And as you are not available always ( go for hibernation inbetween times) here is your complaint department
Now now now -- our customer service is top notch!
Vas
Vas
But not the update service!!!
> Maya experts have denied that 2012 is the end of the world
Indeed, it's just the end of the Age of the Jaguar, which happens every 25,920 years, and we've been here much longer
My new born child says no! He decides to live long
My granddaughter also expresses strident objections.
> Veteran Rajlichologists will, of course, interpret Vas's new Rybka 5 release date to be December 31, 2012, assuming he is going by the Julian calendar.
I think his year starts in October. Alternatively, we could interpret that Rybka will be either 3 months or 3 units (years in this case) late.
Nice to hear from you again Vas. Yes Soren's report showed the ICGA report for what it truly was - a falsehood. The result of an utterly unprofessional and flawed investigation.
Best wishes to you Vas for 2012.
Any idea on how much Rybka 5 will increase in ELO.
Will Rybka 5 be out in the first part of 2012.
Thanks for any information on Rybka 5.
Thanks for your continued work on Rybka 5.
Best,
Gerold.
Any idea on how much Rybka 5 will increase in ELO.
Will Rybka 5 be out in the first part of 2012.
Thanks for any information on Rybka 5.
Thanks for your continued work on Rybka 5.
Best,
Gerold.
Elo - I really don't know yet. It will depend on how things go and where other engines stand at release time.
Release date - I'd guess that summertime is the most likely.
Vas
Release date - I'd guess that summertime is the most likely.
Vas
:-)
Lets keep it easier for you to answer.
Do you intend to release Rybka 5 stronger than the actual Houdini 2 ?
rgds
Lets keep it easier for you to answer.
Do you intend to release Rybka 5 stronger than the actual Houdini 2 ?
rgds
Yes.
Vas
Vas
Thanks for the fast answer :-)
Summer time in the uk vas can be a week in july lol......###
Which week depends on global weather patterns which week are we talking....
Which week depends on global weather patterns which week are we talking....
The hottest week.
Vas
Vas
Sounds like around July 20, give or take a few days. Nice to see you back!
Nice to see you back!
Thanks.
Vas
Vas
Dog days - August!
Anything that is less than #1 is not interesting! If you plan to shoot for #1 please count me in
> Elo - I really don't know yet. It will depend on how things go and where other engines stand at release time.
> Release date - I'd guess that summertime is the most likely.
>
> Vas
An interesting post! I take it from this:
a) private Rybka is stronger than anything out there
b) (slightly less powerful) Rybka 5 will therefore depend on how strong the opposition is.
Do you have an ETA for when the Cluster can be rented for shorter periods of time?
It's still not that close. I'm doing some underlying work and others are doing the same. This is just going to take a while.
Vas
Vas
Would you like to provide a technical commentary on Mark Watkins' response to the 4-part article published by Chessbase?
http://harveywilliamson.com/ICGA/Riis3.pdf
http://harveywilliamson.com/ICGA/Riis3.pdf
Sure, feel free to ask some questions.
Vas
Vas
Sorry I was busy formulating my own response - before you posted. I will then step aside.
Thanks for agreeing to take some questions:
(from now on anything in italics is copied from Watkins' paper)
Namely, an evaluation function has two parts: what to evaluate, and how much weight to give
each feature. Again the ICGA process recognized that Rybka had indeed varied
the latter; the complaint was that Rajlich copied Fruit in the former.
1- What are the big differences between Rybka and Fruit regarding evaluation?.
I personally find it completely clear that Rybka 1.0 Beta used the PST framework of Fruit 2.1. One can recover the exact Rybka PSTs
from the Fruit 2.1 code with 17-18 changes of numbers (tuning, as before), and
changing a mere 4-6 lines of code (all but one being an adjustment of the score
for a specific piece-square). No other examined engine required such a small set of
changes (firstly even assuming that it had the same PST scheme). Notably, even
Fruit 1.0 differed significantly from Fruit 2.1 here.
2- Did you copy the PST framework from Fruit 2.1, and if not how do you explain the similarities?
Regarding feature overlap, Watkins writes: In his last paragraph Riis pretends there is an issue of \data interpretation" with
the raw percentage overlaps. The method to interpret these is given in the ICGA
documents. Namely one applies a (standard) statistical analysis to the raw percentages,
and measures the variance of the Rybka-Fruit pairing against the control
group. This should be fairly routine for anyone with a mathematical background,
and moreover is indicated in both EVAL COMP and the ICGA Report. Thus I find the query of Riis here to be rather odd, almost sciolistic in nature. At any rate, one concludes that the Rybka/Fruit data point was an outlier at 6-8 standard deviations
in a pool of around 30 comparisons, or more than a 1 in a million chance of occurring at random.
3- Would you comment on this argument please?
3.4. Rybka/Fruit copying that Riis omits. Here is a brief enumeration of a few
of the points not covered by Riis. As noted above, these are expanded somewhat
in Section 4 of the recapitulation PDF.
(i) The Rybka iterative deepening code is largely the same as Fruit's, adding
only a few elements (like mate scores), and varying a few parameters. The semantic similarity is high (both check a variety of conditions in the same order), and the six variables of interest are allocated identically. I don't
know of another engine that uses the general Fruit concept here, let alone
one with so many code congruences.
(ii) Rybka's root search follows the same pattern of that of Fruit, including more
than 5 notable points of commonality. An examination of other engines
showed none that followed said pattern.
(iii) Rybka copies a small piece of search control code from Fruit, where again
the ordering and variable allocation are the same. The Fruit code also includes
some idiosyncratic redundancies, which curiously re-appear in Rybka.
(iv) The hashing structure of Rybka is the same as Fruit's, except for transposing
bytes 8-11 with 12-15. Again I cannot nd another engine with
anything so similar; indeed, already Fruit 1.0 differs.
4- Did you as suggested by Watkins, produce an engine more similar to Fruit than its own predecessor Fruit 1.0?
4.1. PST. To pre-empt Riis (as he diverges rapidly), the evidence here is clear. As
I stated above, the Rybka 1.0 Beta PST can be generated from the Fruit 2.1 code
by changing 17-18 numbers (tuning), and 4-6 lines of code (amongst about 50). In
the hopes of defogging the morass through which Riis wades, I challenged anyone
to nd any other engine (not Fruit-related) whose PST could be derived from such
a small set of changes from the Fruit 2.1 code. There has been no answer.
5- Do you know of any other engine (not Fruit-related) whose PST's can be derived by a small set of changes form Fruit code?
(from now on anything in italics is copied from Watkins' paper)
Namely, an evaluation function has two parts: what to evaluate, and how much weight to give
each feature. Again the ICGA process recognized that Rybka had indeed varied
the latter; the complaint was that Rajlich copied Fruit in the former.
1- What are the big differences between Rybka and Fruit regarding evaluation?.
I personally find it completely clear that Rybka 1.0 Beta used the PST framework of Fruit 2.1. One can recover the exact Rybka PSTs
from the Fruit 2.1 code with 17-18 changes of numbers (tuning, as before), and
changing a mere 4-6 lines of code (all but one being an adjustment of the score
for a specific piece-square). No other examined engine required such a small set of
changes (firstly even assuming that it had the same PST scheme). Notably, even
Fruit 1.0 differed significantly from Fruit 2.1 here.
2- Did you copy the PST framework from Fruit 2.1, and if not how do you explain the similarities?
Regarding feature overlap, Watkins writes: In his last paragraph Riis pretends there is an issue of \data interpretation" with
the raw percentage overlaps. The method to interpret these is given in the ICGA
documents. Namely one applies a (standard) statistical analysis to the raw percentages,
and measures the variance of the Rybka-Fruit pairing against the control
group. This should be fairly routine for anyone with a mathematical background,
and moreover is indicated in both EVAL COMP and the ICGA Report. Thus I find the query of Riis here to be rather odd, almost sciolistic in nature. At any rate, one concludes that the Rybka/Fruit data point was an outlier at 6-8 standard deviations
in a pool of around 30 comparisons, or more than a 1 in a million chance of occurring at random.
3- Would you comment on this argument please?
3.4. Rybka/Fruit copying that Riis omits. Here is a brief enumeration of a few
of the points not covered by Riis. As noted above, these are expanded somewhat
in Section 4 of the recapitulation PDF.
(i) The Rybka iterative deepening code is largely the same as Fruit's, adding
only a few elements (like mate scores), and varying a few parameters. The semantic similarity is high (both check a variety of conditions in the same order), and the six variables of interest are allocated identically. I don't
know of another engine that uses the general Fruit concept here, let alone
one with so many code congruences.
(ii) Rybka's root search follows the same pattern of that of Fruit, including more
than 5 notable points of commonality. An examination of other engines
showed none that followed said pattern.
(iii) Rybka copies a small piece of search control code from Fruit, where again
the ordering and variable allocation are the same. The Fruit code also includes
some idiosyncratic redundancies, which curiously re-appear in Rybka.
(iv) The hashing structure of Rybka is the same as Fruit's, except for transposing
bytes 8-11 with 12-15. Again I cannot nd another engine with
anything so similar; indeed, already Fruit 1.0 differs.
4- Did you as suggested by Watkins, produce an engine more similar to Fruit than its own predecessor Fruit 1.0?
4.1. PST. To pre-empt Riis (as he diverges rapidly), the evidence here is clear. As
I stated above, the Rybka 1.0 Beta PST can be generated from the Fruit 2.1 code
by changing 17-18 numbers (tuning), and 4-6 lines of code (amongst about 50). In
the hopes of defogging the morass through which Riis wades, I challenged anyone
to nd any other engine (not Fruit-related) whose PST could be derived from such
a small set of changes from the Fruit 2.1 code. There has been no answer.
5- Do you know of any other engine (not Fruit-related) whose PST's can be derived by a small set of changes form Fruit code?
Of course there is a clear influence of Fruit on Rybka. I haven't tried to quantify this influence or compare it to other engines from Rybka's generation.
What I can say is that Rybka is original at the level of source code.
Vas
What I can say is that Rybka is original at the level of source code.
Vas
How do you define original?
In the context of source code, original means that the author either typed his own code or typed the code which generated his own code.
For the super-geeks, yes, that can be applied recursively.
Vas
For the super-geeks, yes, that can be applied recursively.
Vas
In the context of computer chess, can 2 authors independently write two sets of original source code for the same or very similar program executable?
For some algorithms, this is likely or even nearly unavoidable.
For other algorithms, it would show at the very least a heavy influence of one program on the other.
Vas
For other algorithms, it would show at the very least a heavy influence of one program on the other.
Vas
Ed suggested I post here, so here is question 1.
You have repeatedly claimed that ALL versions of Rybka were original, including the early versions that pre-dated Fruit. Can you offer any explanation for the findings of the ICGA panel regarding Rybka 1.4 thru 1.6.1 and Crafty 19.x? There are MANY identical sections of code in both. Some of the code was utterly useless in both because Edwards tablebases were not available after Nalimov came out. Some of the code was vestigial in Crafty, left over from previous versions. The infamous
int ms=EvaluateMate(tree);
if (ms == 99999) break;
Yet if you look at EvaluateMate, it can NEVER return 99999. At one point it could, but that slipped by me as I released 18.0 (it was an early approach that I changed for efficiency, but forgot to remove that test.) This is the same code that uncovered El Chinito as a Crafty clone, which was a thread on CCC that you once posted in.
There are many other examples. For example, code in iterate.c to avoid egtb probes in KPKP ONLY, when the two pawns were on adjacent files and one of them was on its original square. Steven't EGTBs did not consider en passant, so it was unsafe to probe if an ep capture was possible.
There are dozens of other identical things between the two programs.
So, exactly what gives? You entered these versions in CCT, which had the originality requirement. You submitted them to others (such as ChessWar) which also expected original programs. Can you explain that, as a first step. It looks really ugly.
You have repeatedly claimed that ALL versions of Rybka were original, including the early versions that pre-dated Fruit. Can you offer any explanation for the findings of the ICGA panel regarding Rybka 1.4 thru 1.6.1 and Crafty 19.x? There are MANY identical sections of code in both. Some of the code was utterly useless in both because Edwards tablebases were not available after Nalimov came out. Some of the code was vestigial in Crafty, left over from previous versions. The infamous
int ms=EvaluateMate(tree);
if (ms == 99999) break;
Yet if you look at EvaluateMate, it can NEVER return 99999. At one point it could, but that slipped by me as I released 18.0 (it was an early approach that I changed for efficiency, but forgot to remove that test.) This is the same code that uncovered El Chinito as a Crafty clone, which was a thread on CCC that you once posted in.
There are many other examples. For example, code in iterate.c to avoid egtb probes in KPKP ONLY, when the two pawns were on adjacent files and one of them was on its original square. Steven't EGTBs did not consider en passant, so it was unsafe to probe if an ep capture was possible.
There are dozens of other identical things between the two programs.
So, exactly what gives? You entered these versions in CCT, which had the originality requirement. You submitted them to others (such as ChessWar) which also expected original programs. Can you explain that, as a first step. It looks really ugly.
Bob,
I'm not going to go into this today. My view is that these are private versions which are my private business. This is something for another day.
Vas
I'm not going to go into this today. My view is that these are private versions which are my private business. This is something for another day.
Vas
If these private versions entered into an ICGA tournament, aren't these relevant questions?
I believe they played in ChessWar, not ICGA's tournaments.
Ah right, thanks for the clarification. It's hard to know which Rybkas are clean (all, none or some?), I can't follow this bitter debate from "experts" on both sides. I do know that I bought R3 and think it was a good investment. R4 I didn't buy as it didn't seem to be that revolutionary. Houdini I never got on with for some reason. I like R3 dynamic and Komodo best. If R5 looks worth buying, then I'll get it. Simple as.
Let me try another question, from Mark Watkins in Openchess forum:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=15680#p15680
Regarding Strelka/IPPOLIT: as the author(s) seem to have typed their own source code (or code to generate this), how are they not "original" under your definition? Do these Rybka versions [the ones that were cloned] have any additional creative content beyond the source code?
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=15680#p15680
Regarding Strelka/IPPOLIT: as the author(s) seem to have typed their own source code (or code to generate this), how are they not "original" under your definition? Do these Rybka versions [the ones that were cloned] have any additional creative content beyond the source code?
> Regarding Strelka/IPPOLIT: as the author(s) seem to have typed their own source code (or code to generate this), how are they not "original" under your definition?
I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".
> Do these Rybka versions [the ones that were cloned] have any additional creative content beyond the source code?
Lots of brilliant ideas!
Vas
Does this mean that you announced those programs as clones of rybka in error or is it possible to be original and a clone simultaneously?
No, I don't believe so (but of course I could be wrong).
Vas
Vas
I'm sorry, can you please clarify this? Does this mean, if I have source file A in one editor window, and my new source file B in another, and I type, by hand, the contents of A into B, that I've created software that's "original at the source code level"?
Thank you, Jeremy
Thank you, Jeremy
Yeah, the method of input shouldn't have anything to do with whether the code is original or not.
Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
At this rate we'll have a page-long definition by tomorrow night.
Vas
At this rate we'll have a page-long definition by tomorrow night.
Vas
No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
Vas
My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.Vas
> I'm sorry, can you please clarify this? Does this mean, if I have source file A in one editor window, and my new source file B in another, and I type, by hand, the contents of A into B, that I've created software that's "original at the source code level"?
>
> Thank you, Jeremy
Can you please clarify this ? If I type some code, and it is semantically equivalent to a piece of code in someone else's software, am I guilty of code copying even though I have never seen that other program, or even be aware that it exists ?
No, of course not. My question probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
I don't really know what this has to do with Vas and Fruit, though, as he certainly had seen that other program, and went forward and backward through it, taking many things.
Jeremy
My question probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.I don't really know what this has to do with Vas and Fruit, though, as he certainly had seen that other program, and went forward and backward through it, taking many things.
Jeremy
> No, of course not.
Bo Hyatt would disagree, he says this is code copying. He stresses time and time again that semantic equiivalence is enoguh to prove code copying.
I doubt that Bob Hyatt would agree, but you'd have to ask him. Your hypothetical is unlikely ad absurdum, though, and has nothing to do with the claims of the ICGA, nor with my other questions.
Bob Hyatt would disagree, he says this is code copying.
But only if Vas is doing it, not if he is doing it by himself.
But only if Vas is doing it, not if he is doing it by himself.
The question is, can you expand your "is" by "is and always was" ?
And one more curious question.
Do you consider that Houdini is a clone (or a derived clone)? Do you think Houdini is an original engine that doesnt have any rybka code?
And one more curious question.
Do you consider that Houdini is a clone (or a derived clone)? Do you think Houdini is an original engine that doesnt have any rybka code?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill