![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
Sorry, but your text is so shot through with bad reasoning, it is hard to know where to begin, but ....
1. Kervinck's view is just an opinion, you quote that he says 'in my opinion'. Well, he presents no argumentative data, so why is his opinion any better than any other in the opposite direction? We don't wreck somebody's career on "opinion", do we now? Not in my opinion we don't, maybe in yours? You get the idea .....
2. I don't care what Osipov says about Strelka. Completely irrelevant. Prove the case on basis Fruit-Rybka please.
3. Sure, IF copy and translate, get it working faithfully first, then improve and obfuscate. But I am telling you, as an experienced programmer (albeit too old to be a trained one, I'm self taught) in this and many other fields, including organising programmers, setting their tasks and controlling their work, there is NO WAY a good chess programmer (Vas +400 Elo don't forget) would convert a great mass of interacting code across data structures that could not be more different, when it is a much easier task to write the sub-functions yourself. Your suggested way is NOT faster, it is way slower, tortuous hell. If you really want to insist "copy", then get it right, he would have made notes and worked off those, self-writing the code. Hacking one's way through simultaneously translating the data structures which themselves cause you to think different? No bloody way!
4. Why should anyone accept this argument of yours and Hyatt's? "Because he could, therefore he did". Ridiculous. First it is zero proof and second it would be madness.
5. ICGA is not a court. The panel is not a court. What arrogance is it to say you need "balance of probabilities" in this case? Firstly, you have no metric of the probabilities of copy rather than write own code. Secondly, why do you claim you need "51%" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"? Do you actually understand why these terms apply? The latter, the 95% case, is when you would cause serious damage to the lone defendant. Or do you want to live in a society where we get locked up on 51% probabilities? The former, the 51%, is when there are two sides, two sides to equally lose or gain, 51% is forced, although even then the accuser has to "prove" his case (something Hyatt does not understand btw), it would apply if Fabien sued Vas, but it DOES NOT APPLY for an icga panel ruling, for there is no opposite losing side in that case. No opposite losing side, and the pseudo-legal panel is thrown onto "beyond reasonable doubt" for a pseudo-legal case against a lone defendant.
Data, evidence, 95% proof required. Not somebody's opinion. Ok?
1. Kervinck's view is just an opinion, you quote that he says 'in my opinion'. Well, he presents no argumentative data, so why is his opinion any better than any other in the opposite direction? We don't wreck somebody's career on "opinion", do we now? Not in my opinion we don't, maybe in yours? You get the idea .....
2. I don't care what Osipov says about Strelka. Completely irrelevant. Prove the case on basis Fruit-Rybka please.
3. Sure, IF copy and translate, get it working faithfully first, then improve and obfuscate. But I am telling you, as an experienced programmer (albeit too old to be a trained one, I'm self taught) in this and many other fields, including organising programmers, setting their tasks and controlling their work, there is NO WAY a good chess programmer (Vas +400 Elo don't forget) would convert a great mass of interacting code across data structures that could not be more different, when it is a much easier task to write the sub-functions yourself. Your suggested way is NOT faster, it is way slower, tortuous hell. If you really want to insist "copy", then get it right, he would have made notes and worked off those, self-writing the code. Hacking one's way through simultaneously translating the data structures which themselves cause you to think different? No bloody way!
4. Why should anyone accept this argument of yours and Hyatt's? "Because he could, therefore he did". Ridiculous. First it is zero proof and second it would be madness.
5. ICGA is not a court. The panel is not a court. What arrogance is it to say you need "balance of probabilities" in this case? Firstly, you have no metric of the probabilities of copy rather than write own code. Secondly, why do you claim you need "51%" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"? Do you actually understand why these terms apply? The latter, the 95% case, is when you would cause serious damage to the lone defendant. Or do you want to live in a society where we get locked up on 51% probabilities? The former, the 51%, is when there are two sides, two sides to equally lose or gain, 51% is forced, although even then the accuser has to "prove" his case (something Hyatt does not understand btw), it would apply if Fabien sued Vas, but it DOES NOT APPLY for an icga panel ruling, for there is no opposite losing side in that case. No opposite losing side, and the pseudo-legal panel is thrown onto "beyond reasonable doubt" for a pseudo-legal case against a lone defendant.
Data, evidence, 95% proof required. Not somebody's opinion. Ok?
![[pl]](/mwf/v12/flags/pl.png "Poland")
I'm not making the argument "because he could, therefore he did" any more than you're making the argument "because he didn't have to, therefore he didn't". You're not making that argument, are you? 
Something is badly wrong with your logic circuits.
I'm not making the argument "because he could, therefore he did"
You most certainly are, right here:
The copying of Crafty and Vas' comments on what he'd do if he was starting out now (and the speed with which he produced Rybka) suggest he favours the faster approach, even if that makes it more likely to leave significant traces of what you've done. Perhaps he wasn't really thinking of any future cloning issues. Perhaps he thought that legally and morally recoding for a different data structure and making improvements was sufficient change to avoid problems. Or perhaps he thought he'd get away with it.
I agree proving that's what happened is a different matter,
Your argumentation style is just ridiculous. It's as if you're fighting a rearguard action on behalf of Levy. Gradually withdrawing, talking obfuscatory nonsense, and never addressing key points. I should get it into your confused head: Hyatt lied. The ICGA case is in ruins. Rybka is clean.
I'm not making the argument "because he could, therefore he did"
You most certainly are, right here:
The copying of Crafty and Vas' comments on what he'd do if he was starting out now (and the speed with which he produced Rybka) suggest he favours the faster approach, even if that makes it more likely to leave significant traces of what you've done. Perhaps he wasn't really thinking of any future cloning issues. Perhaps he thought that legally and morally recoding for a different data structure and making improvements was sufficient change to avoid problems. Or perhaps he thought he'd get away with it.
I agree proving that's what happened is a different matter,
Your argumentation style is just ridiculous. It's as if you're fighting a rearguard action on behalf of Levy. Gradually withdrawing, talking obfuscatory nonsense, and never addressing key points. I should get it into your confused head: Hyatt lied. The ICGA case is in ruins. Rybka is clean.
> Of course in the case of Yuri Osipov and Strelka we have his testimony that he did exactly that - rewrote Fruit for bitboards before making changes - and he claimed Vas had followed the same path.
Trust the words of a hacker ?
A hacker who wanted to commercialize Strelka ?
There are other (more likely) possibilities, a decompile by software, see: http://www.top-5000.nl/sourcecode.htm
Well, I did say in my next sentence that you could consider how much faith to put in his words! On the other hand, we know Vasik lied about the influence of Fruit (20 Elo), lied about Rybka being developed incrementally, lied about all the versions of Rybka being original and entered a "Rybka" largely based on Crafty in a few tournaments, which doesn't make him overly reliable either (though e.g. Riis still feels he can be quoted as a believable authority).
On commercialising Strelka - Osipov says he was made an offer and it was blocked by Rajlich, although he claims he didn't have much influence in that process (it all took place internally within Convekta?). Anyway, it's not clear who's in the wrong there. If Rybka was largely based on Fruit it would be rather hypocritical to block someone else from doing something similar.
Overall, however, I don't think Osipov has any financial reasons for lying, and I tend to believe he's telling the truth - for instance, he admitted decompiling Rybka (or at least the most important 20% of it) and using that to make the original Strelka closer to Rybka.
On commercialising Strelka - Osipov says he was made an offer and it was blocked by Rajlich, although he claims he didn't have much influence in that process (it all took place internally within Convekta?). Anyway, it's not clear who's in the wrong there. If Rybka was largely based on Fruit it would be rather hypocritical to block someone else from doing something similar.
Overall, however, I don't think Osipov has any financial reasons for lying, and I tend to believe he's telling the truth - for instance, he admitted decompiling Rybka (or at least the most important 20% of it) and using that to make the original Strelka closer to Rybka.
Overall, however, I don't think Osipov has any financial reasons for lying
what if his character is out of shit, wouldnt that be worse? He'a not the only one, vesuvio comes to mind too. Read the next message.
what if his character is out of shit, wouldnt that be worse? He'a not the only one, vesuvio comes to mind too. Read the next message.
On Feb 4th vesuvio wrote in another thread:
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).
1) that is written by a layman who has no proof whatsoever for such a nasty verdict. So is vesuvio a dirty shit?
2) vesuvio is as a guest here and apparently he gets the kicks out of insulting the host of this forum. Vas himself. Of course the allegation lying must be proven but a layman has certain difficulties to prove such things IMO.
vesuvio is what others already supposed, he's a cowardly proxy for Dr. Hyatt, who was spreading insults all over half a year from last summer till the beginning of 2012, because also he had no proof for his allegations. I still hope that Hyatt will be sued in future for all the vilain misbehavior.
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).
1) that is written by a layman who has no proof whatsoever for such a nasty verdict. So is vesuvio a dirty shit?
2) vesuvio is as a guest here and apparently he gets the kicks out of insulting the host of this forum. Vas himself. Of course the allegation lying must be proven but a layman has certain difficulties to prove such things IMO.
vesuvio is what others already supposed, he's a cowardly proxy for Dr. Hyatt, who was spreading insults all over half a year from last summer till the beginning of 2012, because also he had no proof for his allegations. I still hope that Hyatt will be sued in future for all the vilain misbehavior.
AWRIST, I'd agree my statement there was a bit too sweeping (I'd normally add more qualifying phrases - "seems to" and the like), though as someone who's "too-sweeping" in almost every post I'd have thought you'd make allowances for others. Actually, if the rules were that Vas wouldn't accept any criticism of himself on this forum then I'd perfectly understand that, though of course it would mean any ICGA verdict discussion could only take place elsewhere. On lying - well, harsh as it might sound to say it, I didn't realise anyone (programmers or laymen) seriously disputes that Vas has told various lies about Rybka (20 Elo points from Fruit, incremental development, all versions original and so on, plus various subtler "misrepresentations").
On the other insults/idiotic statements in your post - I think as usual they say more about you than the person they're addressed to.
On a more positive note - thanks, Ed and Trotsky, for the clarifications of your positions. It's really a shame you weren't on the ICGA panel, as that would have been the perfect setting to seriously discuss the methodology of the investigation, without the inevitable forum noise and silly questions from non-programmers like me! I don't know if the basic verdict would have been altered (at a guess, no), but there'd probably have been a whole lot less discord.
On the other insults/idiotic statements in your post - I think as usual they say more about you than the person they're addressed to.
On a more positive note - thanks, Ed and Trotsky, for the clarifications of your positions. It's really a shame you weren't on the ICGA panel, as that would have been the perfect setting to seriously discuss the methodology of the investigation, without the inevitable forum noise and silly questions from non-programmers like me! I don't know if the basic verdict would have been altered (at a guess, no), but there'd probably have been a whole lot less discord.
> I agree proving that's what happened is a different matter, though, and one I'm not well-placed to judge. Still, something like that applies to all cases of plagiarism, unless you e.g. film the process happening. You have to go on a balance of probabilities.
Not if you are an experienced chess programmer. You just study the evidence.
Well, I agree with that - and a majority of programmers still seem to agree with the ICGA verdict. Actually, I wanted to note "balance of probabilities" was a loose phrase. Trotsky is right that that would mean 51% probability would suffice, but I don't think that's enough. 95% is far too high a bar, but somewhere in between is called for. In any case, from what we've been told the ICGA investigators and those voting didn't consider it a close-run thing.
It is well documented that after the investigation concluded, Bob Hyatt still believed that there was "page_after_page of copied code" in Rybka. It is well documented that after the investigation concluded, Bob Hyatt still believed that Zach's document included "page_after_page of copied code" showing that Rybka copied the PST generation code.
This is what the ICGA verdict was based on, and all of it has been debunked. This is what you should expect when you have an investigation run by biased, self serving people, while those with contrary views are excluded from the process.
This is what the ICGA verdict was based on, and all of it has been debunked. This is what you should expect when you have an investigation run by biased, self serving people, while those with contrary views are excluded from the process.
That's just untrue, though. It's made perfectly clear in the reports and was presumably clear in the panel discussion what the code given represented. Unless you're claiming the people involved couldn't read and couldn't think for themselves.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Bob stated multiple times on this forum, after the conclusion of the investigation, that Rybka contained "several pages" of copied code. Here's one example:
Topic Minority Report 3, PST + other lookup tables are they legal? By bob Date 2011-07-26 12:58
This is a PDF link: http://icga.wikispaces.com/file/view/ZW_Rybka_Fruit.pdf. Page one is introduction. Page 2 has piece square tables _and_ some side-by-side code. The next several pages _all_ have "side-by-side code analysis." Did you just read the "introduction" and quit? that would explain a lot...
I didn't know it was _that_ hard to find it...
None of this copied code really exists though. Just some stuff that Zach made up which fooled simpleton Bob. The other people involved thought just like Bob until it was pointed out that in fact there wasn't "several pages" of copied code. In fact there wasn't any copied code at all. This led to nonsense from people like you, who are sure that an infraction occurred, even with zero evidence to back up the claims.
Bob also assured us that the FSF was going after Vas. How's that working out for you?
Topic Minority Report 3, PST + other lookup tables are they legal? By bob Date 2011-07-26 12:58
This is a PDF link: http://icga.wikispaces.com/file/view/ZW_Rybka_Fruit.pdf. Page one is introduction. Page 2 has piece square tables _and_ some side-by-side code. The next several pages _all_ have "side-by-side code analysis." Did you just read the "introduction" and quit? that would explain a lot...
I didn't know it was _that_ hard to find it...
None of this copied code really exists though. Just some stuff that Zach made up which fooled simpleton Bob. The other people involved thought just like Bob until it was pointed out that in fact there wasn't "several pages" of copied code. In fact there wasn't any copied code at all. This led to nonsense from people like you, who are sure that an infraction occurred, even with zero evidence to back up the claims.
Bob also assured us that the FSF was going after Vas. How's that working out for you?
I don't see the point of beating a dead horse, but for what it's worth the quote you give doesn't mentioned "copied code" and makes 100% correct statements (not saying other statements don't mention "copied code" but it's symptomatic of how careless your arguments are). There is "side-by-side code", and "side-by-side code analysis". It's also explained in the PDF quoted: "Also, note that here too that the PST values are hardcoded into the Rybka executable file, they are not calculated at startup like Fruit's. The code shown here is simply the functional equivalent; it calculates the Rybka PSTs."
Plus in general, of course, you're defending Vas against the charge of verbatim code copying, but that's not what he was found guilty of.
Don't know anything about the FSF. Ask Letouzey, or perhaps Bob. He said he'd return to answer direct questions, and you know you miss him! :)
Plus in general, of course, you're defending Vas against the charge of verbatim code copying, but that's not what he was found guilty of.
Don't know anything about the FSF. Ask Letouzey, or perhaps Bob. He said he'd return to answer direct questions, and you know you miss him! :)
Here is a more explicit quote from Bob showing that you haven't been following the discussion:
- -/- By bob (Bronze) [us] Date 2011-07-26 08:17
For the Rybka 1.0 beta / Fruit comparison, I think Zach's and Mark's writeups are quite clear. Zach's gives side-by-side analysis of blocks of code showing how they are either (a) identical or (b) do the same things in the same order with the same numbers. That can't be hand-waved away as "he studied the ideas and then wrote his own code." That is an impossibly weak argument with near-impossibly unlikely probability of it being what happened. You'd be _far_ better off spending your life savings on lottery tickets.
Bob only learned later that there weren't any "identical" "blocks of code". How is that the central person in this investigation was ignorant of this basic fact even after the conclusion of the investigation?
It's also explained in the PDF quoted: "Also, note that here too that the PST values are hardcoded into the Rybka executable file, they are not calculated at startup like Fruit's. The code shown here is simply the functional equivalent; it calculates the Rybka PSTs."
Translation: There are a huge number of ways these numbers could have been generated. I'll pick the one way that makes Vas look as guilty as possible. The less obvious point is that as Miguel has pointed out, the same generator function (not code) that generated the Fruit tables, can in fact be used to generate PST tables used in many other programs. Furthermore, Bob is dead wrong about this being a copyright violation.
Don't know anything about the FSF. Ask Letouzey, or perhaps Bob.
I don't need to ask about the FSF investigation. I've known from the beginning that it wasn't going anywhere despite Bob's ridiculous claims to the contrary.
- -/- By bob (Bronze) [us] Date 2011-07-26 08:17
For the Rybka 1.0 beta / Fruit comparison, I think Zach's and Mark's writeups are quite clear. Zach's gives side-by-side analysis of blocks of code showing how they are either (a) identical or (b) do the same things in the same order with the same numbers. That can't be hand-waved away as "he studied the ideas and then wrote his own code." That is an impossibly weak argument with near-impossibly unlikely probability of it being what happened. You'd be _far_ better off spending your life savings on lottery tickets.
Bob only learned later that there weren't any "identical" "blocks of code". How is that the central person in this investigation was ignorant of this basic fact even after the conclusion of the investigation?
It's also explained in the PDF quoted: "Also, note that here too that the PST values are hardcoded into the Rybka executable file, they are not calculated at startup like Fruit's. The code shown here is simply the functional equivalent; it calculates the Rybka PSTs."
Translation: There are a huge number of ways these numbers could have been generated. I'll pick the one way that makes Vas look as guilty as possible. The less obvious point is that as Miguel has pointed out, the same generator function (not code) that generated the Fruit tables, can in fact be used to generate PST tables used in many other programs. Furthermore, Bob is dead wrong about this being a copyright violation.
Don't know anything about the FSF. Ask Letouzey, or perhaps Bob.
I don't need to ask about the FSF investigation. I've known from the beginning that it wasn't going anywhere despite Bob's ridiculous claims to the contrary.
> I don't need to ask about the FSF investigation. I've known from the beginning that it wasn't going anywhere despite Bob's ridiculous claims to the contrary.
Do you know either way for sure what is happening with that ?
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
I asked Vas that question some time ago. He takes it for granted nothing will come from them.
He probably took it for granted his ICGA world titles were safe too...
But I suspect nothing will come of it, as long as they independently review the case and carry out their own investigation. They will have lawyers involved, and the lawyers will very quickly dismiss the ICGA case and evidence as any sort of starting point.
But I suspect nothing will come of it, as long as they independently review the case and carry out their own investigation. They will have lawyers involved, and the lawyers will very quickly dismiss the ICGA case and evidence as any sort of starting point.
The essentially libertarian anarchist philosophy of the FSF was never going to merge with the interests of the dictatorial ICGA or the fascist Hyatt. They're poles apart.
"The essentially libertarian anarchist philosophy of the FSF was never going to merge with the interests of the dictatorial ICGA or the fascist Hyatt"
Yes, Hyatt with his open source code and the ICGA as a non-profit organisation wanting fair competition among programmers would be absolutely anathema to the FSF, while they'd obviously look favourably on someone who (allegedly) took software freely available under their licence, made some changes and released it commercially without respecting the licence On the other hand, I'd agree with people who don't think Vas will have too many problems with the FSF - assuming this is them: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance They don't seem to pursue financial claims and if they found Vas guilty it seems they'd simply require the current Rybka to be "clean" and for source code for the earlier versions to be made available to everyone who purchased/obtained a copy of the software.
Yes, Hyatt with his open source code and the ICGA as a non-profit organisation wanting fair competition among programmers would be absolutely anathema to the FSF, while they'd obviously look favourably on someone who (allegedly) took software freely available under their licence, made some changes and released it commercially without respecting the licence
On the other hand, I'd agree with people who don't think Vas will have too many problems with the FSF - assuming this is them: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance They don't seem to pursue financial claims and if they found Vas guilty it seems they'd simply require the current Rybka to be "clean" and for source code for the earlier versions to be made available to everyone who purchased/obtained a copy of the software.
Hyatt's "open" source is actually a trap. Read posts from others on this. The FSF libertarian philosophy is about taking source onwards in collaborative mode apart from the original designer if necessary. Hyatt's licence precludes this and when slighted the madman will turn on the alleged infringer with a 10,000 plus posting stream of abuse lasting years. FSF is unlikely to cooperate with such fascists.
The unregistered ICGA can't just unilaterally state it is a "non-profit" organisation and expect me, for one, to believe that, unless and until it opened its accounts for proper inspection and was found to so be.
The unregistered ICGA can't just unilaterally state it is a "non-profit" organisation and expect me, for one, to believe that, unless and until it opened its accounts for proper inspection and was found to so be.
"Hyatt's "open" source is actually a trap. Read posts from others on this."
My impression was you're the main person spreading that rather unlikely conspiracy theory (and silly labels like "madman" and "fascist" don't help make you look sane). How was Vas "trapped"? If you copy and paste large chunks of another program it's surely only polite to read the licence (or the rules of any tournaments you enter the program in). Has Bob been hounding anyone who's only taken the odd idea from Crafty?
On the FSF philosophy - I'm not saying Bob shares it, but he's clearly closer to it than Vas. Even if you can't freely use Crafty code you can look at it and learn from it and the author's willing to explain how it works. In contrast Vas produced his program ("heavily influenced", to quote Riis, by open source software), made it closed source and lied about how it worked - deliberately aiming to impede the progress of other programmers.
On the ICGA status - your guess is as good as mine. My suspicion would be that it's in the grey area various non-profit organisations like chess federations find themselves in. e.g. the Polish Chess Federation recently changed from a charitable status to register to pay VAT as that meant they could accept sponsorship more easily and pay people (e.g. the German Chess Federation apparently can't pay players for international events from membership fees because of its charitable status). That doesn't change the fact that the Polish Chess Federation remains a non-profit (read "loss-making") organisation. In any case, the main nefarious activity of the ICGA seems to be publishing an academic journal...
My impression was you're the main person spreading that rather unlikely conspiracy theory (and silly labels like "madman" and "fascist" don't help make you look sane). How was Vas "trapped"? If you copy and paste large chunks of another program it's surely only polite to read the licence (or the rules of any tournaments you enter the program in). Has Bob been hounding anyone who's only taken the odd idea from Crafty?
On the FSF philosophy - I'm not saying Bob shares it, but he's clearly closer to it than Vas. Even if you can't freely use Crafty code you can look at it and learn from it and the author's willing to explain how it works. In contrast Vas produced his program ("heavily influenced", to quote Riis, by open source software), made it closed source and lied about how it worked - deliberately aiming to impede the progress of other programmers.
On the ICGA status - your guess is as good as mine. My suspicion would be that it's in the grey area various non-profit organisations like chess federations find themselves in. e.g. the Polish Chess Federation recently changed from a charitable status to register to pay VAT as that meant they could accept sponsorship more easily and pay people (e.g. the German Chess Federation apparently can't pay players for international events from membership fees because of its charitable status). That doesn't change the fact that the Polish Chess Federation remains a non-profit (read "loss-making") organisation. In any case, the main nefarious activity of the ICGA seems to be publishing an academic journal...
In any case, the main nefarious activity of the ICGA seems to be publishing an academic journal...
The ICGA seems to have received at least one large grant of a million pounds, some years back. It is not clear they are registered as a non-profit organization in any jurisdiction. I have no clue how these matters are handled in the EU, but in the US, not filing for non-profit status means you don't have this status...
The ICGA seems to have received at least one large grant of a million pounds, some years back. It is not clear they are registered as a non-profit organization in any jurisdiction. I have no clue how these matters are handled in the EU, but in the US, not filing for non-profit status means you don't have this status...
>He probably took it for granted his ICGA world titles were safe too...
Not really. At least not after the so-called evidence was presented to him.
> Not really. At least not after the so-called evidence was presented to him
Well yes, but before that... But the writing was on the wall for a long time even before then. Having humiliated all the old-school programmers for so many years with his dominant performance, it was only a matter of time before they ganged up on him with trumped up evidence. Whilst at the same time, with breathtaking hypocrisy, they themselves taking things from Ippo, Stockfish etc. And taking from Ippo, which most of them believe was at one point a reverse-engineered Rybka, so taking from the very programme that they convicted.
My guess is that it was already deemed frivolous, and I 'm not being flippant;and, given reticence on the matter minus any ballyhooing on the part of ICGA profligates, I'd say you could most likely take that one to the bank.
> My guess is that it was already deemed frivolous, and I 'm not being flippant;and, given reticence on the matter minus any ballyhooing on the part of ICGA profligates, I'd say you could most likely take that one to the bank.
Well, at face value the ICGA case seemed OK, and there are heavyweight names behind it and the ICGA does appear to outsiders to be a professional organisation. . I'd like to hear directly from the FSF as to whether they will do anything. I don't think we can take anything for granted.
I'm not sure you will get that kind of honesty from the ICGA should their case against Vas floundered with the FSF.
"showing that you haven't been following the discussion"
As I said, I was only referring to the specific quote and the use you made of it.
In any case, the same applies to the longer quote you give. Again, there are blocks of code side-by-side. The point that the code given for Rybka is, as explained, simply code that produces the tables in Rybka, doesn't make the statement false. The argument deriving from that analysis also still holds - it's extremely unlikely that it just happens to be possible to produce the Rybka tables using mostly identical Fruit code with altered variables.
You can argue that when debating Bob should always point out the nature of the code comparison, but I don't see any real problem (rehashing all the details in each post would quickly become tedious). The main point is that the ICGA report makes it quite clear what was involved and unless you have actual evidence that the ICGA panel failed to read and understand the evidence presented to them it's idle speculation to keep repeating that claim. Attacking Bob, or any one of his many posts, is just a sideshow.
As I said, I was only referring to the specific quote and the use you made of it.
In any case, the same applies to the longer quote you give. Again, there are blocks of code side-by-side. The point that the code given for Rybka is, as explained, simply code that produces the tables in Rybka, doesn't make the statement false. The argument deriving from that analysis also still holds - it's extremely unlikely that it just happens to be possible to produce the Rybka tables using mostly identical Fruit code with altered variables.
You can argue that when debating Bob should always point out the nature of the code comparison, but I don't see any real problem (rehashing all the details in each post would quickly become tedious). The main point is that the ICGA report makes it quite clear what was involved and unless you have actual evidence that the ICGA panel failed to read and understand the evidence presented to them it's idle speculation to keep repeating that claim. Attacking Bob, or any one of his many posts, is just a sideshow.
What part of the word identical don't you understand? Or are you claiming that Bob was saying that the Fruit code was identical to the code that Zach made up?
Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired. The rest of us can see that after the conclusion of the ICGA investigation, Bob was convinced that Rybka 1 Beta contained large chunks of identical code to Fruit.
unless you have actual evidence that the ICGA panel failed to read and understand the evidence presented to them it's idle speculation to keep repeating that claim. Attacking Bob, or any one of his many posts, is just a sideshow.
Wrong. Putting page after page of prejudicial code under a 'Rybka' header would not be allowed as evidence by any reasonable panel. Claiming that this was OK because there was a short disclaimer elsewhere in the document is patently ridiculous. I believe that many, if not most of the panel members believed that R1B contained copied code from Fruit, and this is reflected in the statements of other panel members who condemned Vas after the vote.
Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired. The rest of us can see that after the conclusion of the ICGA investigation, Bob was convinced that Rybka 1 Beta contained large chunks of identical code to Fruit.
unless you have actual evidence that the ICGA panel failed to read and understand the evidence presented to them it's idle speculation to keep repeating that claim. Attacking Bob, or any one of his many posts, is just a sideshow.
Wrong. Putting page after page of prejudicial code under a 'Rybka' header would not be allowed as evidence by any reasonable panel. Claiming that this was OK because there was a short disclaimer elsewhere in the document is patently ridiculous. I believe that many, if not most of the panel members believed that R1B contained copied code from Fruit, and this is reflected in the statements of other panel members who condemned Vas after the vote.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
> it's extremely unlikely that it just happens to be possible to produce the Rybka tables using mostly identical Fruit code with altered variables.
If Vas saw the Fruit variables, and then changed them somewhat, and wrote his own code to generate these new values, this is exactly what you would get: you would find that Fruit code is able to reproduce many of the Rybka tables with some alterations. I think that those who don't understand that this isn't a problem simply aren't equipped with the mental faculties necessary to take part in this debate.
> Plus in general, of course, you're defending Vas against the charge of verbatim code copying, but that's not what he was found guilty of.
The case about the PST's is about verbatim code copying. The time control is another one.
EVAL is about non-literal copying since they never can claim verbatim copying because of those pesky bit-boards.
"The case about the PST's is about verbatim code copying."
I thought the PST values in Rybka were just pre-included ("hardcoded") in the program, while in Fruit there's code that runs at start-up to produce them? So how could there possibly be verbatim code copying if Rybka doesn't have that code to produce the tables at start-up? I guess I'm missing something...
I thought the PST values in Rybka were just pre-included ("hardcoded") in the program, while in Fruit there's code that runs at start-up to produce them? So how could there possibly be verbatim code copying if Rybka doesn't have that code to produce the tables at start-up? I guess I'm missing something...
The accusation is that Vas copied the Fruit PST code into a separate program, changed the parameters, added some code himself, ran the program storing its output to a textfile and imported the textfile into Rybka as C-code. And so it became hardcoded into the executable.
Ok, that's how I understood it. Verbatim copying may be part of the hypothesis (as it may be for the eval function, with recoding for bitboards then taking place), but Rybka wasn't accused of containing verbatim PST code from Fruit.
I can at least name 10 chess programmers who did not show up at the Panel for various reasons and would have voted VII.
Hey Ed I got a question for you. Read the last line here about your old rebels programs.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24430
Is what he says true?
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24430
Is what he says true?
It could convert Chessmaster books. Chessbase books I am not sure, certainly not the currently CTG format but perhaps the format they used before.
"Trotsky is right that that would mean 51% probability would suffice"
Bullshit, I said nothing of the sort.
Your pseudo-legal panel thought, and was no doubt advised by Hyatt, to vote on a 51% balance of probabilities basis, as that's the barrack room amateur lawyer assumption used across the forums.
I said the attack panel/ICGA/Hyatt SHOULD have used beyond all reasonable doubt, because the parallel in proper law, is not a civil action between two competing parties (balance of probs), but a criminal action of a tribunal against a lone individual (beyond reasonable doubt). 95% should have been used, where the assumption appears to have been 51%.
Where on the record of the kangaroo court is it stated/written the burden of proof used and advised to the voting panel? Probably again, lack of due process will shine through and there will be NO evidence they even thought about it.
"95% is far too high a bar, but somewhere in between is called for."
Really? What would you like? 75%? You'ld like to screw one innocent programmer in every four? You're a raving madman. Get back to Hyatt land.
Bullshit, I said nothing of the sort.
Your pseudo-legal panel thought, and was no doubt advised by Hyatt, to vote on a 51% balance of probabilities basis, as that's the barrack room amateur lawyer assumption used across the forums.
I said the attack panel/ICGA/Hyatt SHOULD have used beyond all reasonable doubt, because the parallel in proper law, is not a civil action between two competing parties (balance of probs), but a criminal action of a tribunal against a lone individual (beyond reasonable doubt). 95% should have been used, where the assumption appears to have been 51%.
Where on the record of the kangaroo court is it stated/written the burden of proof used and advised to the voting panel? Probably again, lack of due process will shine through and there will be NO evidence they even thought about it.
"95% is far too high a bar, but somewhere in between is called for."
Really? What would you like? 75%? You'ld like to screw one innocent programmer in every four? You're a raving madman. Get back to Hyatt land.
Trotsky - I meant you're right that "balance of probabilities" means 51% would suffice. Not that you think 51% would suffice for a verdict! For the rest I'd submit that as usual you're the one writing like a "raving madman".
The madman is the one who would investigate twenty innocent programmers and convict five of them as false positives and think that was ok. Such would be the effect of your 75% burden of proof rate.
Balance of probabilities 51% applies to cases with two sides in zero sum format.
Tribunals against lone person require beyond reasonable doubt else the rate of false convictions of innocent people becomes intolerable. 95% at minimum. If there's a doubt you don't convict.
Now, tell us the burden of proof rate used by the kangaroo court? Did they tell the panel what burden of proof was required? Or was this left unsaid? Extrapolating from the general level of shoddiness shown by the secretariat, on would assume either they postulated 51% or else said nothing.
Balance of probabilities 51% applies to cases with two sides in zero sum format.
Tribunals against lone person require beyond reasonable doubt else the rate of false convictions of innocent people becomes intolerable. 95% at minimum. If there's a doubt you don't convict.
Now, tell us the burden of proof rate used by the kangaroo court? Did they tell the panel what burden of proof was required? Or was this left unsaid? Extrapolating from the general level of shoddiness shown by the secretariat, on would assume either they postulated 51% or else said nothing.
What was asked of the panel was:
(a) Have you read all of the evidence linked to the Rybka-Fruit Controversy pages?
(b) In your opinion, did Vasik Rajlich's chess program Rybka violate the ICGA Tournament Rules, especially rule 2?
If the question was in doubt you'd expect at least some people to answer a) Yes b) No. Instead 16 answered a) Yes b) Yes. The whole process - with the open discussion of all the evidence among the panel over a significant length of time - was about as far as you could possibly get from a kangaroo court. I think challenging the process is actually the weakest argument being put forward in favour of Vas.
(a) Have you read all of the evidence linked to the Rybka-Fruit Controversy pages?
(b) In your opinion, did Vasik Rajlich's chess program Rybka violate the ICGA Tournament Rules, especially rule 2?
If the question was in doubt you'd expect at least some people to answer a) Yes b) No. Instead 16 answered a) Yes b) Yes. The whole process - with the open discussion of all the evidence among the panel over a significant length of time - was about as far as you could possibly get from a kangaroo court. I think challenging the process is actually the weakest argument being put forward in favour of Vas.
Your (and the ICGA's) idea of a fair process is for the plaintiffs to judge the defendant. We on the VII side do not believe individuals should be judged in such a fashion.
There you go again, the only thing that interests you is that the ICGA did a "proper process". And you deny to Ed you are Levy-lackey.
Anyway, clear to me now, that "burden of proof" was not even considered.
Anyway, clear to me now, that "burden of proof" was not even considered.
Actually the evidence interests me much more than the process, which just strikes me as perfectly satisfactory, if not perfect. As a layman, however, it's easier to point out flaws in non-technical arguments relating to the process than in technical arguments relating to the evidence. Again, I've got nothing whatsoever to do with either Levy or the ICGA (if you care for evidence or proof maybe you should find some before claiming the opposite), so no conclusions about the ICGA can be drawn from anything I write. I'd have thought a quick Google of e.g. "burden of proof" and "ICGA" would be a better bet.
Just read Ossipov's statement about Strelka - then you'll understand why Strelka is relatively similar to Fruit:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=353477#pid353477
Strelka was born from Fruit with the inclusion of the code chunks and tables from Rybka.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=353477#pid353477
Strelka was born from Fruit with the inclusion of the code chunks and tables from Rybka.
Strelka is irrelevant, it's half Fruit, half Rybka. Hence the Rybka investigators decompiled Rybka 1.0
I think you overestimate the human race capacity of admitting mistakes
> and it strikes me that the ICGA and the programmers have been consistent in their public statements
I think you overestimate the human race capacity of admitting mistakes
> it was derived from Fruit, with good sized portions still present in 2.3.2a - more so than any other derivative from what I read.
And what, exactly, is it that you have read? I have read the various ICGA reports, and the only piece of evidence put forth is the subjective measure of "similarity" in various parts of the evaluation function. When this was put on a quantitative basis by Kai Laszkos, the result was that there are lots of modern engines that are more similar to Fruit, Rybka 1.0 Beta, or Rybka 2.3.2a than Rybka 2.3.2a is to Fruit.
Are these programs participating in ICGA Championship tournaments? If so and if they do not admit going in that they are derivatives of Fruit, they too need to be called out as well. That is why I say the rules need to be adjusted.
I predict in several years time we will look back upon this as being the case that changed the rules....or resulted in the ICGA being replaced because it would not change the rules. Vas, not vindicated, but no longer persecuted for his transgressions and some here-to-fore unknow engine, being World Champion.
I predict in several years time we will look back upon this as being the case that changed the rules....or resulted in the ICGA being replaced because it would not change the rules. Vas, not vindicated, but no longer persecuted for his transgressions and some here-to-fore unknow engine, being World Champion.
You're way behind the times. All top engines that came out in 2005 and 2006 were influenced by Fruit. Those that came out in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 were influenced by Rybka. Starting in 2010 and continuing to the present, they have been influenced by the Ippos and Houdini. Being influenced doesn't equate to being a derivative though, and the ICGA charges that Rybka contained "page_after_page of copied code" have been shown to be false, with no copied code found at all.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill