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 Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-25 10:05
There you go again with the untruths.

They are not identical.

Different weightings were used to create the tables. This creates differences.
The ratio between the different weightings are also different for differing piece types and game stages. This creates more differences within the tables.
Various kludges were applied, according to Zach, to create the tables. The kludges differ between the programs.

So kindly (or otherwise) stop with the untruths about "identical".
Parent - By Mark (****) Date 2011-07-25 11:26
You should just post the piece-square tables for Fruit and Rybka, so everyone can compare them without having to dig them out of the report.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 12:46
There you go again with the nonsense...

Give it a rest.  If program A uses pawn = 100, and has values of 1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1,..., and someone copies those values, but multiplies each one by the same constant (32 in this case) to produce pawn=3200, with values of 32, 64, 96, etc.  That is not exactly an "original way" to try to hide similarities.  Students try it every week.  And the code is copied.  If that is over _your_ head, fine.  It is _not_ over _mine_.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-25 13:20
Where is your "example" of  "1,2,3,4,4,3,2,1,..." in *this* 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 };

where is the "32" constant? Looking at Zach's document, I see reams of different weights, but I don't see 32 and I don't see where a ratio between the weights is 32 either. Weight ratios are highly variable.

You come up with some fantasy example, and everybody presumably assumes this is Rybka being discussed, when it isn't.

If program A does so and so
If program A is changed a bit to program B
If fastasy this
If fantasy that
If, if, if .......

where's the real thing? where's the real example?

Stop with the dissembling.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-25 13:35
That is why in my opinion all the evidence Wegner and Watkins allegedly have presented is a crock. But ok, this is me saying so. The relevant guys will follow soon. Chris, please contine your good work. You are exactly on the track that I missed so badly in all of what came from all these alleged experts. You know what, it's now been 15 years that I have seen sure some experts but even more in German Fachidioten and you might remember what this caused of turbulences in our community. Fachidiot is almost not to translate and it means you have an expert with undoubtable expertise but who is so deeply into the matter that he doesnt understand the relative importance or its contrary overall. It's simply the whole picture that counts. And this isnt kosher here against Vas. It's a shame that you are the only one who is trying to make it a fair picture. Of course you cant expect that these guys who voted against Vas will now join and add something what finally could excuse or first explain what Vas was really doing. Your analogies with Stalin or also Goebbels are right on the point so far.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-25 14:06
There are similarities in the PST data and there are differences. There are tables that don't even exist in one that do exist in the other.

As with all the other "evidence" some of which seems acceptable so far and some of which not acceptable (eg the BB eval-function paper which produces a results pattern too similar to an obvious data input pattern thus throwing up serious questions about the sustainability of the whole paper), there are differences and there are similarities. Ultimately it is a subjective question of degree. How different, how similar.

On "how different/how similar" and the possible development pathways used by Vas rests the question of "derivative". My assertion is that "derivative" remains unproven, Hyatt cannot prove Vas started with Fruit against Vas having Fruit source open in a window while he wrote the eval. If Hyatt can't prove it then he can't assert it - that's fundamental.

Vas's assertion that he "took things legally" can be verified, in the case of lookup tables like PST, by an exploitation of the dumb open source license and extracting data from the program or an algorithm within the program by interrogation and remembering the replies. The replies are not copyrightable because they are outputs of the program.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 17:51
Read the report...

I keep telling you to do that...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-24 22:29
"You have a suspicion"???  Based on exactly what?

If you want to see copied code, read Zach's report, and then Mark's.
Parent - - By SR (****) Date 2011-07-24 22:50
Just a semantic question. Why do you continue to claim Vas "copied" fruit code?  I think you really mean "converted code" or "transformed code" so why not say so. I am not saying the distinction between "copying code" and "converting code"  necessarily is important when assessing the case morally. Legally it might make a difference though I am not sure. Anyway it is simply technically incorrect to say he copied fruit code since any copied fruit code would not work in
bitboard  representation.  Why not be precise and say "converted code" when this is actually what you mean?
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 01:39
Because, from experience, you copy and then modify as needed.  Every line doesn't change when you go from mailbox to bitboards.  In fact, in the search code, nothing changes at all.  Ditto for move ordering, move selection, on and on and on.  The eval might be a 50-75% change, depending on how it is written...

But the point is, which would you rather do, write an eval for your program from scratch, using bitboards, or copy a mailbox program and convert it?  Now you have the original program with the original eval, which gives you something to compare to.  A couple of years back, I got rid of duplicate black/white code in Crafty.  It was far easier when I could take the original and the new version and compare the evals for 1,000 positions, and see where they differed, which led me exactly to the piece of code that I did not properly rewrite...  It is a huge time-saver...

So some code could be copied with zero changes, some needed significant changes.  That's why the "copy" issue is there...
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 14:24
First, you say that the values were matched exactly, with respect to multiplicative factors.  This has been demonstrated in one instance with the initial board configuration (though it's VERY debatable whether there is anything wrong about this, let alone illegal...).  You also say that ALL values match.  Then, we have something that you say is the same, but is clearly different, even with respect to multiplicative factors, and you says, oh, "_some_ things were changed".

Do you see why it's getting more and more difficult to believe your statements about things being the same, especially with regard to code?  This just adds to the inability to show Rybka code that matches Fruit code in the evaluation function, even though it supposedly "matches exactly, other than translation to bitboards".  Your statements on these types of similarities must be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least.

I guess this whole situation has just turned into a bunch of nonsense, and it really doesn't interest me much anymore.  I'll wait to see what happens with any REAL investigations by entities that can be trusted.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-25 17:42
I am not saying _anything_ here.  Mark's paper directly compares the fruit / rybka values used to assign a positional score based on which of the 64 squares a particular piece type stands on.  The only difference is in the big scale factor.  Again, 64 squares * 6 piece types (actually, most use 12 piece types since one might value squares on the opponent's side of the board more or less than your own.)  What is the probability that two different people will come up with those 6 arrays of 64 unique numbers each, and have the same value for each square, except that for one of the two, each value is multiplied by a constant that is uniform across all the values?   The probability is so small I don't know how to compute it since the factorial is so large when you have 4 billion things, taken  384 at a time, and two samples come out identical by luck...
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2011-07-27 13:38

> The only difference is in the big scale factor.


Apparently not...

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

Parent - By George Speight (***) Date 2011-07-28 09:06
Bob isnt going to listen, and get out while he can. Shame, cause I sorta like him.
Parent - - By Mec (*) Date 2011-07-23 23:28

>> The probably of mere chance alone having such a perfect match of these is beyond reasonable belief.


Yeah, and you, as an accuser, are definitely an authority appointed to decide what is beyond reasonable belief and what's not.

:lol:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-24 00:15
And what are _you_ exactly?  Seems that you are a self-appointed authority.  At least those of us on the panel/secretariat were asked to participate because of our background and expertise...

BTW, you also exhibit schizo traits.  You have gone from mangled English to a perfectly normal EU type of English.  Makes one wonder.  :)
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-24 06:25
Bob: At least those of us on the panel/secretariat were asked to participate because of our background and expertise...

I always thought that they had been chosen because they would agree with you.Then you made it watertight with censoring ChrisW.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-24 12:56
That's what you get for "thinking"...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-23 21:06
When you have a program that uses formulas, vs one that uses tables, the most rational way to compare is to take the one that uses tables, and see if the formulas fit from the other program.  If they do...  And in this case, they do...  then the conclusion is quite obvious.  I have used formulas, and then later used static initialization once it was obvious that either the formulas were OK, or perhaps that one or two values needed tweaking, which can be much harder with a formula.  Either way, the report stands pretty clearly, if you read and think.  It is not a simple thing to understand, as comparing two programs like this is a painful process.  But it is understandable, with some effort expended...

As far as "intentionally trying to produce code that matches fruit."  that is the idea here.  One could take a pc/sq table and produce an infinite number of different code segments that would generate those values.  What is the probability?  Basically 0.  But if the tables are shown to match perfectly or almost perfectly with Fruit, it is not so impossible to understand...
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) Date 2011-07-24 09:34
It is very possible that what you describe is within GPL rules.  If so then there is no problem.  I am not sure what the threshold for infringing GPL code is, but even Fabien at one time mentions that he thought that since the code was re-written then there is no problem.  If Fabien is not sure, and there are tons of lawyers that specifically deal with code infringement are not sure ... the least you can do is accept the possibility that no law or license was broken.  It is highly possible that translation of free source code and re-writing it to another format is enough change to circumvent the GPL license.  If you add to that the fact that quite a lot of further additions and changes were implemented, this makes the issue even more relevant.  While I accept that you are highly capable in computer code, that does not automaticall make you aware of legal matters with regards to code infringement.  I am a Civil and Architectural engineer with more than 20 years experience, and yet I am surprised almost every day by what is legal and what is not legal in my field.  I think it is best for you to bring out all the data you have collected and email it to the FSF to look at.  If you or Ken Thomson would do that then you would immediately get a response.  It would bring a lot more legitimacy to the case and would end this vitriolic debate.  I will go on record to say that I would totally accept an FSF ruling either way ... what would be great is if you would do the same.  You provide the evidence as an expert witness and let the lawyers and court decide on it ... this has always been the best way to handle such cases and there really is no need for all this animosity.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-24 12:56
If there was nothing else, I would not disagree.  But there is other code that has been copied.  And there is the eval issue where everything is the same except for the data structure....
Parent - By Adam Hair (**) Date 2011-07-26 04:14

> 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
>


I have been hoping that you would make a sincere effort to refute the findings of the Panel or at least call to question some of the assumptions that the analysis of the Rybka/Fruit is based on. Unfortunately, you seem to be much more interested in making highly speculative, unsupported comments than to actually work at poking holes in the analysis. Your desire to oppose any position that Dr. Hyatt takes seems to lead you to make statements that are less than substantive. Though, given the volume of such statements made by you, I am guessing you don't care.

The final report from the ICGA is definitely incohesive mess. Yet, it still is disingenuous to deliberately mix numbers from two different analyses contailed in the report in order to better support your contentions. Let's stick with the numbers from the EVAL_COMP analysis,
which is a more refined attempt to measure evaluation feature overlap and where the ~74% number for Fruit/Rybka 1.0 comes from. From that same report, the measured overlap of Crafty/Fruit is 34.20%, not ~54%.

> 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.


Now, here is a list of the comparisons along with the Elo difference for each pair. Rybka 2.3.2a has been left out, and I have removed the Fruit/Rybka 1.0 entry for the moment.

Eng      Eng     Overlap  Elo Diff
--------------------------------
Crafty  RESP  39.30  185
Crafty  Ryb1  31.80  301
Crafty  Phal  33.10  134
Crafty  Fail  21.20  518
Crafty  Fr21  34.20  188
Crafty  Pepi  41.10  4
Crafty  EX5b  30.30  275
RESP  Ryb1  31.40  486
RESP  Phal  28.80  51
RESP  Fail  29.50  333
RESP  Fr21  33.60  373
RESP  Pepi  30.60  189
RESP  EX5b  43.80  90
Ryb1  Phal  30.50  435
Ryb1  Fail  25.20  819
Ryb1  Pepi  31.40  297
Ryb1  EX5b  30.00  576
Phal  Fail  21.10  384
Phal  Fr21  30.40  322
Phal  Pepi  42.00  138
Phal  EX5b  29.10  141
Fail  Fr21  27.40  706
Fail  Pepi  23.80  522
Fail  EX5b  28.40  243
Fr21  Pepi  29.90  184
Fr21  EX5b  30.20  463
Pepi  EX5b  36.80  279

This is the resulting plot and regression line.



As you can see, there seems to be some correlation between overlap and Elo diff (smaller difference in Elo corresponds to a larger overlap). Yet, the correlation is not that strong (the coefficient of determination is ~0.366). Given the plot (which does not seem to reveal some other possible functional relationship between Elo diff and overlap) and the low coefficient, one can not say that smaller differences in Elo is a major contributor in larger overlap percentages.

Now, let's add the Fruit/Rybka 1.0 data point (113, 74.40) in.



As pointed out in Mark Watkins' EVAL_COMP, the Fruit/Rybka data point is an extreme outlier. Now, Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1.0 are at least 200 Elo stronger than the rest of the engines, so perhaps engines at that level must contain a great many things in common. Much more so than engines 200 Elo or more weaker do among theirselves. Which of course leads us to the assumption that even stronger engines share even more things in common. And so on. The only problem with this line of thought is that there are no signs that it holds true. Yes, stronger engines appear to be more similar as a group. But not necessarily at the level of Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1.0.

So, your explanation for the overlap measurements is not without its weaknesses. I'm not confident that anyone can explain why the eval overlap for Fruit/Rybka is so much higher than the other overlaps without evoking plagiarism. Though, it would be nice if some of the authors that had engines of strengths comparable to Fruit 2.1 offered their source code from that period for comparison.
- - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-24 10:52
I am a new member so please forgive my ignorance.  I get the distinct impression that some members are accusing ICGA of simply wanting to destroy Vas, but while those same members are screaming for "evidence", I have not seen any concrete evidence from their side as to why ICGA would have an axe to grind.  Of course jealousy is part of our fabric as human beings, but why would there be such an intense jealousy/animosity against Vas?  He is obviously a very intelligent man but Bill Gates he is not.  Isn't it possible, just remotely possible, that ICGA wants to enforce it's rules?
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with the previous poster stating that the best way to resolve this is with lawyers arguing in front of a judge.  Nothing will ever get done if every organization had to go to a judge before making a statement which is what in fact ICGA has done.  Thank you.
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-07-24 11:41

>I get the distinct impression that some members are accusing ICGA of simply wanting to destroy Vas, but while those same members are screaming for "evidence", I have not seen any concrete evidence from their side as to why ICGA would have an axe to grind.


Many feel that the ICGA handled the issue poorly, so poorly that it could be construed as an attack on Vas.

> Of course jealousy is part of our fabric as human beings, but why would there be such an intense jealousy/animosity against Vas?


I'm not sure about jealousy, however the animosity has been brewing for a long while.

Strelka resembled fruit yet was considered a clone by Vas, no Rybka 3.1, ippolit/robbolito considered clones, super massive hardware used at computer chess tournaments, the high price of Rybka and the deals with chessbase, the censoring of talk on strelka/ippo and its derivatives on this forum which ultimately was caused by vas, and probably a bunch of others that I can't think of right now.

Most of the "anti-vasik" folk posted on talkchess instead of here, and this was also home to almost all of the panel members.
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-25 03:30 Edited 2011-07-25 03:32

> I have not seen any concrete evidence from their side as to why ICGA would have an axe to grind.  Of course jealousy is part of our fabric as human beings, but why would there be such an intense jealousy/animosity against Vas?


At least you're being objective. Those stating that the ICGA ruled unfairly fail to grasp that the ICGA is a private organization entitled to its rules and to enforce them -  pertinent to their private chess engine tournaments, in which each author agrees to abide by the ICGA's rule. It's apparent Rybka didn't. Hence the ban on Rybka/ its author.

The ban had nothing to do with jealousy or malice against Vas, as some would ignorantly argue and state as a matter of fact. But don't count on them to ever grasp this simple principle.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-07-25 07:24

>At least you're being objective. Those stating that the ICGA ruled unfairly fail to grasp that the ICGA is a private organization entitled to its rules and to enforce them -  pertinent to their private chess engine tournaments, in which each author agrees to abide by the ICGA's rule. It's apparent Rybka didn't. Hence the ban on Rybka/ its author.


This is an offensively gross oversimplification of the opposition's arguments.

>The ban had nothing to do with jealousy or malice against Vas, as some would ignorantly argue and state as a matter of fact. But don't count on them to ever grasp this simple principle.


Like I said, I don't know about jealousy but the panel has been swimming in anti-vasik rhetoric for quite some time. While I don't think it should be a key issue by any means, it isn't at all unreasonable to consider what role this may have played.
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-25 21:43

>> This is an offensively gross oversimplification of the opposition's arguments


Explain how the statement quoted by you is an offensively gross oversimplification of the opposition's arguments. Let's hear it.

> Like I said, I don't know about jealousy but the panel has been swimming in anti-vasik rhetoric for quite some time. While I don't think it should be a key issue by any means, it isn't at all unreasonable to consider what role this may have played.


I believe Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. stated his perspective on the issue. But if people still can't see or refuse to understand the simple principle: "you violate rules you agree to, you get disqualified", I can't help there. Not my problem.

With that said about ICGA's right to enforce its rules irrespective of who violates them, how is the ICGA panel swimming in anti-Vasik rhetoric for some time and how it played in Rybka/Vas' ban?
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-07-26 06:49

>Explain how the statement quoted by you is an offensively gross oversimplification of the opposition's arguments. Let's hear it.


Ok. Here's the statement:

>Those stating that the ICGA ruled unfairly fail to grasp that the ICGA is a private organization entitled to its rules and to enforce them -  pertinent to their private chess engine tournaments, in which each author agrees to abide by the ICGA's rule. It's apparent Rybka didn't. Hence the ban on Rybka/ its author.


A quick summary of the above is that anyone who thinks the ICGA ruled unfairly does not understand that the ICGA has a right to enforce its own rules, which is an offensively gross oversimplification because of course the opposition understands the ICGA's jurisdiction. Hundreds, if not thousands of posts and you think they are all missing this point which is extremely obvious to everyone involved? This is rude because you are basically saying anyone who posted for the other side is an idiot.

To start with, there is some opposition to the ICGA's punishment, that it was too extreme. There are concerns over the interpretation of the ICGA's rules, there are questions regarding the impartiality of the panel members, questions/concerns/criticisms over the evidence submitted, concerns about other ICGA engines being held to the same standard that Rybka was held to, concerns over the effect the ICGA's ruling may have on computer chess in the future, criticisms resulting from the comparison of the ICGA's judging to that of a legal court case, input from a panel member that regrets his decision to sign the document.

Just because an entity has a legal ability to do something, doesn't make that something fair.

>I believe Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. stated his perspective on the issue. But if people still can't see or refuse to understand the simple principle: "you violate rules you agree to, you get disqualified", I can't help there. Not my problem.


If this is as far as your understanding goes of the arguments presented I'd say that either you haven't been reading the forum, haven't understand what you read, or just don't want to hear anything contrary to your opinion.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-07-26 07:21
+Concerns about how for the ICGA it is irrelevant if Rybka 3, Rybka 4 or current Rybka are clean or not, and about how they're banning Vas mainly just because he didn't cooperate in the investigations.
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-26 08:35

> A quick summary of the above is that anyone who thinks the ICGA ruled unfairly does not understand that the ICGA has a right to enforce its own rules, which is an offensively gross oversimplification because of course the opposition understands the ICGA's jurisdiction. Hundreds, if not thousands of posts and you think they are all missing this point which is extremely obvious to everyone involved? This is rude because you are basically saying anyone who posted for the other side is an idiot.


Apparently there are still those who missed this point. Lots of them. Their remarks regarding the ICGA ban on Rybka/Vas affirms this. These are the same people who, still to date, misconstrue an analogy or a metaphor: they actually equated Vas, literally, to each analogy used by Bob to explain the situation to them. You might have understood this concept and why the ICGA did what it did pertinent to their tournaments/rules but others don't. So I wouldn't count on it that they actually understand that the ICGA is a private entity capable of enforcing their rules when broken.

> To start with, there is some opposition to the ICGA's punishment, that it was too extreme.


There were previous authors caught in similar situation as Vas and were banned from ICGA. No one cried foul, unfair, or too extreme !. Is it because their engine wasn't as strong as Rybka?

> There are concerns over the interpretation of the ICGA's rules, there are questions regarding the impartiality of the panel members, questions/concerns/criticisms over the > evidence submitted, concerns about other ICGA engines being held to the same standard that Rybka was held to, concerns over the effect the ICGA's ruling may have on > computer chess in the future, criticisms resulting from the comparison of the ICGA's judging to that of a legal court case, input from a panel member that regrets his
> decision to sign the document.


The ICGA rule #2 is quite clear. Originality. If not, say so. How is it others understood it and adhered to it but not Vas? As for the 'legal court case', the ICGA have no power to do that. Only the FSF. Currently that's where things are. In the situation of a panel member who supposedly regrets his decision to sign the document, are you aware he actually initiated the investigation as well as signing the ICGA papers of the proceedings? I'm sure he conveniently left that part out of the media. So, other than him being disingenuous, what was his motive to snowball the ICGA investigation of Rybka?

> Just because an entity has a legal ability to do something, doesn't make that something fair.


It's statements like this that makes me think most still fail to understand that the ICGA is a private entity entitled to enforce their rule, if their rules are broken. The concept is relatively simple: For authors to compete, to win, to receive prizes and/or money, he/she agrees to abide by the ICGA rules and signs in. An author breaks the rule, punishment ensues.

> If this is as far as your understanding goes of the arguments presented I'd say that either you haven't been reading the forum, haven't understand what you read, or just don't want to hear anything contrary to your opinion.


My understanding is one thing. The ICGA rules is another. Most now understand the concept, though they may not like the bitter truth or the punishment given to Rybka. It all boils down to;
(1) did Vas break the rule/s
(2) do the ICGA have the right to enforce their rules when broken?

If the answer is 'yes' to both questions, at least you're being honest. One of The arguments, contrary to what's "right", that I've read include; it's okay for Vas to copy code since it's GPL, that's what the GPL are for. Problem is, he didn't fully comply with the mandates of GPL/FSF. Or; Vas made significant improved the codes he copied in ELO, so it's okay for Vas to copy codes. Problem is, Vas has stated many times: "Rybka is 100% original at the source code level...".

Looks to me those arguing for Vas thinks they're doing him a favour or are right. Or so they think. Because what those arguing in defense of Rybka/Vas and what Vas said contradicts each other. Also in the recent interview by Nelson Hernandez, Vas admits to using Public Domain codes in his commercial engines. And these are just few of the actual contradictions.

I can, and have actually tolerated opinions contrary to mine. Question is; can those defending Rybka/Vas accept opinions contrary to theirs? Quick recap;
(a)The forum-censoring & forum-bans during the IppoLit/RobboLito proves this.
(b) PCC banned lots of players because of this. Even now as the discussion is on-going,
(c) I encountered 2 moderators here who couldn't refute the truth surrounding Fruit+Crafty/Strelka=>Rybka. In other words, my views was/is contrary to their pro-Rybka opinions & their ethics....enough for these 2 Rybka-moderators to place me on their ignore-list. A blessing in disguise for me: 2 less stiff-necks to deal with.

If any one misunderstands the issues surrounding Fruit/Strelka -> Rybka & the ICGA, it's not me.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-07-26 11:51

>The ICGA rule #2 is quite clear. Originality. If not, say so. How is it others understood it and adhered to it but not Vas?


For one, we don't know that others have adhered to it. Two, there is some ambiguity to the rule, whether you think it is ambiguous enough to warrant a debate is part of the controversy.

>As for the 'legal court case', the ICGA have no power to do that. Only the FSF.


What I said was that there were comparisons made to a quality standard set by courts of law, and this has produced some criticisms of the way the ICGA handled the Rybka issue.

>In the situation of a panel member who supposedly regrets his decision to sign the document, are you aware he actually initiated the investigation as well as signing the ICGA papers of the proceedings? I'm sure he conveniently left that part out of the media. So, other than him being disingenuous, what was his motive to snowball the ICGA investigation of Rybka?


The point was that this and other things are part of the opposition's arguments.

>>Just because an entity has a legal ability to do something, doesn't make that something fair.


>It's statements like this that makes me think most still fail to understand that the ICGA is a private entity entitled to enforce their rule,


So that would be the legal ability part of my statement. An institution could legally do something that would be complete and totally unfair, destroy their reputation, and cause them to go into bankruptcy. Fairness and legality are two separate things. Just because a decision falls within the jurisdiction of an entity to do so, doesn't mean that it's a good one.

>It all boils down to;
>(1) did Vas break the rule/s
>(2) do the ICGA have the right to enforce their rules when broken?


Obviously (2) is Yes.

(1) holds some controversy.

>I can, and have actually tolerated opinions contrary to mine. Question is; can those defending Rybka/Vas accept opinions contrary to theirs? Quick recap;


(a)The forum-censoring & forum-bans during the IppoLit/RobboLito proves this.

It's kind of funny how you were arguing that the ICGA has a right to enforce its own rules, yet do not apply this same idealism to the Rybka forum, or do you believe the forum censorship was unfair?

>(b) PCC banned lots of players because of this. Even now as the discussion is on-going,


This is a separate issue from the ICGA one. There's no one here from chessbase to discuss it with. No clue how receptive they are. I can tell you that on this forum there has been plenty of debate over ippolit and its derivatives.

>(c) I encountered 2 moderators here who couldn't refute the truth surrounding Fruit+Crafty/Strelka=>Rybka. In other words, my views was/is contrary to their pro-Rybka opinions & their ethics....enough for these 2 Rybka-moderators to place me on their ignore-list. A blessing in disguise for me: 2 less stiff-necks to deal with.


Two people aren't a good representative of a population, however I doubt that you were ignored over a simple disagreement.
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-26 17:32

> It's kind of funny how you were arguing that the ICGA has a right to enforce its own rules, yet do not apply this same idealism to the Rybka forum, or do you believe the forum censorship was unfair?


It's proven that Rybka wasn't entirely forthcoming regarding its originality. From R1 to R2.3.2a. 'Prove' is the key-word here. Based on proven evidence, the ICGA exercised their rights accordingly.

Rybka forum/moderators censored/deleted, and/or banned members based on the 'words' of another that, to date, hasn't been proven if in fact IppoLit/RobboLito is a Rybka-clone or Rybka-derivative, besides speculations. But still 'not proven' in this case.

Big contrast between the two cases.

> Two people aren't a good representative of a population, however I doubt that you were ignored over a simple disagreement.


Well 2 mods did. Or I'd at least have to take their word for it. Not that I care about it nor am I bringing it up to reconcile with "them" other than to make a factual point about who actually have nil to zero 'tolerance' contrary to their views.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-25 10:49
What you and many others dont understand (probably because of their lack of democratic education) is something fundamental in our system of justice, the law is made for all citizans the same. An organization like the ICGA, that employs people like Harvey Williamson and allows panel members like Uniacke, just to focus on Hiarcs, who then vote about an outsingled allegedly singular "culprit" like Vas is undemocratic, illegal and guilty of lynch justice. Years ago Vas declared that what he took from Fruit, was legal. But questions remain if Hiarcs is also legal, or Fritz or others, if suddenly only one single entity is being examined. For years I am explaning that if something became common practice, singling out someone is lynch justice. Since the ICGA seems to intend to continue their chase on scapegoat Vas, they might have decided to commit suicide or to pay a high recompensation for their lynch practice. No matter what they will do, the actual staff is no longer acceptable.

(perhaps I should repeat Vasik Rajlich:
Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on.)
Parent - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2011-07-25 12:13
I wish they would employ me but they do not. I pay them to be a member.

Singled out? Vas is the 3rd author to be banned for using Fruit.
Parent - - By Peter Grayson (****) Date 2011-07-25 19:13
AWRIST wrote:
"(perhaps I should repeat Vasik Rajlich:
Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on.)
"

The problem here is that there is a presumption that because Vasik Rajlich said so then it must be true. However, he can speak for himself but not the other engine programmers.

e.g. Analysing the HIARCS release Elo improvement versus timeline there is no evidence whatsoever that HIARCS made any massive Elo jump. At a similar time to the Rybka 1.0 beta release HIARCS 10 was released and increased some 77 Elo after over 2 years development on HIARCS 8 Bareev and the 9 engine.

So that statement may be correct for the Rybka engine development but not for the other engines. When putting forward any arguments for or against Rybka it is important that they stand up to scrutiny!

I've attached the timeline table for reference. Note there is no copyright on this table. :-)

Peter G
Attachment: HIARCSProgress.JPG - HIARCS Progress table. (42k)
Parent - - By Tullius (*) Date 2011-07-25 20:56
I have worked as defensive lawyer and i am a hobby programmer but what i have read about the case is that VR has made a terrible mistake. When somebody accuses you then you have the right to remain silent. That is important but it is double-edged sword because when you do not speak you can not defend yourself. You have it to say before your judge. No judge cares about past inverviews or statements or opinions outside the court.

So all arguments after the ruling are simply redudnant (for the case). Judges hate it to argue after the decisions is in the world. You had the chance, you did not use it and now you have to live with it. Period. So works the legal system in Western Europe.
Parent - By oudheusa (*****) Date 2011-07-25 21:45
The problem is that there was no independent judge to start with...
Parent - - By Peter Grayson (****) Date 2011-07-25 21:48
What you say is correct but this case has yet to appear before a judge and court. The ICGA are an independent organisation and are not part of the legal process.

If the Free Software Foundation decide not to pursue this case then it will raise further discussion points as to whether the ICGA evidence was valid and then whether Vasik Rajlich was falsely accused.

If the courts found in Vasik Rajlich's favour, what then of the ICGA position?

PeterG
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-25 22:06
Tullius makes a very good point... I think he knows the difference between a games association rules and a legal system implemented by a sovereign country.

I think he was just trying to make an analogy (please correct me if I am wrong Tullius).

Vas had an opportunity to present his side to the ICGA (several times)… to the board… not the panel.

If his software was not derived from Fruit, please, someone, give me one logical reason for not allowing an independent company to make a comparison.  Not the panel… just some company both parties could agree on.

Much better than risking a permanent ban?
Parent - By Tullius (*) Date 2011-07-25 22:36
Yes it is an analogy. From my experience i know than many judges works also as arbitrators for various organisations (and btw i am myself an arbitrator for a local chess association) and there some basic principles which are included in almost every rule of procedure in any legal system.
Parent - By George Speight (***) Date 2011-07-28 09:14
Since you are a new member, before the panel wasa even formed, Bob here point blank stated more than once that even if found innocent. He didnt care. He was guilty and always would be. Do you find it strange for him to be that biased, and even stranger that he was allowed on the panel. I am not a programmer, but I think I know shit when I smell it.
- - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-25 21:58
Poster "awrist" has stated that Vas has figuratively been lynched.  I find the word "lynching" somewhat questionable and exaggerated in this context.   I can tell you without hesitation that "lynching" is quite a sensitive word on the American side of the ocean with a lot of racial historical significance and that we don't throw that word around lightly.   Would it be analogous if I told our dear poster Awrist that Vas was taken to the gas chambers?
I understand that some of us do not possess the sophisticated "democratic" cultural understanding that he does.  However, at the core of the matter is that ICGA is an independent organization and they can say what they like.  Vas can also say what he likes or say nothing at all.  ICGA also has the right to ban people who it thinks have broken it's rules.  Again however, Vas has the right to even start his own competitions if he so chooses.   He has publicly stated that he doesn't care.   I say good for him.   That doesn't sound like a lynched man!
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-25 22:10

>Would it be analogous if I told our dear poster Awrist that Vas was taken to the gas chambers?


I'm fairly certain Rolf understands this... iow he is just trolling.

yes to use the term "lynch" or "lynch mob" is really just to incite the nuttiness that goes on here.
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-26 00:02

> However, at the core of the matter is that ICGA is an independent organization and they can say what they like.  Vas can also say what he likes or say nothing at all.  ICGA also has the right to ban people who it thinks have broken it's rules.  Again however, Vas has the right to even start his own competitions if he so chooses.   He has publicly stated that he doesn't care.   I say good for him.   That doesn't sound like a lynched man!


Ahh, but those blindly portraying the ICGA as the vaillain don't grasp this simple concept that you or others do. Still, if they finally come to terms with "what happened" & "why what happened, happened to Vas", don't expect them to be honest about it or stop them altogether.
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