> Not my view. David when the Fabien mail signed by 16 prominent chess programmers dropped in his mail-box had no choice then to act. A refusal to act would immediately lead to a boycott of the programmers as we have seen in the CSVN case. End of the WCCC. Now hear me, defending Levy
Here we are talking before the fact. But that is okay. Either way I don't think they would boycott long or hard. As a matter of fact a boycott might even start a breakdown in the ranks and begin the cause for critical thinking to take place.
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
He forgot he didn't control the forum and couldn't use his usual attack dogs and get those who argued with him banned or their posts deleted or their threads locked. In other words those who disagreed with him were free to speak. End of an era.
With that said, there is a basic, complicated, misunderstanding with the analogy you are using! 
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
Ed, I'd really be quite curious to know who I'm supposed to be Sadly, though, I'm not living an exciting double life. Everything I've stated about myself here (and the location provided by the forum) is true and anyone especially interested could easily work out my identity. I'm a somewhat known figure in chess journalism, I suppose, but I've got absolutely no link to chess computer programming in general or the ICGA in particular - and I've never met David Levy or studied his prose style...
As I said, I only came here because I was considering writing about the issue, but then I fell into the trap of posting. In general, a civil debate might be possible if you could acknowledge: 1) The ICGA case wasn't motivated by jealousy, hatred or greed. You of all people should realise that, unless when you signed the open letter that set the wheels in motion that was your motivation. Was it? And did you feel at the time it was the motivation of your colleagues? 2) Many people believe the ICGA verdict was correct, and again, not because of some deep emotional problems but simply because that's what the facts and arguments suggest to them.
On the "his own code" debate - you'll note I already replied to your response - Vas wrote shortly afterwards that if Strelka was "typed by hand" it's "original at the source code level". Does Vas consider Strelka original in general? And of course, in the context it was written his comment would be utterly meaningless if he meant what you want him to mean. Your own original code would be your own whatever you did with it. And if we're going to get absurdly literal - there's no "own" before "the code which generated his own code"...
Anyway, barring outrageous defamation I won't be posting here in the near future. The fact you, Jeroen and Trotsky (who comically claimed I was "sent here to replace the failed Hyatt") are willing to accuse someone of adopting a false identity with no evidence (and despite my lack of computer programming knowledge I do know you're wrong here) says something about the level to which you've sunk while discussing the Rybka/Fruit case.
p.s. here's a "Bob echo" - you really should stop using the phrase "unburden evidence" (Google it and you'll see the 50 or so hits are almost all by you). It means nothing, and I'm really not sure what phrase you want to use.
Sadly, though, I'm not living an exciting double life. Everything I've stated about myself here (and the location provided by the forum) is true and anyone especially interested could easily work out my identity. I'm a somewhat known figure in chess journalism, I suppose, but I've got absolutely no link to chess computer programming in general or the ICGA in particular - and I've never met David Levy or studied his prose style...As I said, I only came here because I was considering writing about the issue, but then I fell into the trap of posting. In general, a civil debate might be possible if you could acknowledge: 1) The ICGA case wasn't motivated by jealousy, hatred or greed. You of all people should realise that, unless when you signed the open letter that set the wheels in motion that was your motivation. Was it? And did you feel at the time it was the motivation of your colleagues? 2) Many people believe the ICGA verdict was correct, and again, not because of some deep emotional problems but simply because that's what the facts and arguments suggest to them.
On the "his own code" debate - you'll note I already replied to your response - Vas wrote shortly afterwards that if Strelka was "typed by hand" it's "original at the source code level". Does Vas consider Strelka original in general? And of course, in the context it was written his comment would be utterly meaningless if he meant what you want him to mean. Your own original code would be your own whatever you did with it. And if we're going to get absurdly literal - there's no "own" before "the code which generated his own code"...
Anyway, barring outrageous defamation I won't be posting here in the near future. The fact you, Jeroen and Trotsky (who comically claimed I was "sent here to replace the failed Hyatt") are willing to accuse someone of adopting a false identity with no evidence (and despite my lack of computer programming knowledge I do know you're wrong here
) says something about the level to which you've sunk while discussing the Rybka/Fruit case. p.s. here's a "Bob echo" - you really should stop using the phrase "unburden evidence" (Google it and you'll see the 50 or so hits are almost all by you). It means nothing, and I'm really not sure what phrase you want to use.
Is English a second language? Or are you English speaking living abroad?
Not living in Poland? eh!
I think I know this guy. Just as a hint for Ed, he's German. He doesnt speak native English.
AP or who was it is right, he's performing on behalf of Bob. ;)
AP or who was it is right, he's performing on behalf of Bob. ;)
"The fact you, Jeroen and Trotsky ... are willing to accuse someone of adopting a false identity with no evidence."
Either your reading skills are somewhat poor, or you like making things up (also in the style of the ludicrous ICGA reports).
Where exactly did I accuse you of "adopting a false identity"?
Obviously yours is a false identity, in that "vesuvio" is some kind of nickname, nothing specifically wrong with that but it is normal, if you get involved with a degree of knowledge in a contentious subject, that you either post with your real name (like Ed) or with a consistent nickname such that everybody in the field knows who the person is (like my Trotsky). If you don't, and use a nickname and nobody knows who you are (this is quite a small field) then there will be speculation, especially in your case, name registered 2012, who clearly has prior knowledge from 2011 and before and an axe to grind.
You obviously also consider yourself some sort of big deal, since your posts are littered with "I assert that bla bla with no supporting data or evidence" as if you are used to the idea that readers should take your word on the basis of some sort of status. Only your status is unknown. I find it irritating enough having discussions where one person of whatever status is just engaged in tis tisn't games without data or reasoning, but it's worse when the person is "status unknown".
Either your reading skills are somewhat poor, or you like making things up (also in the style of the ludicrous ICGA reports).
Where exactly did I accuse you of "adopting a false identity"?
Obviously yours is a false identity, in that "vesuvio" is some kind of nickname, nothing specifically wrong with that but it is normal, if you get involved with a degree of knowledge in a contentious subject, that you either post with your real name (like Ed) or with a consistent nickname such that everybody in the field knows who the person is (like my Trotsky). If you don't, and use a nickname and nobody knows who you are (this is quite a small field) then there will be speculation, especially in your case, name registered 2012, who clearly has prior knowledge from 2011 and before and an axe to grind.
You obviously also consider yourself some sort of big deal, since your posts are littered with "I assert that bla bla with no supporting data or evidence" as if you are used to the idea that readers should take your word on the basis of some sort of status. Only your status is unknown. I find it irritating enough having discussions where one person of whatever status is just engaged in tis tisn't games without data or reasoning, but it's worse when the person is "status unknown".
Chris, why did you edit out where I pointed out exactly what I was criticising you for i.e. saying I was sent to replace Bob (and presumably therefore something to do with the ICGA or a lackey of that organisation)? Ed and Jeroen both claimed something similar (even that I was Levy!?). Funnily enough, after I'd written the post I considered editing it to make that crystal clear and remove the possibility of the generic/irrelevant "nicknames are false identities" response. In any case, it's normal to be anonymous to a degree on forums (I don't know who most of the posters here are), but it's not therefore reasonable to accuse people of having some devious motivation behind that anonymity (suspicion is ok - even if you said you weren't the suspicious sort - but don't state it as fact without proof). In general, it strikes me that at least up to a point anonymity is an advantage in an atmosphere like this. It means people won't immediately reject your arguments because of their origin or be able to engage in personally-targeted abuse.
On the rest - I certainly don't consider myself a "big deal", I've admitted my ignorance of various things (some crucial) and I haven't appealed to any personal authority. I've just tried to make logical arguments, which may or may not have succeeded (I don't think anyone would even notice me on a forum where both sides were being argued by a roughly equal number of people). It was funny to read you yesterday mentioning I like "to be in the centre of attention" as you're the first person ever to say anything like that and it couldn't really be further from the truth. Which is also why I hope this is my last post. The role of ICGA scapegoat, or whatever the job description is, doesn't appeal - especially as I really don't have a horse in this race. I don't know what you mean about 2011, by the way. I'd read the verdict and some of the discussion at ChessVibes at the time, but hardly given it any thought until recently. I guess it doesn't take long reading this forum and a couple more to have heard all the arguments from both sides a hundred times and be able to repeat them - you can't use that to conclude someone has an axe to grind.
AP, yes, I'm an English-speaker living in Poland.
Ed, if I ever did want to write an article I might well get in touch, though at the moment that's unlikely (I'm currently more of a translator). I'm willing to accept that occasional outbursts aside you respect your fellow programmers, though I'm not sure the same can be said about the majority of regular posters here. It's become too ingrained to dismiss the ICGA verdict (or those who post in favour of it) by arguing it was motivated by jealousy, hatred or greed.
On the rest - I certainly don't consider myself a "big deal", I've admitted my ignorance of various things (some crucial) and I haven't appealed to any personal authority. I've just tried to make logical arguments, which may or may not have succeeded (I don't think anyone would even notice me on a forum where both sides were being argued by a roughly equal number of people). It was funny to read you yesterday mentioning I like "to be in the centre of attention" as you're the first person ever to say anything like that and it couldn't really be further from the truth. Which is also why I hope this is my last post. The role of ICGA scapegoat, or whatever the job description is, doesn't appeal - especially as I really don't have a horse in this race. I don't know what you mean about 2011, by the way. I'd read the verdict and some of the discussion at ChessVibes at the time, but hardly given it any thought until recently. I guess it doesn't take long reading this forum and a couple more to have heard all the arguments from both sides a hundred times and be able to repeat them - you can't use that to conclude someone has an axe to grind.
AP, yes, I'm an English-speaker living in Poland.
Ed, if I ever did want to write an article I might well get in touch, though at the moment that's unlikely (I'm currently more of a translator). I'm willing to accept that occasional outbursts aside you respect your fellow programmers, though I'm not sure the same can be said about the majority of regular posters here. It's become too ingrained to dismiss the ICGA verdict (or those who post in favour of it) by arguing it was motivated by jealousy, hatred or greed.
Vesuvio, or should I say Colin?, before you leave explain this to me. You say you are a journalist. And then we have this conversation:
Vesuvio - For the sake of argument, what do you consider libellous in the ICGA's press release?
Ed - I spot 3 lies to begin with.
Why did you leave this unanswered? As an objective journalist it's the first thing I would like to know.
Vesuvio - For the sake of argument, what do you consider libellous in the ICGA's press release?
Ed - I spot 3 lies to begin with.
Why did you leave this unanswered? As an objective journalist it's the first thing I would like to know.
Colin is fine Why didn't I respond there? Actually, I was very close to making the one-word quip "informative", but managed to restrain myself. I think it was up to you (or the person I addressed the question to - I no longer remember who) to be more forthcoming. As with most things here I'm sure the issue has been discussed before and if I was going to write an article I could track it down. In any case, by that time I was no longer a journalist, objective or otherwise, just someone taking an interest in the topic. For what it's worth the only thing I've written on this was a quick note on Riis' article (Part I) on the day it was published: http://whychess.org/node/3664 I think that was fairly objective (cue personal abuse!), although a couple of phrases might reveal an unfamiliarity with the whole debate.
Why didn't I respond there? Actually, I was very close to making the one-word quip "informative", but managed to restrain myself. I think it was up to you (or the person I addressed the question to - I no longer remember who) to be more forthcoming. As with most things here I'm sure the issue has been discussed before and if I was going to write an article I could track it down. In any case, by that time I was no longer a journalist, objective or otherwise, just someone taking an interest in the topic. For what it's worth the only thing I've written on this was a quick note on Riis' article (Part I) on the day it was published: http://whychess.org/node/3664 I think that was fairly objective (cue personal abuse!), although a couple of phrases might reveal an unfamiliarity with the whole debate.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Why live in Poland dude? You are a translator? Sounds interesting.
Hopefully you'll continue to post.
Hopefully you'll continue to post.
Very well, thank you. One more question please. You came here spreading a strong VIG position. As a journalist with no knowledge about the heart of the matter (programming) were you deliberate provoking to extract some good answers? I can imagine a journalist would do that. In a scientific debate, say global warming, you won't hear me spreading a strong view on either side because I simply lack the sufficient knowledge. In the end it will be upon the scientists.
It's the same here, this case is decided on programmer level, the experts. And there is no consensus among them. Just recently one of the guilty voters (an experienced chess programmer) had a change of heart after 8 months. It is that complex.
Now every layman can have an opinion after weighting the evidence using his own understanding in the Rybka matter, like we form an opinion on global warming, but any layman having a black and white position in the global warming issue I would consider as biased.
So when you can't name one positive point in the Riis article I call you biased and you have missed several strong points such as the dendrogram picture. It's made by software I have researched and it can detect clones or derived programs in an easy, fast and convincing way and it pleads Rybka 1.0 free being a derived work. Ironically the software is written by a chess programmer who spoke the guilty word.
Furthermore Soren Riis has made a technical issue [ based on my logically "confusing" web-page for layman ] understandable for layman. He also had to deal with obstacle-2, the average knowledge of the ChessBase reader about computer chess which perhaps was an even greater challenge than avoiding to become too technical. What you have called "murky" with ease can be explained by your lack of understanding computer chess. And parroting Levy "mailbox vs bit-board" isn't really going to help you if you haven't the slightest idea about the dynamics involved here. Realize that Levy himself also has no clue himself here, the "mailbox vs bit-board" was whispered in his ear after all.
The Riis article considering the audience it was meant for is a Rembrandt with a few spots. For a non-chess-programmer Riis has made an extreme complex issue readable and reasonable understandable for the average chess player.
And now for the $64,000 dollar question, are you really that extreme VIG or have I been talking with a balanced person after all ?
It's the same here, this case is decided on programmer level, the experts. And there is no consensus among them. Just recently one of the guilty voters (an experienced chess programmer) had a change of heart after 8 months. It is that complex.
Now every layman can have an opinion after weighting the evidence using his own understanding in the Rybka matter, like we form an opinion on global warming, but any layman having a black and white position in the global warming issue I would consider as biased.
So when you can't name one positive point in the Riis article I call you biased and you have missed several strong points such as the dendrogram picture. It's made by software I have researched and it can detect clones or derived programs in an easy, fast and convincing way and it pleads Rybka 1.0 free being a derived work. Ironically the software is written by a chess programmer who spoke the guilty word.
Furthermore Soren Riis has made a technical issue [ based on my logically "confusing" web-page for layman ] understandable for layman. He also had to deal with obstacle-2, the average knowledge of the ChessBase reader about computer chess which perhaps was an even greater challenge than avoiding to become too technical. What you have called "murky" with ease can be explained by your lack of understanding computer chess. And parroting Levy "mailbox vs bit-board" isn't really going to help you if you haven't the slightest idea about the dynamics involved here. Realize that Levy himself also has no clue himself here, the "mailbox vs bit-board" was whispered in his ear after all.
The Riis article considering the audience it was meant for is a Rembrandt with a few spots. For a non-chess-programmer Riis has made an extreme complex issue readable and reasonable understandable for the average chess player.
And now for the $64,000 dollar question, are you really that extreme VIG or have I been talking with a balanced person after all ?
Hello Ed,
if you are able to mention the name, who is the chess programmer who changed from VIG to VII?
if you are able to mention the name, who is the chess programmer who changed from VIG to VII?
Soon, when Chessbase will release the user comments on the Friedel - Levy interview. Let them and the author have the scoop.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
I bet it is SMK
Thanks. Look forward to reading it.
"The ICGA’s view is that it is entirely acceptable to use ideas, algorithms and high level concepts from other programs. If it can be shown in a court of law that a program violates another's copyright or license agreement we will take appropriate action against the violator. In the absence of a court decision we would consider taking action if compelling evidence was submitted to the ICGA that a program contained copied (literal or translated) code. We have to maintain neutrality so in general we prefer to single out programs for investigation by random checks rather than selecting the ones suggested by competitors.
In the actual case of Rybka the alleged offense took place more than five years ago and in our judgment there are other programs from more recent ICGA tournaments we more urgently would need to examine. In the absence of a court decision or direct evidence of blatant code copying (or code translation) we will not initiate a time consuming and extensive investigation of Rybka."
+1!
In the actual case of Rybka the alleged offense took place more than five years ago and in our judgment there are other programs from more recent ICGA tournaments we more urgently would need to examine. In the absence of a court decision or direct evidence of blatant code copying (or code translation) we will not initiate a time consuming and extensive investigation of Rybka."
+1!
You came here spreading a strong VIG position. As a journalist with no knowledge about the heart of the matter (programming) were you deliberate provoking to extract some good answers?
First, I don't think I came here spreading a strong VIG position (at the time I wouldn't even know what that meant!). For sentimental reasons (I live in Poland, speak Polish and want to see Iweta Rajlich and some of the other people involved with the Rybka project succeed - and the Czech Republic is only a couple of hours' drive away...) I'd prefer Vas to be innocent. What I would say is that Riis' article at ChessBase made an awful impression on me. If he was putting forward such weak arguments and displaying such crude bias - and it required no programming knowledge to see that - the logical conclusion was that the ICGA verdict was probably correct.
Anyway, I didn't immediately post anything here and didn't intend to. The first thing I remember posting about was the tabloid article (with wedding photo) on the ICGA verdict, which was being used to make absolutely unjustified criticism of the ICGA (stretching to Trotsky talking about "psychopathic" behaviour and so on). Having grown up with the English tabloids and having spent 4 or 5 months writing daily chess news I think I was perfectly competent to expose that line of "argument" as pure nonsense.
Well, then I ended up posting more (it's hard to resist responding to lots of things here) - but no, I certainly wasn't "provoking to extract some good answers". I wasn't a journalist but just a forum user who got drawn into an internet argument, as millions have before me :)
It's the same here, this case is decided on programmer level, the experts. And there is no consensus among them. Just recently one of the guilty voters (an experienced chess programmer) had a change of heart after 8 months. It is that complex.
What I'd say is, 1) Yes, there's some debate on a programming level, but then the ultimate arguments you, Bob and others are making are logical ones (or matters of interpretation) that can be debated by anyone who's followed them closely. 2) The difference a programming knowledge would make, and I'm very conscious of this, is that I could study the programs myself and perhaps reach an opinion different to that of anyone else expressed here, and also get a feel for what was taken, how important it is and so on. That would be enormously helpful.
On the experienced chess programmer changing his position - if you mean Marcel van Kervinck, then that's a good case in point. He expresses almost exactly what my impression of this whole issue is:
The most likely reason for the evaluation overlap in my opinion is that VR designed Rybka's evaluation first-most as an as faithful as possible replica of Fruit's without copying any lines of code in that process. From that point on, he worked to improve this evaluation.
But still many traces of Fruit's formulas are clearly visible in version Rybka 2.3.2a.
Then he goes on to say that his guilty/non-guilty verdict now would be contingent on whether one programmer had mentioned another program on his World Championship application form. You'll admit, at least, that that's hardly a programming argument? In fact it all boils down to: And in my current opinion, Vas Rajlich did have Fabien Letouzey's permission to use Fruit's formulas in a WCCCh program. If that was true then of course it would make a big difference (although the ICGA should still be informed of the agreement), but as far as I can tell (from Letouzey's comments and so on) that's not true. Anyway, it's an interesting avenue of discussion, but I'd just note that Marcel essentially supports the ICGA opinion on the technical issue (Rybka is derivative of Fruit).
So when you can't name one positive point in the Riis article I call you biased and you have missed several strong points such as the dendrogram picture.
My response to you on that issue was partly based on my being unwilling to spend another hour trawling through Riis' article - I should have stated that clearly. In any case, though, I'm not sure you can imagine quite how bad an impression that series of articles made on me, and I don't recall offhand a single good point. Reading it without checking anything technical it was obviously biased and full of weak arguments, and then Mark Watkins' response (I think it was his?) pointed out even more flaws. The dendrogram picture (the ponder hits, right?) wouldn't harm an otherwise good case, but it doesn't really add much to a weak one. I found the criticism that it identifies some engines as in the same family when they're not, and that in general you can tune engines to play in a particular way, convincing. The overall opinion seemed to be that it was a reasonable starting point for suspicion, but that actually looking at how the engine works and the code is a vastly more reliable way of establishing the origin of an engine. The ponder hits method has the benefit of objectivity, but objectivity won't get you far if it produces false positives and negatives.
And parroting Levy "mailbox vs bit-board" isn't really going to help you if you haven't the slightest idea about the dynamics involved here. Realize that Levy himself also has no clue himself here, the "mailbox vs bit-board" was whispered in his ear after all.
I'm certainly not "parroting Levy" when talking about mailbox and bit-board. That's been a key point in all the discussion - in the ICGA report, Watkins' PDFs, the comments by Bob and all the other programmers here and elsewhere. It means, as I understand it (please point out when I'm wrong), that you couldn't have verbatim copying of the evaluation function. That's obviously relevant if some people claim the absence of verbatim copying is enough to make Vas "innocent".
The most clear "parroting", if we're going to use that term, comes from Riis. Now at ChessBase he's picked up, for instance, Trotsky's bitboard/mailbox defence against non-literal copying:
Maybe Levy's notion of non-literal copying is supposed to be about using underlying structures from Fruit? But the most important underlying structure, the data structure, couldn't be more different.
This really isn't much more than a play on words. Trotsky found a definition of "non-literal copying" - "using underlying structure" - points out the mechanical bitboard/mailbox transposition is an "underlying structure", and claims that frees Vas of any possible guilt. But it simply doesn't - the underlying structure we're interested in the copying of is how the evaluation (among other things) works - and many of those structures do seem to have been copied.
The problems with Riis are again visible in the new ChessBase article. Trotsky claims I've made assertions with no evidence, but this statement by Riis is a pure non sequitur:
What Rajlich took from Fruit complied with ICGA Rule 2 as stated, as well as satisfying copyright and license laws. Rybka was heavily inspired by Fruit but is not a derivative work of Fruit.
It doesn't follow from anything he'd said in the article up to that point (or afterwards). Then Riis goes on to invent a statement that the ICGA apparently should have made, which would allow it to act only if a program was found guilty of violating copyright or a licence in a court of law. Again, that's just a deflection from the ICGA rules as understood by the participants and in no way a defence against breaking them.
Anyway, again... I know I've repeated this a few too many times already... I do plan to stop posting here. The problem is that of course you'll have a response to every point I make, and then I'll have a response to every point you've made, and it's an infinite series. And again, I honestly don't have any special interest in the outcome here, and it's too bitter a debate to engage in for pleasure.
First, I don't think I came here spreading a strong VIG position (at the time I wouldn't even know what that meant!). For sentimental reasons (I live in Poland, speak Polish and want to see Iweta Rajlich and some of the other people involved with the Rybka project succeed - and the Czech Republic is only a couple of hours' drive away...) I'd prefer Vas to be innocent. What I would say is that Riis' article at ChessBase made an awful impression on me. If he was putting forward such weak arguments and displaying such crude bias - and it required no programming knowledge to see that - the logical conclusion was that the ICGA verdict was probably correct.
Anyway, I didn't immediately post anything here and didn't intend to. The first thing I remember posting about was the tabloid article (with wedding photo) on the ICGA verdict, which was being used to make absolutely unjustified criticism of the ICGA (stretching to Trotsky talking about "psychopathic" behaviour and so on). Having grown up with the English tabloids and having spent 4 or 5 months writing daily chess news I think I was perfectly competent to expose that line of "argument" as pure nonsense.
Well, then I ended up posting more (it's hard to resist responding to lots of things here) - but no, I certainly wasn't "provoking to extract some good answers". I wasn't a journalist but just a forum user who got drawn into an internet argument, as millions have before me :)
It's the same here, this case is decided on programmer level, the experts. And there is no consensus among them. Just recently one of the guilty voters (an experienced chess programmer) had a change of heart after 8 months. It is that complex.
What I'd say is, 1) Yes, there's some debate on a programming level, but then the ultimate arguments you, Bob and others are making are logical ones (or matters of interpretation) that can be debated by anyone who's followed them closely. 2) The difference a programming knowledge would make, and I'm very conscious of this, is that I could study the programs myself and perhaps reach an opinion different to that of anyone else expressed here, and also get a feel for what was taken, how important it is and so on. That would be enormously helpful.
On the experienced chess programmer changing his position - if you mean Marcel van Kervinck, then that's a good case in point. He expresses almost exactly what my impression of this whole issue is:
The most likely reason for the evaluation overlap in my opinion is that VR designed Rybka's evaluation first-most as an as faithful as possible replica of Fruit's without copying any lines of code in that process. From that point on, he worked to improve this evaluation.
But still many traces of Fruit's formulas are clearly visible in version Rybka 2.3.2a.
Then he goes on to say that his guilty/non-guilty verdict now would be contingent on whether one programmer had mentioned another program on his World Championship application form. You'll admit, at least, that that's hardly a programming argument? In fact it all boils down to: And in my current opinion, Vas Rajlich did have Fabien Letouzey's permission to use Fruit's formulas in a WCCCh program. If that was true then of course it would make a big difference (although the ICGA should still be informed of the agreement), but as far as I can tell (from Letouzey's comments and so on) that's not true. Anyway, it's an interesting avenue of discussion, but I'd just note that Marcel essentially supports the ICGA opinion on the technical issue (Rybka is derivative of Fruit).
So when you can't name one positive point in the Riis article I call you biased and you have missed several strong points such as the dendrogram picture.
My response to you on that issue was partly based on my being unwilling to spend another hour trawling through Riis' article - I should have stated that clearly. In any case, though, I'm not sure you can imagine quite how bad an impression that series of articles made on me, and I don't recall offhand a single good point. Reading it without checking anything technical it was obviously biased and full of weak arguments, and then Mark Watkins' response (I think it was his?) pointed out even more flaws. The dendrogram picture (the ponder hits, right?) wouldn't harm an otherwise good case, but it doesn't really add much to a weak one. I found the criticism that it identifies some engines as in the same family when they're not, and that in general you can tune engines to play in a particular way, convincing. The overall opinion seemed to be that it was a reasonable starting point for suspicion, but that actually looking at how the engine works and the code is a vastly more reliable way of establishing the origin of an engine. The ponder hits method has the benefit of objectivity, but objectivity won't get you far if it produces false positives and negatives.
And parroting Levy "mailbox vs bit-board" isn't really going to help you if you haven't the slightest idea about the dynamics involved here. Realize that Levy himself also has no clue himself here, the "mailbox vs bit-board" was whispered in his ear after all.
I'm certainly not "parroting Levy" when talking about mailbox and bit-board. That's been a key point in all the discussion - in the ICGA report, Watkins' PDFs, the comments by Bob and all the other programmers here and elsewhere. It means, as I understand it (please point out when I'm wrong), that you couldn't have verbatim copying of the evaluation function. That's obviously relevant if some people claim the absence of verbatim copying is enough to make Vas "innocent".
The most clear "parroting", if we're going to use that term, comes from Riis. Now at ChessBase he's picked up, for instance, Trotsky's bitboard/mailbox defence against non-literal copying:
Maybe Levy's notion of non-literal copying is supposed to be about using underlying structures from Fruit? But the most important underlying structure, the data structure, couldn't be more different.
This really isn't much more than a play on words. Trotsky found a definition of "non-literal copying" - "using underlying structure" - points out the mechanical bitboard/mailbox transposition is an "underlying structure", and claims that frees Vas of any possible guilt. But it simply doesn't - the underlying structure we're interested in the copying of is how the evaluation (among other things) works - and many of those structures do seem to have been copied.
The problems with Riis are again visible in the new ChessBase article. Trotsky claims I've made assertions with no evidence, but this statement by Riis is a pure non sequitur:
What Rajlich took from Fruit complied with ICGA Rule 2 as stated, as well as satisfying copyright and license laws. Rybka was heavily inspired by Fruit but is not a derivative work of Fruit.
It doesn't follow from anything he'd said in the article up to that point (or afterwards). Then Riis goes on to invent a statement that the ICGA apparently should have made, which would allow it to act only if a program was found guilty of violating copyright or a licence in a court of law. Again, that's just a deflection from the ICGA rules as understood by the participants and in no way a defence against breaking them.
Anyway, again... I know I've repeated this a few too many times already... I do plan to stop posting here. The problem is that of course you'll have a response to every point I make, and then I'll have a response to every point you've made, and it's an infinite series. And again, I honestly don't have any special interest in the outcome here, and it's too bitter a debate to engage in for pleasure.
Ask him if he's been to China lately!
> 1) The ICGA case wasn't motivated by jealousy, hatred or greed. You of all people should realise that, unless when you signed the open letter that set the wheels in motion that was your motivation. Was it? And did you feel at the time it was the motivation of your colleagues? 2) Many people believe the ICGA verdict was correct, and again, not because of some deep emotional problems but simply because that's what the facts and arguments suggest to them.
Show me one quote where I said, suggested or implied such things. Instead I have stated this about my peers in the introduction part:
I know many of my colleagues personally and I consider them honest people willing to have a good look at the counter evidence presented on these pages,
http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm
Here is a suggestion, you say you are a journalist, PM me your email address, I will give you mine, introduce yourself and then we can talk.
So you really think it's fine to copy another program
You are just as stuck on stupid as Hyatt in this case, which is no surprise at all. Of course Vas has copied his way to the top, the only one who has done so. R1 beta already demolished Fruit 2.1 in a very convincing manner, so your myth of 'copy of another program' is just total bollocks.
while making various deliberately deceptive statements in interviews somewhere.
If I read Levy part 1 and Levy part 2, as well as the ICGA report, there is a whole range of such deceptive statements I could fill a large novel 'My 100 best lies' with.
It was a flagrant breach of the spirit of Rule 2
Everybody is breaking rule #2, but of course you will never admit this, as in that case the ICGA, the WCCC and its second rated programmers are dead :-).
Anyway, I may as well imitate my betters by also bowing out of this deeply unpleasant "debate".
It surely has been unpleasant for you, because the whole case has turned against you and you have nothing else to add. And hiding your identity. Pretty pathetic.
You are just as stuck on stupid as Hyatt in this case, which is no surprise at all. Of course Vas has copied his way to the top, the only one who has done so. R1 beta already demolished Fruit 2.1 in a very convincing manner, so your myth of 'copy of another program' is just total bollocks.
while making various deliberately deceptive statements in interviews somewhere.
If I read Levy part 1 and Levy part 2, as well as the ICGA report, there is a whole range of such deceptive statements I could fill a large novel 'My 100 best lies' with.
It was a flagrant breach of the spirit of Rule 2
Everybody is breaking rule #2, but of course you will never admit this, as in that case the ICGA, the WCCC and its second rated programmers are dead :-).
Anyway, I may as well imitate my betters by also bowing out of this deeply unpleasant "debate".
It surely has been unpleasant for you, because the whole case has turned against you and you have nothing else to add. And hiding your identity. Pretty pathetic.
Again, you're not helping your case.
Likewise. You support frauds, because of which I don't take you seriously anymore. If someone like you is foolish to believe lies, so be it.
Likewise. You support frauds, because of which I don't take you seriously anymore. If someone like you is foolish to believe lies, so be it.
I guess the feeling's mutual.
Well, bye then. And good luck with 7 participants in the 2012 WCCC.
> the whole ICGA case has been about jealousy of a few frustrated programmers.
this.
> The argument as I see it is: there are other ways of implementing mobility, you don't need to implement it for all the pieces Fruit does, and different approaches to evaluation are used by other programs. Nobody has claimed either 1) the particular bishop mobility evaluation is identical, or 2) that by itself it proves anything. Still, it certainly doesn't harm the overall case for Fruit and Rybka having similar evaluation functions.
You show a remarkable insight for a non (chess) programmer. You never wrote a line of code in your life?
> My impression is that you haven't found a way to dispute the overall picture which is why you're focussing on isolated fragments,
That's the nature of a forum, a complicated issue is hacked into pieces because of length reasons.
I have a web-page full that focus on the overall picture, simply put, Rybka 1 is way too original to be Fruit derived, key words, too many differences.
For instance, my latest finding, there is this claim by the Rybka investigators that Vasik copied Fruits time-control but when you go through the evidence it does not only contain 3 decompilation errors but also a false picture building focusing on similarity stuff every chess program must have and not looking at all the differences right before their eyes and yet conclude copying.
Due to your remarkable talent for programming you surely must be able to understand the following technical refutation:
http://www.top-5000.nl/fadden.htm
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
>For instance, my latest finding, there is this claim by the Rybka investigators that Vasik copied Fruits time-control but when you go through the evidence it does not only contain 3 decompilation errors but also a false picture building focusing on similarity stuff every chess program must have and not looking at all the differences right before their eyes and yet conclude copying.
If someone doesn't believe you he should check the timing of both engines.
Fruit had a relatively good timing, but Rybka 1.0 beta was relatively bad - loosing on time in bullet games frequently.
Interesting... would explain the contamination code of the 5 seconds in a simple formula. Kind of fix that solves xx% but never 100%.
Checked it, 32 blitz games Fruit 2.1 vs Rybka 1, 6 lost games because of time forfeit. Fruit 0.
And nobody of the Panel noticed ?
Saw also incredible score differences in evaluation up to 3 pawns.
And nobody of the Panel noticed ?
Saw also incredible score differences in evaluation up to 3 pawns.
6 out of 32
I didn't remember it was that bad. What I remember is: when I first got Rybka 1.0 beta, I had the impression of something very rough and unpolished. That's certainly not what you get if you take an existing program and improve it a bit.
I didn't remember it was that bad. What I remember is: when I first got Rybka 1.0 beta, I had the impression of something very rough and unpolished. That's certainly not what you get if you take an existing program and improve it a bit.
I played 1 minute blitz games to push the odd 5 seconds subtraction (creating a safety net as I understand its meaning) to its limit and voila.
It was pretty bad, but maybe not that bad. I remember that when Rybka 1 Beta first showed up in the Playchess engine room, I was using the latest commercial version of Fruit and lost almost all of my games, with all of my 'wins' coming from Rybka losing on time. Of course I must have been imagining this, because Bob has assured me that Fruit was really just as good as R1B...
You never wrote a line of code in your life?
Well I played around in BASIC, and did once buy a book on machine code for the ZX Spectrum... but didn't get very far with it :) (my only defence is that I was about 8 at the time...)
If you want to keep presenting the evidence it would probably help if you (perhaps in collaboration with Trotsky) produced a readable and coherently-argued PDF (as the ICGA have done). The website's very confusing. Of course I still think the best use of everybody's time would be to do nothing and let Vas either appeal or leave things as they stand.
Well I played around in BASIC, and did once buy a book on machine code for the ZX Spectrum... but didn't get very far with it :) (my only defence is that I was about 8 at the time...)
If you want to keep presenting the evidence it would probably help if you (perhaps in collaboration with Trotsky) produced a readable and coherently-argued PDF (as the ICGA have done). The website's very confusing. Of course I still think the best use of everybody's time would be to do nothing and let Vas either appeal or leave things as they stand.
We all know just how desperate you are that Vas should "appeal" to this ridiculous ICGA. But where is it? Where is it registered? Where is it supposed to pay tax? And, in any case, this nebulous, unregistered "private club" is going to have to come crawling to Vas, not the other way round. That is if it doesnt dissolve itself and disappear in a puff of blue smoke first.
I don't care in the slightest if he appeals or not, but if he cares about the verdict he should appeal. If he doesn't then that's no problem, but it's all rather Jekyll and Hyde the way you switch from claiming it doesn't matter to claiming it's a horrific evil act on the part of the ICGA that's ruined Vas' life.
If you don't care, why mention it? Oh, you do care. Doh!
Vas should not and will not "appeal" to an unregistered funny club / business. It wants attention, a bit like you, sent here to replace the failed Hyatt. Why should Vas make your life easy with an appeal?
Vas should not and will not "appeal" to an unregistered funny club / business. It wants attention, a bit like you, sent here to replace the failed Hyatt. Why should Vas make your life easy with an appeal?
Vas is much too smart to waste his time appealing to the monkeys running the ICGA.
It appears you keep on believing the ICGA/Hyatt fraud. Some people can never be convinced.
> If one could take the actual Rybka bitboard code and translate it back into mailbox, and that mailbox code DOES match Fruit's code in those stages, then Vas could potentially have copyright problems.
+1
Excellent point. Somehow the Rybka investigators were able to undermine Rybka's MAIN unburden evidence (a bit-board engine) into a disadvantage that greatly worked against Vas. If there is a difference between Fruit and Rybka blame it on the bit-boards and the difference magically disappears.
Since we are discussing mobility an example quote from the document:
Mobility
The mobility calculations of Fruit and Rybka seem different, but Rybka's turns out to be a simple bitboard translation of Fruit's.
Welcome to our happy and humble forum, Terry. How blessed we are to have you visit us!
![[ca]](/mwf/v12/flags/ca.png "Canada")
It's only a visit. Don't get too excited.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
He was being sarcastic.
So was I.
Idiot
That would be the same as asking innocents to prove that they are not guilty.
You must live in a crack in someones butt
That would be the same as asking innocents to prove that they are not guilty.
You must live in a crack in someones butt
>Played all of you like a violin!
even if i live 999 years,i wont be able to agree more than i am now with that words
Hi Bob, are you back?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill