Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / rybka just add 600-700 elo points in less than 1 year...
and that is legal?
Sure. You just need to have a small army of lawyers to fend off your competitor's patent infringement suits.
i dont like that type of manipulations...is the same if developers of chess software has people who dissasemble competitors chess engines to steal his code/work and put it into their own engines...that a re bad programmers and burglars that preffer steal others work to work hard and improve his owns engines
Your position is a valid one, but only if you are willing to accept a large performance penalty. All of the top engine developers are very familiar with the ideas from the top engines, whether they are open or closed source. Most are not as open about this as say, Richard Vida has been, but if you review his back and forth with Larry, you will note that the Komodo team tried out many ideas from the Ippo derived engines (although he claimed not many of the ideas improved performance).
i think,and im going to tell that honestly,vas copied ideas/code from fruit,and obfuscated the nodes count,depth,etc...to make more difficult to see the similarities between rybka and fruit...that is clear,because obfuscation that is a stupid thing,and the only logic reason is to hide the origins of rybka and its speed and depth...from other hand,if rybka were a weaker engine,im sure none of the programmer who fight to ban vas (well banned in my opinion because he cheated and steal other works) never did it,dissassemble rybka and investigate it...BUT rybka was too much strong that his programs,and they must stop vas,so simply,and it was what they did
they had reason about vas cheating/stealing code,but morality,the hasnt any reason,because they only want stop a competitor who won all the tournaments and people buy rybka and stp buying their engines
they had 2 faces:1 face:the face of truth:vas cheated and stole code
2 face:jealousy and wanting stop/ban other competitor to be able to sell their engines
my 2 cents
they had reason about vas cheating/stealing code,but morality,the hasnt any reason,because they only want stop a competitor who won all the tournaments and people buy rybka and stp buying their engines
they had 2 faces:1 face:the face of truth:vas cheated and stole code
2 face:jealousy and wanting stop/ban other competitor to be able to sell their engines
my 2 cents
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> vas copied ideas/code from fruit
You use again the slash between ideas and code. But understand that if he used ideas, it would be perfectly fine! While if he used code, it wouldn't (for starters, he would have breached Fruit's GPL and would need to release Rybka 2.3.2a's source code).
el tiempo dira quien tenia razon Uly
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
I realize that was not your question but my counter question was meant to serve as an eye opener. If you can add 400 elo to a 2700 elo program then you don't need to copy Fruit at all to move from 2100-2200 to 2800.
Yes nice "counter example", this "counter example" would be a counter example to "Vas wouldn't have been able to move from 2100-2200 to 2800 without code copying". But nodody said that.
Like that you could also have said:
If you can run the marathon, then you dont need to use a vehicle to go from Berlin to Potsdam, you can run on yourself.
Well, there might by in berlin marathon runners, that use/used to run from berlin to potsdam, but you can guess that not all marathon runners are doing that, when they need to go to potsdam.
Both "examples" have one thing in common. It's the time factor. Which makes it often tentative to marathon runners to use a vehicle, and which makes copy copying tentative to developers.
summarized:
your "counter example", is not a counter example to the problem of code copying:
So your false counter example "could have" the following implications:
1) you lack basic knowledge in logics (what i dont think/expect)
or
2) you try to manipulate (this i guess is the most likely reason)
or
3) another reason (like: somedoy forced you to say that)
Yes nice "counter example", this "counter example" would be a counter example to "Vas wouldn't have been able to move from 2100-2200 to 2800 without code copying". But nodody said that.
Like that you could also have said:
If you can run the marathon, then you dont need to use a vehicle to go from Berlin to Potsdam, you can run on yourself.
Well, there might by in berlin marathon runners, that use/used to run from berlin to potsdam, but you can guess that not all marathon runners are doing that, when they need to go to potsdam.
Both "examples" have one thing in common. It's the time factor. Which makes it often tentative to marathon runners to use a vehicle, and which makes copy copying tentative to developers.
summarized:
your "counter example", is not a counter example to the problem of code copying:
So your false counter example "could have" the following implications:
1) you lack basic knowledge in logics (what i dont think/expect)
or
2) you try to manipulate (this i guess is the most likely reason)
or
3) another reason (like: somedoy forced you to say that)
Go back to the original question and judge again.
The premise was: it's impossible to make an elo jump of 600-700 in a couple of years.
The premise was: it's impossible to make an elo jump of 600-700 in a couple of years.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
3)you are a programmer,and you know how hard is improve one engine strength;pleaase,tell me,it isnt suspicious for you that extremely fast progression of rybka after fruit released open source code?how much programmers you know that can improve the strength of his engines 600 elo points in less than a year WITHOUT COPYING OTHERS WORKS?
Good question, let me take this one a little broader:
1. Do you think it is normal that Don Dailey suddenly has a 800 elo jump with Komodo (since Cilkchess) in the past few years?
2. What is your opinion of the fact that since Fruit went GPL and free Strelka/Robbo source codes came available, suddenly ALL top programs made a few hundred elo point jumps, while before they had considerably less progress?
My simple conclusion is this: everybody is doing the same thing.
Good question, let me take this one a little broader:
1. Do you think it is normal that Don Dailey suddenly has a 800 elo jump with Komodo (since Cilkchess) in the past few years?
2. What is your opinion of the fact that since Fruit went GPL and free Strelka/Robbo source codes came available, suddenly ALL top programs made a few hundred elo point jumps, while before they had considerably less progress?
My simple conclusion is this: everybody is doing the same thing.
> My simple conclusion is this: everybody is doing the same thing.
Such as commericial sold LOOP.
An ICGA financial exploited project and copy of Fabien's Fruit 2.2.1
1) Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
2) Fruit 2.2.1 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
3) Fruit 2.3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
4) Loop 2007 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
5) Toga II 1.3 (time: 100 ms scale: 1.0)
1 2 3 4 5
1. ----- 70.38 58.30 67.66 62.78
2. 70.38 ----- 60.62 80.25 66.33
3. 58.30 60.62 ----- 60.51 56.66
4. 67.66 80.25 60.51 ----- 65.36
5. 62.78 66.33 56.66 65.36 -----
An 80% overlap with Fruit 2.2.1 (Fabien) is a percentage as not seen before, the highest I ever saw was Houdini with Robbolito (71%). It's safe to say Loop 2007 is an exact copy of Fruit 2.2.1.
And now we only have to follow the money.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/wii-chess-review
http://www.personeel.unimaas.nl/uiterwijk/Theses/PhD/Reul_thesis.pdf
Promotor: Prof. dr. H.J. van den Herik
The new 64-bit computer-chess engine, Loop Amsterdam, achieved the 3rd place behind Rybka and Zappa but before Shredder at the 15th World Computer-Chess Championship 2007 in Amsterdam (NL) For the persons who continuously supported me some words of gratitude are appropriate. In particular, I am grateful to my supervisor Professor Jaap van den Herik who brought me with firm guidance to this success. He stimulated me to continue the R&D of my computer-chess engine Loop Chess and motivated me to write this thesis. In addition, he [Jaap v/d Herik] set up the contact to the company Nintendo in 2007 which implemented my source codes successfully in their commercial product Wii Chess.
Jaap v/d Herik (ICGA) can't afford a scandal in academia land with a cheating thesis under his supervision and explored commercially.
Where is the ICGA investigation ?
How did Reul get the Fruit 2.2.1 sources ?
Logical answer, from Fabien.
Well, I'd avoid throwing dirt at other programs unless you apply the same high standards that we demand of the Rybka accusers.
Nevertheless, an ICGA investigation is warranted so that they can test compliance with their rule 2. And nothing more than that. Let's hope they have a transparent, unbiased process this time if they do.
Nevertheless, an ICGA investigation is warranted so that they can test compliance with their rule 2. And nothing more than that. Let's hope they have a transparent, unbiased process this time if they do.
80% overlap is 'guilty' in the ICGA's own words (or Hyatt's, Levy probably has no clue).
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
ICGA has no financial interest in Loop/List. What are you talking about???
BTW Ed already knows that an investigation has been started about this case.
Also there seems to be no issue with the thesis, period. Proper citations are provided. A thesis can certainly be based on another program if it is properly cited/credited... So there is no academic misconduct apparent when we first were asked to investigate this case.
BTW Ed already knows that an investigation has been started about this case.
Also there seems to be no issue with the thesis, period. Proper citations are provided. A thesis can certainly be based on another program if it is properly cited/credited... So there is no academic misconduct apparent when we first were asked to investigate this case.
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
How can you be sure of that? Ed's report above include a quote which suggests van den Herik set up the deal or introduced or whatever between Loop source code and Nintendo Wii. Perhaps he did it for free but normal commercial practice would be to get an introduction fee or a royalty share and in that case, with v den Herik as a long term senior icga officer then there could well be a financial link, perhaps you, as a member, could inquire?
There is one thing that jumps out from the suggested Nintendo deal, i have much experience of software contract dealing with japanese firms, large and small. They would insist on contractual warranties and safeguards as to the integrity of the ownership of the software and these warranties had better be taken very seriously. The providence of the Loop source thus becomes highly consequential, not just for the purposes of rule 2.
There is one thing that jumps out from the suggested Nintendo deal, i have much experience of software contract dealing with japanese firms, large and small. They would insist on contractual warranties and safeguards as to the integrity of the ownership of the software and these warranties had better be taken very seriously. The providence of the Loop source thus becomes highly consequential, not just for the purposes of rule 2.
> BTW Ed already knows that an investigation has been started about this case.
When ?
I must have missed the blitz announcement on Chessvibes.
The ICGA has received a complaint from Fabien about Loop.
When ?
The interwoven nature of van den Herik and the Loop program (PhD supervision and introduction to Nintendo) suggests that the icga could be in danger of investigating itself here. Not usually deemed to be advisable. Perhaps they should devolve the investigation to impartial outsiders, perhaps Ed and I could help out?
It's extremely odd BTW, the overlap with Fruit 2.1 (GPL) is already intolerable (67%), the overlap with with Fruit 2.2.1 (no released sources) is EXTREME (> 80%). If Fabien gave the sources to Reul then why is Fabien complaining?
You should check out if you are not used as an instrument of a business fight.
* EDIT 58% -> 67%
You should check out if you are not used as an instrument of a business fight.
* EDIT 58% -> 67%
> ICGA has no financial interest in Loop/List. What are you talking about???
>
> BTW Ed already knows that an investigation has been started about this case.
>
> Also there seems to be no issue with the thesis, period. Proper citations are provided.
I think you are mistaken. I cannot find that, at all.
Miguel
> A thesis can certainly be based on another program if it is properly cited/credited... So there is no academic misconduct apparent when we first were asked to investigate this case.
Yet another lie from you:
"I'm more than willing to let this be my last post here. It IS pretty much a waste of time anyway..."
~bob
Two minutes later, you posted another message.
"I'm more than willing to let this be my last post here. It IS pretty much a waste of time anyway..."
~bob
Two minutes later, you posted another message.
I thought Harvey was the only person that could repeatedly leave forever. But I was wrong
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
So if you claim "everybody is doing the same thing" you're admitting Rybka did that "thing", and the ICGA verdict was correct? In that case it would be possible to have a sensible discussion about how widespread the problem is/was at the time Rybka did it. It's incoherent to claim innocence at the same time.
Everybody is taking idea's from each other, yes. Currently, they take the most from Rybka related programs. Apparently that is OK, while Vas taking idea's from Fruit is not. Which is total bollocks.
So I 'admit' nothing, I just tell you the way it is.
So I 'admit' nothing, I just tell you the way it is.
Who says what other programs are doing is ok? If they enter ICGA events without stating where they're derived from and someone complains they'll be investigated and presumably found guilty. In any case, it doesn't alter the guilt or innocence of Rajlich for entering Rybka in ICGA events.
Who says what other programs are doing is ok?
When the rules are not clear about what is OK and what is not, it is OK what Vas and others are doing. You cannot come up 5 years later and claim 'OK, this is how we interpret the rules and whoops, sorry, you do not match them'.
If they enter ICGA events without stating where they're derived from
In that case you can disqualify most of the participants in the past few years and possibly a few years before that, too. There IS NOT ONE original program. And then the WCCC is dead.
it doesn't alter the guilt or innocence of Rajlich for entering Rybka in ICGA events.
Alter guilt or innocence is always a 100% probability, so I am not sure what you mean here. IMO he is innocent like the rest, or the rest is guilty like he is.
When the rules are not clear about what is OK and what is not, it is OK what Vas and others are doing. You cannot come up 5 years later and claim 'OK, this is how we interpret the rules and whoops, sorry, you do not match them'.
If they enter ICGA events without stating where they're derived from
In that case you can disqualify most of the participants in the past few years and possibly a few years before that, too. There IS NOT ONE original program. And then the WCCC is dead.
it doesn't alter the guilt or innocence of Rajlich for entering Rybka in ICGA events.
Alter guilt or innocence is always a 100% probability, so I am not sure what you mean here. IMO he is innocent like the rest, or the rest is guilty like he is.
"When the rules are not clear about what is OK and what is not, it is OK what Vas and others are doing. You cannot come up 5 years later and claim 'OK, this is how we interpret the rules and whoops, sorry, you do not match them'."
As far as I can see the rules were clear and understood by the programmers involved, including Vas. He broke them but covered his tracks by obfuscating the engine output and brazenly lying in interviews (that he was an IM helped with the confidence trick that he had a slow engine with a "human" evaluation function). The fact that he got away with it for so long (even getting cocky enough to complain about others doing the same) doesn't make the original offence any less.
"IMO he is innocent like the rest, or the rest is guilty like he is."
If you can show that someone else did exactly the same then sure, they're as innocent and guilty, but "everyone did/does it" is a weak argument usually based on a lie (whether a lie to yourself or to others). As Kramnik said on Spassky's 75th Birthday last week:
"Boris Vasilievich never flirted with the authorities. He never settled for awkward compromises. When the Soviet system collapsed many people had a favourite excuse: “That’s just how the times were. What could we have done?” Those people joined the party at the first possible moment, then left it at the first chance they got, they informed to government agencies… They say: “We’re not to blame, that’s what the times were like!” I really don’t like that, as I think a person always has a choice. Spassky, as well as Tal, prove that really was the case. Adapting to the “rules of the game” imposed by the times is the fate of weak and calculating people. Always remaining true to himself is, in my view, one of the main personal achievements of Boris Vasilievich."
Sure, not a perfect analogy, but I think your argument's actually weaker than that of those who were under Soviet control (the pressure on them really was great, whereas Vas just took a shortcut for the promise of financial gain). If there has been a "paradigm shift" now then fine, perhaps rules will be changed, but it's wrong to try and claim that as an excuse for having broken the rules in place in the past.
As far as I can see the rules were clear and understood by the programmers involved, including Vas. He broke them but covered his tracks by obfuscating the engine output and brazenly lying in interviews (that he was an IM helped with the confidence trick that he had a slow engine with a "human" evaluation function). The fact that he got away with it for so long (even getting cocky enough to complain about others doing the same) doesn't make the original offence any less.
"IMO he is innocent like the rest, or the rest is guilty like he is."
If you can show that someone else did exactly the same then sure, they're as innocent and guilty, but "everyone did/does it" is a weak argument usually based on a lie (whether a lie to yourself or to others). As Kramnik said on Spassky's 75th Birthday last week:
"Boris Vasilievich never flirted with the authorities. He never settled for awkward compromises. When the Soviet system collapsed many people had a favourite excuse: “That’s just how the times were. What could we have done?” Those people joined the party at the first possible moment, then left it at the first chance they got, they informed to government agencies… They say: “We’re not to blame, that’s what the times were like!” I really don’t like that, as I think a person always has a choice. Spassky, as well as Tal, prove that really was the case. Adapting to the “rules of the game” imposed by the times is the fate of weak and calculating people. Always remaining true to himself is, in my view, one of the main personal achievements of Boris Vasilievich."
Sure, not a perfect analogy, but I think your argument's actually weaker than that of those who were under Soviet control (the pressure on them really was great, whereas Vas just took a shortcut for the promise of financial gain). If there has been a "paradigm shift" now then fine, perhaps rules will be changed, but it's wrong to try and claim that as an excuse for having broken the rules in place in the past.
As far as I can see the rules were clear and understood by the programmers involved, including Vas. He broke them but covered his tracks by obfuscating the engine output and brazenly lying in interviews
Totally disagreed. The rules were not clear, Vas didn't break them and obfuscating engine output says absolutely nothing. Already Theron did that, by showing only 25%-30% of the nodes Tiger was really calculating.
If you can show that someone else did exactly the same then sure, they're as innocent and guilty, but "everyone did/does it" is a weak argument
As the ICGA, Hyatt and you even cannot show that Vas copied code and put their fate in a totally disgraceful procedure and a report full of mistakes, there is really no point in this. If you believe Dailey et al got their elo points all by themselves: keep on dreaming, you are stuck on stupid.
I think your argument's actually weaker
You don't want to accept the truth, that is fine with me. Soviet people also believed the lie of their government that the Soviet Union was the most prosperous country in the world. So why should I bother with people who believe lies, like you?
Totally disagreed. The rules were not clear, Vas didn't break them and obfuscating engine output says absolutely nothing. Already Theron did that, by showing only 25%-30% of the nodes Tiger was really calculating.
If you can show that someone else did exactly the same then sure, they're as innocent and guilty, but "everyone did/does it" is a weak argument
As the ICGA, Hyatt and you even cannot show that Vas copied code and put their fate in a totally disgraceful procedure and a report full of mistakes, there is really no point in this. If you believe Dailey et al got their elo points all by themselves: keep on dreaming, you are stuck on stupid.
I think your argument's actually weaker
You don't want to accept the truth, that is fine with me. Soviet people also believed the lie of their government that the Soviet Union was the most prosperous country in the world. So why should I bother with people who believe lies, like you?
I still think you need to make up your mind. Do you want to claim Vas didn't do it or that he did it but so did everyone else so it's ok?
I have stated many times that the situation as it is now, is OK with me. Everybody can use what is freely available. There is no point in trying to alter it. It would be the same as trying to prevent smoking, drinking, drugs use, doping or prostitution: a waste of time and energy, not going to work.
What about at the time Rybka "borrowed" from Fruit? Did the same situation apply then? Or was Vas something of a pioneer in that brave new world?
Today people are 'borrowing' a lot of time by taking everything they can use from Robbo/Ippo et al., gaining hundreds of elo points they would never manage by themselves.
It remains a mistery to me that you are OK with this huge case of hypocrisy. If you condemn Vas, you condemn all computer chess programmers AND the whole software world.
It remains a mistery to me that you are OK with this huge case of hypocrisy. If you condemn Vas, you condemn all computer chess programmers AND the whole software world.
Again, why do you think I'm ok with that? And how would that make it ok if Vas did the same back in 2005 when it wasn't so common?
You are only talking about Vas, not about the others. What Vas did, already happened years and years before. What current programmers do, is the same: taking Vas's ideas and gaining free elo they normally never would have added themselves. So it is time to stop the hypocrisy.
Please point out my hypocrisy. I've never said it's ok to do what Vas did and in fact I agree with him on Strelka and so on. The question, however, is simply if he broke the ICGA rules in the events he entered - and it seems he did. If others did as well and someone complains then they should also be investigated and found guilty if they're guilty. I'd support Vas if he decided to take legal action against engines that copied Rybka, though of course that's fraught with difficulties.
> As far as I can see the rules were clear and understood by the programmers involved, including Vas. He broke them but covered his tracks by obfuscating the engine output
I hope you do realize that displaying a lesser depth (2 plies) then it was actually was doing Rybka depth equals the FRUIT depth ?
> and brazenly lying in interviews (that he was an IM helped with the confidence trick that he had a slow engine with a "human" evaluation function).
Any reference to offer ?
On depth, as far as I understand your statement you're making my point about obfuscation. Plus there's also the question of nodes and so on.
I'm sure you've read Vas' interviews - in fact at least one of them is posted on your site. If you want to claim Vas mainly just allowed interviewers/the general public to think the wrong thing rather than lying that would fit nicely with your complaints about the ICGA not correcting any false impressions some news sites might have given about the ICGA verdict.
I'm sure you've read Vas' interviews - in fact at least one of them is posted on your site. If you want to claim Vas mainly just allowed interviewers/the general public to think the wrong thing rather than lying that would fit nicely with your complaints about the ICGA not correcting any false impressions some news sites might have given about the ICGA verdict.
you're making my point about obfuscation. Plus there's also the question of nodes and so on.
Already done by Theron, who attacked Vas for 'obfuscation', until I pointed out he was doing the same with Chess Tiger: showing only 25%-30% of the real node count.
Seriously, I am just amused how people find 'node count' and 'node obfuscation' truly suspicious. To put sand in the eyes of opponents is as old as the roads to Rome :-).
Already done by Theron, who attacked Vas for 'obfuscation', until I pointed out he was doing the same with Chess Tiger: showing only 25%-30% of the real node count.
Seriously, I am just amused how people find 'node count' and 'node obfuscation' truly suspicious. To put sand in the eyes of opponents is as old as the roads to Rome :-).
It's not particularly that it's suspicious (though it is to a degree, obviously) but simply that it's an explanation (along with the misleading statements and Vas being an IM) as to why more suspicion wasn't aroused by Rybka at the time it made it's "Fruit leap" and the eventual investigation only came much later.
Strange world where everything is treated with "suspicion". Is this how people leave their normal lives? Suspicious the wife is interested in other men? Suspicious that everyday contacts will deceive you? Suspicious that others mean you harm? Suspicious that others are bad? Not a place I would want to live. Perhaps if the baker gives you one euro less in the change he just made a mistake? Or the man talking to your wife is just being friendly? Or that the youth in the hoody top is actually just a perfectly nice guy?
What is it with these people who are continually looking for bad in others?
What is it with these people who are continually looking for bad in others?
But in the best case scenario - Jeroen and Ed's view - Vas was merely (within acceptable limits) trying to deceive his competitors, so unfortunately sweetness and light are in short supply.
As I said before, I think your (or Ed's) VII/VIG approach is wrong. You should weigh the evidence as honestly as you can and decide what most likely happened using the intelligence and common sense you apply to anything else in life. If you still think Vas is innocent then fine, but suggesting, for instance, that's it's morally superior to want someone to be innocent therefore the angels are on the side of the "defence", as I'm sure I've seen argued here (by you?), is ridiculous. Though perhaps it has a touch of the sublime - when I read that a while back it struck me as almost as good a proof of Vas' innocence as the ontological proof is of God's existence.
As I said before, I think your (or Ed's) VII/VIG approach is wrong. You should weigh the evidence as honestly as you can and decide what most likely happened using the intelligence and common sense you apply to anything else in life. If you still think Vas is innocent then fine, but suggesting, for instance, that's it's morally superior to want someone to be innocent therefore the angels are on the side of the "defence", as I'm sure I've seen argued here (by you?), is ridiculous. Though perhaps it has a touch of the sublime - when I read that a while back it struck me as almost as good a proof of Vas' innocence as the ontological proof is of God's existence.
The VII VIG dichotomy is Ed's. I think I already explained how he came to change his view. I have weighed the evidence as honestly as I can, for I am aware that a simple VII is not sensible. VII VIG is a concept which says: you can read what you want into the data and evidence, it all depends what you want to see. Obviously one has to try to synthesise an ultimate position from the two extremes. And look at the evidence. Look at what the attack side says, and ask yourself if it stands up. We've shown,, in each case we've looked at, that their evidence and conclusions fall over. the most recent, the mobility case, the attacker claim was that, after abstracting the bitboard/mailbox aspects of the code, they could then show equivalence. But there was NO CODE LEFT after the abstraction. No code left means no equivalence, doesn't it? Plus the code itself had two glaring differences, the first chessic, a Rybka bishop had more chess value as a result of the code, and the Fruit code was hard coded to distinguish between captures and non-captures. Thats more than enough to swamp the similarity of the well known and wiki-defined mobilty function used. And so it goes on, case after case, howling and glaring failures.
And, yes, it is better to want that we humans are basically good. A world in which we suspect and distrust others, cast aspersions, invent hate scenarios, act as bullies, torment individuals? No, for me not. If that puts me into the line of fire of nasty people, so be it.
And, yes, it is better to want that we humans are basically good. A world in which we suspect and distrust others, cast aspersions, invent hate scenarios, act as bullies, torment individuals? No, for me not. If that puts me into the line of fire of nasty people, so be it.
I don't really agree "you can read what you want into the data and evidence", and the problem with thesis, antithesis and synthesis is that the truth isn't always somewhere in the middle (not that it seems Ed ever got round to a synthesis). Another thing I'd object to is the clumsy terminology of "attack side" and "attacker claim". Perhaps Ed coined that and his being a non-native speaker shows through, but in any case it's prejudicial to any honest attempt to take an objective view of things. I absolutely don't see any less suspicion, distrust, hate, bullying and so on (to use your list) from the "defence side" than from the "attack side" here. In fact the opposite is true, though perhaps that's down to weight of numbers as this is, after all, the Rybka forum (and the defence inevitably appears in the role of the bully).
On the technical points: I'm not the person to ask or debate them with, but as an interested observer I'd just say that your arguments with Bob haven't won me over. You do seem to be deliberately trying to ignore probability and arguing that if the ICGA can't prove any particular individual item is 100% identical in Rybka and Fruit then the whole case collapses - but it doesn't. In that particular example I don't have a problem with abstracting bitboard/mailbox. The approach might be generic (but as I understand it there are plenty of "non-generic" ways of implementing the same idea), but all that means is you can't put any great weight on that item alone. I don't see how it harms the ICGA case in any way as the point is that the eval function as a whole is based on Fruit (and it's been acknowledged Vas made improvements).
It still seems to me that ultimately the case for the defence boils down to - there wasn't simple copying and pasting of code (or sometimes the even weaker argument - you can't prove copying and pasting of code without the source code). I don't know, maybe that's a sufficient defence against copyright charges, but even if somehow that was technically sufficient to be "innocent" of breaking the ICGA rules (which seems unlikely) it would still just be a matter of escaping by a legal loophole, and certainly not evidence of a "gross miscarriage of justice". The wronged party in a human rather than any narrow legal sense would still be Fabien Letouzey.
On the technical points: I'm not the person to ask or debate them with, but as an interested observer I'd just say that your arguments with Bob haven't won me over. You do seem to be deliberately trying to ignore probability and arguing that if the ICGA can't prove any particular individual item is 100% identical in Rybka and Fruit then the whole case collapses - but it doesn't. In that particular example I don't have a problem with abstracting bitboard/mailbox. The approach might be generic (but as I understand it there are plenty of "non-generic" ways of implementing the same idea), but all that means is you can't put any great weight on that item alone. I don't see how it harms the ICGA case in any way as the point is that the eval function as a whole is based on Fruit (and it's been acknowledged Vas made improvements).
It still seems to me that ultimately the case for the defence boils down to - there wasn't simple copying and pasting of code (or sometimes the even weaker argument - you can't prove copying and pasting of code without the source code). I don't know, maybe that's a sufficient defence against copyright charges, but even if somehow that was technically sufficient to be "innocent" of breaking the ICGA rules (which seems unlikely) it would still just be a matter of escaping by a legal loophole, and certainly not evidence of a "gross miscarriage of justice". The wronged party in a human rather than any narrow legal sense would still be Fabien Letouzey.
"the point is that the eval function as a whole is based on Fruit"
Well, again, this appears to be your underlying assumption, when it, or it's negation, actually ought to be the conclusion. There's not a lot of point in discussing with someone whether or not A is true, who keeps insisting, during the discussion as to the truth of A, that A is true as a premise.
We are looking at the sub-components of A, we've argued out, I think five or six of them now, principally with Hyatt, and shown his cases to be thoroughly unsound, and not at "just a bit less than 100% level" but at 0% level. Hyatt has run away, whether because Ed and I have demolished his arguments, or because he has been told to stop because of certain other little problems elsewhere, but, whatever, the attacker case is in complete disarray.
It's ideas, ideas and ideas. Not code. Ideas are free.
Well, again, this appears to be your underlying assumption, when it, or it's negation, actually ought to be the conclusion. There's not a lot of point in discussing with someone whether or not A is true, who keeps insisting, during the discussion as to the truth of A, that A is true as a premise.
We are looking at the sub-components of A, we've argued out, I think five or six of them now, principally with Hyatt, and shown his cases to be thoroughly unsound, and not at "just a bit less than 100% level" but at 0% level. Hyatt has run away, whether because Ed and I have demolished his arguments, or because he has been told to stop because of certain other little problems elsewhere, but, whatever, the attacker case is in complete disarray.
It's ideas, ideas and ideas. Not code. Ideas are free.
If someone uses all of someone else's ideas in the key part of a chess program that strikes me as obviously derivative and obviously unacceptable. I can't fathom why anyone would choose to spend so much time arguing "innocence" on a technicality. In any case, that technicality doesn't seem sufficient for the ICGA rules and might well not suffice for copyright claims either (as it's far more than general ideas that were implemented independently and originally by the programmer).
Overall I just think the ICGA has made a coherent and convincing case, so yes, it'd be up to you to convince me that wasn't true with your arguments. Trying to chip away at details and claiming that any slight dent you can put in the edifice brings the whole thing crashing to its knees isn't working so far. But ok, that's just my view and I'm the last person you need to convince.
Overall I just think the ICGA has made a coherent and convincing case, so yes, it'd be up to you to convince me that wasn't true with your arguments. Trying to chip away at details and claiming that any slight dent you can put in the edifice brings the whole thing crashing to its knees isn't working so far. But ok, that's just my view and I'm the last person you need to convince.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
I don't know who you are or what your interest in this matter is. But the ICGA evidence certainly didn't prove that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit. Andrew Dalke's forensic analysis (posted by Ed): http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=397868#pid397868 points this out very clearly. If people redefine what "derivate work" means outside of the law then it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion.
Words have a meaning in English before their meaning in some specific legal area. The argument being put forward to defend Rybka would also make it fine to have a program which operated absolutely identically to Fruit. Perhaps that's true in copyright terms (I'm not a lawyer), but I'd still hope the ICGA wouldn't allow such a program to take part in its events.
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / rybka just add 600-700 elo points in less than 1 year...
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill