Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / rybka just add 600-700 elo points in less than 1 year...
Date 2012-02-08 08:19
not right...first developed rybka,and it was a very very weak program...and oh!magic!fruit was made open source code and...magic!rybka just add 600-700 elo points in less than 1 year...so tell me,if vas is that good programmer,why he NEVER made rybka that good engine BEFORE FRUIT WAS RELEASED AS OPEN SOURCE CODE,INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING A VERY WEAK RYBKA AND WAITING TO THE RELASE OF FRUITS SOURCE CODE TO ADD RYBKA 600 ELO POINTS???
What's harder?
Add 400 elo to a 2700 elo chess program in a couple of years,
or
add 600-700 elo to a 2000-2200 elo chess program in a couple of years?
Add 400 elo to a 2700 elo chess program in a couple of years,
or
add 600-700 elo to a 2000-2200 elo chess program in a couple of years?
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
approximately the same thing, assuming no code copying is involved...
I'm surprised at your answer here Bob. Without copying any code, it is pretty easy for any competent programmer to write a program that is within 200 points of the best open-source program at the time, simply by using the important ideas. I'm sure you could raise Crafty to that level in a few weeks if you wanted to use all the ideas (not code) from Stockfish and Ippolit. Going above the level of the best open-source programs requires either original ideas or decompiling of the best closed-source program (if it is clearly stronger than the best open-source one). The big jump in rating for Rybka 1 can easily be attributed to using ideas from Fruit (which Vas has acknowledged doing). I leave it to the experts to argue about whether Rybka 1 achieved its large gains by copying ideas or by copying code; I'm just pointing out that the large elo gain is not evidence of code copying.
Well - if Bob can't do it, no-one can, you know how it is.
too much harder add 400 elo to a 2700 chess program,but that not was my question....
my question is so simply:before fruit was released as open soource code,rybka was a very very weak program (if i remember well,it finished 51 or 52 in a tournament of55)...
please,can you answer me 3 questions?
1)if vas is that good programmer,why released that very very weak program?
2)why just after fruit was released open source code,is when vas added 600 elo points in less than a year,and he dint it BEFORE FRUIT WAS RELEASED OPEN SOURCE CODE?
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?
please,if you are going to answer me,i want an honest answer,in other case,dont answer to my questions.thanks
my question is so simply:before fruit was released as open soource code,rybka was a very very weak program (if i remember well,it finished 51 or 52 in a tournament of55)...
please,can you answer me 3 questions?
1)if vas is that good programmer,why released that very very weak program?
2)why just after fruit was released open source code,is when vas added 600 elo points in less than a year,and he dint it BEFORE FRUIT WAS RELEASED OPEN SOURCE CODE?
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?
please,if you are going to answer me,i want an honest answer,in other case,dont answer to my questions.thanks
Here is my take on your excellent questions (which is probably pretty far out of sync with the response you will get from anyone else).
First, a general observation:
It's important to have a good mental image of who has the best overall chess engine knowledge. This is a very different question than "Did programmer X write his own code?" or "Who is the best software developer?" amongst the engine developer crowd. I would put Vas on top in terms of chess engine knowledge. People like Robert H. and Richard Vida would be high on the list as well, along with Tord and Larry. Bob has a self image of himself on top of the list, way above everyone else, but the results of Crafty show that this isn't the case.
Now let's get to your questions:
1) I would argue that R1B was Vas' first release. I guess you are asking why he submitted weak, cloned engines to play in tournaments. This is hard to understand. Vas has stated it was a stupid thing to do. I agree!
2) I think Fruit's simplicity helped Vas to put together a lot of good ideas that he had (such as extreme futility pruning and the material imbalance table) that were harder to place in a more complex construct. There is no doubt that he learned a lot from Fruit and used many of its ideas. I wouldn't even argue against the term plagiarism, although I am quite sure there is no case to be made for copyright infringement.
3) This is probably the best question, but if you knew Vas, you would know that he has very well defined ideas about each of the many ideas that go into a chess engine. Having this level of confidence in each of the details is a tremendous time saver when it comes to getting it coded. Of course Bob also has this level of confidence in every aspect of engine design, but with Bob, a lot more of the things he is sure of are wrong, and that is why his engine is 400 Elo behind the leaders.
First, a general observation:
It's important to have a good mental image of who has the best overall chess engine knowledge. This is a very different question than "Did programmer X write his own code?" or "Who is the best software developer?" amongst the engine developer crowd. I would put Vas on top in terms of chess engine knowledge. People like Robert H. and Richard Vida would be high on the list as well, along with Tord and Larry. Bob has a self image of himself on top of the list, way above everyone else, but the results of Crafty show that this isn't the case.
Now let's get to your questions:
1) I would argue that R1B was Vas' first release. I guess you are asking why he submitted weak, cloned engines to play in tournaments. This is hard to understand. Vas has stated it was a stupid thing to do. I agree!
2) I think Fruit's simplicity helped Vas to put together a lot of good ideas that he had (such as extreme futility pruning and the material imbalance table) that were harder to place in a more complex construct. There is no doubt that he learned a lot from Fruit and used many of its ideas. I wouldn't even argue against the term plagiarism, although I am quite sure there is no case to be made for copyright infringement.
3) This is probably the best question, but if you knew Vas, you would know that he has very well defined ideas about each of the many ideas that go into a chess engine. Having this level of confidence in each of the details is a tremendous time saver when it comes to getting it coded. Of course Bob also has this level of confidence in every aspect of engine design, but with Bob, a lot more of the things he is sure of are wrong, and that is why his engine is 400 Elo behind the leaders.
well,i mustagree with you because if vas is an IM must has a lot of chess knowledge...but that is what makes dont understand why larry kaufman worked improving rybka chess knowledge;vas knwledge wasnt enough?
1)i think the answer to why he submited weak cloned engines,is to easy to understand:he made a few changes/improvements in that engines,and want test that cloned engine to add that code if it has a good results to future version of rybka...or the other question is that vas has a lot of chess knowledge,but has problems implementing it into the engine,and that is why need to see the code hoe others implement it
2)well,if vas ONLY took ideas from fruit AND IMPLEMENTED THAT IDEAS WITH HIS OWN WRITTEN CODE NOT COPIED FROM OTHER ENGINE,you are right about th cpyright infringiment
3)i dont agree with you;none programmer can improve his engine 600 elo points in a few months,without copying other works...tell me any program,rated(to make you easy) 2200 elo points,and give the programmer 9 months to put his program in the top of the programs adding 6000 elo points to reach 2800 elo points,WITHOUT HAVING NONE ACCES THAT PROGRAMMER TO ANY OTHER ENGINE SOURCE CODE TO STUDY IT,TAKE IDEAS,STEAL CODE,COPY/PASTE CODE,OR HAVING RELEASED OTHER ENGINE BEFORE AND TAKING IDEAS/CODE OR CALL IT WITH YOUR OWN WORDS.......want you bet that you wont find any programmer able to do it?
1)i think the answer to why he submited weak cloned engines,is to easy to understand:he made a few changes/improvements in that engines,and want test that cloned engine to add that code if it has a good results to future version of rybka...or the other question is that vas has a lot of chess knowledge,but has problems implementing it into the engine,and that is why need to see the code hoe others implement it
2)well,if vas ONLY took ideas from fruit AND IMPLEMENTED THAT IDEAS WITH HIS OWN WRITTEN CODE NOT COPIED FROM OTHER ENGINE,you are right about th cpyright infringiment
3)i dont agree with you;none programmer can improve his engine 600 elo points in a few months,without copying other works...tell me any program,rated(to make you easy) 2200 elo points,and give the programmer 9 months to put his program in the top of the programs adding 6000 elo points to reach 2800 elo points,WITHOUT HAVING NONE ACCES THAT PROGRAMMER TO ANY OTHER ENGINE SOURCE CODE TO STUDY IT,TAKE IDEAS,STEAL CODE,COPY/PASTE CODE,OR HAVING RELEASED OTHER ENGINE BEFORE AND TAKING IDEAS/CODE OR CALL IT WITH YOUR OWN WORDS.......want you bet that you wont find any programmer able to do it?
well,i mustagree with you because if vas is an IM must has a lot of chess knowledge...but that is what makes dont understand why larry kaufman worked improving rybka chess knowledge;vas knwledge wasnt enough?
Larry is a strong player with a very mathematical approach to evaluating chess positions and this makes him a natural to work on evaluation functions. There's no doubt that Larry contributed a lot to Rybka 3, which was a truly phenomenal release.
1)i think the answer to why he submited weak cloned engines,is to easy to understand:he made a few changes/improvements in that engines,and want test that cloned engine to add that code if it has a good results to future version of rybka...or the other question is that vas has a lot of chess knowledge,but has problems implementing it into the engine,and that is why need to see the code hoe others implement it
Whatever changes he made to Crafty can't really be called "improvements". He finished next to last in CCT6.
2)well,if vas ONLY took ideas from fruit AND IMPLEMENTED THAT IDEAS WITH HIS OWN WRITTEN CODE NOT COPIED FROM OTHER ENGINE,you are right about th cpyright infringiment
Various versions of Rybka have been subject to more reverse engineering than any other closed source engine. No copied code has emerged, so I think it's pretty safe to say that Vas hasn't infringed anybody's copyright.
3)i dont agree with you;none programmer can improve his engine 600 elo points in a few months,without copying other works...tell me any program,rated(to make you easy) 2200 elo points,and give the programmer 9 months to put his program in the top of the programs adding 6000 elo points to reach 2800 elo points,WITHOUT HAVING NONE ACCES THAT PROGRAMMER TO ANY OTHER ENGINE SOURCE CODE TO STUDY IT,TAKE IDEAS,STEAL CODE,COPY/PASTE CODE,OR HAVING RELEASED OTHER ENGINE BEFORE AND TAKING IDEAS/CODE OR CALL IT WITH YOUR OWN WORDS.......want you bet that you wont find any programmer able to do it?
I agree that it is very unlikely that Vas could have come out with as strong an engine as R1B in December 05 if he hadn't been able to study Fruit's source code. I suspect that he went through Fruit carefully and took copious notes. He clearly took a lot of ideas. That is what people do with open source though. I don't think this implies copied code though because there was enough time for someone who had already spent several years writing different chess engine components to integrate a lot of Fruit ideas in nine months.
I'm think the timeline argument has problems for another reason. Remember that Vas worked on his engine full time (actually way more than full time). Also remember that we saw Vas in action after he released R1B during the R1 improvement phase. There were significant improvements coming out on almost a daily basis during this time period, all chronicled as results on the Chessbase server. In fact, this pace was maintained through the end of the Rybka 2 series.
Are there other programers that could do this? Maybe there are. Richard Vida is a part time developer, and Critter is a great engine that admittedly uses ideas from wherever Richard finds them. No doubt he could have improved his engine a lot faster if he had worked on it full time. Don and Larry have made rapid progress with Komodo. So it's not clear to me that this is impossible. I think this common refrain is actually from some of the old timers, that can't keep the pace.
Larry is a strong player with a very mathematical approach to evaluating chess positions and this makes him a natural to work on evaluation functions. There's no doubt that Larry contributed a lot to Rybka 3, which was a truly phenomenal release.
1)i think the answer to why he submited weak cloned engines,is to easy to understand:he made a few changes/improvements in that engines,and want test that cloned engine to add that code if it has a good results to future version of rybka...or the other question is that vas has a lot of chess knowledge,but has problems implementing it into the engine,and that is why need to see the code hoe others implement it
Whatever changes he made to Crafty can't really be called "improvements". He finished next to last in CCT6.
2)well,if vas ONLY took ideas from fruit AND IMPLEMENTED THAT IDEAS WITH HIS OWN WRITTEN CODE NOT COPIED FROM OTHER ENGINE,you are right about th cpyright infringiment
Various versions of Rybka have been subject to more reverse engineering than any other closed source engine. No copied code has emerged, so I think it's pretty safe to say that Vas hasn't infringed anybody's copyright.
3)i dont agree with you;none programmer can improve his engine 600 elo points in a few months,without copying other works...tell me any program,rated(to make you easy) 2200 elo points,and give the programmer 9 months to put his program in the top of the programs adding 6000 elo points to reach 2800 elo points,WITHOUT HAVING NONE ACCES THAT PROGRAMMER TO ANY OTHER ENGINE SOURCE CODE TO STUDY IT,TAKE IDEAS,STEAL CODE,COPY/PASTE CODE,OR HAVING RELEASED OTHER ENGINE BEFORE AND TAKING IDEAS/CODE OR CALL IT WITH YOUR OWN WORDS.......want you bet that you wont find any programmer able to do it?
I agree that it is very unlikely that Vas could have come out with as strong an engine as R1B in December 05 if he hadn't been able to study Fruit's source code. I suspect that he went through Fruit carefully and took copious notes. He clearly took a lot of ideas. That is what people do with open source though. I don't think this implies copied code though because there was enough time for someone who had already spent several years writing different chess engine components to integrate a lot of Fruit ideas in nine months.
I'm think the timeline argument has problems for another reason. Remember that Vas worked on his engine full time (actually way more than full time). Also remember that we saw Vas in action after he released R1B during the R1 improvement phase. There were significant improvements coming out on almost a daily basis during this time period, all chronicled as results on the Chessbase server. In fact, this pace was maintained through the end of the Rybka 2 series.
Are there other programers that could do this? Maybe there are. Richard Vida is a part time developer, and Critter is a great engine that admittedly uses ideas from wherever Richard finds them. No doubt he could have improved his engine a lot faster if he had worked on it full time. Don and Larry have made rapid progress with Komodo. So it's not clear to me that this is impossible. I think this common refrain is actually from some of the old timers, that can't keep the pace.
vas took a look at fruit code that was open source code...but imagine that other good programmers can take a look at the code (even it is not open source code like fuit) dissasembling Houdini,critter,rybka,etc...and me,for exmaple,that i has en engine (is false) rated 1500 elo points,look at that code,take that code,change enough of it to obfuscate and difficult the recognition,and tell the world:
ey!i developed my new engine called 'Imperator',is the first release,and its code is 100% original,and is rated 29750 points...Alan,be honest,that that i did is from an honest programmer?
ey!i developed my new engine called 'Imperator',is the first release,and its code is 100% original,and is rated 29750 points...Alan,be honest,that that i did is from an honest programmer?
After a number of very extensive reverse engineering efforts, nobody has been able to show that Vas has used any Fruit code in any released Rybka. If he had, I don't think anybody would be defending him. On the other hand, he certainly studied Fruit, learned many things, and put them to good use in R1B. So I'm OK with people saying that he plagiarized Fruit and I certainly don't claim that Rybka was developed independently from Fruit, but there is no evidence of copyright infringement.
You shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of hiding all evidence of copying. It would be a very difficult thing to do. Especially with so many people trying to find the smoking gun...
You shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of hiding all evidence of copying. It would be a very difficult thing to do. Especially with so many people trying to find the smoking gun...
it all was too much easier,if vas allowed to them the source code...for example,rybka 1 source code...is an obsolete rybka,but...he lost!!! the source code hahahahaha
another lie,and the perfect lie to dont give it
another example...chiron was a very weak program;i dont remember in what year (lets supose 2010),it become one of the top engines...suspicious...that tooo much elo gained in that few time???the explanation of developer:well,i havent the source code,i lost the source code (just before it gained that very big amount elo ) it and i must rewrite the engine from zero!!!!!(that is extracted from his web page)
Alan,dont you think is suspicious that developers that can be investigate for the enormeous amount of the elo gained by their engines in a very very short time,all of them ''lost'' the source code of the engine??
please,answer me to the question,and please,be honest with your answer
another lie,and the perfect lie to dont give it
another example...chiron was a very weak program;i dont remember in what year (lets supose 2010),it become one of the top engines...suspicious...that tooo much elo gained in that few time???the explanation of developer:well,i havent the source code,i lost
the source code (just before it gained that very big amount elo ) it and i must rewrite the engine from zero!!!!!(that is extracted from his web page)Alan,dont you think is suspicious that developers that can be investigate for the enormeous amount of the elo gained by their engines in a very very short time,all of them ''lost'' the source code of the engine??
please,answer me to the question,and please,be honest with your answer
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
Vas is a free spirited Cossack. He travels light and fast. It would be entirely in keeping for such a soul to discard the idea of version control. Build, make, sell, move on. Catch me if you can.
if all people make the things like him,the world will be an anarchy
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
And maybe the world would be a better place as an anarchy.
Vas is a funny guy. Brilliant and unconventional.
Lost is probably not the right term. I'm pretty sure he's still using the same pieces. He just never established a delivery baseline...
Lost is probably not the right term. I'm pretty sure he's still using the same pieces. He just never established a delivery baseline...
'lost' is the perfect word to tell ''im not gonna give you''
is the same when a police go to see a people who has a gun,and with that gun was killed one person...the police ask for the gun,and the guy answer:i havent,someone stolen it
yeah,just that is an investigation,someone stolen your gun
the same here,is an investigation,and voila!vas lost the source code of all previous rybka's
and chiron's programmer,just after its very big elo gained (about 400 elo points) lost the source code
yeah,and we are stupids and agree with that
is the same when a police go to see a people who has a gun,and with that gun was killed one person...the police ask for the gun,and the guy answer:i havent,someone stolen it
yeah,just that is an investigation,someone stolen your gun
the same here,is an investigation,and voila!vas lost the source code of all previous rybka's
and chiron's programmer,just after its very big elo gained (about 400 elo points) lost the source code
yeah,and we are stupids and agree with that
Vas made it well-known on this forum that he no longer had the original Rybka 3 source code long before any of the ICGA cronies made known any interest in Rybka code. At first, people thought he was joking, but he made it clear that he was quite serious.
how can someone lost his source code?he must have in a hard drive,have back up un a dvd,also in a pen drive,sond himself to his own email in an encrypted email...dont make laugh,that is a perfect excuse because he saw that with time that will happen and will be investigated
Actually, it's fairly easy to do: you keep coding, overwriting the original.
Considering that the "pieces" of the investigation that were supposed to form a "general picture" are all, in fact, broken, I highly doubt that Vas suspected that there would be any such investigation. In chess, you don't assume that your opponent will make stupid mistakes. Vas also made it very clear that he does have the original Rybka 4 source, and that he is not willing to release this to the ICGA. If he was lying, as you claim, then he simply could have said the same thing about sources for all of the other released Rybka versions.
Considering that the "pieces" of the investigation that were supposed to form a "general picture" are all, in fact, broken, I highly doubt that Vas suspected that there would be any such investigation. In chess, you don't assume that your opponent will make stupid mistakes. Vas also made it very clear that he does have the original Rybka 4 source, and that he is not willing to release this to the ICGA. If he was lying, as you claim, then he simply could have said the same thing about sources for all of the other released Rybka versions.
Yes, in private beta testing he made it very clear at what point he stopped overwriting his sources (what is unknown is what sources is he discarding, probably he only has Rybka 4 sources, Rybka 4.1 sources, and Rybka current sources, but nothing in-between).
not so easy...because the investigation is on older versions of rybka (rybka 1 and 2.3.2 i think),so 'lossing' that codes means that he keeps cleans his hands like the man who lost the gun with other man was killed and said:ey,im not the killer,i lost the gun...so without that proofs,he cant be declared guilty too smart from vas lossing that codes,and too suspicious
and telling that he has rybka 4 source code,that is irrelevant for the investigations,is the same that i investigate you because someone killed one person with a gun,and you tell me:ey,i have a knife
too smart from vas lossing that codes,and too suspiciousand telling that he has rybka 4 source code,that is irrelevant for the investigations,is the same that i investigate you because someone killed one person with a gun,and you tell me:ey,i have a knife
The Rybka 4 code is relevant because it most likely shows, without any doubt at all, that Rybka is clean. It also gives an example of code that Vas has, but is unwilling to show, something that could "exonerate" him in the ICGA's eyes. He doesn't have earlier versions. He could say that he has these, but is unwilling to show them for the same reason that he's unwilling to show Rybka 4. Also, pretty much everyone agrees that Rybka 3 is clean, as most of it involved nearly an entire rewrite...but Vas doesn't have Rybka 3.
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
It wouldn't "exonerate" him if Rybka did originally start out as derivative of Fruit.
David Levy at ChessBase: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899
"The ICGA has not done extensive analysis of newer versions of Rybka. It was sufficient for the ICGA to determine that Rajlich had broken Tournament Rule 2, which we did. When the ICGA chose to ban Rybka for life due to violating the rules in ICGA events in 2006 and 2007, this required all of Rajlich's programs be removed, since the newer programs would never have been allowed to compete if the violation of earlier versions was discovered sooner and the lifetime ban issued earlier. So while it is possible that newer versions of Rybka also contained Fruit-derived code, it was not essential to prove this once we had proved the case for the 2006 and 2007 ICGA tournaments."
Of course it wouldn't have needed to be a lifetime ban. Elsewhere in the interview 10 years was mentioned as an option. Incidentally it's a relatively fair interview, but it's funny the introduction and questions are all as pro-Rajlich as they could possibly be. My favourite:
"Is it fair to say that Vasik Rajlich ruined his stellar career and his livelihood in computer chess, and got himself condemned in the world press (including CNN, Wired) as a liar, cheat, thief, plagiarist, etc. because he failed to fill out one line in the ICGA entry form correctly? [Note that filling out that line correctly would have legitimised his participation and prevented the situation that we currently have]"
David Levy at ChessBase: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899
"The ICGA has not done extensive analysis of newer versions of Rybka. It was sufficient for the ICGA to determine that Rajlich had broken Tournament Rule 2, which we did. When the ICGA chose to ban Rybka for life due to violating the rules in ICGA events in 2006 and 2007, this required all of Rajlich's programs be removed, since the newer programs would never have been allowed to compete if the violation of earlier versions was discovered sooner and the lifetime ban issued earlier. So while it is possible that newer versions of Rybka also contained Fruit-derived code, it was not essential to prove this once we had proved the case for the 2006 and 2007 ICGA tournaments."
Of course it wouldn't have needed to be a lifetime ban. Elsewhere in the interview 10 years was mentioned as an option. Incidentally it's a relatively fair interview, but it's funny the introduction and questions are all as pro-Rajlich as they could possibly be. My favourite:
"Is it fair to say that Vasik Rajlich ruined his stellar career and his livelihood in computer chess, and got himself condemned in the world press (including CNN, Wired) as a liar, cheat, thief, plagiarist, etc. because he failed to fill out one line in the ICGA entry form correctly? [Note that filling out that line correctly would have legitimised his participation and prevented the situation that we currently have]"
But given that there is no Rybka source code available, and if Vas made some Rybka source code available, we would potentially have a very different picture of things, as opposed to the phantom code that was displayed in the reports, derived from ideas found in assembly code and rewritten (in one of various possible ways) into Fruit code.
rybka 4 is irrelevant to rybka 1;vas can copy code at rybka 1 version,and delete/change that at the loder version,and make a clean version with no fruit code at rybka 4...so rybka 4 being clean is not relevant to be clean rybka 1 or not
> rybka 4 is irrelevant to rybka 1
Rybka 1 is irrelevant to the case as it didn't participate in any ICGA tournaments.
rybka is relevant even if it isnt participated to show if vas copied code from fruit...as he did with a 'private' version of crafty,the he modified it,and ran it into a tournament,right?
> as he did with a 'private' version of crafty,the he modified it,and ran it into a tournament,right?
That's also irrelevant.
ah...is irrelevant take a program,modify it,and ran it under a tournament like if it is was yours?...
well,vas never admited it under it was discovered,so tell me,why now can be he doing the same with all the accusations???
all is irrelevant until is discovered,but of course,he 'forgot' mention it,but he doesnt 'forgot' how to take anothers programs,modify,and run into a tournament...
tell me,take another program,modify it,and run into a tournament IS use ideas,or directly,copy code,in fact,the whole program?
he started is programmer work with a good idea:'how to steal another work and run in a tournament'
or are you gonna tell me that crafty license allows that what vas did with crafty and modify and ran into that tournament?please,answer me,and dont evade the answer,the crafty license allows vas for what he did?
well,vas never admited it under it was discovered,so tell me,why now can be he doing the same with all the accusations???
all is irrelevant until is discovered,but of course,he 'forgot' mention it,but he doesnt 'forgot' how to take anothers programs,modify,and run into a tournament...
tell me,take another program,modify it,and run into a tournament IS use ideas,or directly,copy code,in fact,the whole program?
he started is programmer work with a good idea:'how to steal another work and run in a tournament'
or are you gonna tell me that crafty license allows that what vas did with crafty and modify and ran into that tournament?please,answer me,and dont evade the answer,the crafty license allows vas for what he did?
> ah...is irrelevant take a program,modify it,and ran it under a tournament like if it is was yours?...
Yes.
If when you were a kid, you stole a candy bar, and when you grow up, you're accused of robbing a bank, evidence of stealing the candy bar is irrelevant.
But if you robbed a bank when you'd already grown up and then were accused of robbing another bank a year later it might seem more relevant
no,it isnt irrelevant,it only shows that you are,appart from stealing a candy bar,a burglar,so you are very 'complete' person that from the beggining 'shows' your intentions for your future
Oh yeah? What about this case:
A kid steals a candy bar.
When grown up, he is accused of robbing a bank, but innocent.
What relation does his act as a kid have? You only said what you said, because of the bias you had against Vas, and because Vas was the kid in the analogy, but if Vas isn't the kid and I'm telling you the man (some hypothetical man) didn't rob the bank, does it change your view?
A kid steals a candy bar.
When grown up, he is accused of robbing a bank, but innocent.
What relation does his act as a kid have? You only said what you said, because of the bias you had against Vas, and because Vas was the kid in the analogy, but if Vas isn't the kid and I'm telling you the man (some hypothetical man) didn't rob the bank, does it change your view?
well,you asked me,and im gonna give you a honest answer to your question:
i will tell you that kid steal a candy bar,and is innocent from robbing the bank
i will tell you that kid steal a candy bar,and is innocent from robbing the bank
Any Rybka for which source code exists is relevant--at least, more so than Rybka 1 (which Uly correctly notes didn't participate in any ICGA events, and is thus irrelevant for the entire process) or Rybka 2 (no source code exists, and the only "derivative" aspect the ICGA addresses is whether it has the same features as Fruit).
if rybka 4 hasnt fruit code,is irrelevant to investigate if rybka 1 was 'dirty' and had copied source code,because vas ca clean all the copied source code from rybka 1 to rybka 4....is you susect that rybbka 1 has copy code,you must investigate rybka 1,not rybka 4;if rybka 4 HAS copied code from fruit,it will demostrate that vas copied the code,BUT if rybka 4 is clean from copied code,IT WON demostrate that rybka 1 was clean of copied code
Again, they don't have source code form ANY of the Rybkas, so if source code actually exists, somewhere, somehow, it is significant.
ey,dont be upset,i never said the they had source code from rybka,i only said that if rybka 4 is clean,doesnt imply that rybka 1 is clean,i never said more than that...
Lukas said,time ago,that he has source code from rybka(if im wron about what im saying,Lukas can say it is false),but since vas said he 'lost' ALL source codes before rybka 4,it means that Lukas 'must' also lost it,or in other words,tell that he lost it,because if he tells that he still has it,vas cant still telling that he lost it and cant give it,because he can get it from Lukas
Lukas said,time ago,that he has source code from rybka(if im wron about what im saying,Lukas can say it is false),but since vas said he 'lost' ALL source codes before rybka 4,it means that Lukas 'must' also lost it,or in other words,tell that he lost it,because if he tells that he still has it,vas cant still telling that he lost it and cant give it,because he can get it from Lukas
> ,i only said that if rybka 4 is clean,doesnt imply that rybka 1 is clean
No, Rybka 1 could be dirty and then Vas could have rewritten the code so that a future incarnation was original.
if rybka 1 was dirty,he need rewrite all and make a clean rewrite of all the code to make a future version called 'original'
And if he did that, the clean version of the program doesn't break ICGA's rule 2.
right,the clean version of the program doesnt break the rule 2,but as he broke it with the dirty version of the program,he is still banned,as simply as that,for cheater....
to avoid that problems,is so easy than not 'have' a dirty version...of course,for fim and for other the programmers
to avoid that problems,is so easy than not 'have' a dirty version...of course,for fim and for other the programmers
> but as he broke it with the dirty version of the program,he is still banned
But that didn't happen, as the dirty version never participated in an ICGA tournament, it couldn't have broken any of their rules.
i cant speak about something that i dont know,so i cant refutate you and tell you if rybka 1 played at ICGA or not,or what was the first clean rybka code,if some rybka is clean,of course....
i just tell that what i know sure,that vas did,taking crafty,changing,running into a tournament like if it was yours,it wasnt a nice thing,and i think,if you consider yourself a honest person,must agree with that,right?
form the other hand,i personally can give my opinion(much different than speak about something you know for sure),and my opinion is vas took fruit/crafty code,to improve that enormous elo in less than a year...
just to tell that other programmers,did nearly the same,the only difference is none made that very amount of elo gained in that few time;all the engines were high improveds since fruit release source code,but rybka,rybka was a scandal...the only problem that i see?conflict of interest;the other programmers,seeing that if they make the same than vas,they would be treatened as cheaters,will solved the problems for the 'easy' form:unmasking him,and banning him...and of course,none of them would assume that all improve their respectives engines a lot with fruit/crafty
i just tell that what i know sure,that vas did,taking crafty,changing,running into a tournament like if it was yours,it wasnt a nice thing,and i think,if you consider yourself a honest person,must agree with that,right?
form the other hand,i personally can give my opinion(much different than speak about something you know for sure),and my opinion is vas took fruit/crafty code,to improve that enormous elo in less than a year...
just to tell that other programmers,did nearly the same,the only difference is none made that very amount of elo gained in that few time;all the engines were high improveds since fruit release source code,but rybka,rybka was a scandal...the only problem that i see?conflict of interest;the other programmers,seeing that if they make the same than vas,they would be treatened as cheaters,will solved the problems for the 'easy' form:unmasking him,and banning him...and of course,none of them would assume that all improve their respectives engines a lot with fruit/crafty
I'm sure that Lukas has source code from many intermediate versions of Rybka. The big problem from the Rajlich camp wasn't that they don't have any source code at all, it's that not much significance was attached to the exact version of Rybka that was released, if I remember correctly, and that code kept being overwritten with a new version of Rybka practically everyday in the time near release time.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
I don't have any Rybka source code. The only source code I actually have is the one I wrote myself - lots of tools for the cluster.
Oh, okay--answers that question, then.
im sure than when he 'knew' that vas 'lost' the source codes,he lost the codes that he had...simply maths
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