Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 23:52
I can't begin to parse and understand that...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 03:10
And that's the problem too.  You don't believe in any form of forgiveness and the whole concept is alien unless the other person throws himself at your mercy.  Justice is every man getting his due.  Haven't you gotten your due, and then some?  Or are you insatiable in your desire to extirpate all traces of Rajlich?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 03:15
I believe in forgiveness, _once_ the person asks for it.  It is not a gift to be bestowed "just because."  It is a response to an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a request for forgiveness...

For me, he can effectively wipe the slate clean by saying "OK, I did this.  I realize it was wrong.  I'd like to compete in these events again and I am willing to show a mutually-agreed-on third party my source so that he can verify that it is clean."  I've done the same for other "cloners" in the past.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 10:56
But as long as the person does not fully agree with your perception of right and wrong, and does not confess to every allegation, then there cannot be forgiveness.  OK.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-26 11:08
Since the USA is not respecting the Court of the United Nations they have given their people the right to hold their private courts. What looks unethical at first becomes a comfortable situation once you can become your own judge. That's the secret of Bob in all this. The new Law of the ICGA is a notable reformation of the antique system of justice that is still ruling in the older parts of the Old Europe.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 12:36
I've never understood the European desire to surrender their sovereignty to unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels and The Hague, let alone the United Nations.  In view of what is happening in the world today don't you think international bodies in general have been demonstrated to be ineffective at best and very often counterproductive?  I imagine a world without them and mostly see benefits for everyone, not least of which is all the diplomat and bankster parasites that lose their jobs.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-26 12:53
Nelson, this is a partial blindness on your side, but wait, you have no guilt. But as a German after WWII it's a real help knowing outside, international authorities that supervise our own authorities. Perhaps that might sound irrational in your mind, but to me it was historically a sine qua non of a further existing of Germany as such after all what has happened. It's an ugly chapter. But perhaps you can grant me the benefit of a somewhat difficult position if I criticise even among foreigners and their countries inhuman or at least unfair injusties. I was educated with the burden of paying attention to ethical questions because of the absolutely outrageous crimes of many of my forefathers. In that perception it's for me a real bath in honeymilk-like joy when I read the strong wording of many messages from Trotsky's side. At least he has the knowledge how this all begins with inhuman scapegoating in a totalitarian or at least autocratic system. Apart from the aspect that for every intellectual thinker with a minimal intelligence it's so important to have at least two sides of a problem in mind if you want to find a fair judgement. Here Bob Hyatt is acting like a disabled autist. Mentally and ethically. His brilliant side is however that he doesnt get tired in communicating.
Parent - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 13:53
This is a peculiar German psychosis, that any assertion of sovereignty must end in gas chambers.  This is hardly the place to argue European history, but I will say that I think Europeans have learned the lessons of the 20th century and show not the slightest inclination to invade and annex each other, or maintain a large standing army, or engage in policies that must end in the deaths of tens of millions.  I do not think you need to put a leash on the German dog, but you definitely need to leash, and probably eusthanize, the snarling dog in Brussels.  I can't understand why your people aren't in the streets by the millions demanding liberty and an end to bailouts.  You all know the current system cannot continue indefinitely; it is a mass of irreconcilable contradictions and demographic fait accomplis.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 14:59
The line between right and wrong is often fuzzy.  But in this case, it is not.  If he doesn't think he did wrong, then that's a problem...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 15:29
If only all of us could see right and wrong with such crystalline clarity!  Then all sorts of barbarities could be justified on the grounds of logic and reason.  Geneticists could justify sterilizing sub-normal individuals.  Nationalists could justify expelling unwanted foreigners.  Those with Marxist impulses could justify a regime of comprehensive wealth redistribution.  Not saying you support any of these things.  Am saying your mind-set is similarly adamantine on a matter of trivial consequence, causing me to think you are a potentially dangerous fellow.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 17:28
And you accuse _me_ of hyperbole?  :)

If someone copies code, it is a straightforward process to prove it. That has been done.  If a rule is written in black and white and is not ambiguous in its expression, it is a straightforward process to determine if it was broken.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 17:59
You may repeat it as many times as you want.  Doesn't change the point I made.  You are a painter drawing attention to your painting.  We, the observers, look at the painting AND the painter, and we find the painter is the far more interesting and worrisome subject, because he appears to us to be quite mad.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 18:27
Apparently you can't discuss this without the personal comments?  Can't discuss the evidence?  Could not ask the right questions on the interview you made public, after throwing the first one away due to "a fear of subpoenas"?  And you think I am mad???

Jeez, try a mirror on for size.  There are a couple here that can only argue using personal comments, because they don't know enough to argue the technical merits of what was found...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 21:22
Getting under your skin, Bob?
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-26 21:41
Bob's probably getting bored with your ignorance and trolling.

:fat:
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 22:26
Trolls don't "get under my skin."  They are easy enough to ignore since they don't have anything useful to contribute.
Parent - By Nick (*****) Date 2011-07-25 23:39

> There is no fictional villain in all of literature to match your level of obsession and malevolence.


Hang on, what about in the Pushkin short drama? :grin:

Rise above it all my old friend!  Remember what Rybka can do:  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1546208

She's very beautiful.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-25 23:40
Søren… you were looking for that example of psychological projection?

I give you “Exhibit A”:

>You cannot imagine what a detestable, self-righteous ass you have made of yourself, Dr. Hyatt.  There is no fictional villain in all of literature to match your level of obsession and malevolence.  You are undone by your own actions, sir.  All good gentlemen have taken your measure and found you wanting.


Still amazes me you Mods allow this… nary a word… Hug where are you with a “enough Nelson”.  Well?

Apparently he speaks for you.  Y’all should be ashamed.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-26 01:30
Wow seems Nelson likes to plagiarize also (although a bit clumsy):

All good gentlemen have taken your measure and found you wanting.

"Like all good gentlemen..."

From: The gentleman and the beard, July 1, 2011

http://thegentlemanblog.wordpress.com/2011/

Adhemar: "You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting."

From: A Knight's Tale

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183790/quotes

Of course... that line comes from the Prophet Daniel:

"TEKEK: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting;"
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-25 22:36

>However, day by day, their case slips away because of the people who speak for them being such deranged, self-righteous cads.


Didn’t Princess Leia say something very similar to Governor Tarkin?

Uh buh buh buh buh… let me see… ah yes, here it is…

“The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”

“Not after we demonstrate the capabilities of this chess engine.”
Parent - - By George Speight (***) Date 2011-07-28 08:42
Bob, have you got your housae bet on thwe outcome of this or something. Damn y0ou are ok, but youhead is too harsd. No big deal to admit you fucked up;. It happens to all
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-28 20:08
I have nothing bet on this, and it was not "screwed up".

The events leading up to this were certainly screwed up, but the ICGA had no part in THOSE.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) Date 2011-07-23 07:18
It is absolutely clear that what ICGA did was wrong and that the entire witch hunt against Vas was to look for anything supporting a pre-determined view point ... and to discard anything and everything that would exonerate him.  That is simply wrong and unfair, but what is even worse is that the ICGA went out of its little tournament and proceeded to do its best to defame Vas in the media by acting like the official entity for discovering "cheating" in computer chess.  Any court of law would immediately dismiss the case simply because the ICGA never tested code that played in its tournament, I mean that alone is just ridiculously wrong that it would be thrown out within seconds.  There is an entity to discover and punish GPL code violators and that is the FSF and not ICGA.  I really don't blame Vas for completely disregarding the ICGA because they were obviously trying to screw him over, most in his place would do the same.  The ICGA reaction that because Vas gave them the finger they will "show him" is a childish and highly unprofessional reaction.  I would also agree that Vas did not handle the situation properly.  The proper course of action would have been to have all ICGA queries handled by a lawyer with immediate warning to ICGA to conform legally or else suffer the consequences of failing to do so.  Had he done that, I really think it would have stopped ICGA in its tracks.  It is probably not too late for Vas to seek legal action for defamation, and I sure hope he does so.
Parent - - By Ray (****) Date 2011-07-23 08:33
Brilliant summary, agree with every word

I'd also add - I'm very surprised that the ICGA did not take their own legal advice on what they were doing, given the predictable huge impact of the decision. Bob says it was becuase they were a private organisation and didn't need to.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-23 14:19
Brilliant?  A "black hole" is "brilliant"???

The ICGA has to enforce its rules, by itself.  This nonsense about requiring a GPL/copyright suit in a court of law is so far beyond ridiculous, it takes sunlight 6 months to get from ridiculous to "there".

Does NASCAR require court action to DQ a driver or car?  The NCAA require court action to vacate wins and titles?

The insanity level here continues to probe new heights.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 03:11

> The insanity level here continues to probe new heights.


The most profound statement you have ever uttered in this forum.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 03:17
Glad we agree on something.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 12:43
What a stretch of known facts.  We "discarded anything that would exonerate him?"  Can you give even one example?  BTW the ICGA is an "official entity".  I notice that commercial authors don't reject the _good_ publicity they get from the ICGA when they win.  But the ICGA can't go public when they catch someone cheating?  :)  And _you_ talked about a "pre-determined viewpoint."  :)

Your lawyer suggestion is a crock.  ICGA has rules, they are free to enforce them when they have a document from the author submitting the entry that claims originality.  So sorry, but that is garbage.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) Date 2011-07-25 21:20
ICGA does have rules, and those rules are to be applied on engines that participate in its competitions.  That clearly did not happen as they did not have a setup that would require the code of engines that participated.  What did happen is that they proceeded to look at much older engines that did not participate and assumed that would be equivalent to what did participate.  Now THAT is garbage and a crock!  You cannot eat an apple when you are trying to figure out what a mango tastes like.  Sure ICGA can make up their own rules and do what they want, but what is also sure is that they lose all legitimacy ... I would be very interested to see how much interest there will be in future ICGA events.  This is almost like the boy who has a ball in the playground that keeps adjusting rules and requirements before he allows others to play with his ball.  After a while the kids will just give him the finger and he will be left scratching his head trying to figure out why nobody wants to play with him.
Parent - By George Speight (***) Date 2011-07-28 08:55
Ansari, you know the big question now, dont you? Did they screww up, or intentionally hide facts. How about a "high five"!!!!:lol:
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-28 19:58
So you don't believe rybka 1.0 participated in an ICGA event?
Parent - - By George Speight (***) Date 2011-07-28 08:46 Edited 2011-07-28 08:49
Bob, you guys wanted it so bad, you refused to look at anything that might disprove you;. You may have thought you were ok, but I would give it up. No way I would steam and chase bad money. You can walk off now with some credibility left. You know where steaming ends. You are going to be the only passenger on the plane soon. What happens when the pilots bail on you?
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-28 19:57
I learned to fly when I was 13 years old.  I'll manage...
Parent - By George Speight (***) Date 2011-07-28 08:53
I told Bob to walk off while he had some credibility left. Damn, his head is hard. Glad it's not me. If he doesnt soon shut up, a lawsuit won't leave him a clean pair of drawers
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-23 08:36
I am going through the Zach Rybka-Fruit evaluation function document at the moment.

It is clear that in the Rybka evaluation function there is NOT ONE SINGLE case I found so far where an evaluation weight (eg double pawn penalty, PST value etc etc) is the same as Fruit. Not only are the values different but they are not even consistently different, ie they don't even scale to each other. The evaluation weights are basically all over the place (wildly varying) in value, there is no way Vas took Fruit weights, he used his own.

The Hyatt claim that Rybka and Fruit use exactly the same evaluation function (in the same order, the same meaning blabla) is demonstrably FALSE. The evaluations produced by each program are wildly and demonstrably DIFFERENT. The "hundreds of lines of matching code" is a NONSENSE.
Parent - - By mjlef (***) Date 2011-07-23 14:53

>>I am going through the Zach Rybka-Fruit evaluation function document at the moment.


It is clear that in the Rybka evaluation function there is NOT ONE SINGLE case I found so far where an evaluation weight (eg double pawn penalty, PST value etc etc) is the same as Fruit. Not only are the values different but they are not even consistently different, ie they don't even scale to each other.

>>


Your scaling comment is not correct.  For example, both programs use the same scaling for piece square tables for all of the pieces:

static const int PawnFile[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int KnightLine[8] = { -4, -2, +0, +1, +1, +0, -2, -4 };
static const int KnightRank[8] = { -2, -1, +0, +1, +2, +3, +2, +1 };
static const int BishopLine[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int RookFile[8] = { -2, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -2 };
static const int QueenLine[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int KingLine[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int KingFile[8] = { +3, +4, +2, +0, +0, +2, +4, +3 };
static const int KingRank[8] = { +1, +0, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7 };

(link to the paper is here: http://icga.wikispaces.com/file/view/ZW_Rybka_Fruit.pdf, Piece Square Table section)

Other than a few changes such in a few pawn values, the Rybka piece square values are simply simply the fruit values multiplied by a constant.  I certainly have not been able to find other programs (other than clear Fruit derivatives like Toga) where this is true.

I am happy though that you are finally actually reading some of the evidence.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-23 14:59
Now if he could only understand what he is reading, we'd get beyond the current impasse quickly...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-23 16:39
there's a lot of "evidence" to read, takes time.

PST was something I was going to say some stuff about, but here is as good a place as any. For non chess programmers, the PST (piece square table, there's one for each piece type) is used (mostly) as a slightly brutal method of trying to persuade the program to put it's piece into certain parts of the board rather than others. Some pieces should be attracted into the centre, for example:

static const int KnightRank[8] = { -2, -1, +0, +1, +2, +3, +2, +1 }; tells knights they should be happier on 5th and 6th rank

static const int KingRank[8] = { +1, +0, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7 }; tells kings not to go charging up the board

Fruit computes its PSTs as part of the program. Rybka preloads its PSTs as data. A comparison of Rybka stored and pre-loaded PSTs with Fruit computed PSTs prima facie shows no data matches.

The table
static const int PawnFile[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int KnightLine[8] = { -4, -2, +0, +1, +1, +0, -2, -4 };
static const int KnightRank[8] = { -2, -1, +0, +1, +2, +3, +2, +1 };
static const int BishopLine[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int RookFile[8] = { -2, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -2 };
static const int QueenLine[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int KingLine[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3 };
static const int KingFile[8] = { +3, +4, +2, +0, +0, +2, +4, +3 };
static const int KingRank[8] = { +1, +0, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7 };

does not appear in Rybka in any shape or form. It's a Fruit table, not a Rybka one.

What Zach has tried to show, in the absence of data matching and the absence of even Rybka object code to generate the tables, is that *if* Rybka used the Fruit code, and the above table, and DIFFERENT weights and some kludges to deal with a few anomalies, then he could account for the Rybka data.

For example:

Fruit Code:
static const int PawnFileOpening = 5;
...
for (sq = 0; sq < 64; sq++) {
P(piece,sq,Opening) +=
PawnFile[square_file(sq)] *
PawnFileOpening;
}
P(piece,D3,Opening) += 10;
P(piece,E3,Opening) += 10;
P(piece,D4,Opening) += 20;
P(piece,E4,Opening) += 20;
P(piece,D5,Opening) += 10;

Zach's imaginary Rybka code:
static const int PawnFileOpening = 181;
static const int PawnFileEndgame = -97;
...
for (sq = 0; sq < 64; sq++) {
P(piece,sq,Opening) +=
PawnFile[square_file(sq)] *
PawnFileOpening;
P(piece,sq,Endgame) +=
PawnFile[square_file(sq)] *
PawnFileEndgame;
}
P(piece,D5,Opening) += 74;
P(piece,E5,Opening) += 74;

Note that we have no idea at all what Rybka PST generation code looks like, there are huge numbers of possible source codes that he could have used, or unlikely done it manually, Zach has no object code to go by, so his magic-ed source is deliberately made as Fruit like as possible. Looks better that way for the desired proof, so you should ignore that as a source code comparison else you will be misled.

Note the different weights (5 in Fruit, 181 in Rybka, ratio is 36.2)

Note Rybka has a different new table for endgames.

Note the kludges for Zach to get the match he wants are different in value and extent. P(piece,D3,Opening) += 10; etc

Finally, a quick look at bishops, weights used in Fruit are:
static const int BishopCentreOpening = 2;
static const int BishopCentreEndgame = 3;
static const int BishopBackRankOpening = 10;
static const int BishopDiagonalOpening = 4

and Zach suggests these are used in Rybka:
static const int BishopCentreOpening = 147;
static const int BishopCentreEndgame = 49;
static const int BishopBackRankOpening = 251;
static const int BishopDiagonalOpening = 378;

note the ratios
147:2 = 73.5
49:3 = 16.3
251:10 = 25.1
378:4 = 94.5

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?
Parent - - By mjlef (***) Date 2011-07-23 20:47
Rybka uses a value of a pawn of 3200 versus Fruits value of 100, so you should expect the Rybka values to be about 32 times bigger than Fruit.  So you showing much bigger values is simply deceptive,  The PST ration along ranks and files clearly came from Fruit.  The probably of mere chance alone having such a perfect match of these is beyond reasonable belief.  The sample code presented allowe easier comparison and shows the ration among rows and columns more clearly, and Zach documents and explains this in the PDF if you read the whole thing.

So, please explain how the precise ratios of the piece square tables are the same.  Each individual piece square table for each piece type (64 values) are each exactly the same in Rybka as in Fruit times a fixed constant for the whole table (with a couple of pawn entry exceptions).  We are talking about 64*6 values here being the same (just multipled by a different scaling value).  Any decent programmer would agree the Rybka values were taken from Fruit, and a scaling factor (for the pawn value differences, which could also tune it a bit) applied.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-23 21:01
We've been through this, up and down, back and forth, inside and out.  You are wasting your breath trying to explain something to someone who absolutely refuses to have it explained to them, because they refuse to accept it.

There is little hope you will accomplish anything other than waste a few k bytes of storage on this forum server...
Parent - By Mec (*) Date 2011-07-23 22:43
Yeah, you're right.

Let's just draw a line under this whole unworthy drama :twisted:
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-24 06:12
Bob!

Is this part of Chris correct?

Finally, a quick look at bishops, weights used in Fruit are:
static const int BishopCentreOpening = 2;
static const int BishopCentreEndgame = 3;
static const int BishopBackRankOpening = 10;
static const int BishopDiagonalOpening = 4

and Zach suggests these are used in Rybka:
static const int BishopCentreOpening = 147;
static const int BishopCentreEndgame = 49;
static const int BishopBackRankOpening = 251;
static const int BishopDiagonalOpening = 378;

note the ratios
147:2 = 73.5
49:3 = 16.3
251:10 = 25.1
378:4 = 94.5


Could you explain how this could allow to assume code copying?  And where ist the constant that should obfuscate the origins? What is your point at all? Isnt this cheating? Or are the moves of both progs the same. Never heard that before. Or are you accusing Rybka of being a chessplaying code? Or is the crime that he plays with Bishops?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-24 12:57
Because _some_ things were changed.  But if you read the report, Mark/Zach shows what is the same, and there is a _lot_.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-24 19:11
Bob, there are still some questions.

e.g. I asked you to give me a simple example where you have left the old code and right the alleged copy. And I prefered it very short. I asked because I have the suspicion that your example might be wrong.

e.g. I wished to know the exact extent of the forbidden area but also your definition what would exactly for this example be still kosher. I want such a complex answer so that other experts could continue the debate.

e.g. I have read that honestly you dont have Rybka code to compare. So, from here you get to some insinuations that the code how you put it would be copied. So two steps where you work like a magician.

e.g. ou desperately hope that Vas cooperates and defended himself, because only through his defense you could win further insight into the original Rybka code. Is this true? So, is it also true that the 14 supporters believed in your analyses that is by itself no real proof of copying but only assumptions that looked reasonable? But a legal court would never buy your conclusions?

Just a couple of questions that I had. Above all this another main question is still unanswered. In my logic your accusations and analyses against Vas are alone for this reason very dubious because assumed you would suddenly have to analyse 10 further engine codes. How could you do this even under the amount of your expertise. So, if that simply would be impossible, isnt this already the proof that you are engaged into a somewhat unreasonable activity? Would that ask for a total change of the definitions of what is called copying and cheating? Just without any emotional input? Why cant you understand this forced conclusion? Already 5 years ago you must have understood that your hard work wouldnt lead nowhere because this wouldnt control wrong rules.

Please be nice and try to understand my ideas. Tell me exactly where I'm wrong.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-24 19:20
In the part of the evaluation under consideration above, the PSTs (piece square tables), there is absolutely no copying at all. Nothing was copied. They (Hyatt) allege copying but they are totally wrong. The PSTs are completely squeaky clean.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-24 19:42
I knew that!!!!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-24 22:46
You don't even know what a piece/square table is, much less have you looked at the report.

Talking about making a decision in the dark, this is a decision in a deep dark vacuum where you have _zero_ except for some adoration directed toward Vas.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-25 09:40
Well, he does know what a piece square table is, if only because I told it a few posts above. PST is hardly rocket science, it is probably the oldest concept in computer chess, it's the heart of the concept of bean counting and very simple to understand. It's a table of values, indexed by [piece type] and [board square] that tells your program the "value" of that piece type on that square. For example,

the value for white king on g1 might be +50
the value for white king on e1 might be -20

which would translate to telling the program that O-O is in general better than king staying in the centre.

And it does it not by an algorithm but by looking it up from its memory.

Do you understand how easy that, and PSTs, is to understand now? Progress perhaps.

Finally, it is not necessary to "adore Vas" to be critical of lynching. One simply has to dislike lynching.
Parent - By Ray (****) Date 2011-07-25 10:00
This is a bit of a grey area I think. A table of values is arguably not "code" and not copyrightable.  Yes they are contained in the code, but in themselves they are not code, unless you say the entire program in it's entirety is code and subject to copyright. But regardless, the ICGA would call it plagiarism anyway, so it is academic.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-24 22:41
Right 64 * 6 identical numbers and yet none are copied.  You can't even compute the probability of 384 things sampled from 4 billion integer values on any calculator you might have.  384! will choke the thing and that is the _smaller_ of the two numbers in the product.

So get off that "he just came up with those numbers all by himself." 

You can repeat your statement as many times as you want, but this ain't the TV show "bewitched" and it ain't going to become true...
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill