Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By activethinker (**) [in] Date 2011-07-10 17:50
I have 1 doubt?What if someone from Rybka team(since Vas is banned) took part in next WCCC with a chess engine with  name other than rybka(lets say Dybka) but is actually rybka 5 or 6 will he be allowed to participate since dybka(rybka 5) doesnt include any fruit or crafty code?
Parent - - By Loboestepario (****) [pe] Date 2011-07-10 17:53
I'm sure he will if he follows ICGA rules
Parent - By Quapsel (****) [de] Date 2011-07-12 11:37
?
I think the ICGA detectives will ask for sources of previous versions of Dybka.
"Each program must be the original work of the entering developers." is wanted.
To show this, the 'developer' should be able to give the history of his child.

Quap

I assume:
Really no professional developer would believe it, if another one would try to declare to the world, that he has lost those sources of previous versions, especially those of the version just befor the actual one!
Parent - - By Moz (****) Date 2011-07-10 18:03
I doubt they'd allow it. More importantly, I doubt Team Rybka would bother since the ICGA is largely irrelevant. A "world championship" that doesn't include the strongest competitors is hardly worthy of the name.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-10 22:25
Hmm.   track and field seemed to do just fine without Ben Johnson.  There are other examples.  Cheaters don't really count in the overall scheme of things.
Parent - - By Phil Harris (***) [gb] Date 2011-07-10 22:36
I very much doubt that Bob cares how much I respect him, but I would like to say that it's a whole lot less after that last post.
Parent - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) [gb] Date 2011-07-10 22:58
:smile:does make you think.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-11 01:41
And why would that be?  Current world champion gets caught.  Refuses to defend his actions.  Gets banned from competition.  Do you _really_ think that Computer Chess will just dry up and blow away because he doesn't compete?  Deep Blue was certainly the best in the world, and they left before they were passed by others.  Did CC die?  Nope.  Same comment for track and field and BJ.  Did it dry up and blow away?  Not that I notice...

If you think less of my opinion after hearing that, so be it...

Sometimes "the truth hurts."
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) [es] Date 2011-07-12 15:21
With all due respect Bob, a better analogy would be that Ben Johnson did not defend his actions because he could not provide a urine sample for a competition he did 6 years ago, even though that was not a pre-requisite at the time.  Since he cannot produce the sample then he must be guilty!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-12 15:50
most chess programmers have all their old versions.  Someone asked me for the "Jakarta" version of Crafty (1996 was the year).  I had it handy.  So I find it _impossible_ to believe that none of the ICGA participating versions is still around.  That just isn't plausible.  However, we did test versions that were available that "sandwiched" the ICGA events, with the obvious conclusion being that if the one available before an event, and the next one releases afterward are "dirty" then the one that played was "dirty".  To believe otherwise is really "out there"...

BTW, that "sample" is most likely _still_ available, you do realize?  Today, DNA evidence is kept indefinitely in a frozen storage facility.  I'd bet that case was so important, the original sample is still available should a question be asked.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) [es] Date 2011-07-12 16:44
The main word in your post is "today".  Yes "today" there are frozen samples but that was not the case 6 years ago.  Because samples were not frozen 6 years ago does not mean the person "today" is guilty ... because 6 years ago the rules were different.  Rules cannot be applied retroactively, but for some reason you seem to think that they can and should, and that is just wrong.  You want to change the rules ... fine ... but changes today affect things today and tomorrow not yesterday.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-12 17:52
You want to bet samples were not frozen?  We had a case in Alabama last year where DNA evidence caused someone to be released after 20+ years of prison.  Where did that sample come from?  Did they freeze it (Ben Jonhson test)?  I do not know.  How long after Babe Ruth's record was broken before the sh** hit the fan?  Not the next day.  It happens when it happens.  They were all caught.  Sometimes you get caught when it happens.  Sometimes later.  A couple of years ago a former state trooper in AL was convicted of murder in a 1960's civil rights era crime.  Only 40+ years after the fact.  Not fair?  You get caught when you get caught.  And then you suffer the consequences at that point in time, since there is no time machine.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) [es] Date 2011-07-12 18:20
In a criminal case evidence HAS to be kept in a locked and safe place, and yes many have been exonerated with DNA evidence.  There was a point and time where evidence was not required to be kept, and I am pretty sure many were incorrectly incarcerated due to lack of DNA testing technology.  Again, you cannot go back in time and change rules for that particular time ... although you can do it for the future.  There was no prerequisite to keep code that participated in an ICGA tournament in definetly, and this would take less than 1 minute of a judge in a court of law to decide that you cannot apply new rules backwards.  You just can't ... and no amount of trying different analogies can change that.  Maybe in the future if a time machine was invented things might change, but I don't see that happening within our lifetimes.

What is still clear is that ICGA based its assumptions on code that DID NOT PARTICIPATE.  That is data that cannot be denied, and I would like to see the face of the first judge in a court of law, as he reacts to that fact.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-12 18:39
We took versions on either side of the one he used to compete, and both were "dirty".  I don't think that point can be made any clearer.  It would have been nice to be able to compare source.  Vas even mentions that for Rybka 1, strelka could be used for the source, which is not exactly evidence that exonerates him, it is the evidence that started the entire investigation in fact.

He could have provide a binary for the version he used.  But again, using one before and one after is more than good enough.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) [es] Date 2011-07-12 20:58
Again you have to realize that while this maybe be very clear and reasonable for you, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for me and many others.  You CANNOT assume that something is there when you haven't actually seen it.  None of you saw the code of the executable that participated and there was nothing in ICGA rulings at the time that required copies of the code to be presented or saved in definetly ... to you and some in the ICGA that ruling should change for future events, but you cannot change things retroactively.  That is why the ICGA ruling is bogus and flawed, and why this ruling is being modified for the future.
Parent - By Loboestepario (****) [us] Date 2011-07-12 21:49
One normally goes by the opinion of experts organized in a panel, ideally with a final ruling coming from another group of qualified professionals. But you can believe what you want to believe or pretend that this is not an issue, it really doesn't matter at all.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-13 03:52
A reasonable assumption would be that the version before and after would be similar to the one that competed.  Otherwise you have to believe that he had version A before the event (which contains copied code), version B that he completely rewrote to eliminate the copied code, which he then used in the tournament and then threw away, and then he modified version A and called the new one version C, which he then released.  I do not believe any rational chess programmer would accept that as being even remotely plausible.  I don't believe any rational chess programmer would even consider doing such a thing.

The ICGA ruling is not being modified (since the only "ruling" I am aware of is the current rule violation ruling they handed down).  We are certainly looking at alternatives to prevent the reverse-engineering workload by requiring source in some safe (to the author) way, but still giving the ICGA access if required to deal with a protest.  This is not an easy thing to do.
Parent - By M ANSARI (*****) [es] Date 2011-07-13 06:40
Well, I do hope that they come up with an enforceable way otherwise the entire ICGA will fail.  It is obvious that the latest top engines have a lot in common, and that is probably due to the fact that Ippolit code is out.  I can understand why there should be a tourney for people that wrote their entire programs from scratch, as that would force different ideas and different ways to reach the same ends.  But I think the time for that has passed and I cannot see a new upcoming programmer wanting to waste all his energy and efforts writing a program from scratch without using any of the stuff that is already out there.  I guess here you are a victim of your own success, and the path that you and a few others have opened have made it easier for the newcomers.  I really do hope that the Fruit-Rybka thing goes to court as this would set a precedent for future programs on what is legal and what is not.
Parent - - By chessmaster15 (**) [us] Date 2011-07-13 16:14
(WE) did test versions that were available that "sandwiched" the ICGA events, with the obvious conclusion being that if the one available before an event .

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehhhh you did the test ???

things get a little clearer now .
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-13 17:44
"we".  Use your dictionary.  Then look at the ICGA panel.  That is "we".
Parent - - By chessmaster15 (**) [us] Date 2011-07-13 18:55
when you said WE ,, what went through my mind was , it sounded like you are icga . its like your saying icga is bob something like that . like the CEO of a company comes out and says WE looked into it and decided not to merge etc . so you were satisfied  that vas cheated sounds more to the point . not icga because you are icga .
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-13 19:04
I was speaking of "we, the panel" since "we" did the investigation.  No single person did all the work...
Parent - - By chessmaster15 (**) [us] Date 2011-07-13 19:08
what made you look into rybka . what was the deciding factor that sent up a red flad that rybka is a clone ? i hope you dont say strelka because strelka was along time ago .
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-13 19:17
I have explained this previously.

1.  Strelka is released.

2.  Vas claims Strelka is a reverse-engineered Rybka.

3.  Zach and a couple of others notice a striking similarity between Strelka and Fruit. 

Now we have the linkage fruit -> strelka -> (unknown) Rybka.  I put (unknown) since there was no source. 

4.  Zach and others, including myself, looked at Strelka and publicly stated how similar it was to fruit, and that that seemed to imply that Rybka 1.0 beta (Strelka was based on this version) appeared to contain non-original code.

5.  Rybka supporters howled in protest, "It is not fair to compare fruit / strelka, as you can't be sure that everything in Strelka is in Rybka."

6.  At this point, the investigation dug into Rybka 1.0 beta (led by Zach), to remove Strelka from the discussion.  Then it became more and more clear as Zach discovered more and more similarities, that Rybka 1.0 beta _did_ have too much fruit in it to be accidental.

7.  Fabien eventually heard of this, and posted an uncomplimentary post on CCC about this, and then asked the ICGA to investigate. 

8.  Then the group of 12 programmers (including Fabien) sent a formal complaint to the ICGA citing past work by Zach, and asked for a formal investigation.

That got us to where we are.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-17 22:52
It's good to have that as a summary. Time will come when the lynch intention can be proven and along the steps you have described, Bob.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-18 01:49
You, nor anyone else, will NEVER be able to prove any "lynch intention."  Why?  Because none was there.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2011-07-19 01:37

> You, nor anyone else, will NEVER be able to prove any "lynch intention."  Why?  Because none was there.


Coming from you Bob,  that dog won't hunt!
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-19 23:05
:lol:

I wished I could have half of your English style. But I must admit that Bob always had mercy with my incredibly weak speech. Except here the other day when he insinuated demented. But that will reach him sooner or later too. :twisted:
Parent - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) [gb] Date 2011-07-19 23:11
your English is excellent,take it from me.
Parent - - By Shaun (****) [gb] Date 2011-07-14 09:11
I am sorry Bob, I don't get how you can refuse to believe that source can get lost or that it is so rare as to have to be a lie! I tend to back up everything, however I -KNOW- that other programmers are not so careful - I used to work for a FTSE100 company that managed to lose the source for an important module which as a result had to be re-written. Turning a couple of days update/test into a couple of months work. It -DOES- happen.

And it’s not just source that gets lost, intelligent people, even when reminded forget to backup up digital photos etc all the time - ask anyone who works in PC support how many times they have asked 'did you have a backup' and got embarrassed silence.

Shaun
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-14 17:23
I believe I said "it is possible".  As I said "most programmers..."  "most but not all..."

But that did not harm the investigation, it just made it much harder.

Yes, I have lost files.  Even when I had backups, not knowing that the tape drive I used wrote unreadable backups...

But since there has been a HUGE lack of honesty from this particular author, it is a bit harder to believe statements that are convenient for him and which make it much harder to determine if copying occurred...
Parent - - By x1134x [us] Date 2012-01-17 20:55
dragging and dropping on recycle bin and emptying is not plausible?  In what universe?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-01-17 22:52
MULTIPLE copies?  On MULTIPLE machines?

Nope.
Parent - - By x1134x [us] Date 2012-01-18 17:20
Did you assume a missing "accidently" that I didn't mention?  Its easy to do on multiple machines when you're trying to.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2012-01-18 20:32
And why would you "try to lose source?"  INTENTIONALLY?

Can you actually "lose" something "intentionally"?  "lose" usually implies "accidentally".  In the world of computing, most commonly as a result of hardware issues.  At least that was what was claimed/implied...
Parent - By Maxiator (***) [de] Date 2011-07-13 17:38
..."the truth hurts" (truth can only be defined by "bob", i see....)
And it is true that Crafty can´t keep up with the best engines for years, it´s programmer has lost his magic and only serves as a template and starting point for others. That truth really hurts.
Imho Mr. Rajich shows some strange characteristics but seeing the behaviour of ICGA (represented in this forum maynly by bob),  I am annoyed.
CC didn´t die, but Deep blue disappeared from the scene; therefore the analogy may be CC is going on and ICGA  deteriorate to a club of old men somewhere in Great Britain who celebrate themselves as the gods of computerchess.
Regards,
max
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-12 01:06
Phil,

I do not understand at all why you would make a statement like that and not bother to explain why

Best Regards
Parent - - By Phil Harris (***) [gb] Date 2011-07-12 09:36
Hi Rob,

I have tried not to get involved in all this because it seems obvious to me that for both sides it's an un-winnable argument.

The reason I made that comment is that to dismiss everything Vas has achieved in computer chess as merely the actions of a cheater is patently ludicrous.

I remember some time ago Bob saying that it would be almost impossible to sit down and write a chess program from scratch, and it would be far better to start from working source code. That made perfect sense to me when you consider how much of the writing involves functions that don't affect performance.

As everyone seems fond of analogies in this discussion, I will offer my own. To me it appears like the end of a race in which the clear winner has his car stripped by his opponents, one says "hey that's my wiring loom", while another says "he stole my fuel tank".

There seems no doubt that Vas made a huge mistake in not following precisely the rules on attribution and licences. If all engines were dismantled and investigated to the same extent as Rybka has been, I am sure a great number of similar transgressions would turn up, but they won't be. They won't be because they didn't win.

Bob is very fond of saying the truth hurts, and there is another painful truth that runs rather too obviously through this whole issue. That is that Vas managed to dominate his field for five years, with no one even getting close. The fact that he did it without producing his own UCI parser or whatever, doesn't change the fact that he achieved results that others could only wonder at.

The reason I have lost respect for Bob is that he knows that Vas achieved remarkable things, things that no one else in the computer chess world could get close to. To now dismiss all that as merely "cheating" is disingenuous at best, and certainly beneath the standards one might expect from such a man.

All the best,

Phil
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-12 10:15
Bob is very fond of saying the truth hurts, and there is another painful truth that runs rather too obviously through this whole issue. That is that Vas managed to dominate his field for five years, with no one even getting close. The fact that he did it without producing his own UCI parser or whatever, doesn't change the fact that he achieved results that others could only wonder at.

The reason I have lost respect for Bob is that he knows that Vas achieved remarkable things, things that no one else in the computer chess world could get close to. To now dismiss all that as merely "cheating" is disingenuous at best, and certainly beneath the standards one might expect from such a man.


I think you are on the right track but the whole truth is even much more stinking. Sorry for my wording but I'm not a native speaker.

Try to grasp all the other aspects of the story. Take the Russian line with anon like Osipov. Consider also the reason of the likewise anonymous Hobo etc family. Include a bit of H. And now write a verdict.

Just for the theoretical benefit please assume it were a case of International politics, peace and war with the CIA included and the Courtg in The Hague.

Here is what I suppose.

The whole anonons were created by Theron/Hyatt and other morons like kranium. The latter BTW had published the basic idea. In my own wording he said something like:

We can believe that Vas somehow betrayed, not to say that this could be proven. But even if we cannot prove it we do a little lynching like the famous inquisition in MA.

We create clones of Rybka, and hereby we at least make him suffer. We always hold the fantasy in the air that also Vas did nothing but copy and clone. He has no remedy against us because we are anonymous and the important people like Hyatt do tolerate our sinister practice.

The actual step by the ICGA is ecactly in that line.

They say, now when practically all others have copied enough from Rybka, Vas can be banned. The tournaments are played by Rybka clones. But we finally have exterminated the best programmer of chess software who became a real pain because he was always the winner and Junior no longer had a chance to win.

They say, Vas is the only one who doesnt brownnose us. But that is high treason. It's well known since the times of Willy Tell from Switzerland, that everybody must lift their hats in front of the stuffed dummies (German Ölgötzen = tin gods) like Levy or Hyatt.

They say, in the end we would still have the tiny progs of Harm G. Muller from the Netherlands. Then he could become World Champion of the ICGA.

They say, or we all play Black Jack... or strip poker.
Parent - By M ANSARI (*****) [es] Date 2011-07-12 15:31
+1

I think that Vas made it VERY CLEAR that he started out with code that was already functional, and decided to concentrate on innovations that would add strength.  It is incredible that no mention of this is ever mentioned by those trying to vilify Vas.  It is as if all Vas did was copy Craft and Fruit and came up with an instant hybrid which was Rybka ... with no input from him whatsoever.  The code of Crafty and Fruit was available for all to see and all to learn from, but ONLY Vas was able to dramatically increase playing strength of all engines ... give credit where credit is due.  And I don't buy the claim that nobody else wanted to do what Vas did because it was "unethical" ... that morality sure went out the window when Rybka 3 guts were spilled out with Ippolit code ... even though Ippolit was unauthorized RE code of Rybka 3.
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-12 19:50 Edited 2011-07-12 19:55
I see your point(s) Phil, and can certainly appreciate what you have said (albeit not agreeing with some things).  So thanks for your reply.

You know tho it is not atypical when someone who is held in such high esteem for their accomplishments, when it is discovered (or they are exposed) that they have not participated according to the rules, their fall can be quite dramatic.

I can remember in the Engine Room during the summers, all the vitriol concerning Lance Armstrong.  Despite all the blood tests he took, so many believed him guilty of doping. "No one can be this good" (this is I reckon an "anti" analogy and intro to the next).

Floyd Landis maintained for a number of years his "innocence" until finally confessing to doping.  His career was basically over when he was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title (despite his lies). Re: his career, the confession put the last nail in the proverbial coffin.

As far as other engines being investigated, I understand Loop is still under suspicion (don't know the status there).  All it takes is a reasonable complaint and some evidence... not like Ed's nutty accusation about Crafty.  I do not believe for one moment you could go into Hiarcs, Junior, Shredder, Fritz, Zappa (Rondo) etc… and find section after section of similar code with respect to another engine.  They will not be investigated for the simple fact "no one" (ok save Vincent from time to time) believes this to be the case.  Squarknll won nothing.  Yet it and its author received a lifetime ban (with the concomitant ICGA press release) when it was shown to be a copy of another program. Other programs / authors have been booted…

So I am not buying this argument that Vas is being picked on because he won for such and such years.

Speaking of Zappa / Rondo... there is the pattern to follow.  You don't pull the “No. 1 engine” when it becomes open source, change a few bits and bobs and then call it your original work.  That is pathetic.  A "readme" acknowledgment saying, "I looked at such and such programs taking such and such ideas," does not jive with what you actually did.  Maybe you can dupe some others that way, but not anyone who has ever done any programming.

You do what Zach Wegner did if that is something you want to do.  We can all admire and be thankful for what Zach is doing.  This follows the idea of "standing on the shoulder of giants". There's a "right way" and a "wrong way".  All CS guys/gals know the difference.  Vas knew the difference.  He chose a short cut.  I cannot respect that.  Especially in light of the fact so many authors have written their own programs.  All he had to do was acknowledge his source and comply with the Fruit GNU.

On the one hand Vas has done remarkable things yet on the other it would be almost impossible for him to start from scratch?  Well which is it?  If Vas is so good, why cannot he do the same thing all these "other authors" have done?  Because he wasn't willing to take the time.  And he is paying that price now.

And to say about Vas, "can't touch this"... Houdart has shown that patently false by doing something similar.  He made Vas's work "better" than Vas did himself.  So the theory that Vas is some sort of programming genius is shot down with the arrival of Houdart.

What he did wasn't special... it was really "anti-special"... he merely continued Fabien's work. They way he did it reminds me of the lab assistant that when the professor dies, the assistant grabs all the notes and research and pawns the work off as his own. Everyone is so impressed until he is found out to be a fraud.  Fabien could have done what Vas did.  He already had a "No. 1" program.  Most assuredly, a number of other authors could have done what Vas did.  It is not as if Vas is some prodigy.  If that was the case, why the need to have someone develop a top-of-the-line engine for you, before you start work?  These "other guys" did develop their own engine from scratch.  Then they chose to continue their work instead of copying someone else's who did "better".

If you are a "true competitor" with a sense of ethics... winning and losing is not all that matters.  There is great satisfaction in knowing what you are capable of.  People would offer me their books... I did not want them... and I never asked Eros for his book.  When I learned how to work on a book, I took great satisfaction doing the work myself and seeing how well it would perform.  Did I care that I wasn't the "best bookmaker"... sure I cared enough to work hard.  Did I ever use Roger's book and claim it as my own work... absolutely never, not one time.  Someone asks, “whose book you using”… “it’s mine” (if it was mine)… it’s Sebi’s (if it was Sebi’s)…

Bob stated in another thread: "You do fail to grasp what an advantage it is to _start_ with a program rated near the top at the time (Fruit) as opposed to starting with just an idea and a compiler.  You save years of time."  Even with my limited programming experience, I can wholly appreciate what Bob said.  Again, if Vas was/is so good, why the need for Fruit?  Why the need to make (and enter into competition) a clone of Crafty?

Vas managed to dominate... sure. But the same can be said for Armstrong. If any samples had tested positive and there was evidence of this,  Armstrong would too become a byword save for those most devoted fans.  Something similar has happened with Vas, and now he has to accept the consequences of his actions, just like all of us have to do.  Don’t be surprised when your fellow competitors become “up in arms” when they believe you are not competing according to the rules.  These attacks on Mark, Bob are crass and hypocritical because who in their right mind wants to play with someone who is not abiding by the rules.  And remember, it was Vas himself who got the ball rolling that Rybka was not original.

So when I see the huge advantage he took over other programmers, I find Rybka quite unremarkable; if you plumb the depths of what this word "cheating" actually means (seems it can be surprising deceptive)... his remarks are quite accurate and logical.  This cheating becomes (I hope you don't mind this analogy) the fly in the soup.  Or the rat in the kitchen (apologies... couldn't help that one... the movie "Ratatouille" suddenly came to mind).

I have to agree the likelihood of finding common ground is remote... nothing wrong with the “agreeing to disagree”… your perspective is appreciated and thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant.

All the best to you too and continued success in your business.
Rob
Parent - - By Phil Harris (***) [gb] Date 2011-07-13 17:37
Most assuredly, a number of other authors could have done what Vas did.  It is not as if Vas is some prodigy.  If that was the case, why the need to have someone develop a top-of-the-line engine for you, before you start work?  These "other guys" did develop their own engine from scratch.  Then they chose to continue their work instead of copying someone else's who did "better".


From what I remember many people did use Fruit as a basis for further engine development. I am pretty sure Toga was developed from Fruit 2.1  and more than a few engines sprung from Toga, not one of these approached the performance of Rybka.

If all the sucess achieved by Rybka was merely the use of Fruit ideas, which were available to ALL as source code, then what possible explanation is there for Rybka doing so much better than the rest?

Surely if the answer to such performance was encompassed within Fruit, then even by simply using the ideas, and not necessarilly the actual code, any decent engine author could have achieved Rybka like performance, but they couldn't. I hope you are not going to suggest that other engine developers wouldn't have at least examined Fruit code for ideas.

The Lance Armstrong analogies make no sense whatsoever, and only would if Fruit was much more powerful than Rybka in the first place. Surely it is obvious that for that to be valid, then the injection of code from Fruit would have to enhance the work done already on Rybka. This would require 2+2 to equal 5.

If as you suggest, that Vas only did what any other programmer could have done and with the actual code from Fruit and Crafty available for all to see, then could you possibly explain why he dominated for five years?
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-14 04:14 Edited 2011-07-14 04:33
Sorry for the cycling analogies... I realize I did not explain very well, what I was thinking and how it relates as I see it. No biggy there, I'll just drop it instead of wasting time to sort it.

>not one of these approached the performance of Rybka.


Then you need to look here e.g.
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html

Or here

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%20Rating%20List/40_40%20All%20Versions/rangliste.html

Toga was a very strong engine... I just didn't dominate the CB engine room in blitz like rybka did. I have no idea how much time its author(s) worked on it... certainly wasn't commercial (dang, I don't think it ever was).

>If all the sucess achieved by Rybka was merely the use of Fruit ideas, which were available to ALL as source code, then what possible explanation is there for Rybka doing so much better than the rest?


So you are saying... after Vas cloned Crafty, then he decided to make a derivative of Fruit?  Because your premise of "success achieved by Rybka was merely the use of Fruit ideas" is totally inaccurate.  What Vas did is much like what Houdart did.

>then could you possibly explain why he dominated for five years?


I get a kick out hearing these things about Fruit and “ideas”.

On the one hand EVERYONEs chess engine jumped hundreds of elo when Fruit was released.  On the other, it was only Vas that was able to make a totally new engine after cloning Crafty, using just Fruit  ideas, and not only got a couple hundred elo jump but with superior programming skillz, was able to dominate everyone else.

I answered that with my book example.  Am I to throw away 10 or 15 years worth of work (more in some case)… copy another program and start work on that one so I can have an engine in WCCC that gives me better winning chances?

Or so I can start commercial sales sometime down the road when it has gained acceptance?

That is all Houdart is doing.  He'll "never" get into CCT or WCCC... tho might be able to start selling at some point.

As far as an engine author looking at Fruit for ideas… maybe the ideas do not implement well from what Fruit does to the engine in question.  Or maybe the author does not the like the ideas.  I bet you dollars to donuts Bob, Jeremy, other engine authors (I know Jeremy not a chess engine author but still involved in programming) would acknowledge what I am saying.

How many times did I hear Eros say, "you ought to follow this line... or this."?  Many times I accepted his ideas and worked on improving a certain line, many times I did not because I wanted to do it my way.  You create a "work"... it is you're work and maybe you just do not want to co-mingle someone else’s ideas into your work.

This isn't like a car engine where one says, "hey we can flow balance the intake/exhaust" or "we can try a slight bit over-bore and use longer rods with a bit more on the throw" or "I got a new wiring harness much less susceptible to leakage" and then you swap this for that.

I dare say this stuff is as much as a science as it is an art.  And it's a personal work which a person can take much pride and joy regardless if you are No. 1, or No. 10 etc... Obviously not all take this view.

Edit:

What would put this is to rest for me, ICGA... everyone involved...

Vas should do what "everyone" else has done who has written their own chess engine (and I don't mean guys like Houdart or the Iggorit Decemberists etc)...

Start from "scratch", write his own engine... then let us see how long before he zones in on 3000.  I will not be doing the proverbial "holding my breath".

Problem is he knows it would be years (assuming he really can do it) and I doubt (judging by what he has done so far) he would EVER do it.  So if he wants to put himself in the same class as Houdart, that is his business.  Just don’t expect everyone to value his work.

I, for one, believe he has done more harm to computer engine chess than more “good”.  And I am thankful this is not “my sport” or I would be very angry…  very hurt... very depressed…
Parent - - By Phil Harris (***) [gb] Date 2011-07-17 21:42

So you are saying... after Vas cloned Crafty, then he decided to make a derivative of Fruit?  Because your premise of "success achieved by Rybka was merely the use of Fruit ideas" is totally inaccurate.  What Vas did is much like what Houdart did.


My original sentence you are quoting from was a question with "So if" at the front. Changing the meaning of someones post and then arguing against your own new new interpretation is an interesting way to conduct a debate, but not for me.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-17 22:20

>My original sentence you are quoting from was a question with "So if" at the front.


Forgive me Phil.

I see a "So if" in one of my sentences... but not "yours".

Be that as it may... your sentence:

>If all the sucess achieved by Rybka was merely the use of Fruit ideas, which were available to ALL as source code, then what possible explanation is there for Rybka doing so much better than the rest?


Whether "So if" as you say (which I don't see) or "If all" (which I do see)... I still do not see any significant semantic difference...

I still say that premise is inaccurate / incorrect / flawed.

This is not about ideas "at all"... it is about, well... as Zach put it very accurately and succinctly: Just to make this clear to everyone reading: YES THERE IS COPIED CODE. VASIK IS GUILTY. GET OVER IT.

Btw:

>Changing the meaning of someones post and then arguing against your own new new interpretation is an interesting way to conduct a debate, but not for me.


I do not find it interesting at all... quite the contrary.  I find it quite disgusting and pathetic.  Nelson, Alan, turbo all guilty of doing this with me (Nelson just doing it today with Harvey) and I find that tactic quite abhorrent.

In fact what I was doing was trying to clarify (i.e. a "just to be sure") what you said (as can be seen with my question before the sentence you mention).

I am sincere Phil... I have no quarrel with you... just a "debate".
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) [us] Date 2011-07-17 23:29
Eloquent prose, Phil.  I agree with all of it except for one part you are omitting.  Vas is, at heart, a rogue.  Given an opportunity, he will seize it.  Like almost everyone else.

I don't think he has much use for rules, norms and process.  You just have to add up the clues:

1.  Before our first interview (18 months ago) I briefly chatted with him on Skype to test the connection.  He looked like he hadn't shaved or had a haircut in six months at least.  I felt compelled to suggest a change.
2.  In our first interview, during the biographical portion, he mentioned that he was working for Ford Motor Company and there were complaints from the staff that he was not wearing shoes.  Imagine it.
3.  He has not held a steady, conventional job since 2003.
4.  In Freestyle competition he was somewhat controversial in his interpretation of rules on one occasion which caused quite a flap at the time.
5.  No version control until Rybka 4: a highly irregular and undisciplined process.
6.  What can only be described as a purposefully neglectful attitude toward the ICGA. 

I am sure others could come up with other pieces of the puzzle.  Does it convict him of anything?  No, of course not.  But it does sketch the outlines of an idiosyncratic personality that is competitive, opportunistic, disordered, brilliant, unconventional.
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-07-18 04:35
Excellent post!
Parent - - By donkasand (***) [za] Date 2011-07-18 04:53
The Bobby Fischer of chess programming? :evil:
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-18 10:30
He looked like he hadn't shaved or had a haircut in six months at least.  I felt compelled to suggest a change.

he was working for Ford Motor Company and there were complaints from the staff that he was not wearing shoes.  Imagine it.

He has not held a steady, conventional job since 2003.

he was somewhat controversial in his interpretation of rules on one occasion which caused quite a flap at the time.

5.  No version control until Rybka 4: a highly irregular and undisciplined process.

6.  What can only be described as a purposefully neglectful attitude toward the ICGA.

I am sure others could come up with other pieces of the puzzle.  Does it convict him of anything?  No, of course not.  But it does sketch the outlines of an idiosyncratic personality that is competitive, opportunistic, disordered, brilliant, unconventional.


Nelson with that shit you've lost me. For both interviews I praised you well enough, while holding private what I saw speaking against yourself, but now you wrote your own death verdict.

Let me please begin with the impression I got from your appearance, just to have something to compare with Vasik.

1. You are looking like someone who has no self-control whatsoever, you are just looking too fat. That normally says it all. You dont want to act in a Michael Jackson video "I'm fat"? Just kidding.

2. If you laugh or try to smile, and that is something that irritated me also already in the first interview, there is something in your mimic that speaks the contrary of what laughing normally should mean. You are acting like an enemy but not a friend, as if you wanted to message to the viewers that you were on the side of the critics but not the supporters, because it all gave you pain in your big belly. It speaks for Vas that he gave you such an interview. Because everybody can see it, that you are full of falsehood. Your are not honest and balanced in yourself which has nothing to do with Vas in the first place.

3. You missed that you are nothing but a transmitter, a reporter, but not someone equally levelled with whom Vas would talk about anything relevant from his inside. He wouldnt talk about it with nobody else either who would be reporting it to the world. "We" didnt want to see a Vasik that was properly prepared by you because the normal programmers and computerchess addicts dont follow your guidelines but more the ones of Vasik. Just take a look into the interviews Vas gave during the Dresden olympiad on ChessBase.

4. Where you crossed the line of tolerable opinion publishing is when you speak of *disorder*. Could you support it with some expertise? Is it speaking personally from your own mindframe as an amateur or is it me who might misunderstand your insults? Not expecting any answer because I have made up my mind, death verdict already.

5. No shoes, no regular job and all such stuff is only demonstrating your ignorance as a Babbitt or petit bourgeois. Man, you are speaking about the leading CC programmer for the past decade and you are talking about shoes. Reminds me of the film Wag the Dog, and we should better send Care parcels to Poland with new shoes for the people over there. Man, you are killing me. BTW do you really know where Poland exactly is? It's south from Malta, go figure and, please take yourself a good dentist for the correction of your teeth.

Sorry, but tit for tat.:lol:
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill