Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
Well, interesting times ....
The panel clearly either did not read the technical reports or they didn't read with a critical eye. I posit that most of them just read the conclusions and skipped over the mass of technical detail. The technicals are an unproofed disaster-zone. More on this as I delve ......
But, for now, the BB "results" of
74% Rybka-Fruit "overlap"
54% Crafty-Fruit "overlap"
and around 30% overlap elsewhere
is perfectly explainable in a quite benign way.
The programs tested for "evaluation function overlap" fall into three categories and the results just reflect the categories.
Without wishing to be rude or denigrating to the programs used by BB, they are
a) a group of quite primitive bean-counter programs, the programmers are relative amateurs and the programs are old.
b) a group of two highly talented, and, looking at Fabien's work, with good chessic knowledge. Vas is in this group of two, he is of course a very strong player, an IM.
c) a group of one, Hyatt, very competent programmer, but with limited chessic knowledge, dependent being told this knowledge by others (Valvo etc etc etc as often quoted) but with 25 years experience of the chess from programming.
a = low chess knowledge, amateur programmers (all the others)
b = high chess knowledge, highly competent programmers (Fabien, Vas)
c = medium chess knowledge, highly competent programmer (Hyatt)
which fits to the resultant data of BB.
b > c > a
BB wasn't measuring "overlap" he was measuring chess programming skill. If anybody cares to put the program ELO's against BB's "scores" he will find high correlation.
The panel clearly either did not read the technical reports or they didn't read with a critical eye. I posit that most of them just read the conclusions and skipped over the mass of technical detail. The technicals are an unproofed disaster-zone. More on this as I delve ......
But, for now, the BB "results" of
74% Rybka-Fruit "overlap"
54% Crafty-Fruit "overlap"
and around 30% overlap elsewhere
is perfectly explainable in a quite benign way.
The programs tested for "evaluation function overlap" fall into three categories and the results just reflect the categories.
Without wishing to be rude or denigrating to the programs used by BB, they are
a) a group of quite primitive bean-counter programs, the programmers are relative amateurs and the programs are old.
b) a group of two highly talented, and, looking at Fabien's work, with good chessic knowledge. Vas is in this group of two, he is of course a very strong player, an IM.
c) a group of one, Hyatt, very competent programmer, but with limited chessic knowledge, dependent being told this knowledge by others (Valvo etc etc etc as often quoted) but with 25 years experience of the chess from programming.
a = low chess knowledge, amateur programmers (all the others)
b = high chess knowledge, highly competent programmers (Fabien, Vas)
c = medium chess knowledge, highly competent programmer (Hyatt)
which fits to the resultant data of BB.
b > c > a
BB wasn't measuring "overlap" he was measuring chess programming skill. If anybody cares to put the program ELO's against BB's "scores" he will find high correlation.
Your conclusion certainly contains an element of truth
We don't need rating lists, we just need to set BB to test the evaluation function source code with his super-whizzy test technique and Bingo! we have an ELO score. No need even to play one game!
Just a short question. How do you prove high chess knowledge in Letouzey?
intuited it from looking at the BB docs which contained Fruit eval code, maybe I'm wrong but he surely isn't dumb in that department
you are simply wrong there, but don't let that stop you. Factual details rarely do...
Just think about the BB paper "eval functions" with the headline 74% Fruit-Rybka "overlap". This overlap level when compared to the other lower overlaps is the basis of the claim (via statistic theory on standard deviations etc) 1 in 80000000 chance that Rybka did not copy Fruit.
But, since the BB scores map very well to ELO how do you resist the counter claim that BB thought he was measuring overlap but was actually measuring program strength or programming ability? Rybka > Fruit > Crafty > the rest. Bizarre. But we know that science and especially science mixed in with the psychological, the social, bias, groupthink and in this case hatred, often results in measuring not what you thought you were measuring, but in measuring something else.
When BB presented that paper, somebody should have said "er, but your results map to ELO, do they not? go away, do your homework again and come back with something better that isn't going to make us look stupid". Why the strength/ELO mapping? Well, could be bad data, bad choice of comparison programs, lack of other good programs from 2005-6 in the test group, bias, bad method, any one of a host of things - doesn't really matter, it is questionable and bad science and not fit for purpose anymore. What does matter is that BB's results and conclusions are no longer sustainable. So the 1 in 80000000 headline figure is not sustainable. The 74% overlap figure is not sustainable.
Time to get grovelling, apologise to Vas and get ready with the donation to a charity of his choice.
But, since the BB scores map very well to ELO how do you resist the counter claim that BB thought he was measuring overlap but was actually measuring program strength or programming ability? Rybka > Fruit > Crafty > the rest. Bizarre. But we know that science and especially science mixed in with the psychological, the social, bias, groupthink and in this case hatred, often results in measuring not what you thought you were measuring, but in measuring something else.
When BB presented that paper, somebody should have said "er, but your results map to ELO, do they not? go away, do your homework again and come back with something better that isn't going to make us look stupid". Why the strength/ELO mapping? Well, could be bad data, bad choice of comparison programs, lack of other good programs from 2005-6 in the test group, bias, bad method, any one of a host of things - doesn't really matter, it is questionable and bad science and not fit for purpose anymore. What does matter is that BB's results and conclusions are no longer sustainable. So the 1 in 80000000 headline figure is not sustainable. The 74% overlap figure is not sustainable.
Time to get grovelling, apologise to Vas and get ready with the donation to a charity of his choice.
Not going to happen.
And this has nothing to do with measuring "programmer ability." Quite the opposite in fact, since it measures "programmer plagiarism" instead,
And this has nothing to do with measuring "programmer ability." Quite the opposite in fact, since it measures "programmer plagiarism" instead,
Well, we know you want and need it to measure "programmer plagiarism" but simple assertion of this doesn't make it true. As you well know.
Consider BB technique as a black box.
You apply some BB generated data about the eval functions of several programs.
The programs are rankable by ELO, the programs form three groups: the pack of also-rans, one that is better than the pack but not top, and two that are top.
The black box outputs data.
The data output headline figures match rather well to the program ELOs and to the three program groupings.
Now you have a problem. Well, more precisely an impartial arbiter or court has a problem. What actually are you measuring? Can the arbiter/court be confident your assertion is true? If it can't be confident than your 74% figure and your 1 in 80000000 probability figure are vapourised. A major plank of your case is removed. And you are open to a charge of defamation.
Simples.
Consider BB technique as a black box.
You apply some BB generated data about the eval functions of several programs.
The programs are rankable by ELO, the programs form three groups: the pack of also-rans, one that is better than the pack but not top, and two that are top.
The black box outputs data.
The data output headline figures match rather well to the program ELOs and to the three program groupings.
Now you have a problem. Well, more precisely an impartial arbiter or court has a problem. What actually are you measuring? Can the arbiter/court be confident your assertion is true? If it can't be confident than your 74% figure and your 1 in 80000000 probability figure are vapourised. A major plank of your case is removed. And you are open to a charge of defamation.
Simples.
Question is, is that a cause, or an effect? If you look hard enough, you can probably find a match between that data and the number of letters in the programmer's name, or their age, or their phone number. But none of that means a thing with respect to the copying idea...
Based on panel discussion, I don't think a judge or jury will have that impression. They get to hear from both sides, with carefully presented results. The elo of the programmers is completely irrelevant when the topic is copying code...
Based on panel discussion, I don't think a judge or jury will have that impression. They get to hear from both sides, with carefully presented results. The elo of the programmers is completely irrelevant when the topic is copying code...
Disregarding your nonsense about irrelevant telephone numbers etc, and sticking to connectable concepts (such as programmer ability/ELO/whatever or the overlap you claim to be trying to measure or anything else reasonably imaginable), our side would appeal to the arbiter/court that given the obvious ELO correlation, that the BB results are both questionable and unreliable on the basis that we can't be sure what is being measured and the document "eval function - BB" should be omitted from consideration, or junked to put it more rudely.
We might also argue to the court that to eliminate the ELO consideration and get back to an expert report that might be more believable, that BB junks the weak programs from his tests and obtains the source codes of 2005-6 competing programs of comparable ELO and reruns the analysis. But in its present state the BB report "eval function" is not acceptable.
We might also argue to the court that to eliminate the ELO consideration and get back to an expert report that might be more believable, that BB junks the weak programs from his tests and obtains the source codes of 2005-6 competing programs of comparable ELO and reruns the analysis. But in its present state the BB report "eval function" is not acceptable.
You've already claimed it shows no similarity between piece/square table values. I've pointed out multiple times that it does. Mark Lefler chimed in with a similar statement. So you completely miss key parts (or else intentionally claim they don't exist when they clearly do) and then want to believe you can convince a judge that black is white, and red is green, and heavy is light, and copied is not...
Good luck with that. I'd only want you on my side if I wanted to get convicted of something, in this circumstance...
Good luck with that. I'd only want you on my side if I wanted to get convicted of something, in this circumstance...
Well actually I conceded the point on the "scalar arrays" w.r.t. PST tables in an earlier post ....
Finally, yes, Zach has argued that the primitive scaler is the same for each program. There are some kludges that have to be applied which render the programs apart. Different weights are applied which render the programs apart. And the relative scaling between piece types is also different (the ratios 36.2, 73.5, 16.3, 25.1 and 94.5), also rendering the programs apart.
So, if we accept Zach process is fair, your side can wave the flag of the primitive scaling arrays (even though you can't prove they exist actually) and our critical side can wave the flags of no source code matches, different PST tables, different weights, kludges, extra tables in some cases, different relative piece scaling.
An impartial observer might find, for the PST case, that Vas took the scaling table, possibly because he thought it rather trivial and he was working privately with it in his laboratory (not publishing it or including it in his distributed version), and used it together with a mass of his own written stuff to generate PST table data which was then passed to his program at launch.
What part of open source Fruit has he published and what licence has he broken by this process?
.... and you can respond or not to that as you wish where it is posted.
Meanwhile, the scientific way, and I assume you are seeking after truth, with the BB eval function paper would be to go away and redo it using programs of comparable ELO from 2005-6, ie top programs, then you could eliminate the obvious "what exactly are we measuring" ELO problem from the process. Until then the paper is not acceptable to any reasonable person due to ambiguity in what is being measured.
Simples.
Finally, yes, Zach has argued that the primitive scaler is the same for each program. There are some kludges that have to be applied which render the programs apart. Different weights are applied which render the programs apart. And the relative scaling between piece types is also different (the ratios 36.2, 73.5, 16.3, 25.1 and 94.5), also rendering the programs apart.
So, if we accept Zach process is fair, your side can wave the flag of the primitive scaling arrays (even though you can't prove they exist actually) and our critical side can wave the flags of no source code matches, different PST tables, different weights, kludges, extra tables in some cases, different relative piece scaling.
An impartial observer might find, for the PST case, that Vas took the scaling table, possibly because he thought it rather trivial and he was working privately with it in his laboratory (not publishing it or including it in his distributed version), and used it together with a mass of his own written stuff to generate PST table data which was then passed to his program at launch.
What part of open source Fruit has he published and what licence has he broken by this process?
.... and you can respond or not to that as you wish where it is posted.
Meanwhile, the scientific way, and I assume you are seeking after truth, with the BB eval function paper would be to go away and redo it using programs of comparable ELO from 2005-6, ie top programs, then you could eliminate the obvious "what exactly are we measuring" ELO problem from the process. Until then the paper is not acceptable to any reasonable person due to ambiguity in what is being measured.
Simples.
There is one really great property to chess:
There are more valid chess positions than atoms in our galaxy.
So there's basically nothing easier than presenting 10^9 random test positions in which Rybka and Fruit will play different moves, and yes, even if they were ordered to search on a position to the exactly same DEPTH (if only to rule out the possiblility that they came
up with different moves because Rybka analyzed the position more deeply than Fruit).
So why on earth would Rybka 1.0 (depth 12) chose a different move than Fruit (depth 12) in billions of possible test position?
I dare to say that (in theory) it can be proven mathematically that for the majority of all possible & valid chess positions Rybka12 and Fruit12 will find different bestmoves.
Don't come up with your nonsense about Rybka analyzing the position more deeply than Fruit, because for this experiment both were ordered to do a 12-ply search! It doesn't add to anyone's credibility to deny trivial facts every first-grader can verify immediatly.
The only reasonable explanation for Rybka choosing different moves than Fruit in this scenario is due to Rybka's profoundly different evaluation function. That's really the only possible source the different choice of a bestmove could have originated from.
Nevertheless Hyatt & ICGA keep on telling everyone Rybka12 and Fruit12 use exactly the same evaluation function (in the same order, in the same whatever). This nonsense is easily debunkable by presenting billions of random test positions where Rybka12 and Fruit12
come up with totally different bestmoves, and whoever else has only a dim whiff of chess programs knows this is usually the consequence of completely different evaluation functions (given that both programs did - the same - 12 - ply search and thus the different
move choice is certainly not the consequence of one engine analyzing a given position more deeply than the other.
Yeah, chess itself offers just too many valid positions, thus there exist trillions of possible disproofs to Hyatt & ICGA's claim that Rybka and Fruit use exactly the same evaluation function (in the same order, the same meaning blabla).
But only one (!) firm disproof should be enough for members of any unbiased jury to believe the suspect innocent.
It's just impossible to prove that any suspect escaped after a bankrobbery by means of swimming through a lake, and when they put it on test the suspect drowns because he never learned to swim (just like he always asserted, but some self-pleased expert covinced
the jury of the contrary).
Taking this analogy (yeah, a great one!) maybe now Hyatt & his inquisitors get the idea, WHO will be found guilty by the general public - as well as by any regular court: That damn treacherous expert who lied because he didn't like the suspect and thus is
responsible for the drowned suspect.
I hope now it's clear how morally reprehensible 'Defamation' really is and why it's treated as a crime (in severe cases, e.g. committing the Defamations systematically and for a very long time, e.g. six years are more than enough. Not to mention the significant
compensation afterwards if the Defamed person's mental health took serious damage due to the 'Defamators'. In some cases I've even come to know of victims of Defamation who became so depressive they commited suicide.
I doubt that Hyatt's & his blind followers have any clue at all about the (possible) consequences of their Defamation Campaign (lasting six years), but be assured that no lawyer on earth will be able to defend you in case the worst case happens.
DEBUNKED, once more, the infamous irresponsibility & short-sightedness of some self-pleased 'experts' who wanna destroy VR. Well, nobody can prevent you 'experts' from proceeding with your wicked campaign, but maybe my little excursion has opened your eyes
just in time - before more serious damage occurs.
bw
There are more valid chess positions than atoms in our galaxy.
So there's basically nothing easier than presenting 10^9 random test positions in which Rybka and Fruit will play different moves, and yes, even if they were ordered to search on a position to the exactly same DEPTH (if only to rule out the possiblility that they came
up with different moves because Rybka analyzed the position more deeply than Fruit).
So why on earth would Rybka 1.0 (depth 12) chose a different move than Fruit (depth 12) in billions of possible test position?
I dare to say that (in theory) it can be proven mathematically that for the majority of all possible & valid chess positions Rybka12 and Fruit12 will find different bestmoves.
Don't come up with your nonsense about Rybka analyzing the position more deeply than Fruit, because for this experiment both were ordered to do a 12-ply search! It doesn't add to anyone's credibility to deny trivial facts every first-grader can verify immediatly.
The only reasonable explanation for Rybka choosing different moves than Fruit in this scenario is due to Rybka's profoundly different evaluation function. That's really the only possible source the different choice of a bestmove could have originated from.
Nevertheless Hyatt & ICGA keep on telling everyone Rybka12 and Fruit12 use exactly the same evaluation function (in the same order, in the same whatever). This nonsense is easily debunkable by presenting billions of random test positions where Rybka12 and Fruit12
come up with totally different bestmoves, and whoever else has only a dim whiff of chess programs knows this is usually the consequence of completely different evaluation functions (given that both programs did - the same - 12 - ply search and thus the different
move choice is certainly not the consequence of one engine analyzing a given position more deeply than the other.
Yeah, chess itself offers just too many valid positions, thus there exist trillions of possible disproofs to Hyatt & ICGA's claim that Rybka and Fruit use exactly the same evaluation function (in the same order, the same meaning blabla).
But only one (!) firm disproof should be enough for members of any unbiased jury to believe the suspect innocent.
It's just impossible to prove that any suspect escaped after a bankrobbery by means of swimming through a lake, and when they put it on test the suspect drowns because he never learned to swim (just like he always asserted, but some self-pleased expert covinced
the jury of the contrary).
Taking this analogy (yeah, a great one!) maybe now Hyatt & his inquisitors get the idea, WHO will be found guilty by the general public - as well as by any regular court: That damn treacherous expert who lied because he didn't like the suspect and thus is
responsible for the drowned suspect.
I hope now it's clear how morally reprehensible 'Defamation' really is and why it's treated as a crime (in severe cases, e.g. committing the Defamations systematically and for a very long time, e.g. six years are more than enough. Not to mention the significant
compensation afterwards if the Defamed person's mental health took serious damage due to the 'Defamators'. In some cases I've even come to know of victims of Defamation who became so depressive they commited suicide.
I doubt that Hyatt's & his blind followers have any clue at all about the (possible) consequences of their Defamation Campaign (lasting six years), but be assured that no lawyer on earth will be able to defend you in case the worst case happens.
DEBUNKED, once more, the infamous irresponsibility & short-sightedness of some self-pleased 'experts' who wanna destroy VR. Well, nobody can prevent you 'experts' from proceeding with your wicked campaign, but maybe my little excursion has opened your eyes
just in time - before more serious damage occurs.
bw
Please, dont play with my heart, but if that is true what I could feasure of your verses, you must be working for the Red Bull Team, is that true? This shot went right through my arteries. Is this Magic?
Just do it again!
Your comments are simply meaningless. One can copy A, make a few changes, and call this B. B will play nothing like A. Will choose different moves, with different scores, and may even be much stronger. BUT it is _still_ a derivative of A, regardless...
>> One can copy A, make a few changes, and call this B.
Yeah, but using a different board representation will require thousands of changes.
Using a different set of search routines will require just as many changes.
Using formerly unknown ('originial') pruning techniques like VR did in Rybka can't possibly come from only a 'few' changes, it requires an ingenious programmer and indeed very original work.
In fact, if you'd sum up all those thousands of substantial changes Fruit->Rybka you'd definitely come to a different conclusion than Rybka being a cheap derivative of Fruit (with only 'a few' changes).
Regarding your unquestionably high knowledge about chess programming I still wonder how you come to such a degrading conclusion.
Those who have really done their own major chess programs should know that doing a world class program like Rybka by using nothing else but Fruit's age-old version 2.1 would require thousands of substantial changes, not only a few.
And for any good, reasonable & honarable programmer it would be far less work to write his Super-Strong Rybka from scratch - instead of replacing several thousands line of code of an existing program by semantically equivalent code (which YOUR program is able to use.)
You've mentioned somewhere else how you used old Cray sources and had an easy time translating them to Crafty's data structures.
Well, after all, Cray is also YOUR own program, and in any case it is easier for a programer to translate 'his own' programs in this manner and with such ease.
But because the source code of a chess program is notorious for being not very expressive and very hard to read for any uninvolved third party (after all, it's only the author who knows exactly why he wrote several obfuscated lines of code in a certain way),
- of course it's easy for you to translate your own Cray source code to a semantically similar Crafty source code.
Doing the same with source code written by somebody else is significantly more difficult, I'd even say doing so is totally impractical as it won't help anyone's understanding of how a very strong chess program (like Rybka or Fruit) can be realized.
Again, there is no base to your claim that VR is so incredibly unreasonable that he'd undergo such a tedious backbreaking work of replacing several thousands lines of Mailbox-Source Code (published by sb els) to a semantically equivalent Bitboard Code.
No reasonable programmer would ever do that, not even if his intentions were to produce a super-strong engine.
In the latter case he'd be better off and have far less work if he coded 'his' program from scratch (instead of deciphering the messy source code of sb else' chess program, which by itself would take years).
Your ongoing attempts of playing VR's 6 years of hard work down (anyone could have programed Rybka, it's nothing more than a cheap copy, right?) don't add to your overall credibility and aren't worthy of an otherwise highly respected expert like you.
regards
The "thousands of changes" shows you are simply _not_ following the discussion. There are two kinds of changes here.
(1) what is needed to convert the data structures.
(2) what is needed to add new (or remove old defective) knowledge to the program.
(2) above will cause the new program to play significantly different than the one that was copied, while still retaining most of the copied code.
(1) what is needed to convert the data structures.
(2) what is needed to add new (or remove old defective) knowledge to the program.
(2) above will cause the new program to play significantly different than the one that was copied, while still retaining most of the copied code.
Hyatt: "One can copy A, make a few changes, and call this B."
meaning "One can copy Fruit, make a few changes and call this Rybka", the big lie repeated in Goebbelesque fashion for six years. It is true that, if one can copies A, makes a few changes, and call this B, then B is a DERIVATIVE of A. According to the meaning of the term DERIVE(d from).
Now, if Bob discovers within Rybka some fancy new method of LMR (say) and "copies" it into Crafty then Crafty is not then a DERIVATIVE of Rybka. Just to be clear on what "derivative" means.
The problem with Hyatt's "copy" and "derivative" argument, where A=Fruit and B=Rybka is that there are other possible pathways that Rybka was created, and Hyatt has no way of knowing or proving what pathway was used.
Alternative Rybka development pqthway ....
Vas downloads Crafty, modifies it, plays with it, learns all about computer chess including bitboard structures using this modified version. He might even hack around or rewrite or substantially change the UI (user interface) part, in order to pump out test values and generally allow him to inspect the program operation better. This is allegedly R1.6.1 according to Zach.
Vas now dumps Crafty engine. He still has a UI and now substantial knowledge of bitboard chess programs.
Using the UI (of unknown origin) Vas defines the data structure of the program he is about to create. Principally bitboard.
He write the fundamentally needed chess engine components that he needs himself and debugs them. MakeMove, GenerateMoves, GenerateCaptures, GenerateGetOutOfCheck and a bit of useful stuff, perhaps IsMyKingInCheck and stuff like that.
He writes a very primitive place holder evaluation function, perhaps just PSTs only.
We're now at a position where Vas has the base of a chess program, all his own work. No search yet though.
Next, perhaps with open source of Crafty on a second screen and open source of Fruit on another screen, and perhaps without, sine he knows it anyway, Vas writes the basis of Search, SearchRoot, QuiescenceSearch etc. He can do hash tables, killer moves and all fancy stuff at this stage.
We're now at a position where Vas has a semi-functioning chess engine, written by himself, able to play chess, albeit not particularly brilliantly. It remains to build an eval function, add some more fancy stuff to search and tune the eval and the search together.
All this development process makes sense because he can test and debug as he goes along, he can be reasonably confident that each stage builds on a relative bugfree precedent stage.
Now A=developmental, legal Rybka and if we make changes/additions to A, we can create B. B is going to be a derivative of developmental Rybka (A), not a derivative of Fruit.
It is quite impossible to say what the developmental process was, there is no proof that A=Fruit, any better than there is proof that A=developmental Rybka, and Vas kept a copy of Fruit and/or Crafty and/or anything else open on other screens at the final development stage.
Therefore, the claim that Rybka is a DERIVATIVE of Fruit rather than "Vas: Rybka took ideas from Fruit" is unsustainable.
meaning "One can copy Fruit, make a few changes and call this Rybka", the big lie repeated in Goebbelesque fashion for six years. It is true that, if one can copies A, makes a few changes, and call this B, then B is a DERIVATIVE of A. According to the meaning of the term DERIVE(d from).
Now, if Bob discovers within Rybka some fancy new method of LMR (say) and "copies" it into Crafty then Crafty is not then a DERIVATIVE of Rybka. Just to be clear on what "derivative" means.
The problem with Hyatt's "copy" and "derivative" argument, where A=Fruit and B=Rybka is that there are other possible pathways that Rybka was created, and Hyatt has no way of knowing or proving what pathway was used.
Alternative Rybka development pqthway ....
Vas downloads Crafty, modifies it, plays with it, learns all about computer chess including bitboard structures using this modified version. He might even hack around or rewrite or substantially change the UI (user interface) part, in order to pump out test values and generally allow him to inspect the program operation better. This is allegedly R1.6.1 according to Zach.
Vas now dumps Crafty engine. He still has a UI and now substantial knowledge of bitboard chess programs.
Using the UI (of unknown origin) Vas defines the data structure of the program he is about to create. Principally bitboard.
He write the fundamentally needed chess engine components that he needs himself and debugs them. MakeMove, GenerateMoves, GenerateCaptures, GenerateGetOutOfCheck and a bit of useful stuff, perhaps IsMyKingInCheck and stuff like that.
He writes a very primitive place holder evaluation function, perhaps just PSTs only.
We're now at a position where Vas has the base of a chess program, all his own work. No search yet though.
Next, perhaps with open source of Crafty on a second screen and open source of Fruit on another screen, and perhaps without, sine he knows it anyway, Vas writes the basis of Search, SearchRoot, QuiescenceSearch etc. He can do hash tables, killer moves and all fancy stuff at this stage.
We're now at a position where Vas has a semi-functioning chess engine, written by himself, able to play chess, albeit not particularly brilliantly. It remains to build an eval function, add some more fancy stuff to search and tune the eval and the search together.
All this development process makes sense because he can test and debug as he goes along, he can be reasonably confident that each stage builds on a relative bugfree precedent stage.
Now A=developmental, legal Rybka and if we make changes/additions to A, we can create B. B is going to be a derivative of developmental Rybka (A), not a derivative of Fruit.
It is quite impossible to say what the developmental process was, there is no proof that A=Fruit, any better than there is proof that A=developmental Rybka, and Vas kept a copy of Fruit and/or Crafty and/or anything else open on other screens at the final development stage.
Therefore, the claim that Rybka is a DERIVATIVE of Fruit rather than "Vas: Rybka took ideas from Fruit" is unsustainable.
One can always copy ideas, although I think it has been _clearly_ shown by now that there are _zero_ "Rybka ideas" in current Crafty. But we are not talking about copying ideas. We are talking about copying code.
Your suggestion about move generator and such does not match with reality. And even Vas has stated that he copied Crafty's rotated bitboard code.
The rest of your stuff is completely ridiculous in concept. If he wrote the code by himself, why does it match fruit so carefully. Values. Structure. Longjmp()/setjmp(). On and on. Why are there blocks of code that match perfectly, from the first one found, the UCI parser? It's a nice fantasy explanation, but the probability for independent development producing identical code is almost zero.
BTW R 1.6.1 was used in a tournament and claimed to be his original code. We _know_ that is a crock.
Your suggestion about move generator and such does not match with reality. And even Vas has stated that he copied Crafty's rotated bitboard code.
The rest of your stuff is completely ridiculous in concept. If he wrote the code by himself, why does it match fruit so carefully. Values. Structure. Longjmp()/setjmp(). On and on. Why are there blocks of code that match perfectly, from the first one found, the UCI parser? It's a nice fantasy explanation, but the probability for independent development producing identical code is almost zero.
BTW R 1.6.1 was used in a tournament and claimed to be his original code. We _know_ that is a crock.
Bob: BTW R 1.6.1 was used in a tournament and claimed to be his original code.
Here is a lackmus test for your integrity, Bob.
I have a question whose answer will prove the extent of lynch justice code in your mind.
Q.: (talking about 1.6.1 in 2005, six years ago) Could you perceive a possibility that under certain special conditions of creating a chess engine such a program might be given to testers and private "tournament organizers" with the idea of further testing with the oversight of certain rule prepositions? Or would you take such things as out of any consideration for any honest programmer in the computerchess scene? In other words, to be exactly on the point, for you such a thing does automatically prove beyond reasonnable doubt a well almost criminal intention of cheating? No excuses in the neighborhood whatsoever? Would you sign all these quests with a clear unconditional YES for guilty or are there any thinkable exceptions that would change your verdict?
Here is a lackmus test for your integrity, Bob.
I have a question whose answer will prove the extent of lynch justice code in your mind.
Q.: (talking about 1.6.1 in 2005, six years ago) Could you perceive a possibility that under certain special conditions of creating a chess engine such a program might be given to testers and private "tournament organizers" with the idea of further testing with the oversight of certain rule prepositions? Or would you take such things as out of any consideration for any honest programmer in the computerchess scene? In other words, to be exactly on the point, for you such a thing does automatically prove beyond reasonnable doubt a well almost criminal intention of cheating? No excuses in the neighborhood whatsoever? Would you sign all these quests with a clear unconditional YES for guilty or are there any thinkable exceptions that would change your verdict?
I have no idea what you are trying to imply.
Is there any reasonable excuse for (say) CCT6? No. Rules were clear. ICGA rule 2 was used, as were the others. We modified a bit here and there to reflect an automated event, so we added the kibitz requirement as opposed to the ICGA's "position your monitor so that your opponent can see it..." and such.
Is there any reasonable excuse for sending it to rating lists? Nope. License explicitly does not allow that unless the program is entered under the name Crafty with my permission previously obtained.
I don't see any justification for such behavior at all. It was simply intentional disregard for the rules of the events and for the copyright/license agreement Crafty source is released under.
Why is this so hard to understand? You now accept that he copied Crafty 19.x it seems. So we have a start. But you want to say it should be ignored? Why? Rules only apply when you like them, but not when you don't? That would make for fun chess tournaments.
Is there any reasonable excuse for (say) CCT6? No. Rules were clear. ICGA rule 2 was used, as were the others. We modified a bit here and there to reflect an automated event, so we added the kibitz requirement as opposed to the ICGA's "position your monitor so that your opponent can see it..." and such.
Is there any reasonable excuse for sending it to rating lists? Nope. License explicitly does not allow that unless the program is entered under the name Crafty with my permission previously obtained.
I don't see any justification for such behavior at all. It was simply intentional disregard for the rules of the events and for the copyright/license agreement Crafty source is released under.
Why is this so hard to understand? You now accept that he copied Crafty 19.x it seems. So we have a start. But you want to say it should be ignored? Why? Rules only apply when you like them, but not when you don't? That would make for fun chess tournaments.
A pity that you seemingly can only figure your own thinking, but you have no idea how to find possible excuses in other people's mind other than criminal intent and intentional rule neglecting. It's a shame that you cant see anything from your own broad experience a situation that might lead to certain things without any intentions to cheat at all. Aint saying that all sure had these experiences but somehow you must know how this might happen. I have no clue since I dont program at all but from my expertise in human science this is easy to understand. I know that you wont seek a fair judgement in court because you want to wade through your lynch justice. That is why you must pretend that you have absolutely no clue why someone should do this. But Chris had told you. It happens if you make experiments with open source models before you come to your senses again and make it sober. I appeal to you to stop this comedy. Ydou if anyone do understand that Vas didnt win the many titles because he cheated with Fruit or Crafty when he finally headed to the top. You know exactly how this can happen. I'm just trying to understand what you already know. I wished the following from you, yes, if I share a moment of peace with Rolf I could join him, ok, but I cant because all these rules which were always so important for me, but ok, the times are changing and I wouldnt call all that *murdering* or such some. So, finding a conclusion for this damned b___ who neglected me all these years, but I dont want to intentionally do any harm to other people. That isnt worth all that in a hobby. Beyond that we are not in classes, where I would never allow such a wrongdoing. But this, ok, it's a hobby. We are all only humans and I'm certainly not G-o-d, so, yes, Rolf, I might consider what you asked me. Perhaps I was too wicked and full of revenge. Exuse me.
Rolf, if you break the law, you break the law, regardless of your intentions. There is no excuse for copying someone else's code and then claiming that you wrote it all. There is simply no justification that will fly there. It was wrong. He got caught. Time to move on.
If you want to listen to the explanations offered by Chris, you are going to be even less informed than you already are. There are no acceptable, believable explanations...
If you want to listen to the explanations offered by Chris, you are going to be even less informed than you already are. There are no acceptable, believable explanations...
> ...if you break the law, you break the law, regardless of your intentions
Hey! Bob! Who's law? I don't know of "any" law that was broken. Where and when was Vas tried and found guilty of breaking some law? Surely you are not implying that the jokers from the ICGA are some kind of legal beagles with a law degree and commission from some justice department out there in the Neverland fantasy world of your creations.
Hey Mr. Fantasy how about playing us a happy tune for a change-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=632Sd9OHIaM
Dear Mr. Fantasy play us a tune, something to make us all feel happy.
Do anything to take (keep) us out of this gloom
Sing a song, play guitar, make us happy.
You are the one who makes us feel glad
Please don't be sad to take up the straight life you had
We wouldn't have known you all these years.
Dear Mr. Fantasy play us a tune, something to treat us happy.
Do anything to take (keep) us out of this gloom
Sing a song, play guitar, make us happy.
for Rybka 1.6.1, copyright law was certainly broken. For later versions, ditto for fruit. ICGA tournament rules were broken, multiple times. And of course false statements have been made, repeatedly.
all perfectly acceptable to some, it would seem...
all perfectly acceptable to some, it would seem...
> for Rybka 1.6.1, copyright law was certainly broken.
Can you show me where litigation took place and a court decision was handed down?!
I don't_ think_ so!
Until liability has been ascertained by a recognized judicial system - you are simply stating arguably ( hypothetically) that a copyright law has been broken! That and a few bucks makes for a round of bullshit over a latte at Barnes and Nobles with your American buddies from the ICGA.
Come on Bobo - you're a PhD you should know this- even a high school student can recognize the flaw in what you are shoveling for fact.
So a crime has not been committed until it has gone through the courts and a _final_ decision is handed down? :)
Even if _you_ witness something, you do not believe a crime has been committed until the perp is arrested, tried, found guilty, and exhausted his appeals and the sentence imposed? Strange sense of justice if you don't even trust your own eyes and judgement...
Even if _you_ witness something, you do not believe a crime has been committed until the perp is arrested, tried, found guilty, and exhausted his appeals and the sentence imposed? Strange sense of justice if you don't even trust your own eyes and judgement...
> So a crime has not been committed until it has gone through the courts and a _final_ decision is handed down? :)
> Even if _you_ witness something, you do not believe a crime has been committed until the perp is arrested, tried, found guilty, and exhausted his appeals and the sentence imposed? Strange sense of justice if you don't even trust your own eyes and judgement...
You've spent way too much time in the classroom where you get to set up hypothetical scenarios and suggest "what if's"- not here, Bob!
What you are presenting is NOT the facts just opinion. Until a complaint has been submitted and a court has rendered a determination its noise.
If you were out in the street debating this and someone called in a complaint against you for raising hell over this issue- the cop would tell to quiet down or go home.
If you threw it in his face that a copyright law was broken -he'd tell you that no law has been broken until a complaint has been made and a court of law has made a determination in favor of the complainant- then, Bobo, you'd be lucky if he doesn't bust your ass for busting his.
OK, at least you have given up trying to argue against the ICGA evidence. That is progress...
What evidence? It's all conjectural! Based on opinion, Bob! [edit]
That's your classroom mentality at work again-
Assuming everyone will agree to the premise that you've so nicely worked out as a dictum-that we all must follow- enabling the conclusions of your premise to be neatly drawn out.
That's not how the real world works. That just ain't necessarily so! You might need something stronger than coffee to deal with that reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZaxEC1Vho&feature=related
That's your classroom mentality at work again-
Assuming everyone will agree to the premise that you've so nicely worked out as a dictum-that we all must follow- enabling the conclusions of your premise to be neatly drawn out.
That's not how the real world works. That just ain't necessarily so! You might need something stronger than coffee to deal with that reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZaxEC1Vho&feature=related
The evidence is _not_ based on "conjecture". It is based on specific analysis of Rybka and Crafty or Rybka and Fruit. There is no "interpretation" required. Have you actually _read_ Zach's and Mark's report? People keep saying "show me side by side comparisons." First page of Zach's report has _exactly_ that. Two columns. The comparison goes on for pages and pages. Side by side. Piece by piece...
But what I keep hearing is this skepticism regarding the relevance that these vestiges play (if not relics)- and that Vas moved on toward cultivating a very unique individuated and evolved notion of Rybka.
But, Bob, you and the ICGA are only interested in pointing out archeological vestiges, out of the integrity and functionality of Rybka, as a body of work, to screw the guy and knock him out of his front runner position. Okay! You did it. And, now you want to be loved and admired for it? Given a metal? You've been pointing at these trivialities for a long time now and it has gone only so far with a select audience. Pretty much preaching to your own choir. As a matter of fact the more you go on the thinner your chorus gets.
But, Bob, you and the ICGA are only interested in pointing out archeological vestiges, out of the integrity and functionality of Rybka, as a body of work, to screw the guy and knock him out of his front runner position. Okay! You did it. And, now you want to be loved and admired for it? Given a metal? You've been pointing at these trivialities for a long time now and it has gone only so far with a select audience. Pretty much preaching to your own choir. As a matter of fact the more you go on the thinner your chorus gets.
There are two issues.
1. Did Vas greatly modify and improve the code he copied. Obviously yes. Did it take some talent and effort? yes. Nobody questions that.
BUT
2. Did Vas copy code that violates both software licenses and tournament participation rules.
Where we differ is on the significance of those two issues. I don't believe that anyone here that is anywhere near rational would answer _either_ of those questions with a NO. So both get a YES. The disagreement stems from the fact that many believe (1) to be so significant that (2) is irrelevant.
How about an analogy?
Drag racing. You choose a class, which has a displacement limit, and also some upper engine limits (max valve diameter, etc). You work for a long time to produce something that is significantly fast. Along comes someone that designs a new intake using direct combustion-chamber injection as well, and he produces significantly more horsepower than anything running. But before he got that perfected, he borrowed a Chevy big-block motor and violated the displacement rule significantly. And then his improved intake system took that to the next level and no one has a chance. If he had put his new intake on a legal block, it would still have ended up being better. But he didn't. Now the question is, does the development of the new intake outweigh the fact that he cheated on displacement big-time as well? Drag racers would say "no". An engine is legal or it is not. There are some flexible points on the rules. Grind your own cam to use whatever timing, overlap and lift you want. Pick your rocker arms and the lift ratio to determine how far the valves open. Choose the springs and valves that will withstand opening and closing at the RPM you want to reach. Set the engine clearances to whatever you want. Set the combustion chamber volume to whatever you can get away with that doesn't detonate the motor at high rpm. Lots of room to twiddle. But within the rules that say "8 cylinders, 383 ci displacement, no overhead cam motors allowed, gasoline fuel only, normally aspirated (no turbo/super-chargers). So a lot of room to be original, and be creative. Some rules that can't be stepped over.
That's the issue here. Nobody discredits his results. It is _how_ he produced them so quickly that is the problem. In the above example, had you stayed within that 383 ci displacement limit, once you got your intake done you would be winning races. But you were winning from day one because you started out with more motor than anyone else.
1. Did Vas greatly modify and improve the code he copied. Obviously yes. Did it take some talent and effort? yes. Nobody questions that.
BUT
2. Did Vas copy code that violates both software licenses and tournament participation rules.
Where we differ is on the significance of those two issues. I don't believe that anyone here that is anywhere near rational would answer _either_ of those questions with a NO. So both get a YES. The disagreement stems from the fact that many believe (1) to be so significant that (2) is irrelevant.
How about an analogy?
Drag racing. You choose a class, which has a displacement limit, and also some upper engine limits (max valve diameter, etc). You work for a long time to produce something that is significantly fast. Along comes someone that designs a new intake using direct combustion-chamber injection as well, and he produces significantly more horsepower than anything running. But before he got that perfected, he borrowed a Chevy big-block motor and violated the displacement rule significantly. And then his improved intake system took that to the next level and no one has a chance. If he had put his new intake on a legal block, it would still have ended up being better. But he didn't. Now the question is, does the development of the new intake outweigh the fact that he cheated on displacement big-time as well? Drag racers would say "no". An engine is legal or it is not. There are some flexible points on the rules. Grind your own cam to use whatever timing, overlap and lift you want. Pick your rocker arms and the lift ratio to determine how far the valves open. Choose the springs and valves that will withstand opening and closing at the RPM you want to reach. Set the engine clearances to whatever you want. Set the combustion chamber volume to whatever you can get away with that doesn't detonate the motor at high rpm. Lots of room to twiddle. But within the rules that say "8 cylinders, 383 ci displacement, no overhead cam motors allowed, gasoline fuel only, normally aspirated (no turbo/super-chargers). So a lot of room to be original, and be creative. Some rules that can't be stepped over.
That's the issue here. Nobody discredits his results. It is _how_ he produced them so quickly that is the problem. In the above example, had you stayed within that 383 ci displacement limit, once you got your intake done you would be winning races. But you were winning from day one because you started out with more motor than anyone else.
How about a pic Bob! You see people are going to stop listening after a while.
[edit] It's know as "Crazy Wisdom" Bob- it might wake you up yet. Also- we shouldn't encourage alcoholic beverages or coffee for you - try some herbal tea to calm you down.
[edit] It's know as "Crazy Wisdom" Bob- it might wake you up yet. Also- we shouldn't encourage alcoholic beverages or coffee for you - try some herbal tea to calm you down.
There are two issues.
1. Did Vas greatly modify and improve the code he copied. Obviously yes. Did it take some talent and effort? yes. Nobody questions that.
BUT
2. Did Vas copy code that violates both software licenses and tournament participation rules.
Where we differ is on the significance of those two issues. I don't believe that anyone here that is anywhere near rational would answer _either_ of those questions with a NO. So both get a YES. The disagreement stems from the fact that many believe (1) to be so significant that (2) is irrelevant.
How about an analogy?
Drag racing. You choose a class, which has a displacement limit, and also some upper engine limits (max valve diameter, etc). You work for a long time to produce something that is significantly fast. Along comes someone that designs a new intake using direct combustion-chamber injection as well, and he produces significantly more horsepower than anything running. But before he got that perfected, he borrowed a Chevy big-block motor and violated the displacement rule significantly. And then his improved intake system took that to the next level and no one has a chance. If he had put his new intake on a legal block, it would still have ended up being better. But he didn't. Now the question is, does the development of the new intake outweigh the fact that he cheated on displacement big-time as well? Drag racers would say "no". An engine is legal or it is not. There are some flexible points on the rules. Grind your own cam to use whatever timing, overlap and lift you want. Pick your rocker arms and the lift ratio to determine how far the valves open. Choose the springs and valves that will withstand opening and closing at the RPM you want to reach. Set the engine clearances to whatever you want. Set the combustion chamber volume to whatever you can get away with that doesn't detonate the motor at high rpm. Lots of room to twiddle. But within the rules that say "8 cylinders, 383 ci displacement, no overhead cam motors allowed, gasoline fuel only, normally aspirated (no turbo/super-chargers). So a lot of room to be original, and be creative. Some rules that can't be stepped over.
That's the issue here. Nobody discredits his results. It is _how_ he produced them so quickly that is the problem. In the above example, had you stayed within that 383 ci displacement limit, once you got your intake done you would be winning races. But you were winning from day one because you started out with more motor than anyone else.
Good questions on both #1 & #2. And good analogy.
Most have read or seen the truth for themselves and 'understood'. The numbers of those who initially defended Vas blindly in 'what he did' have steadily declined. I attribute it to hearing & reading these facts for themselves and an 'understanding' of the matter. They may not like the truth staring at them but they're wise to accept the bitter truth.
It's the public clown(s) with which even a hundred strokes of the cane on the back won't 'cure' him/them of foolishness, that simply won't understand.
Thanks Bob, people need to know and understand what transpired. Truth is truth.
1. Did Vas greatly modify and improve the code he copied. Obviously yes. Did it take some talent and effort? yes. Nobody questions that.
BUT
2. Did Vas copy code that violates both software licenses and tournament participation rules.
Where we differ is on the significance of those two issues. I don't believe that anyone here that is anywhere near rational would answer _either_ of those questions with a NO. So both get a YES. The disagreement stems from the fact that many believe (1) to be so significant that (2) is irrelevant.
How about an analogy?
Drag racing. You choose a class, which has a displacement limit, and also some upper engine limits (max valve diameter, etc). You work for a long time to produce something that is significantly fast. Along comes someone that designs a new intake using direct combustion-chamber injection as well, and he produces significantly more horsepower than anything running. But before he got that perfected, he borrowed a Chevy big-block motor and violated the displacement rule significantly. And then his improved intake system took that to the next level and no one has a chance. If he had put his new intake on a legal block, it would still have ended up being better. But he didn't. Now the question is, does the development of the new intake outweigh the fact that he cheated on displacement big-time as well? Drag racers would say "no". An engine is legal or it is not. There are some flexible points on the rules. Grind your own cam to use whatever timing, overlap and lift you want. Pick your rocker arms and the lift ratio to determine how far the valves open. Choose the springs and valves that will withstand opening and closing at the RPM you want to reach. Set the engine clearances to whatever you want. Set the combustion chamber volume to whatever you can get away with that doesn't detonate the motor at high rpm. Lots of room to twiddle. But within the rules that say "8 cylinders, 383 ci displacement, no overhead cam motors allowed, gasoline fuel only, normally aspirated (no turbo/super-chargers). So a lot of room to be original, and be creative. Some rules that can't be stepped over.
That's the issue here. Nobody discredits his results. It is _how_ he produced them so quickly that is the problem. In the above example, had you stayed within that 383 ci displacement limit, once you got your intake done you would be winning races. But you were winning from day one because you started out with more motor than anyone else.
Good questions on both #1 & #2. And good analogy.
Most have read or seen the truth for themselves and 'understood'. The numbers of those who initially defended Vas blindly in 'what he did' have steadily declined. I attribute it to hearing & reading these facts for themselves and an 'understanding' of the matter. They may not like the truth staring at them but they're wise to accept the bitter truth.
It's the public clown(s) with which even a hundred strokes of the cane on the back won't 'cure' him/them of foolishness, that simply won't understand.
Thanks Bob, people need to know and understand what transpired. Truth is truth.
You want to talk about truth! I'm going to spare you the embarrassment of your own hypocrisy-but don't push it too far.
PS.
If the cop did bust you- call Rolf-he'll be more than happy to flying into the States and submit you to a 730 exam.
If the cop did bust you- call Rolf-he'll be more than happy to flying into the States and submit you to a 730 exam.
> So a crime has not been committed until it has gone through the courts and a _final_ decision is handed down? :)
>
> Even if _you_ witness something, you do not believe a crime has been committed until the perp is arrested, tried, found guilty, and exhausted his appeals and the sentence imposed? Strange sense of justice if you don't even trust your own eyes and judgement...
Well said, Bob. I couldn't have answered it better...
Vas violated FSF/GPL law and ICGA rules. This is established. But it's the absolute moral & ethic degenerates and the dynamics of reprobate minds of those defending Vas breaking both FSF & GPL laws / ICGA rules, that never ceases to amaze me. Then again, why should it?
Bob, you are really ignoring what it meant what I wrote. Even if someone does something wrong he doesnt automatically get a life sentence. And for that question it depends on the details but this is something you dont want to consider.
It depends on what was done wrong. How many times it was done. And whether the accuse shows acceptance and remorse. --From the US federal court system sentencing guidelines.
He broke the most important rule in ICGA tournaments, namely that the program must not be derived from another. He did it several times. And to this day, he denies copying code and apparently has not even looked at the evidence presented. What suggests "leniency" is appropriate? He refused to participate in the investigation. He refused to respond after the report was completed. He evaded every technical question Nelson asked in the latest interview. I don't see where you are coming from.
He broke the most important rule in ICGA tournaments, namely that the program must not be derived from another. He did it several times. And to this day, he denies copying code and apparently has not even looked at the evidence presented. What suggests "leniency" is appropriate? He refused to participate in the investigation. He refused to respond after the report was completed. He evaded every technical question Nelson asked in the latest interview. I don't see where you are coming from.
Let me tell you. I have a firm percetion of deriving everything in CC. Everything has been taken from others. Every good trick has been copied. For at least the last 10 years.
Ideas are fine to replicate and use in your own program. Copying actual code is _not_ acceptable.
There is a _huge_ difference between the two things...
There is a _huge_ difference between the two things...
Wegner and Watkins are Fachidioten who are just interested in proving some wrongs but they are too stupid to understand that a wrong also depends on the circumstances and a common habit. Here in CC it means that all better experts take from one another. That's a tradition.That the only chess IM should now be the singular cheater, that goes too far. At least he understands what he's doing.
Rolf, "wrong" is "wrong".
Just for the joy it gives if I could disprove you, let me invent the story that Vas really hasnt had time enough to control everything at the time. Say he had someone helping him. Would a judge still give him in personal the life sentence? I dont think so. So far about the formallyy addicted talking about moral things. But I was just inventing something. Remember when Vas said it's all his own code? What he wrote? But apparently this is forbidden by some rule? Yes, but how could Vas be scapegoated.
Bob, if you agree that DB team cheated Kasparov very badly, then I perhaps accept the life sentence for Vas.
Bob, if you agree that DB team cheated Kasparov very badly, then I perhaps accept the life sentence for Vas.
Eh? As an example, if a group of people commit a crime in which someone is killed, _all_ get charged with murder. So if he had someone helping him, _both_ would have been in the crosshairs of the ICGA investigation...
Lying is certainly against moral and ethical mores of most societies, is it not?
Until you quote the rule that was broken by IBM, no I won't agree that they cheated. I have already quoted the rule Vas broke, several times, for my part...
Lying is certainly against moral and ethical mores of most societies, is it not?
Until you quote the rule that was broken by IBM, no I won't agree that they cheated. I have already quoted the rule Vas broke, several times, for my part...
No no, dont begin with your murder scenario again.. Stay on topic. We are talking about professional (business) sport. That is also the reason why you wont get any source codes from Vas. So forget that.
As to the rule your friends have broken? They cheated their client with a lack of respect, I told you that long time ago. It boils down to this scenario:World, we've finally built a machine that plays better chess than the best human player. Wait, this is already a mistake. Not better chess than a human genius but simply by getting more points in a ridiculously short event. Plus with changing the player personality, plus obfuscating the player's details by not publishing any games in advance. All that was already preventing a serious preparation of the human genius. You know the rest. A machine cannot play without energy, but a human cannot play chess without psychology and preparing for his opponent, especially Kasparov was a master of preparation. So the cheating is predefined. Telling Kasparov that he is representing mankind although he has the disadvantage of being superstitious. Plus making him forget about realities namely that even for a chess genius it's impossible to win without a thorough prep. Then the cheat of not showing any output after game two. BTW this does also destroy the fame of Ken Thompson who was paid for simulating a supervisor of the output without any higher qualification as a chessplayer so that he couldnt figure out why Kasparov believed in human intervention during game two.
It's interesting that the cheating by Harvey Williamson with Hiarcs against another machine pointed exactly to one of the many possibilities to cheat as human operator in computerchess. But then not the machine is winning but the operator. That was Kasparov's reflection in 1997. We had the debate back then. Even Deeper Blue made gross mistakes during his otherwise technically sober game. Kasparov wanted to exploit that weakness. But then he saw that a whole game could be cheated by human intervention in critical situations where a machine at that time still was bound to play like a newborn kid. The details of the situation allowed Kasparov to have serious suspicions and meanwhile he lost himself in inexact calculations and gave up a drawn position. Then he wanted to prove the cheating but of course Thompson and IBM didnt show the evidence for the cheat in the output. Thereafter everything was covered up and in special after the event when everything could have been examined with care, the Americans had the idea of quickly dismantling the whole machine which then never again played chess. A typical cheat because after his 6 games Kasparov now knew what this was all about with the alleged strength of the machine, but alas there wasnt a re-match. Hsu as the main cheater vanished like the cheaters Bush and Blair who cheated the world with their WMD hoax.
As to the rule your friends have broken? They cheated their client with a lack of respect, I told you that long time ago. It boils down to this scenario:World, we've finally built a machine that plays better chess than the best human player. Wait, this is already a mistake. Not better chess than a human genius but simply by getting more points in a ridiculously short event. Plus with changing the player personality, plus obfuscating the player's details by not publishing any games in advance. All that was already preventing a serious preparation of the human genius. You know the rest. A machine cannot play without energy, but a human cannot play chess without psychology and preparing for his opponent, especially Kasparov was a master of preparation. So the cheating is predefined. Telling Kasparov that he is representing mankind although he has the disadvantage of being superstitious. Plus making him forget about realities namely that even for a chess genius it's impossible to win without a thorough prep. Then the cheat of not showing any output after game two. BTW this does also destroy the fame of Ken Thompson who was paid for simulating a supervisor of the output without any higher qualification as a chessplayer so that he couldnt figure out why Kasparov believed in human intervention during game two.
It's interesting that the cheating by Harvey Williamson with Hiarcs against another machine pointed exactly to one of the many possibilities to cheat as human operator in computerchess. But then not the machine is winning but the operator. That was Kasparov's reflection in 1997. We had the debate back then. Even Deeper Blue made gross mistakes during his otherwise technically sober game. Kasparov wanted to exploit that weakness. But then he saw that a whole game could be cheated by human intervention in critical situations where a machine at that time still was bound to play like a newborn kid. The details of the situation allowed Kasparov to have serious suspicions and meanwhile he lost himself in inexact calculations and gave up a drawn position. Then he wanted to prove the cheating but of course Thompson and IBM didnt show the evidence for the cheat in the output. Thereafter everything was covered up and in special after the event when everything could have been examined with care, the Americans had the idea of quickly dismantling the whole machine which then never again played chess. A typical cheat because after his 6 games Kasparov now knew what this was all about with the alleged strength of the machine, but alas there wasnt a re-match. Hsu as the main cheater vanished like the cheaters Bush and Blair who cheated the world with their WMD hoax.
psychological factors are a bug in the carbon source code, abort, reboot, set empathy=0, recompile and you will agree with us
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill