Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / For non programmers (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Previous Next  
- - By Rebel (****) Date 2011-07-29 13:51 Edited 2011-07-29 13:55
For the Rybka 1.0 beta / Fruit comparison, I think Zach's and Mark's writeups are quite clear.  Zach's gives side-by-side analysis of blocks of code showing how they are either (a) identical or (b) do the same things in the same order with the same numbers -- Robert Hyatt

If you go through the suggested evidence regarding the Piece Square Tables (PST) then what's your impression ?

Left the Fruit code, right the Rybka code. They look so similar it must be true Vas is a copy-boy.

Tell you a secret, none of the listed Rybka code is present in Rybka 1.0 beta. It's imaginary best-guess-made-up code by Zach.

Has Zach been dishonest? No. You will have to read through the lines, it's programmer language:

Also, note that here too that the PST values are hardcoded into the Rybka executable file, they are not calculated at startup like Fruit's. The code shown here is simply the functional equivalent; it calculates the Rybka PSTs -- Zach Wegner

I protest to this kind of presentation of evidence as it is misleading for the average reader certainly when the "read the document" yell repeatedly is used in order to make a point. It's a very technical document, you almost must be a chess programmer to understand and I hope it will be rewritten. You can not list non-existence code this way.

Just for the record, I do not doubt the document, that is, not yet.
Parent - By Maxiator (***) Date 2011-07-29 15:41
My knowledge of programming is poor in comparison with programmers of Crafty,Fruit, Rybka..., but it was easy to see this dubious concept in Zach Wegner´s proof of evidence. Imho Mr. Wegner has to elaborate a bit more before we can trust that "convincing evidence"
(as bo(ring)b  allways repeats)
It occurs to me that Vas was sloppy with his sources but the ICGA verdict is inappropriate and will in the long term cause more damage than  provide benefits.
Regards,
max
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2011-07-29 15:48
What's more, Bob intentionally referenced this document when I requested an example of "exactly copied code" in the evaluation function.  Over the past few weeks, I've come to the realization that Vas's word is going to be more trustworthy than Bob's.
Parent - - By Capa (***) Date 2011-07-29 16:01
If Vas' word is more trustworthy, then do you believe Vas when he admits that he in fact did take from Fruit and Crafty?
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2011-07-29 21:48
I believe that he certainly took ideas, yes--that much is very clear.
Parent - - By Capa (***) Date 2011-07-29 22:39
Vas has admitted that it went beyond ideas and that he was under the assumption that it was legal to do so, which is debatable. Have you read multiple Vas statements, Turbo? I don't see how they could be construed as anything but copying. We don't even need Bob's report because Vas admits to it.
Parent - - By Capa (***) Date 2011-07-29 22:47
Turbo, here is one of Vas' statements:

From: "Vasik Rajlich"
To: "Sven Schüle"
Subject: Re: Request for your comments on computer chess topic
Date: Sat, 12. Jun 2010 08:32:19

Hi Sven,

yes, these fun topics.

Ippolit is disassembled Rybka 3 with changes. The changes are considerable but not even close to enough to leave any doubt. Robbolito is an evolved Ippolit, with more changes and more cleanup. I haven't checked the other new engines yet.

I'll definitely write up the Ippolit case at some point, for the historical record. Anonymous engines are not accepted by the CC community, so there is no hurry. I think it's best to wait one to two years before writing up an anonymous engine. Otherwise, cloners could use anonymous releases to get information, and then take more aggressive steps.

Re. tracking down the cloners: Not worth the energy, IMO.

Re. Fruit and Rybka: The Rybka source code is original. I did take a lot of things from Fruit, but legally. If there are some good concrete questions from credible people, please send them along.

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,
Vas
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-29 23:04

>Ippolit is disassembled Rybka 3 with changes. The changes are considerable but not even close to enough to leave any doubt. Robbolito is an evolved Ippolit, with more >changes and more cleanup. I haven't checked the other new engines yet.
>
> Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.
>
> Best regards,
> Vas


I just find it weird that he concludes IppoLit is Rybka 3 with minor changes but the source code for Rybka 3 is conveniently lost...
Parent - - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2011-07-30 20:45

> I just find it weird that he concludes IppoLit is Rybka 3 with minor changes but the source code for Rybka 3 is conveniently lost...


He once made a statement like this one before Ippolit showed up. So it has nothing to do with Rybka 3 source code being lost conveniently.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-07-30 20:52
Yes, this dates back to April 14 2009 when it was known he didn't keep his sources.
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 02:57

>> He once made a statement like this one before Ippolit showed up. So it has nothing to do with Rybka 3 source code being lost conveniently.


And you really believe the IppoLit authors went into Vas' computer that's not connected to the internet and took Rybka 3 source? If that's the case that Vas "lost Rybka 3 source code" before IppoLit showed up, then which/what code did Vas used to create Rybka 3?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 03:37
I think the basic problem here was addressed by Shakespeare, "what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 03:56

> I think the basic problem here was addressed by Shakespeare, "what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."


So true, Bob. It's been a long time I last read Shakespear. Sigh, 'need to get back to it more....

Unfortunately "some" don't see through this web woven and self-trapped by the weaver. Oh well....
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-31 07:49 Edited 2011-07-31 07:51
I think the basic problem here was addressed by Shakespeare, "what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

Curious is it not, how Quality Control on Bob Hyatt's output reveals so many bugs?
Parent - - By Nick (*****) Date 2011-07-31 08:09

> Curious is it not, how Quality Control on Bob Hyatt's output reveals so many bugs?


Bob Hyatt's incorrect attribution of that "Shakespeare" quote reminds me of what this whole affaire is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

"The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter."

Like the Bible Code bunkem'.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2011-07-31 08:26
He'll be here later arguing about the meaning of "addressed by", although he will actually have a tiny bit of wriggle room on that one.  Unlike the wriggle room available on his assertion "10 multiplicatively identical PST tables" when the actual count is four and "identical" has a strictly defined meaning. As in the knight opening table, for example, the multiplicative ratio of 69.84 for square a1 is not "identical" to a multiplicative ratio of 62.8 for square a6, etc. etc.

All programmer output must be subject to Quality Control else we get too many bugs.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 15:50
I explained this earlier, but you apparently choose to ignore it.

Here is a two entry table:

500  11

I am going to translate that to a new table by multiplying everything by .5

I get this new value:

250 5

Do we agree that I converted from one to the other with a _constant_ multiplier?

Now let's use your methodology to compute that constant multiplier:

250 / 500 = .5

5 / 11 = .45

So now you can "claim" that the two tables don't have a single multiplicative conversion factor.  And you are wrong.  Because computing the factor this way is incorrect.  Integer values truncate fractions.  So you are not dividing the two actual values, you are dividing a truncated approximation by a real number, and you get an "approximation."

Did this happen in the fruit case?  impossible to guess.  But your methodology of "proving" there is no common multiplier is completely unsound, mathematically.  So give up on that approach.

Notice that I actually read and went thru Zach's and Mark's papers.  I have _not_ been claiming that the PST "code" showed that code was copied.  The paper by Zach shows a _lot_ of copied code, if you just step down past the PST data.  You want to make a statement that is _clearly_ refuted in the first page of Zach's report, where he _clearly_ states that the PST initialization code does not exist in Rybka because rybka's PSTs are statically initialized at compile time.  Nobody is being dishonest except you.  You want to find one mistake (no luck yet) and use that to claim the entire paper is flawed.  Doesn't work with rational people.  Now let's move on to something real, rather than this imaginary stuff.  And perhaps try to keep your arguments mathematically sound as well.  Two sets of PSTs, computable by the _same_ function, changing only 4 constants is a bit of a stretch for "serendipitous development".
Parent - - By Homayoun_Sohrabi_M.D. (***) Date 2011-07-31 12:21

>


> think the basic problem here was addressed by Shakespeare, "what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..."
>
> Oh what a tangled web we weave,
> When first we practise to deceive!
> Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
> Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)
>
> Curious is it not, how Quality Control on Bob Hyatt's output reveals so many bugs?


I'll respectfully say that in English, this practice is called nit picking.  Children are notorious for being nit pickers, I should know, I have two of them.   The purpose of nit picking is to correct, criticize or embarrass a person who has said something.   Unfortunately it always ends up embarrassing the adult nit picker because it shows that he is not capable of seeing the proverbial forest for the trees.
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 19:35

> I'll respectfully say that in English, this practice is called nit picking.  Children are notorious for being nit pickers, I should know, I have two of them.   The purpose of nit picking is to correct, criticize or embarrass a person who has said something.   Unfortunately it always ends up embarrassing the adult nit picker because it shows that he is not capable of seeing the proverbial forest for the trees.


+1.

I agree with you: It's irrelevant where the quote came from. It's the moral lesson behind the quote that matters.
But, as you've correctly noted, leave it for childish nit pickers to pick at it - as if nit picking or finding the correct quote changes the moral lesson or exonerates Rybka of the factual Fruit-Crafty plagiarism.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 15:12
I missed the quote.  Nothing to do with my programming ability, which is where I have been trained, and which I have been practicing since 1968.  Non-stop.

But keep trying.  I hope we didn't misspell any panel member's name.  I suppose that would also invalidate the whole thing given this mentality...
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 19:44

> I missed the quote.  Nothing to do with my programming ability, which is where I have been trained, and which I have been practicing since 1968.  Non-stop.
>
> But keep trying.  I hope we didn't misspell any panel member's name.  I suppose that would also invalidate the whole thing given this mentality...


Bob, no need to explain the misquote. Happens to all of us. Myself included. It sill doesn't change the moral implications behind the quote - either correctly quoted or not. But the highlight of your misquote by the pro-Rybkas shows their desperate situation of grasping at straws.

If they find "the correct quotes", maybe....just maybe "the right quote" will somehow exonerate Rybka's plagiarism of Fruit-Crafty codes. Laughable.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 20:03
This is "the way of the forum" here.  Somehow some believe if you can find any error of any kind, no matter how small and how irrelevant it may be, it then discredits everything that person, or that report shows.  Of course there have been, so far, no "real errors" found.   So now we begin to see "fabricated errors that are first made up, and then pointed out with a 'look, see this...'"
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 20:16
Desperate situation calls for desperate measures. Only the desperate measure by "them" doesn't blot out the hard facts.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 04:24

> And you really believe the IppoLit authors went into Vas' computer that's not connected to the internet and took Rybka 3 source?


Or they decompiled Rybka and took its source. Or they decompiled Rybka and wrote Ippolit based on its ideas.
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 06:17

> Or they decompiled Rybka and took its source. Or they decompiled Rybka and wrote Ippolit based on its ideas.


Or? Sounds to me like speculations.

It still doesn't explain how Vas "lost Rybka 3 source code" from a computer that's not connected to an internet, yet IppoLit was created from it, according to the implied statements by Vas.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 07:20 Edited 2011-07-31 07:25
Houdart's Houdini stole the show away from the Ippolit comrades (you should know that ) he performed the escape trick that the Ippolit's couldn't  pull off themselves.  But here is why! The Ippolit's  Created the Invisible Chess Engine!

We'll give the Ippolit's a mythic aura - like the Canaanites- Even if it isn't quite true -we'll do it anyhow!

We'll say that the  Ippolit's are synonymous with the symbol of  "Ouroboros" the dragon or serpent eating its  own tail (which ever you prefer)- constantly  recreating of itself - it also contains the book of the underworld :roll:- hence the ever returning and reproducing of  Ivanhoe's- they die and propagate like flies. (Can you dig it?)

Now dig this,  if Houdart conceived of  Houdini the escape artist- but the Ippolit's  conceived the Invisible Chess Engine! Silly!  :eek:

I'm talking a  "Ralph Ellison" type of symbolic Invisible Chess Engine -relegated to a containment policy -a ghetto that you cannot move out of because Ippolit's are Invisible. Their author's are invisible.  Most Ippolit's survive the ghetto by pretending that they are better off than anyone else and by trying to demean those who exist out side of their surroundings with a  condescending attitude toward the mainstream-what ever that is these days.  

Translating that over to - yes!  The  Invisible Chess Engine  because you can't really see them- "Hey dude? Where's Ivanhoe?  " I don't know man? Which one? I know where Rybka is and Critter, but man I ain't seen Ivanhoe- not really, I've even seen Fire xTreme- but Ivanhoe -well maybe- does it have plate number now or sumthin like Ivan 44684dY NY they do allow them on them on to playchess but outside of that they are invisible chess engines.

But the Ralph Ellison  Invisible Chess Engine slant is the worse connotation applied to Ipplolit.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 07:48

> Or? Sounds to me like speculations.


Are you certain of the way Ippolit was constructed? No? Then all we can do is speculate.
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 08:11

> Are you certain of the way Ippolit was constructed? No? Then all we can do is speculate.


Not certain but, like I've stated so many times in the past, it's not proven IppoLit is in fact based on Rybka 3. The underlying issue here is "proof" in order to be sure for a fact IppoLit is based on Rybka 3 or not based on Rybka 3.

Quite different from supposedly factual statements such as; "IppoLit is based on decompiled Rybka 3" or "IppoLit is derived from Rybka 3" or "Rybka 3 source code was stolen/lost to make IppoLit engine".
Parent - - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2011-07-31 10:01 Edited 2011-07-31 10:09

> And you really believe the IppoLit authors went into Vas' computer that's not connected to the internet and took Rybka 3 source?


That's not what I said. I was referring to the statement that suggests that Rybka 3 source code being conveniently lost. I did not say someone went into Vas' computer that's not connected to the internet and took Rybka 3 source. The Ippolit could have been a decompiled Rybka 3.

> If that's the case that Vas "lost Rybka 3 source code" before IppoLit showed up, then which/what code did Vas used to create Rybka 3?


What the ...? He wrote Rybka 3 compiled it and did not keep the source code.
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 16:45

> I was referring to the statement that suggests that Rybka 3 source code being conveniently lost. I did not say someone went into Vas' computer that's not connected to the internet and took Rybka 3 source. The Ippolit could have been a decompiled Rybka 3.


This was the implication by Vas and those against IppoLit. Yet in the last statement, you use uncertain words like could have been a decompiled Rybka 3. So, is IppoLit in fact a decompiled Rybka 3 or not? No speculations.

> What the ...? He wrote Rybka 3 compiled it and did not keep the source code.


Then how do you explain IppoLit showing up before Rybka 3, at least by your previous statement?

Anyway, a short recap...
a. Vas' original Rybkas were not strong. In Rybka 1.6.1, he copied Crafty into it and played it at the tournament claiming it to be original when it's not. I'm sure code for Rybka 1.6.1 is lost.
b. Vas states he uses things from Fruit 2.1 but turns around and claims "Rybka is 100% original at the source code level." Nor can he prove his statement to be true. I'm sure codes for R1 - R2.3.2a are conveniently lost.
c. IppoLit shows up, he claims IppoLit is a clone of Rybka 3. Yet when bugs where discovered in Rybka 3 - demanding a Rybka 3.1 fix, Vas conveniently lost his source code and could not prove IppoLit is a Rybka 3 clone (or derivative etc).
d. Richard Vida made a statement few weeks ago in OpenChess that IppoLit looks to be original after all. He has yet to thoroughly investigate this to draw a 100% conclusion. He also made a striking point that Rybka 4/4.1 looks similar to IppoLit than Rybka 3 is similar to IppoLit. In the recent interview with Nelson Hernandez, Vas admitted he's "taken things from Public Domain to make Rybka 4" - coinciding with what Richard Vida stated in OpenChess on IppoLit and Rybka 3/4: Rybka 4/4.1 is more similar to IppoLit than Rybka 3 is similar to IppoLit.
e. So another question that should come to mind is: what is this "Public Domain code" that Vas used in Rybka 3/4, which happens to coincide with what Richard Vida stated in OpenChess regarding IppoLit and Rybka 3-4 similarity?
"If" these are true, do you know what this implies regarding IppoLit's legitimacy relative to Rybka 3 and then Rybka 4? I wouldn't be surprise if Rybka 4 and 4.1 are found to still contain fruit/Crafty codes, the source codes for those 2 versions are lost too.

Look, let's call a spade a spade. All these stories, excuses, lies & coverups, right from Rybka 1 to Rybka 4.1, are full of holes and just doesn't add up! Even you have to see this.
Parent - - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2011-07-31 19:04

> Then how do you explain IppoLit showing up before Rybka 3, at least by your previous statement?


Lie down before you hurt yourself. Leave it to the guys like Bob Hyatt. Clearly you are making noise about what you don't have clue about. Rybka 3 came way long before Ippolit.  :mad::yell:

> at least by your previous statement?


And What statement could that be? I said Ippolit could be a decompiled Rybka 3. :mad::yell: How can that mean  Ippolit came before Rybka 3, because it clearly means that Rybka 3 came before Ippolit. Don't be a mental midget. It doesn't take a rocket science to understand that.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2011-07-31 19:15

> Then how do you explain IppoLit showing up before Rybka 3, at least by your previous statement?


It comes from being segregated and isolated in the ethereal for far too long (either that shooting a bag of bad drugs).
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 19:57

>> And What statement could that be? I said Ippolit could be a decompiled Rybka 3. :mad::yell: How can that mean  Ippolit came before Rybka 3, because it clearly means that Rybka 3 came before Ippolit.


Scroll back up and re-read your first response to me in which you stated "he made statement like this before IppoLit showed up". Couple that with the general consensus in 2009/2010 that "Rybka 3 source code was stolen" around the time IppoLit showed up. Do you see why it's easy for a comprehensive person to put 2-and-2 together, or must everything be spelled out for you as if you were a kindergarten student?

I mean after all you're the mental giant and a rocket scientist. Again, go to OpenChess and read Richard Vida's post apropos IppoLit and Rybka 3/4. Educate yourself and then come back.
Parent - - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2011-08-02 06:31
Prima, don't try to be clever with me. You said Rybka 3 source code got lost conveniently and I told you Vasik mentioned that he doesn't have Rybka 3 code way before we even knew of the Ippolit.

Anyway, what is it in for you, what are you going to benefit from all these saga?
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-08-02 08:01

> Prima, don't try to be clever with me.....


Clever with you? I believe the comment was in response to someone else, and you interjected? Not that I mind. Coming to think of it, IppoLit was here either shortly before Rybka 3 arrived or few months after Rybka 3, in 2008 / early 2009. IppoLit was kept under "hush-hush" and censored in forums before it finally became publicly known in all forums...with the censoring being done openly by then.

> Anyway, what is it in for you, what are you going to benefit from all these saga?


Vas accuses every strong engine of being Rybka clone. Everyone clones codes/ideas of an engine except him. Now we come to find this "saga"! It's one thing to prevent others from succeeding as the "top dog" in life with unsubstantiated accusations, it's another thing to be a hypocrite. If you don't see it in this whole Fruit/Crafty and Rybka affair, well...

So what's in it for me? The Truth about Rybka's origin. That's been established. Whether the FSF will followup is the question. Also the Truth on IppoLit vs. R3/R4. Yet to be determined.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-08-02 10:37

>Clever with you? I believe the comment was in response to someone else, and you interjected? Not that I mind. Coming to think of it, IppoLit was here either shortly before Rybka 3 arrived or few months after Rybka 3, in 2008 / early 2009.


This is incorrect. Rybka was released in August 2008, Ippolit May 2009.
Parent - - By Prima (****) Date 2011-08-02 20:01

> This is incorrect. Ippolit <released> May 2009.


Wrong.

IppoLit was here before May 2009. Just behind closed doors at the time before its public acknowledgment of its existence in May 2009. Yes Rybka 3 was released in 2008.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-08-03 01:18
The earliest date I can find on Ippolit is April 2009.
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2011-08-08 19:33
The fact is that Rybka 3 was released way before that.
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-07-31 20:01
Lie down before you hurt yourself

Hi Timon!

btw... a shout out to Pumbaa!

also btw... Hakuna Matata!
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2011-08-02 06:21

> also btw... Hakuna Matata!


:lol:
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-31 20:13

> I said Ippolit could be a decompiled Rybka 3.


"Could be"?

I thought you clearly had a clue to as what you're talking about when you replied to me, as you're using uncertain phrases as "could be", "maybe", "possibly", "perhaps"...

Clearly you are the one making noises about what you have no clue about. Otherwise you would have been sure, wouldn't you?
Parent - By Prima (****) Date 2011-07-29 22:59

> Vas has admitted that it went beyond ideas and that he was under the assumption that it was legal to do so, which is debatable.


The GPL is clear on this. The only avenue worth looking forward to is if the FSF will follow suit.
Parent - - By Capa (***) Date 2011-07-29 23:21
Here is the other Vas statement, Turbo. It seems clear to me that Vas did in fact copy code and even admitted to it. We need to move beyond that point of contention:

It has often been (falsely) claimed that Vas did not give proper credit to Fruit. On http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Vasik+Rajlich I found the following quotes from 2005 (my highlights):

Interview
Quotes from an uciengines.de Interview with Vasik Rajlich, December 20, 2005  a new age in Computerchess? Two questions by Alexander Schmidt:

20. Alexander Schmidt:
The increase in playing strength of the latest chess engines is unbelieveable. We have since some time with Fruit 2.1 by Fabien Letouzey a very strong open source engine. Do you see a relation between the published sources of such a strong engine and the increase of strength in computer chess in general? How much influence do the ideas of Fruit have on the future of computerchess?

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. I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.

It is a bit of a pity that Rybka won't make the same contribution to the computer chess community, but at the moment I must also think about protecting my secrets. It's the eternal struggle for a computer chess programmer.

21. Alexander Schmidt:
We had our first contact when I had questions about a similarity to Fruit in the search, others found similarities in the evaluation. Some people where a little bit suspicious that Rybka could be a clone of the open source engine. In the meantime it is clear that Rybka is no clone but you used ideas of Fruit (I guess all other serious engine programmers had a look at Fruit too). How strong would Rybka actually be if the Fruit code would have never been published?

Vasik Rajlich:
It's a good question. I don't want to get too specific about which ideas from Fruit I think are really useful, but they fall into two categories:

1) Very specific tricks, mostly related to search.
2) Philosophy of the engine (and in particular of the search).

Fruit could really hardly be more useful along both of these dimensions. Fabien is a very good engineer, and also has a very clear and simple conception of how his search should behave.

Anyway, if I really had to give a number - my wild guess is that Rybka would be 20 rating points weaker had Fruit not appeared.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2011-07-30 09:49
None of this says anything about actually copying code.  "Took many things" refers to ideas in the code, as can be confirmed by the fact that copied code has not been found.
Parent - - By Capa (***) Date 2011-07-30 13:50
We need to move beyond semantics. Would you prefer the term plagiarizing or translating? Nonetheless, I must disagree with you. It seems clear to me that Vas does admit guilt. Why would he even mention open source if he just took ideas??? The answer seems self-evident. Vas admits the very same thing in the Nelson interview.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-30 14:01
Public domain.
Parent - - By Capa (***) Date 2011-07-30 14:18
Again, this begs the question, why would Vas state this if he just took ideas???
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-07-30 15:45
He always said the same "except Public domain". Look, I dont even know what that is in details. But I dont see your point, as if this would contradict itself somehow. If it comes ouut of a talk you should alweays analyse what was asked.
Parent - - By Capa (***) Date 2011-07-30 20:51
Perhaps then Turbo should reply to my post because I know that he will understand my inference.
Also, it would be great if, Nelson does get another interview with Vas, to ask more specifically what Vas means by "taking" and "looking", etc.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / For non programmers (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill