Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / To the 14 members of the panel who voted Vas guilty (locked)
Subject: Open letter to the 14 members of the panel who voted Vas guilty.
Provided that when you voted you considered yourself qualified to judge, among that the below about the PST (Fruit) = PST (Rybka) issue.
Vasik Rajlich: I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
After investigation there is no doubt in my mind Vas took Fruit's PST system as a base for his Rybka. However looking at what he took I can not call that code-theft. What he took is just a simple idea.
Provided that you have considered yourself qualified enough to judge I assume you are familiar with the PST concept in a chess program then the following should not be hard to understand.
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 };
These (Fruit) tables together with some weight factors form the base for the creation of the PST. Now the accusation is that Vas took these tables as code theft. I would argue this is not true because these values correlate with general chess knowledge quite urgently.
For instance, changing KnightLine[0]=-4 into (say) +4 would highly favor the program to put its knights on the first line. Small change, huge effect as you can see in the below listed table of the knight PST of Fruit. Meaning to say, the values as listed above are more or less obliged if you are using this idea because you want to play the program reasonable moves.
The use of the PST technique for a first raw and quick evaluation is used since the early days of computer chess and is not protected by copyright or whatsoever, all chess programmers use the technique, all chess programs have correlating values following the general aspects of chess knowledge. As an example, listed left is the Fruit PST for the knight (as shown in the Mark Watkins report), right the REBEL knight table I typed during the early 80's and did not change after that.
-135 -25 -15 -10 -10 -15 -25 -135 00 5 00 10 10 10 10 00
-20 -10 0 5 5 0 -10 -20 5 20 26 22 23 28 24 10
-5 5 15 20 20 15 5 -5 15 20 26 28 36 40 26 20
-5 5 15 20 20 15 5 -5 15 23 30 30 40 50 26 20
-10 0 10 15 15 10 0 -10 15 20 30 30 40 50 26 20
-20 -10 0 5 5 0 -10 -20 15 20 26 28 36 40 26 20
-35 -25 -15 -5 -5 -15 -25 -35 00 20 26 22 23 28 24 10
-50 -40 -30 -25 -25 -30 -40 -50 00 5 00 10 10 10 10 00
Different numbers but every square correlates.
Second aspect of the PST system as used by Fruit and only Fabien can answer that. The way Fabien creates his PST's in Fruit is it his original idea or did he borrow it from somebody else? In the latter case the whole PST argument falls apart IMO.
In the light of the above, please, if you are 1 of the 14 that pleaded Vas guilty of code-theft, come forward and give your opinion on the PST issue. To take an idea with obliged values is not copying nor code-theft IMO.
Thank you.
Ed Schroder
2011, July 31
Provided that when you voted you considered yourself qualified to judge, among that the below about the PST (Fruit) = PST (Rybka) issue.
Vasik Rajlich: I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
After investigation there is no doubt in my mind Vas took Fruit's PST system as a base for his Rybka. However looking at what he took I can not call that code-theft. What he took is just a simple idea.
Provided that you have considered yourself qualified enough to judge I assume you are familiar with the PST concept in a chess program then the following should not be hard to understand.
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 };
These (Fruit) tables together with some weight factors form the base for the creation of the PST. Now the accusation is that Vas took these tables as code theft. I would argue this is not true because these values correlate with general chess knowledge quite urgently.
For instance, changing KnightLine[0]=-4 into (say) +4 would highly favor the program to put its knights on the first line. Small change, huge effect as you can see in the below listed table of the knight PST of Fruit. Meaning to say, the values as listed above are more or less obliged if you are using this idea because you want to play the program reasonable moves.
The use of the PST technique for a first raw and quick evaluation is used since the early days of computer chess and is not protected by copyright or whatsoever, all chess programmers use the technique, all chess programs have correlating values following the general aspects of chess knowledge. As an example, listed left is the Fruit PST for the knight (as shown in the Mark Watkins report), right the REBEL knight table I typed during the early 80's and did not change after that.
-135 -25 -15 -10 -10 -15 -25 -135 00 5 00 10 10 10 10 00
-20 -10 0 5 5 0 -10 -20 5 20 26 22 23 28 24 10
-5 5 15 20 20 15 5 -5 15 20 26 28 36 40 26 20
-5 5 15 20 20 15 5 -5 15 23 30 30 40 50 26 20
-10 0 10 15 15 10 0 -10 15 20 30 30 40 50 26 20
-20 -10 0 5 5 0 -10 -20 15 20 26 28 36 40 26 20
-35 -25 -15 -5 -5 -15 -25 -35 00 20 26 22 23 28 24 10
-50 -40 -30 -25 -25 -30 -40 -50 00 5 00 10 10 10 10 00
Different numbers but every square correlates.
Second aspect of the PST system as used by Fruit and only Fabien can answer that. The way Fabien creates his PST's in Fruit is it his original idea or did he borrow it from somebody else? In the latter case the whole PST argument falls apart IMO.
In the light of the above, please, if you are 1 of the 14 that pleaded Vas guilty of code-theft, come forward and give your opinion on the PST issue. To take an idea with obliged values is not copying nor code-theft IMO.
Thank you.
Ed Schroder
2011, July 31
Ed,
The PST information is only a very small part of what the panel investigated. Some people thought taking the Fruit specific ratios was theft and some thought it a copied idea. When I first saw Zach's report, the match of the system for filling in PST values was striking, and certainly made me feel Rybka should be investigated. Would I consider this exact code theft? No, since it would have to be translated to another program form. Although we frankly do not know how Vasik created the specific ST values he used since it all appears as a block of data. Maybe he used the specific Fruit code to write out the values, then imported them. Maybe he used a spreadsheet. Who knows. We can only evaluate what we have access to. Zach's document and the statements from Vasik that Strelka had stolen from Rybka 1 was what triggered the investigation (once Fabien protested, of course). But the panel went much, much farther in its investigation. Please do not just stop on just PST. Look at the exact match of mobility methods, open file scoring for Rooks. rooks on the 7th, queen eval, bishop eval, pawn scoring, king safety.... it is simply a grand theft of the evaluation from Fruit. Yes there were some very minor changes of values, but he took the whole method of doing things, and this gave Rybka a huge rating boost. He should have disclosed this for the TD could decide if it was appropriate for him to complete (in some of the same tournaments as Fruit).
The panel's job was not to prove exact code copying. It was to determine if Rybka violated rule 2 which requires reporting of derivatives.
You said this:
"After investigation there is no doubt in my mind Vas took Fruit's PST system as a base for his Rybka."
Even you agree that Vas took the PST system. That means Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, and Vas violated the rules.
The PST information is only a very small part of what the panel investigated. Some people thought taking the Fruit specific ratios was theft and some thought it a copied idea. When I first saw Zach's report, the match of the system for filling in PST values was striking, and certainly made me feel Rybka should be investigated. Would I consider this exact code theft? No, since it would have to be translated to another program form. Although we frankly do not know how Vasik created the specific ST values he used since it all appears as a block of data. Maybe he used the specific Fruit code to write out the values, then imported them. Maybe he used a spreadsheet. Who knows. We can only evaluate what we have access to. Zach's document and the statements from Vasik that Strelka had stolen from Rybka 1 was what triggered the investigation (once Fabien protested, of course). But the panel went much, much farther in its investigation. Please do not just stop on just PST. Look at the exact match of mobility methods, open file scoring for Rooks. rooks on the 7th, queen eval, bishop eval, pawn scoring, king safety.... it is simply a grand theft of the evaluation from Fruit. Yes there were some very minor changes of values, but he took the whole method of doing things, and this gave Rybka a huge rating boost. He should have disclosed this for the TD could decide if it was appropriate for him to complete (in some of the same tournaments as Fruit).
The panel's job was not to prove exact code copying. It was to determine if Rybka violated rule 2 which requires reporting of derivatives.
You said this:
"After investigation there is no doubt in my mind Vas took Fruit's PST system as a base for his Rybka."
Even you agree that Vas took the PST system. That means Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, and Vas violated the rules.
mjlef,
if possible would you mind telling us who you are and if you were part of the panel. Thank you.
if possible would you mind telling us who you are and if you were part of the panel. Thank you.
Mark wrote a program named "Now" and competed in several ACM/ICGA events. I've met him face-to-face more than once at chess tournaments...
Hi,
Sure, I am Mark Lefler, and I was on the ICGA Secretariat to the panel.
Mark
Sure, I am Mark Lefler, and I was on the ICGA Secretariat to the panel.
Mark
Hi Mark, please forgive me for jumping in on your reply to Ed.
These statements are much more sensible than the Rybka PST "code" that magically appears in the Zach document. I can't think of anything more likely to stop Vas co-operating with the panel than that imaginary code. In fact I saw an email from Vas to David (David published it on one of the chess forums or his blog, can't remember which) saying "this code is horribly bogus". I would have run a mile from any investigation that was clearly looking like it was trying to "fit me up". I would have felt like I would not have been getting a fair trial (just as Vas said in Nelson's video).
That's exactly where I stopped because the report lost credibility for me right there. If you take away the imaginary PST code the report looks far less damning to a non programmer (me), but to prove there were no mistakes in the rest of the report I would need to become a decompiling expert and that's not going to happen, so I will wait for the FSF investigation.
> Would I consider this exact code theft? No, since it would have to be translated to another program form.
> Maybe he used a spreadsheet. Who knows.
These statements are much more sensible than the Rybka PST "code" that magically appears in the Zach document. I can't think of anything more likely to stop Vas co-operating with the panel than that imaginary code. In fact I saw an email from Vas to David (David published it on one of the chess forums or his blog, can't remember which) saying "this code is horribly bogus". I would have run a mile from any investigation that was clearly looking like it was trying to "fit me up". I would have felt like I would not have been getting a fair trial (just as Vas said in Nelson's video).
> Please do not just stop on just PST
That's exactly where I stopped because the report lost credibility for me right there. If you take away the imaginary PST code the report looks far less damning to a non programmer (me), but to prove there were no mistakes in the rest of the report I would need to become a decompiling expert and that's not going to happen, so I will wait for the FSF investigation.
> I will wait for the FSF investigation.
let's hope everyone will then we can all have a few months of peace :)
"{
That's exactly where I stopped because the report lost credibility for me right there. If you take away the imaginary PST code the report looks far less damning to a non programmer (me), but to prove there were no mistakes in the rest of the report I would need to become a decompiling expert and that's not going to happen, so I will wait for the FSF investigation."
Huh? The PST stuff is not "imaginary". As is well explained in Zach's report, The equations he uses in the code fully explains the RYbka PST values. This is how science works. The clever guys who take a series of numbers and from them make a general equation are the guys and gals that get Nobel prizes. Perhaps you do not have a scientific background, but it is unfair for you to pass judgment on something after looking at a very small part of the evidence.
Mark
That's exactly where I stopped because the report lost credibility for me right there. If you take away the imaginary PST code the report looks far less damning to a non programmer (me), but to prove there were no mistakes in the rest of the report I would need to become a decompiling expert and that's not going to happen, so I will wait for the FSF investigation."
Huh? The PST stuff is not "imaginary". As is well explained in Zach's report, The equations he uses in the code fully explains the RYbka PST values. This is how science works. The clever guys who take a series of numbers and from them make a general equation are the guys and gals that get Nobel prizes. Perhaps you do not have a scientific background, but it is unfair for you to pass judgment on something after looking at a very small part of the evidence.
Mark
> The panel's job was not to prove exact code copying. It was to determine if Rybka violated rule 2 which requires reporting of derivatives.
People like Ed (pro-Rybka) still don't get this concept. All the ICGA were concerned about is if their rules pertinent to the ICGA tournaments were violated. It was. Not for ICGA to determine if Rybka did something legal or illegal by law of the Land. That's for the FSF/court to determine.
> Even you agree that Vas took the PST system. That means Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, and Vas violated the rules.
Amazing how these confused persons openly admit Rybka is in fact derived from Fruit but fail to see how Rybka/Vas violated ICGA rules of "originality". Too bad they can't have it both ways.
>Even you agree that Vas took the PST system.
Which is fine within the GPL rules.
>That means Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, and Vas violated the rules.
If that is the measurement why not cancel my WC title. Like Vas I took many things from others.
Going this way I think the ICGA is missing one of its purposes, elo progress. Such as articles in the journal. I implemented the hash table in REBEL precisely according an article of the journal. Did I violate the rules?
Something happened in 2004/5 the open source of Fruit. Something happened 1-2 years ago, the public domain sources of (presumably) Rybka 3.
The ICGA needs to anticipate to the new situation with new rules instead of shooting into its own feet.
According to the current rules since the release of IPPO and family every program should be suspect.
First, copying an array of numbers that are anything but random, numbers which took effort to tune, is NOT ok according to the GPL. The GPL is merely an extension of copyright law. One can relax parts of their copyright if they so choose, and they can relax parts of their copyright by stipulating requirements that the copier must follow in order to legally use the copied code.
We are not talking about taking "things" when "things" == "ideas". We are talking about that when "things" == "blocks of code".
Trying to hide behind the "idea" nonsense is not going to work, because the ICGA investigaton was quite clear in that it was not about "ideas".
As far as your last statement goes, I think a lot of programs are suspect, myself. But am I willing to disassemble each one? Probably not. Although I have one or two I might take a look at when I have time...
We are not talking about taking "things" when "things" == "ideas". We are talking about that when "things" == "blocks of code".
Trying to hide behind the "idea" nonsense is not going to work, because the ICGA investigaton was quite clear in that it was not about "ideas".
As far as your last statement goes, I think a lot of programs are suspect, myself. But am I willing to disassemble each one? Probably not. Although I have one or two I might take a look at when I have time...
If that's all so true, which it ain't, remember:
Vasik Rajlich: I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
That was 2005.
Nobody complained, not even you.
Vasik Rajlich: I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
That was 2005.
Nobody complained, not even you.
First, when I saw that, I assumed "many things" translates to "many ideas." I did not think "many blocks of code" at the time. As I have learned, my basic assumption was faulty and he copied code and _not_ ideas.
As far as your first statement, please point out "what ain't true."
I complained after I was shown evidence in the early investigatoin comparing Rybka binary to Fruit source. When it became obvious that things were not as they should be according to the ICGA rules...
Here's an interesting set of questions for you to answer. I'll also answer them for you but you can fill in where you want.
1. Did you sign the programmers' complaint leter to the ICGA asking for an investigation?
a: "yes"
2. Did you the follow through as the other signees did and join the panel so that you could participate in the investigation and voice the complaints back then, that you are coming up with now?
a: "er, no..."
3. So you did not follow any of the investigative process, even though you demanded that the investigation be initiated?
a: "er, no..."
4. Now, after the fact, you want to demand that I go through the report to pick out the bits and pieces that blow apart your "late to the party explanations"?
a: "er, yes..."
You had a chance to participate. You instigated the investigation with 11 other authors (myself _not_ included). You refused to participate in the investigation. Then you get snippy when I won't go back and try to spoon-feed you the parts of the report you are too lazy to go find for yourself.
5. And you still want people to take you seriously?
a: "er, yes..."
I don't see how anyone can. You find fault with the process, yet you intentionally avoided taking part, even though you intentionally demanded that it occur. That is a _very_ strange story, if you ask me. I've read the reports. I've looked at the fruit source. Until I am tired of it. But I did put forth the effort. Even here, trying to explain the PST issue. And you didn't even feel like investing the time to take part in something you are now finding fault with? Whose fault is that, exactly? Ours for not holding a gun to your head and saying "sign up and read, or else..."????
a: "er, yes... I guess. It is somebody's fault. It is not mine. It is not Vas'. So that only leaves the panel. That's it. It is the panel's fault... I remember now."
As far as your first statement, please point out "what ain't true."
I complained after I was shown evidence in the early investigatoin comparing Rybka binary to Fruit source. When it became obvious that things were not as they should be according to the ICGA rules...
Here's an interesting set of questions for you to answer. I'll also answer them for you but you can fill in where you want.
1. Did you sign the programmers' complaint leter to the ICGA asking for an investigation?
a: "yes"
2. Did you the follow through as the other signees did and join the panel so that you could participate in the investigation and voice the complaints back then, that you are coming up with now?
a: "er, no..."
3. So you did not follow any of the investigative process, even though you demanded that the investigation be initiated?
a: "er, no..."
4. Now, after the fact, you want to demand that I go through the report to pick out the bits and pieces that blow apart your "late to the party explanations"?
a: "er, yes..."
You had a chance to participate. You instigated the investigation with 11 other authors (myself _not_ included). You refused to participate in the investigation. Then you get snippy when I won't go back and try to spoon-feed you the parts of the report you are too lazy to go find for yourself.
5. And you still want people to take you seriously?
a: "er, yes..."
I don't see how anyone can. You find fault with the process, yet you intentionally avoided taking part, even though you intentionally demanded that it occur. That is a _very_ strange story, if you ask me. I've read the reports. I've looked at the fruit source. Until I am tired of it. But I did put forth the effort. Even here, trying to explain the PST issue. And you didn't even feel like investing the time to take part in something you are now finding fault with? Whose fault is that, exactly? Ours for not holding a gun to your head and saying "sign up and read, or else..."????
a: "er, yes... I guess. It is somebody's fault. It is not mine. It is not Vas'. So that only leaves the panel. That's it. It is the panel's fault... I remember now."
LOL, what an ugly guy you can be at times.
You know very well why I left the panel. Because Chris was banned. And notable you were one of the main stars in that drama.
You know very well why I left the panel. Because Chris was banned. And notable you were one of the main stars in that drama.
I didn't ask "why" you didn't participate. I asked "did you participate?" Because if the answer had been yes, you could have raised any concerns you wanted. As the evidence was being developed. As the process was developed and then performed.
"I am an ugly guy at times?" I am probably always "ugly". I am 63. Oh, you mean behavior? "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" in that case. I am simply explaining what we found, how we found it, and why it is wrong. But then I participated from the get-go. So I know what happened. And I provided input or explanations whenever it seemed appropriate. Certainly not two months after the report was finished...
"I am an ugly guy at times?" I am probably always "ugly". I am 63. Oh, you mean behavior? "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" in that case. I am simply explaining what we found, how we found it, and why it is wrong. But then I participated from the get-go. So I know what happened. And I provided input or explanations whenever it seemed appropriate. Certainly not two months after the report was finished...
> I didn't ask "why" you didn't participate. I asked "did you participate?" Because if the answer had been yes, you could have raised any concerns you wanted. As the evidence was being developed. As the process was developed and then performed.
Nice way of saying, you had your chance, now shut-up.......
Wisdom arises. I expect a young kid to say something like "OK, my friend can't come over, I am not coming over." I don't expect an adult to do the same. I expect him/her to actually act like an adult.
I criticize that you spout such a nonsense at the address of Ed. Ed never said, he cant come because Chris cant come4. Ed said something else. He showed that he couldnt enter a panel that was so deeply biased that a notable programmer was given no chance to participate. Funny that you want to justify such an undemocratic evil. But democratic bases are only disturbing you.
The other day you declared that your motif to be here was solely because you wanted to supervise that not perhaps wrong opinions would become accepted as truths. So, you admitted that you are a totalitarian supervisor of the George Orwell sort. But anyway, I am immune against totalitarism and fascism so I still like you here.
The other day you declared that your motif to be here was solely because you wanted to supervise that not perhaps wrong opinions would become accepted as truths. So, you admitted that you are a totalitarian supervisor of the George Orwell sort. But anyway, I am immune against totalitarism and fascism so I still like you here.
Rolf, have you seen Rap News? I love it, can't wait for the next one, the link is to the site, but the news video is on the first page, "Terrence Moonseed and General Baxter"
http://thejuicemedia.com/
it's a story of two completely different mind sets and world view each with his/its own narrative, and the extreme difficulty of making sense of it all for the rest of us, when we are presented with these clashing and wholly different narratives. Which one, or is the truth somewhere else?
The topic is the Osama killing of a few months ago, but I think the message is good for any place where mutually non-understanding narratives are in play. Computer chess for example. I leave it to you to decide who is Baxter and who Moonshine, but I think you'll enjoy it ...
http://thejuicemedia.com/
it's a story of two completely different mind sets and world view each with his/its own narrative, and the extreme difficulty of making sense of it all for the rest of us, when we are presented with these clashing and wholly different narratives. Which one, or is the truth somewhere else?
The topic is the Osama killing of a few months ago, but I think the message is good for any place where mutually non-understanding narratives are in play. Computer chess for example. I leave it to you to decide who is Baxter and who Moonshine, but I think you'll enjoy it ...
Chris, thanks for the nice show. I dont know if I now failed some test but I admit that this was too difficult for me to follow. It was too fast, I think I missed all the key jokes. However I recognized Bob the moment when the actor pulled out his gun. Nice how his helmet began to wobble. But apart from some outer appearance I had no real understanding of what made the difference between the three guys. Stupid me. I must admit that the American is too difficult for me. It was too fast to think it over. Sorry.
I thought maybe you notice General Baxter when he said
"The true sign of a supremacy
Is who gets to decide at each given minute
When the rule of Law is applied and when it's suspended"
"The true sign of a supremacy
Is who gets to decide at each given minute
When the rule of Law is applied and when it's suspended"
You spoke well Rolf, thank you.
Bob is just provoking me. He knows better.
Bob is just provoking me. He knows better.
It's sometimes hard to believe you are a teaching professor at an University. I wonder what your superiors would do when they became aware the things you write so now an then. You are not really a flagship for the University nor a recommendation.
Just grow up. And you will "get it." In this circumstance, YOU are not a flagship of any kind. The "I'm just going to take my ball and go home" is a bit infantile...
You could have participated had you wanted to. You CHOSE not to. With no coercion of any kind. Just stuck out your lower lip and left...
You could have participated had you wanted to. You CHOSE not to. With no coercion of any kind. Just stuck out your lower lip and left...
Yes daddy, do you still love me daddy ?
Ed, all this is complete bullshit to me. In the sense it is not as important who was NOT on the panel. Important mostly to me is exactly which 14 OUT OF 34 ACTUALLY VOTED. Names will follow later, when I get the "14 voters names". Because in the 34 I see, 2 had no business anywhere near it. And 1 of them- I wouldn't hire him to take a bucket of shit across the street. Can't be trusted with the bucket. Then I saw 3, maybe 4 guys- you could show them a map of Norway and tell them it was code. That is the kicker right now to me. Good advice for you: no more analysis of evidence before we find out THE NAMES OF THE 14 VOTERS. If it is as bad as it could be, the whole thing is garbage anyway with only the PERCEPTION of no experience in this area. You do that first- then go from there. You see, I only saw the list first time last night, and when I looked at it, I shit in my pants. Only thing worse would have been TO PICK ME FOR THE PANEL. I wonder now if they called me and got a busy signal.
Best,
gts
Best,
gts
> I only saw the list first time last night
And here lies the problem with a lot of the posts that have been made. people have not even opened the report as if they had they would not make comments like this.
Problem. What problem? What I just saw only made it worse. You got people on that panel with conflicting interests, some who I wouldn't hire to carry a bucket of shit across the street. God forbid who actually voted. And this shit doesn't bother you? I wouldn't show my face. And you wonder why Vas wouldn't give the time of day to this panel? News bulletin- Vas doesn't owe you jack shit.
The problem that you have been posting for weeks and only bothered to look who was on the panel yesterday.
I am dumfounded as to why you would be asked to be on the panel. I have never really seen you do anything except hang around Uniacke.
Come on- what is your forte?
people were not asked to be on the panel it was open to all to apply to join. As well as hanging around Uniacke I have a great life thanks and get to travel to places like Iraq and Afghanistan for work. I also hang around Anand and chat with him every day as I am part of his team.
Well golly-gee! What a wonder! Excuse me all to hell. If that is the case, we need to burn Vas at the stake!
> we need to burn Vas at the stake!
Seems a bit harsh to me but if that is what you want to do.......
I did promise myself to remain out of this bullshit and enjoy the remainder of my summer- but every time I hear more about the policies regarding entry and the discrepancy relating to no neutral observers allowed entry to report the proceeding?
They would have to commit themselves to the process either passively or by active vote? Compromising their neutrality and not being able to reporting openly and honestly the proceedings as a neutral party!
What kind of bag of tricks is this?
They would have to commit themselves to the process either passively or by active vote? Compromising their neutrality and not being able to reporting openly and honestly the proceedings as a neutral party!
What kind of bag of tricks is this?
Nobody requested to join as a neutral observer. although several people who were programmers with no direct connection to computer chess did join.
> Nobody requested to join as a neutral observer. although several people who were programmers with no direct connection to computer chess did join.
Hyatt states - you join as a panel member - no guests. And then you come up with the above statement. You don't take any of this seriously- do you? And then I hear you say that you gave Vas 3 long years of your life in another post! I'm beginning to think you are delusional.
>I also hang around Anand and chat with him every day as I am part of his team.
That's interesting.
Most professional chess players don't want to read such informations in public.
Congrats you convinced Anand to allow you to spread such news.
it has been on CB news so I guess it is not a secret :)
Yes, I remember. It was about people that helped him in the past. He disclosed who helped him after he won against Topalov. It wasn't about his future team. Or am I completely wrong?
there was a 2nd article and an interview he did with intel where it was mentioned.
Cool. Congrats. Do you have a link?
I knew you were going to ask :) I have a new laptop so have been hunting for it. here it is http://itcommunity.intel.co.uk/community/uk/blog/2010/12/19/man-and-machine-driving-chess-to-new-heights
Thanks for the link.
I couldn't find your name, though. Only the mentioning of HIARCS.
I couldn't find your name, though. Only the mentioning of HIARCS.
there is a follow up interview there somewhere with mark but i cant find it. We were both at the same interview.
> First, when I saw that, I assumed "many things" translates to "many ideas." I did not think "many blocks of code" at the time.
And the ONLY thing we have seen are ideas, some values, formulas, etc., and NO CODE.
Only because you have not read Zach's report, past the PST section. There is a _TON_ of code down below that. If you would stop posting nonsense, and spend an equal amount of time reading his report, you wouldn't be posting this garbage, because the code IS there...
I HAVE read this report, and EVERYTIME you mention something about "code", it turns out not to be actual code. You know this. So does everyone else. I am quitting wasting time finding this stuff because it's exactly the same as whenever a Creationist tries to convince me that evolution can't be real by citing "sources", but when I check, there was an easy misinterpretation of the actual statement because of the Creationist's predetermined beliefs. We have exactly the same thing here. You first say that there was lots of exactly copied code. Checking back, we find there was not. Then, you say that all of the PSTs are simply from Fruit, multiplied by a constant. Checking back, we find this not to be true (though some of them can be found by more complicated arithmetic).
Long story short: STOP LYING TO EVERYONE, BOB!
Long story short: STOP LYING TO EVERYONE, BOB!
OK, how about this. I will pick a particular topic in Zach's report. Then _you_ show me the "imaginary code" you claim is there. Fair enough? Here goes...
Let's go down to a simple place to start. The heading is "flags". First, look at the "matkingflag" section. Do you see the code for both, side by side? There is no "imaginary code" there. The code on the left is in Fruit, the code on the right is in Rybka 1.0 beta.
Next, the "drawbishopflag". Fruit on left. Rybka on right. No imaginary code.
Now go down to "phase". Fruit on left, Rybka on right. No imaginary code.
And you say _I_ am "lying"? :)
Can you read? You "claim" you have read and studied the report. If so, how did you happen to miss those above examples? But to continue, I realize the report is complex. And the evaluation parts are the hardest to compare, due to bitboard vs mailbox. But not all evaluation terms depend on those things, as you can see above.
But first, let's agree that the code above is identical and also is "not imaginary"...
Let's go down to a simple place to start. The heading is "flags". First, look at the "matkingflag" section. Do you see the code for both, side by side? There is no "imaginary code" there. The code on the left is in Fruit, the code on the right is in Rybka 1.0 beta.
Next, the "drawbishopflag". Fruit on left. Rybka on right. No imaginary code.
Now go down to "phase". Fruit on left, Rybka on right. No imaginary code.
And you say _I_ am "lying"? :)
Can you read? You "claim" you have read and studied the report. If so, how did you happen to miss those above examples? But to continue, I realize the report is complex. And the evaluation parts are the hardest to compare, due to bitboard vs mailbox. But not all evaluation terms depend on those things, as you can see above.
But first, let's agree that the code above is identical and also is "not imaginary"...
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / To the 14 members of the panel who voted Vas guilty (locked)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill