Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / A Big Thanks and a Small Update
1 25 6 7 8 920 21 Previous Next  
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-11 04:13
I believe we have been quite CLEAR.  Our stance is that Vas copied the Fruit PST CODE, used it to produce PST values, and then hard-coded those values into his program.  That IS "copying code".   I write EGTB generation code.  You "steal" the code.  Run it to produce EGTB files.  Then you toss the code but keep the product of that code.  Did you copy something or are you "home free"?  You definitely copied code and used the output, which is code itself, just not executable code.  Why is this so hard???

What, EXACTLY, is wrong with that statement, when it is taken "in context".  Which has ALWAYS been relative to the Fruit PST generation code?  Does EVERY single post I (and others) make need to rehash and re-establish the context, each and every time we post something?  YOU are not doing that.   Why would ANYBODY.  These things here are called "threads".  Maybe look up the definition of "message board thread"...  The purpose is to avoid repeating the context every time, which would make the thing unreadable.

If you think your case is getting stronger, keep making it.  I REALLY don't care.  I suspect you KNOW what people think of your web information.  And you want me to suggest that you take some of it down because it is distorted nonsense.  Not going to happen.  Leave it up for as long as you want to leave that "impression" you are leaving...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2012-01-11 04:38
Our stance is that Vas copied the Fruit PST CODE

Totally unsubstantiated. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Bob would like to think that everyone is stupid and can't understand that what Vas 'took' was a simple formula that he used different coefficients with to generate unique PST values. Or maybe Bob is just too stupid to understand this simple matter. You decide.

Why is this so hard???

It's not hard at all. You're just way too stupid to know that you're wrong. There is no proof of copied code here. None whatsoever. Your imagination isn't evidence. The only thing that has been 'proven' here is that both Fruit and Rybka used fourth order polynomials to generate PSTs. This isn't worth anything anywhere.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-11 04:57
You REALLY can't make a statement without "you are stupid", or "you are a hillbilly" or some sort of gratuitous insult, can you?  Goes to show that your technical content is worthless, so you feel it necessary to continually (every post) making such comments.  Just letting you know that I (and others) have noticed.  It is as if you have basically "resigned" in the real game and are now just arguing about whether a piece is centered on the square, not whether it is on the square.  Carry on.

There IS evidence to support this inference.  Namely that if the Fruit code can produce the Rybka numbers with only 4 constant changes, then it is VERY PROBABLE that is exactly how they were produced.  Doesn't seem to be other programs that match across the board like this.  Ever wonder why?

Of course not.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2012-01-11 05:18
Oh bullshit. Fruit used fourth order polynomial to generate its PSTs. Vas used fourth order polynomial to generate his PSTs. So what? No sane person would accept this as evidence of copying code. Your argument has to rely on readers being as clueless as you are.

As far as insults are concerned, I rarely insult people other than you, regardless of what they think of this matter. And the reason I enjoy insulting you is that you are so incredibly blatantly dishonest.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-11 17:09
I will remind you that these "polynomial functions" have, typically 16 rank/file multipliers, plus 3-4 constant multipliers, plus a few "special square" values.    All that was changed was the 3-4 constants.  You want to imply that there are two DIFFERENT polynomials here.  And they are not 4th order either.  Not a single thing is even squared, much less raised to the 4th power.

Basic form for fruit is  Vxy = Rx * const1 + Fy * const1 + Rx * const2 for all x,y combinations, Rx is the 8-value rank vector, Fy is the 8-value file vector, and const1 and const2 are two of the constants out of the set of 4 for knights.   There are two additional terms,  one applied only to the first rank for that side to encourage development, and the other applied to just two squares, the two corner squares on the opponent's side of the board where a knight can be trapped easily.

Rx is 8 values, Fy is 8 values.  The code further explicitly adds a penalty to the first rank squares, and the two opposite corner squares.  Vas left EVERYTHING alone EXCEPT for the const1, const2, const3 and const4 values.  Everything else is EXACTLY the same.  The bank rank penalty.  The a8/h8 penalty.  The multipliers for each rank and file.  And you want to pawn that off (sorry for bad pun) as a simple polynomial that ANYONE would develop.  For the record, this is a first degree / order polynomial as there is no exponent > 1 in the entire thing, not a 4th order polynomial as you call it.  It is relatively simple, but there are a LOT of duplicated choices between the two programs.  For just this PST?  Ho hum.  But for every one of 'em?  Hard to explain that away as an accident.  And then compound ALL the PST values being computed by the same function with 4-5 constant changes per piece, PLUS all the other code that has been shown to be semantically equivalent, and a clear picture emerges.  IF you open your eyes.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-11 11:07
Bob - Our stance is that Vas copied the Fruit PST CODE, used it to produce PST values, and then hard-coded those values into his program.  That IS "copying code".

Correct Sir.

And if you had said that from the beginning (July 2011) there would have been no problem at all.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-11 16:41
I have been saying that ALL ALONG.  If you want to claim that I said that the VALUES in Fruit's PST tables match the VALUES in Rybka's PST tables, post a link.  Let's look at the thread and context to see how it was used.

I could well say "Fruit's and Rybka's PSTs match exactly" AFTER several posts of "If you take the Fruit PST initialization code, change the constants pointed out by Zach, you will get a PERFECT MATCH with Rybka's PST values."  That is a bit of a pain to type, over and over.  But it DOES establish context.  Each post is not made in a vacuum.  It is made in a context of the discussion.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-11 21:38
Bob - January 2012 - I have been saying that ALL ALONG.

Bob - July 2011 -There was NO CODE COPYING for the PST issue.  NONE.  NADA.  ZILCH.  ZIPPO.  It is the PST VALUES themselves that were copied.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=356458#pid356458

Go ahead and explain.

In context.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 00:52
Certainly.  I am assuming that you REALLY don't follow the English language very well.

1.  If you look at the Rybka binary, can we agree there are NO PST initialization modules present?  Ergo there is no physical code present to show it was copied, agreed?

2.  If you look at the Rybka binary and take the PST "values" those can be produced EXACTLY by the Fruit PST initialization code, if you change the constants Zach provided.  Do we agree on that?

3.  So, follow the line of reasoning, Vas modified the fruit code, dumped the PST values, and then copied THOSE, and those ARE in evidence in the Rybka binary, would you agree?

4.  The implication is that he almost certainly copied the fruit PST initialization code to produce those values, but it is not in the Rybka source.  Hence my statement in the post you quoted.  The poster was arguing that since there is no PST initialization code in Rybka, it was not copied.  More correctly, he should have said "it might have been copied, but is not in the source, so this is an inferred deal at best..."

5.  IF you look back through the thread you posted the excerpt from, what was the topic?  That there was NO PST "code" in Rybka, correct.  So, in that context, is my comment intentionally misleading?  Could one take it to mean something else?  If they came in on the tail end of the conversation, maybe.  Therefore, if you want to criticize that post by saying "Bob, it is not completely clear, reading just that post, exactly what you meant."  I'll accept that criticism.  If you want to say, instead, "You were intentionally trying to mislead forum menbers" to that I reply "bullshit."  Your turn.
Parent - - By Jury Osipov (**) Date 2012-01-12 07:45
The use of formulas, written by another programmer, is the use of code or the use of algorithms?
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-01-12 08:40
Please, if you-exactly come and clarify the use of the English, Bob stands shortly before imploding. But you made a genial point. For me as an observer it looks as if finally the whole bogus of computer sciences aka mathematics has been brought on the point. It began with the early concept of lack of ethics in Theron, it went over to Zach Wegener with his assumed "numbers", then the polynominal stuff out of the kitchen of Mark Watkins (Australia) and finally into Bob Hyatt's handling of lynching in context of witch-hunting with the use of the English language, namely that he proved the presence of ethics in context of its non-existence. q.e.d. :cool:
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 15:14
(I'd recommend you for the position of  radio new commentator! How's your voice?)
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 15:58
Whatever that is supposed to mean is beyond my "parsing skills."  Christophe showed no lack of ethics.  Neither did Zach.  Zach didn't "assume" anything.  He looked at the actual binary code for Rybka, which is clear, concrete, and precise, anything but "assumptions". 

As far as my posts go, the problem that SEVERAL people here have is that they want to take a single sentence or word, OUT OF CONTEXT, and then show alternative meanings.  But when you take them IN CONTEXT, that falls apart.  The post Ed pointed out, for example.  was in a dicussion centered on "the PST code Zach gives is NOT in Rybka binary."   Of course, Zach's report stated that clearly as well.  I agreed that based on JUST an examination of the binary, there is no sign of actual copied code.  There is a HUGE indirect sign, namely that Fruit's code will produce Rybka's numbers precisely, with tiny changes.  So in context, I don't see anything unclear about my statement.  Extracted from the thread, so that all PREVIOUS context is missing, and then arguing about what THAT might mean makes little sense to me...   EVERYTHING has a "context".
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2012-01-12 18:17
that's why I criticize you because you forget the scientific context and you see everything through the I am right and you are wrong. It's all about winning. But you know that already.

Like Chris stated, your case in a court would be thrown out by a judge because he sees the impossible proving. But in your mind a circular argument is no problem. To the contrary you enjoy that you have seen everything already from the beginning. No need for a trials.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 20:15
sorry, but you can safely ignore what Chris says, and you will be right 99% of the time.  Proving copied source code is NOT difficult.  We have clearly shown various levels of that from "copy everything" to "copy much and modify a lot" in the ICGA report.  A judge will NOT "throw that out."  A jury might well disagree, but NO judge would throw it out, as it is the jury's task to be "finders of fact".  Not the judge.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2012-01-14 09:57
but you can safely ignore what Chris says, and you will be right 99% of the time.

It is clear that Chris says a lot more interesting things than you do and is clearly far more intelligent than you are.

As a matter of fact, the biggest problem in the computer chess world, by a very large margin, is you. It would be an enormous improvement if guys like you leave the scene, the ICGA would quit to exist and a new organisation is formed, which is unbiased, organises proper world championships and tournaments, does a splendid PR job and is formed to PROMOTE computer chess instead of tearing it down. An organisation that is NOT a toy of some scientific nerds with a big mouth and few elo points to offer.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 16:01
The general gist of copyright law is that "a formula can't be copyrighted".  No argument.  Also, a single chess game (in PGN form or whatever) can't be copyrighted.  But a collection of them certainly can be.  To get TOO clever, one could argue the entire chess engine is a single formula.  Nobody buys that.  More correctly, a chess program is a collection of a LOT of "small formulas".  And a "collection" of them CAN be copyrighted based on the effort required to produce the collection.  The PST evidence, by itself, is not enough to show a copyright or rule violation.  But taken into consideration with all the OTHER evidence that DOES show direct copying, it becomes more incriminating.
Parent - - By Chess_Rambo (***) Date 2012-01-12 16:17
Sorry for being sophistic, but what if I copied 1000 formulas from 1000 different sources and assemled them to a working program.
This would require much work and be my collection.
Would this be legal?
Would this be original? :twisted:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 16:35
Yes and yes.  And with respect to programming, "copying a formula" is not straight-forward.  Each needs to be expressed in code.  You can give students simple programming assignments (sort up to 100 numbers into ascending sequence in X86 assembly, which I give regularly) and in a class of 20, no two programs look even "close". 

However, as a qualification, if, by "copied 1000 formulas from 1000 different sources" you mean "copied 1000 blocks of code from 1000 different sources" then the answer to both would become "no and no".
Parent - - By Chess_Rambo (***) Date 2012-01-12 17:30
So if I see x=2*3 in a math book, then I can use it in my program, but if I see the same line in a source code, I must not use it.
Strange, isn't it?
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 18:08
No, because we don't apply source code originality "line by line".  How many chess programs would have this:

for (sq=0; sq < 64; sq++)

?

That is why we look at significant blocks of code, rather than 1 or 2 or 3 lines at a time.  The more lines there are that match, the greater the probability that copying was done...
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-12 08:49
Let me say it this way, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, this horrible debate has lasted long enough. I am busy updating my pages and will remove those 2 incriminating pages during the process as I think it served it purpose. We simply can't go on like this.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-12 16:39
Up to you.  99% of this "debate" about ICGA evidence and procedures has been complete nonsense.  Most of the principals don't have a clue about comparing assembly language to C, nor about the complexities and incredible number of possibilities there are when taking an idea and committing it to actual code in a programming language.  So 99% of the debate has been pure noise.  Feel free to argue whatever points you want.  Feel free to be as honest or dishonest as you want.  The truth is being slowly understood by more and more.

This is not the least clear-cut case of cheating.  It is far from being the first.

I will say that taking text out of context and then interpreting it in some way contrary to its original intent is not exactly "sterling behavior."  But I certainly don't lose sleep when it happens.
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-12 23:43
No content, just the usual bashing.

Boring.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 17:51
And YOU have verified that?
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-10 19:33
Two programmers.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 19:38
And yet BFL is saying those numbers are there and are the result of a simple function?  You guys need to (a) get together;  (b) get on the same page.  :)
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-10 20:53
If you want to argue with a guy like Dann Corbit (to name a somebody) please do.

Your denial is telling.

Sticking to false accusations.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 22:02
Dann?  Isn't he the person that said "Rybka is clean" before the investigation was started?  One can be wrong.  Aren't YOU the one that couldn't find ANYTHING in the rybka binary and kept asking everyone for help?

So, one says he copied.  One says he produced the SAME shift counts I use serendipitously.  One says he didn't copy.  One says he uses a simple and well-known function to produce those diagonal shift amounts.  Would that make this a four-ring circus?
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-10 22:24
Nice try to change the subject.

Do you still stand by your accusation: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=387138#pid387138  ???

Or perhaps want to do your homework first before answering the question.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 22:28
These bishop shift amounts were found during the investigation.  I have not had the time to go back through a years worth of emails and data to find the specifics.  This will take some time...   I will report details when I have details to report.  We are just starting a new semester, which will keep me busy fow a while...
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2012-01-10 22:39

> These bishop shift amounts were found during the investigation


Wrong investigation, I assure you.

> I will report details when I have details to report


I will keep you to that.

Thank you.
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 23:39
And yet BFL is saying those numbers are there

No. You said they were there.

and are the result of a simple function?

Yes, it is a very simple function and you don't own it.

You guys need to (a) get together;  (b) get on the same page.  :)

We're fine. You need to explain why you've been claiming that Vas has been using your rotated bitboard code in released Rybka, when it's just ain't so...

Actually it's not surprising in the least as most of your claims are bullshit.
Parent - By Albert Silver (***) Date 2012-01-09 20:50

>However, Rybka DID compete in the ICGA events, which is what triggered the ICGA becoming involved.


I don't think that is what triggered their involvement, but that is another discussion.


>Even if we had found NO evidence to show copying in versions that participated in ICGA events, don't you think what happened would STILL be unethical?


Absolutely. However the discussion is not whether he did something unethical outside of the ICGA since the ICGA as an organization has no say or voice in the matter. I could be a convicted felon yet as far as I know, there is nothing in the statutes that would prevent me from entering an ICGA sanctioned event with an original program. As a result, it actually *is* irrelevant whether he acted unethically or not outside of the ICGA's aegis since the issue is the ICGA's investigation of him and Rybka, and its subsequent actions. If nothing is shown to actually prove that Vas acted wrongly within the ICGA's events, then the whole thing is just a giant sham, and it really doesn't matter whether Vas had a double life as Charles Manson.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2012-01-09 06:57
Rybka 1.6.1 has no relationship to Rybka 2.3.2a. What are you trying to pull? You are making pure assertions based on your own prejudiced opinion - John was right in 2008 as he is now in reporting that your results are without scientific merit.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-09 17:35
Hmm.  In light of the fact that Vas has CLEARLY stated that Rybka was a "continual incremental development process"? 

You need to read more and write less.  The contradictions are EVERYWHERE.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2012-01-09 17:39

> You need to read more and write less.  The contradictions are EVERYWHERE.


You should take your own advice champ!:wink:
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2012-01-11 10:14
You need to read more and write less.

That would by the most perfect advise for you!
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-09 18:17
Even in light of Vas stating that Rybka has been an "incremental development process"?  Look that up in a software development textbook.  Then come back with facts rather than static.
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) Date 2012-01-09 07:26
What does 1.6.1 have to do with any discussion of the ICGA ruling?  Let us say it is a basic copy of Crafty with some changes to see how those changes affect play that might be beneficial in developing another engine, I don't think there is anything that breaks any ICGA rule there.  Also since it was not distributed or sold ... again I don't even see a problem as a non ICGA issue.  Maybe you could say that Vas was wrong in sending the test private engine to be tested in an obscure tourney, but surely that can be rectified by simply asking him that if he wants to do that to include the entire source code.  I am sure a lot of engine developers are doing all sort of different builds and setups with existing source code to see how certain ideas performs, but really if it is not distributed or sold and it is open source code so ... what is the problem?

But again, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? ... you know the ICGA ruling that Vas broke rule #2 and that he cheated and plagiarized and did a lot of other things that were horrible to humanity.  Surely if you are using non released Rybka versions that nobody has seen or heard about to illuminate the ICGA case, then there is obviously something seriously wrong with the data used.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-09 18:14
I will remind you of two key points.

(1) entering crafty in tournaments without my permission is definitely "not OK" under any interpretation you would care to mention.

(2) showing the blatant copying there simply shows a continuing pattern that was maintained through 2.3.2a.  Like it or not, that is relevant...
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2012-01-11 09:37 Edited 2012-01-11 11:36
(1) entering crafty in tournaments without my permission is definitely "not OK" under any interpretation you would care to mention.

Entering Crafty versions (that came with the ChessBase package) in private tournaments is perfectly OK and there is nothing you can do about that.

(2) showing the blatant copying there simply shows a continuing pattern that was maintained through 2.3.2a.  Like it or not, that is relevant...

Not only this has been debunked by many in the past few months, but it is also perfectly clear that the ICGA procedure is an absolute disgrace, to put it mildly.
Parent - - By OleM (**) Date 2012-01-10 15:14

> But 1.6.1 has zero chance for error.  1.0 beta is in the 99% range.


So you admit that there is a 99% chance for error in 1.0 beta! OK...that's it then! Case closed!
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 15:21
So you admit that there is a 99% chance for error in 1.0 beta!

Seems about right! :lol:
Parent - By nebulus (****) Date 2012-01-10 15:22
That is not what he meant... and you obviously know it.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 17:49
:)

Read carefully.

99% chance the conclusion is CORRECT, that Rybka 1.0 beta contains copied code, based on the fact that there are some necessary changes to convert mailbox to bitboard.  The classic abstraction-filtration-comparison methodology addresses this clearly and succinctly,   Or, since you seem to have issues reading, there is maybe a 1% chance the conclusion of code being copied is incorrect.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 17:52
But 1.6.1 has zero chance for error.  1.0 beta is in the 99% range.

His reading is fine. You just need to learn to write...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 20:22
You need to learn how to "infer".
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2012-01-10 23:34
But 1.6.1 has zero chance for error.  1.0 beta is in the 99% range.

It's too bad you're such an idiot. What's inferred is this:

But 1.6.1 has zero chance for error.  1.0 beta is in the 99% range for error.

But I guess I should go easy on you, since English is your second language (after hillbilly).
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2012-01-11 04:16
In that case, I will also go easy on you since English is your third language after "stupid" and "idiotic".
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / A Big Thanks and a Small Update
1 25 6 7 8 920 21 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill