and assumptions and seldom they can leave the established realm of the reigning paradigm, but the requirements for a sort of objective research are well defined. (That is why I am so certain that IBM teamsters cheated on Kasparov by misusing his status as a human research object. In short he's not a mouse or artificial tissue.)
As a lay I havent read the whole papers that were discussed in the panel but from the usually misleading in Bob's logic here and everywhere I am pretty certain that the discussion about the required attention in the choice of the applied methods in the alleged proving proceduring has never happened.
So, it was eyeopening for me to read the given text examples where some of the "fallacies" in the panel logic could be reveiled. What we have is the typical lack of reality (real life!) in Watkins mathematical games.
Newest hoax of the propaganda cheat is the argument, that the investigation after a yearlong hate campaign had no science or justice disadvantages but now 6 months after the ICGA comedy enough time has been passing so that it now must be absolutely clear that no further debating of all the details of the process could reasonably happen other than by some outlandish extremists or idiots aka monkeys (all terms testified by Dr.Bob.)
However now after all these allegedly purest evidence articles of BB+ after the refutation by already established maths expert Soren Rijs the two experts Dalke and Stephen brought back all these twisted because falsely applied expertises by BB+ on the background of real life, the legal justice aspects not to forget, and it became clear (to me) that the ICGA panel and then decision of the staff mainly presented by David Levy, was a total hoax without scientifical proof.
In the meantime we spectators know that the whole investigation was done in violation of decent scientifical methods. The exacz pointsa have been made in our many forums. In short it boils down to a preconfigured cheat that led to the intended results when science demands a complete lack of bias in the procedures. Of course scientists have theories and assumptions and seldom they can leave the established realm of the reigning paradigm, but the requirements for a sort of objective research are well defined. (That is why I am so certain that IBM teamsters cheated on Kasparov by misusing his status as a human research object. In short he's not a mouse or artificial tissue.)
As a lay I havent read the whole papers that were discussed in the panel but from the usually misleading in Bob's logic here and everywhere I am pretty certain that the discussion about the required attention in the choice of the applied methods in the alleged proving proceduring has never happened.
So, it was eyeopening for me to read the given text examples where some of the "fallacies" in the panel logic could be reveiled. What we have is the typical lack of reality (real life!) in Watkins mathematical games.
Newest hoax of the propaganda cheat is the argument, that the investigation after a yearlong hate campaign had no science or justice disadvantages but now 6 months after the ICGA comedy enough time has been passing so that it now must be absolutely clear that no further debating of all the details of the process could reasonably happen other than by some outlandish extremists or idiots aka monkeys (all terms testified by Dr.Bob.)
Semantic Equivalence Blindspot. For lays.
First, think about the comparison between two pieces of source code, looking for matches. The attack team found this did not work for them (partly because of the bitboard change to the data structures), so they came up with the idea of "semantic equivalance", but first you need to understand the scientific and legal method for comparing two source codes, this is the abstraction-filtration-comparison method.
Abstraction = pulling out or separating out the bits of code chunk you wish to compare.
Comparison = the act of comparing them.
But if we just do that, then we are not being FAIR. The code might be public domain (PD). The code might be only writeable in one way. There may be a generally accepted optimal way to write the code. And so on. FILTRATION is an elimination process if PD (for example) then we filter that code out and do NOT go to the comparison stage. Vas cannot be accused of copying PD code, that would be too unfair.
So far so good? Abstraction (get the code chunks), filtration (throw out any unfair stuff and abort), comparison (are they similar).
OK, so we know the attack team is not comparing source, they want to go up a LEVEL, throw out the code that does mailbox/bitboard from the comparison and just look at the SEMANTIC MEANING of the code. The increase in LEVEL is effectively by going from CODE to the MEANING OF THE CODE. So, now, at this one level higher, we have:
Abstraction = throw out the concept of mailbox/bitboard and pull out the "meaning" from the code.
Comparison = compare the "meanings".
That's what they did, and they claim there are "matches" from the comparison stage.
So far so good? Abstraction followed by comparison.
BUT! What happened to the FILTRATION stage? Fatal flaw, they didn't do one. So now, you can assume that because they failed to do a filtration, they will have compared a bunch of "meanings" that it was NOT FAIR to compare.
At the level higher (of meanings), the FILTRATION concepts used at source code level don't really apply. There is no such thing as PD for "meanings". So what they failed to do was to realise they were in uncharted (un-wiki-ed) terrain and had to get philosophical about what would be the FILTRATION CONCEPTS to use at the semantic meaning level. But they didn't. They just performed the comparison with no filtering of unfair elements at all. Result? Many more matches than are fair.
My (philosophical) guess is that if you go up a level to semantics, the necessary filtration tests are going to be throwing out way more stuff, to be fair, than if the comparisons are being done at source code level.
We can discuss what those filtration tests should be.
First, think about the comparison between two pieces of source code, looking for matches. The attack team found this did not work for them (partly because of the bitboard change to the data structures), so they came up with the idea of "semantic equivalance", but first you need to understand the scientific and legal method for comparing two source codes, this is the abstraction-filtration-comparison method.
Abstraction = pulling out or separating out the bits of code chunk you wish to compare.
Comparison = the act of comparing them.
But if we just do that, then we are not being FAIR. The code might be public domain (PD). The code might be only writeable in one way. There may be a generally accepted optimal way to write the code. And so on. FILTRATION is an elimination process if PD (for example) then we filter that code out and do NOT go to the comparison stage. Vas cannot be accused of copying PD code, that would be too unfair.
So far so good? Abstraction (get the code chunks), filtration (throw out any unfair stuff and abort), comparison (are they similar).
OK, so we know the attack team is not comparing source, they want to go up a LEVEL, throw out the code that does mailbox/bitboard from the comparison and just look at the SEMANTIC MEANING of the code. The increase in LEVEL is effectively by going from CODE to the MEANING OF THE CODE. So, now, at this one level higher, we have:
Abstraction = throw out the concept of mailbox/bitboard and pull out the "meaning" from the code.
Comparison = compare the "meanings".
That's what they did, and they claim there are "matches" from the comparison stage.
So far so good? Abstraction followed by comparison.
BUT! What happened to the FILTRATION stage? Fatal flaw, they didn't do one. So now, you can assume that because they failed to do a filtration, they will have compared a bunch of "meanings" that it was NOT FAIR to compare.
At the level higher (of meanings), the FILTRATION concepts used at source code level don't really apply. There is no such thing as PD for "meanings". So what they failed to do was to realise they were in uncharted (un-wiki-ed) terrain and had to get philosophical about what would be the FILTRATION CONCEPTS to use at the semantic meaning level. But they didn't. They just performed the comparison with no filtering of unfair elements at all. Result? Many more matches than are fair.
My (philosophical) guess is that if you go up a level to semantics, the necessary filtration tests are going to be throwing out way more stuff, to be fair, than if the comparisons are being done at source code level.
We can discuss what those filtration tests should be.
Two points after the usual thanks
1) couldnt you go on forever on such explaining? Since I could never read such a well put one from Dr. Bob. You really do rock, Chris.
2) Were I be allowed to conclude from the above that they made a case, brought it to a wall against good intentional innocents who were forbidden to find the truths because evil Vas denied them his source code? That was the main plot also remembering that Vas if in a hurry could perhaps been fooled as in the Strelka email scandal? Sorry for such roughly put text.
1) couldnt you go on forever on such explaining? Since I could never read such a well put one from Dr. Bob. You really do rock, Chris.
2) Were I be allowed to conclude from the above that they made a case, brought it to a wall against good intentional innocents who were forbidden to find the truths because evil Vas denied them his source code? That was the main plot also remembering that Vas if in a hurry could perhaps been fooled as in the Strelka email scandal? Sorry for such roughly put text.
Without going to far into the philosophy of FILTRATION tests at the SEMANTIC LEVEL, we can observe something about quantity straight away.
If we have a chessic idea to implement in our program, let's say the idea is rooks on open and semi-open files.
Chessicly the number of ways of expressing this "idea" are few in number, basically we bonus a rook on an open file, part bonus one on a half open file and, by default, penalise one on a closed file. We have an almost one-to-one mapping, idea to expression/explanation.
Source code-wise, the number of ways to express IN SOURCE CODE is very high, so it's true to say if we find source code matching then the confidence level of a match is fairly high.
But what about semantic-wise? Well, the number of ways to express our chessic idea in semantics is very limited, certainly way fewer than at source code level, and when the expression-possibility-count is low, we can't be confident that a match is via copying as opposed to it-just-worked-out-that-way.
So, you can maybe begin to see what the FILTRATION tests are going to be. One of them will be "only one", or "limited" ways to do the semantics; and you can also begin to see that such a filtration test is going to tear holes in the data available for comparison. Needless to say, the attack team did not apply such a filter.
If we have a chessic idea to implement in our program, let's say the idea is rooks on open and semi-open files.
Chessicly the number of ways of expressing this "idea" are few in number, basically we bonus a rook on an open file, part bonus one on a half open file and, by default, penalise one on a closed file. We have an almost one-to-one mapping, idea to expression/explanation.
Source code-wise, the number of ways to express IN SOURCE CODE is very high, so it's true to say if we find source code matching then the confidence level of a match is fairly high.
But what about semantic-wise? Well, the number of ways to express our chessic idea in semantics is very limited, certainly way fewer than at source code level, and when the expression-possibility-count is low, we can't be confident that a match is via copying as opposed to it-just-worked-out-that-way.
So, you can maybe begin to see what the FILTRATION tests are going to be. One of them will be "only one", or "limited" ways to do the semantics; and you can also begin to see that such a filtration test is going to tear holes in the data available for comparison. Needless to say, the attack team did not apply such a filter.
Great explanation, Chris. Thanks a lot.
One minor fly in the ointment. Rybka 1.6.1 was not "abstracted" when comparing it to crafty. It was compared DIRECTLY, since it was an exact copy in many places. Wrangle out of that one FIRST. Then we go on to the fruit/rybka comparison which WAS done correctly, and which is NOT as convincing as 1.6.1, because the abstraction/filtration process makes it somewhat subjective when you decide what is not important. But it is not THAT subjective in this case, because a good chess programmer (as opposed to just a good programmer that knows nothing about chess programming) CAN look "around" the board representation differences to see if everything else is the same...
What an irrelevant response! Crafty and 1.6.1 again. Bit like my cat when it has no idea what to do next and is in a pickle at the same time - sits down and has a scratch pretending nonchalance. 1.6.1 appears to be your scratch.
Has zilch to do with the fact that when you went up the level from CODE to MEANING OF CODE you failed to philosophise up a level how to do the FILTRATION. And did NONE AT ALL. Which renders your semantic equivalence comparisons (SE) worse than useless.
Have another scratch .......
Has zilch to do with the fact that when you went up the level from CODE to MEANING OF CODE you failed to philosophise up a level how to do the FILTRATION. And did NONE AT ALL. Which renders your semantic equivalence comparisons (SE) worse than useless.
Have another scratch .......
Rybka 1.6.1
This is the only thing you care about, isn't it?
This is the only thing you care about, isn't it?
No. But it IS "the beginning." Or "the beginning of the end" depending on one's perspective...
Beginning of the end? The end of what?
"beginning of the end" of a gigantic cheating scandal.
Thought that was quite clear. The copying started on day one and continued certainly through 2.3.2a as a minimum, almost certainly beyond that.
Thought that was quite clear. The copying started on day one and continued certainly through 2.3.2a as a minimum, almost certainly beyond that.
OK, you're still hallucinating about that. Carry on.
ABSOLUTELY NO hallucinations about that. 100% irrefutable fact.
In Holland we say: 'You are turning a mosquitoe into an elephant'. You have been doing that for quite some time now.
Maybe that is part of your problem. In Holland you have stupid sayings.
Most refer to such as "making a mountain out of a mole hill".
Most refer to such as "making a mountain out of a mole hill".
Talk about a provincial, _idiotic_ statement. Jeebus, Bobby! You need to grow up; there's a whole big world out there with many different languages and sayings. Have you sought help yet like I suggested? What kind of "professor" are you, anyway?
Apparently you are from somewhere that doesn't grasp "sarcasm". Eh?
No, I don't _grasp_ "sarcasm". Do you grasp the usage of quotation marks? I do grasp idiot. You _take_ the cake!
If you don't understand sarcasm, perhaps you should "exercise your right to remain silent" and avoid looking foolish???
Hard to believe you're actually a grown man. Honestly if I didn't KNOW _better_ I'd swear you were 12. I don't think I've _ever_ come across such a LOSER before. I'll give you a _little_ more insight: I've looked at versions of Crafty starting from I believe the mid-80s. I have to admit I've got some of your code in the various hobby engines I've written. I just looked at some of my sources and your sources and I noticed a lot of overlap. I've used a lot of for-loops and some switch statements, same as you. I also have the representation of a chess board. I just wanted to give you credit for the ideas of storing a board and using for-loops and the like. And oh yeah, the one function where you return 'alpha'? I can't recall which one it was, it may be something in quiesce.c. That was genius and I had to borrow that for my code, so I have a function that also returns alpha. I changed the variable name to alph though, to confuse people in case they decompiled it. You can decompile and get my variable names, right? I mean, from the way you talk you can see through time and space, so I'm sure you can take an exe and get the actual C++ out of it. I was worried you might catch me for using 'return alpha'. Anyway, like I said, I wanted to give you credit for the idea of using some for-loops and some switch statements and comparisons and the single most important improvement: returning alpha - I mean alph - from one of my functions. Bob, I bow to you and your genius. Oh, and one more thing, on a serious note: I think your programming style actually sucks and it's no wonder you're not on the top of anything in the chess world. I pity you.
Get some help!
P.S. Getting your goat is like taking candy from a baby. If I hadn't known who you were for at least 27 years I would swear you were a little kid playing with his dad's computer. Cheers!
Get some help!
P.S. Getting your goat is like taking candy from a baby. If I hadn't known who you were for at least 27 years I would swear you were a little kid playing with his dad's computer. Cheers!
How about telling true statements? No Crafty in the 80's. No crafty was public source until 1996.
You also need to read more. bitboards were developed in the 70's. Not by me. I made the change in 1994.
The rest deserves no comment and won't get one...
You also need to read more. bitboards were developed in the 70's. Not by me. I made the change in 1994.
The rest deserves no comment and won't get one...
Who said anything about _public_ source?
LOL. Did I say you developed bitboards? I must have missed that. Also, check this out: if you decompile my source, you'll see I used bitboards - so it must have come from you! You crafty guy! Also, I used "sarcasm". You know "sarcasm"? I bet you have the patent on "sarcasm". I give you credit for that. I'm gonna write an Eliza-like program that will use "sarcasm" - quotes and all - and I will be sure to add your name in the credits. I'd hate to have you tarnish my name because I used your term "sarcasm" and didn't give you full credit.
By the way, I want to again point out that I'm using your board representation, "sarcasm" tag, for-loops, while-loops, return alphas, etc. I want to give credit where credit is due. When I spend my life developing a sub-par chess program, I want people to know it was based on a sub-par chess program.
LOL. Did I say you developed bitboards? I must have missed that. Also, check this out: if you decompile my source, you'll see I used bitboards - so it must have come from you! You crafty guy! Also, I used "sarcasm". You know "sarcasm"? I bet you have the patent on "sarcasm". I give you credit for that. I'm gonna write an Eliza-like program that will use "sarcasm" - quotes and all - and I will be sure to add your name in the credits. I'd hate to have you tarnish my name because I used your term "sarcasm" and didn't give you full credit.
By the way, I want to again point out that I'm using your board representation, "sarcasm" tag, for-loops, while-loops, return alphas, etc. I want to give credit where credit is due. When I spend my life developing a sub-par chess program, I want people to know it was based on a sub-par chess program.
In other words "you don't have a clue." Which is what I originally thought...
Take a good look in the mirror tonight, and tomorrow call a _good_ shrink.
Call yourself. You are the one needing help, not me...
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / The Handicap of Mathematicians and Programmers in RL
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill