Nope.  How many post by you and the other small group of defenders?  5,000?  I'll try to count 'em up when I have time, just for fun.  My purpose for being here is to prevent a common problem... "If an untruth is repeated often enough, and goes unchallenged, it becomes the perceived truth."  You guys are repeating misinformation over and over.  I'd hate to see some of your nonsense become "de facto truth."

Bob's ok, but you read my mind. I have the same question. You are talking well after midnight on multiple nights. And the reason is to make ME understand better? I admit it does look bad. However........

gts

Ed, I'll give you the same advice I gave another person here.  Grow up.  You are _supposed_ to be an adult.

Bob, don't you know that at our age we have stopped growing, we shrink now

But it's OK. I have been mean to you, especially regarding the gasoline thing. It happens more when I am angry. I don't regret it, just saying it's your good right to do some catching up now. I probably deserve it.

"Supposed programmers" starts the problem. I admit. But after you put a check mark by the "supposed programmers" on the panel, you got a couple programmers who had big conflicts of interest (for one, how can you justify Fabien having a vote- you can't so pass over that one), and if you can't grasp why Fabien should not have a vote, I wonder if that translates over to the rest of them having judgment that bad. Then you got 3 for sure and a 4th is "iffy"- you could show them a map of Norway and tell them it was code. Bababababababababa

gts

> 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.

Zach's speech is different than Bob. Zach's evidence, which involved a lot of careful work, is compatible with Zachs' theory that Vas started with Fruit, and kept modifying it until obtaining R1. Note that I said it is compatible, if it is a demonstration, it is another issue (let's not go into that yet). In other words, Zach's evidence and his interpretation is a valid explanation. The key question here should be: Is it the only explanation? That is where the effort should be placed. Bob's speech imply a blatant cut and paste.

Zach's evidence was impossible to be discussed and analyzed when presented in CCC because it was drowned by hooligans. I complained about it, nothing was done, and I gave up. I have other things to do than getting into a mud fights with punks. There were and are lots of things to analyze. I will mention this, and I will get back to other things hopefully.

Regarding _this_ specific piece of data (PSTs), I do not see how this proves any wrong behavior (others maybe). We know that Vas studied Fruit (that is not wrong). Whatever it is claimed here that was copied, it is of a very low complexity. It is claimed 384 numbers are the same! This is a huge exaggeration. If I tell you that 100 numbers are copied, and then you see that the numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... 100, you did not copy 100 items, you copy the concept "increase the parameters linearly". i.e. you define the copy material as y = x. You see the PSTs are made of very basic (crude) numbers that establish a framework, and then the whole thing is modified with weights. The flavor here are the weights, not that "Knights have values increasing linearly until 6th rank and then decreasing". Vas could have easily got that concept, and tune with weights everything else. Also that the weights look quite specific, so it is possible that all those weights come from tuning (and we have strong evidences that he has done a lot of tuning). This is like copying 1,3,3,5,9 values for pieces and then you tune all the bonuses and penalties. The original numbers mean nothing. In fact, as CW pointed out, the relative factors are not even the same. You know that what is important in a PST is not so much the absolute number, but the relative values. In fact, this also explains why R1 has a different style than Fruit, defined by the fact that they do not look _that_ similar compared to other engines (this has been statistically demonstrated in CCC with data from at least three people).

One thing is what I could or I do believe, another is what I could demonstrate. That line is blurred with this PSTs, at best. As a "jury" a I would disregard it completely.

Miguel Ballicora