Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Re: "I directly claimed that Vas copied the Fruit PST..."
1 2 Previous Next  
- - Date 2013-09-05 18:53
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 19:40
I directly claimed that Vas copied the Fruit PST code and used THAT to produce his PST values.  Nothing more, nothing less.

You have an incredible ability to lie about black and white things. You told people (including me) that were asking for side-by-side code to look at the beginning of Zach's document because you thought it contained code from Fruit next to decompiled code from Rybka 1.0 Beta.

Zach showed that the fruit code from pst.cpp, approaching 400 lines of code if memory serves, would produce Rybka's PST if a total of something like 13 constants (single numbers) were changed.  I tested that hypothesis for myself, by making the changes he suggested in Fruit, and voila' it did produce Rybka's numbers, with the noted exceptions of 4 center pawn scores and another one or two differences I'm not going to look up.

This is both stupid and irrelevant. This code isn't in any version of Rybka, and Miguel has pointed out the same tricks can be performed with other engines. The only point of this is to try to cover up the outright theft of the Fruit bishop PST found in Crafty.

Please show where I claimed that.  I most certainly did not.  I NEVER mentioned the term "decompiled Rybka PST code".  Neither of your two quotes show such a statement.

The evidence is _not_ based on "conjecture".  It is based on specific analysis of Rybka and Crafty or Rybka and Fruit.  There is no "interpretation" required.  Have you actually _read_ Zach's and Mark's report?  People keep saying "show me side by side comparisons."  First page of Zach's report has _exactly_ that.  Two columns.  The comparison goes on for  pages and pages.  Side by side.  Piece by piece...

When asked to show side by side code copied from Fruit, you foolishly pointed to the beginning of Zach's report. There is absolutely no ambiguity in what you said. And you repeated this nonsense more than once.

You have a hard time keeping track of all of your lies because you are a pathological liar.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 20:29
Again, show me ANY statement that claims the PST code came from RE'ed Rybka.  ANY statement will do.  The one you keep copying says NOTHING about that whatsoever.  Zach claimed, and I agree, that Vas copied the Fruit PST code and made the modifications he indicated, and used that to produce the Rybka PSTs.  Nobody has claimed any differently.  Regardless of your continual quoting of an irrelevant code.

Zach's report contains other code that WAS RE-ed from Rybka, however.  But please show me where in the three lines you copied where it even mentioned RE'd in regard to PST.  Or else shut up about it.  I don't care about your lack of reading comprehension skills.  That's your problem.  Just stop quoting something that is irrelevant...  and claiming it says something that it does not...

There's not a single lie in that paragraph you quoted.  The PST code WAS copied.  It is just not included in Rybka.  Zach's report says that, which is one of the reasons I assume your reading comprehension is "way down there"...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 22:42
There's not a single lie in that paragraph you quoted.

The paragraph that I quoted is not a lie. It's a clueless statement by you when you believed that the code at the beginning of Zach's report was really reverse engineered Rybka code. The lies came later as part of the coverup.

Let's go through your statement more carefully, to show how full of shit you are:

The evidence is _not_ based on "conjecture".  It is based on specific analysis of Rybka and Crafty or Rybka and Fruit.  There is no "interpretation" required.

Your current belief is conjecture that Vas used Fruit code in his basement to generate the Rybka PSTs (which would be completely legal of course). Your belief then was that Zach was showing a "side by side, piece by piece" comparison of code.

People keep saying "show me side by side comparisons."  First page of Zach's report has _exactly_ that.  Two columns.  The comparison goes on for  pages and pages.  Side by side.  Piece by piece...

You can keep lying about it, but everybody can see what a fool you were two months after the conclusions of the investigation, thinking that Zach's report showed a side-by-side code comparison that is _not_ based on "conjecture".

The PST code is not in Rybka and WAS NOT copied. We can't be changing everybody's reality just because you've been caught lying yet again...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-26 23:30
Yes, I believed Zach was showing a side-by-side comparison of code for the PSTs.  The code taken directly from Fruit, and the code modified so that it produced Rybka's PST values.  I've only said that about a zillion times now.  He copied that code and then used it to produce his PST numbers.  Plain and simple and pretty damned obvious to boot...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 00:49
You're a clown and you don't even have to wear any makeup. But you're not fooling anybody here. Zach knew what he was doing, but you sure as hell didn't.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 04:43
Keep repeating it.  Maybe eventually ONE person will believe it.  _I_ pointed the disclaimer in Zach's report out to you, if you remember.  You completely missed it.  Not I.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 04:54
I didn't know it was _that_ hard to find it...
Topic Minority Report 2 - Unravelling the technical report By bob Date 2011-07-25 20:08
The evidence is _not_ based on "conjecture".  It is based on specific analysis of Rybka and Crafty or Rybka and Fruit.  There is no "interpretation" required.  Have you actually _read_ Zach's and Mark's report?  People keep saying "show me side by side comparisons."  First page of Zach's report has _exactly_ that.  Two columns.  The comparison goes on for  pages and pages.  Side by side.  Piece by piece...


You're full of shit. There is NO disclaimer. Just a reference to side by side code in Zach's report starting on the first page that goes on for pages and pages. Maybe you should learn to read?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 16:34
The disclaimer is in Zach's. report.  Here is a quote since you don't know how to find it:

Page 2, first paragraph:

Piece square tables are a very simple technique used for basic evaluation. For every piece type and square, PSTs have a value for that piece being on that square. Fruit uses a clear and simple but effective way of calculating the tables. Looking at Rybka's PSTs, we will see that they are calculated using these exact same constants except with different weights. 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.

It was there back then, it was there now, _I_ had read it.  You apparently can't even find it.  That would seem to be YOUR problem, not mine...
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-27 17:05
The first quote in the post of Banned For Life is about 'page by page comparison', that means all the code. You give a disclaimer which is only about PST's and not the rest of the code.

Furthermore, this disclaimer wasn't in all of your posts where you claimed page after page code comparisons between Fruit and Rybka. So you added that one later (probably relieved that you had an escape route).

Do you think we can be fooled so easily? The once respectable dr Robert Hyatt has transformed into someone who misleads everywhere.....
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 18:02
1.  I believe Vas copied Fruit's PST code, then modified it to produce his values, grabbed those values and hard-coded them into Rybka's PST arrays.  The side-by-side analysis shows exactly WHAT changes to Fruit's code is necessary to make it produce Rybka's PST values.  The disclaimer is EXACTLY about the PST code ONLY.

2.  The remainder of the report is not about "code that is not in Rybka."  It is all a direct result of reverse-engineering the Rybka 1.0 beta binary, and then translating that assembly code into C code.  Showing the correspondence between Fruit and Rybka.

That disclaimer was not in ANY of my posts.  It is in the first paragraph of Zach's report.  How hard is that to understand?  If you read Zach's report, you can't help but read that disclaimer because it is in there.

Again, you want to use a strawman argument.  It never happened.  That was not "my disclaimer".  I never "added that one later".  I was never "relieved that I had an escape route" because I did not need one.

Perhaps now you can stop imagining and start understanding.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-27 18:43
The understanding is easy: you believed in side by side code comparison between Fruit and Rybka. There is no doubt about that, as your repeated posts show this claim over and over again.

One simple question: do you believe that anyone reading this forum still believes what you are claiming?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 18:46
No idea, don't really care.  Read Zach's report.  See if YOU notice the disclaimer in the first paragraph of the second page, introducing the PST evidence.

You can believe what is factually shown (the disclaimer is exactly as I claimed) you you can believe whatever you want to imagine instead.  That's your loss, not mine.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-08-27 18:51
You didn't refer to the disclaimer in the many posts you wrote about 'side by side code comparison between Fruit and Rybka in the report'. You only refered to that later. Is it so hard for you to understand what I write? Or don't you want to understand?

Ergo: you believed in page by page code comparisons, that.... were not code comparisons. Now you refer to a 'disclaimer' much later, that only covers PST's.

Once again the same question: do you think we can be fooled in such an easy manner?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-08-27 20:04
Why would I refer to it.  I referred to the exact report.  I DO expect you to read it.  I'm not going to quote each part and explain what it meant and where it applied.  Zach's writing is quite good in that regard...

I think YOU might be fooled by anyone, since you choose to not read, not investigate, not study.  No doubt you can be fooled into doing whatever anyone you like tries to get you to do.
Parent - By John (**) Date 2013-08-28 06:45
You just repeat the nonsense over and over again. Fact is, you believed in page after page code comparison between Fruit and Rybka, without knowing that is was fake code.

That is a huge disqualification of your expertise.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-03 15:35
I do not repeat every statement in every post.  When I refer to a report, I make the (obviously badly flawed) assumption that the person that I am communicating with has actually READ the very report they are criticizing.  Obviously a BIG mistake on my part. 

But also on YOUR part.  READ the report before commenting.  Then we have a common context.

Don't try to turn "a lack of reading and/or comprehension on your part" into "a mistake on my part."  If you aren't familiar with  the subject, stay out of the discussion.
Parent - By John (**) Date 2013-09-03 15:53
The fact that you read it, obviously wasn't equivalent to that you understood it. Which has been painfully shown to you. Page after page code comparisons and you didn't know it was fake code!

Indeed, a big mistake on your part.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-03 07:28
Everybody understands that Zach clearly understood that he was making up hypothetical code that Vas might have used (but didn't) to generate the Rybka PSTs in his basement (which would have been perfectly legal).

What people don't understand is why in July of 2011, two months after the conclusion of the investigation, in response to requests from many people to show copied code, side by side, Bob specifically referenced the PST generation code. This clearly indicates that clueless Bob thought that this code was actually in Rybka, rather than just being a theoretical construct on Zach's part.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-03 16:32
:)

How many times did you complain about "made-up code", "dishonesty".  Etc.  Applied to Zach's report?  UNTIL you had your nose rubbed in that quote so many times that you finally had to admit you had missed it?  :)
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-05 00:30
You must be on drugs. Zach's report is misleading. It even mislead the fool who led the investigation. After that, he went through his normal routine of spreading bullshit everywhere he went, but we all still remember that when people asked him to show copied code from Fruit side-by-side with Rybka code, he claimed it was not difficult, just look at the first pages of Zach's report?

What kind of idiot would do something like this?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-05 01:15
Didn't mislead ANYONE in the investigation.  Might have misled YOU since you don't seem to be able to read such technical stuff.  All of Zach's report shows copied code, side by side.  The PST code does not claim to be in Rybka's binary.  It is claimed that he copied it, changed a few constants, and used that to produce his PST values.  The report is clear.  It is you that can't read and understand it.  That is your shortcoming, NOT Zach's...

For your last question, about all I can say is "I don't know, what kind of idiot are you?"
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-05 04:26
Didn't mislead ANYONE in the investigation.

You were mislead into believing that Zach was showing side by side code, when in fact, he was showing how the Rybka PST values MIGHT have been generated.

Might have misled YOU since you don't seem to be able to read such technical stuff.

You are very good at flattering yourself, but in reality, the technical marketplace values my skills much more highly than yours.

All of Zach's report shows copied code, side by side.

No, it certainly does not. The Rybka code is not in Rybka, and is not copied. End of story.

The PST code does not claim to be in Rybka's binary.  It is claimed that he copied it, changed a few constants, and used that to produce his PST values.

Wrong. Zach claimed that this code was used to generate Rybka's PSTs. He does NOT claim the code was copied. You claimed the code was copied after you misinterpreted what Zach wrote. You then told people to look there for copied code. This made you look like a buffoon.

The report is clear.

No. It is not. No evidentiary paper should include a column named 'Rybka' with hypothetical code in it. This is extremely prejudicial and would never be allowed as part of a serious investigation. I suspect that Zach would concede that this was a mistake on his part.

It is you that can't read and understand it.  That is your shortcoming, NOT Zach's...

You are the one that claimed on three separate occasions that Zach showed copied Fruit PST code in Rybka. You are clearly a baboon.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-05 04:42
Zach showed EXACTLY what he claimed he showed.  Fruit code on one side, MODIFIED fruit code on the right that produces Rybka's PST values.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The conclusion was that Vas copied fruit PST generation, tweaked it as Zach's code suggests, then that was used to statically assign the PST values.

The code was copied, used, and discarded after the PST values were saved.  Simple idea.  Been done many times in the past.

Come on.  He shows how to change fruit code to produce Rybka PSTs.  What OTHER conclusion would a logical person reach?  That space aliens produced the numbers, or Zach's code.  If Zach's code does it SO EASILY, it is likely the way the values were produced in Rybka.  Just read.

That would CERTAINLY be allowed as evidence in any possible court proceeding.  It is yet another example that shows rybka was not original...

I NEVER claimed he had copied PST code IN Rybka.  Not once.  Don't try to turn your poor reading skills and poor comprehension into an excuse to change what I wrote.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-05 08:18
You should learn to read. Zach's paper doesn't say MODIFIED fruit code on the right. It says Rybka.

If you read the lead in you would have known that what Zach labeled Rybka was actually MODIFIED fruit code, but alas, reading is not your forte, so you told people on three different occasions that they could see copied code side by side at the beginning of Zach's document.

The conclusion was that Vas copied fruit PST generation, tweaked it as Zach's code suggests, then that was used to statically assign the PST values.

This was not the conclusion. The conclusion was that Vas used the same function as fruit did to generate his PSTs, using different coefficients. You are the only one making the code copying claim. Zach and Mark were too smart to make this claim. Of course this was before it was discovered that you had copied the Fruit bishop PST with a slight modification to the value of the bishop.

The code was copied, used, and discarded after the PST values were saved.  Simple idea.  Been done many times in the past.

There is no evidence to support this. None whatsoever. This is very representative of the entire ICGA case.

Come on.  He shows how to change fruit code to produce Rybka PSTs.  What OTHER conclusion would a logical person reach?  That space aliens produced the numbers, or Zach's code.  If Zach's code does it SO EASILY, it is likely the way the values were produced in Rybka.  Just read.

I wasn't fooled by Zach's document. You were. And you proceeded to make a fool of yourself by referring people to this document to see side by side copied code. You did this on three separate occasions in July of 2011, over a month after the investigation concluded. Talk about clueless...

I NEVER claimed he had copied PST code IN Rybka.  Not once. 

You didn't make this claim once. You made it THREE TIMES.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-05 17:21
We believe it WAS "Rybka code" on the right.  Not code that was in the executable, but code which was used to create the data.  THAT, too, is a part of "Rybka".
Parent - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-09-05 17:59
Nobody cares what you BELIEVE. We care what you can PROVE. That PST stuff of yours proves NOTHING. If you want to call it a CLUE, then fine, but to PROVE COPYING you need to find a "reasonable" quantity (whatever that means) of COPIED CODE. Clues, beliefs do not wash. Show the provably copied code. Simple enough for you?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-06 05:53
We believe it WAS "Rybka code" on the right.  Not code that was in the executable, but code which was used to create the data.

What you mean "We" Kemosabe?

Zach and Mark claimed that use of the same formulas for generating these tables showed a lack originality. Only you claimed it showed code copying.

THAT, too, is a part of "Rybka".

Rybka contains no PST generation code, a fact you were painfully unaware of more than a month after you provided David and the board with the verdict...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-06 17:21
I think my comment is clear.  Nobody in their right mind believes Vas looked at fruit PST initialization, wrote detailed notes about the row/column multipliers, and then wrote his OWN pst initialization code from scratch...

Rybka certainly had PST code OUTSIDE of the executable.  That is STILL a part of "rybka" as I mentioned...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-06 17:52
Rybka certainly had PST code OUTSIDE of the executable.  That is STILL a part of "rybka" as I mentioned...

That's idiotic, even coming from you. By the same token, one could claim that Word Perfect was a part of my thesis. Do you have any other seriously stupid legal theories that you would like to promulgate here?

I think my comment is clear.  Nobody in their right mind believes Vas looked at fruit PST initialization, wrote detailed notes about the row/column multipliers, and then wrote his OWN pst initialization code from scratch...

Nobody in their right mind cares what code Vas used to generate his PST tables because this code was never included in Rybka. Whatever he used is none of your business. This is all just a transparent ploy to try to divert attention from the fact that you copied Fruit's bishop PST table.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-06 18:24
NO, word perfect did NOT provide you with a table that was the same as that used in another chess program.  I have a fair number of "utility programs" in the crafty source directory that I don't distribute, because they are only useful to me during development or debugging.  They are STILL a part of the crafty project however.  My cluster driver is a part of the Crafty project.  I use it almost daily.  I don't distribute it.  But it is still as much a part of the crafty project as movgen.c is...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-06 20:35
NO, word perfect did NOT provide you with a table that was the same as that used in another chess program.

There are no special rules for IP associated with chess engines. It is perfectly legitimate to do anything you want with a GPL program if it is not distributed. Even a knuckledragger like you should know this.

I have a fair number of "utility programs" in the crafty source directory that I don't distribute, because they are only useful to me during development or debugging.  They are STILL a part of the crafty project however.  My cluster driver is a part of the Crafty project.  I use it almost daily.  I don't distribute it.  But it is still as much a part of the crafty project as movgen.c is...

This is totally irrelevant. Did you hit your head this morning?

Rybka certainly had PST code OUTSIDE of the executable.  That is STILL a part of "rybka" as I mentioned...

This is your latest recurring idiotic legal theory:

Vas might have used code from Fruit to generate PSTs. He is therefor guilty of copying code from Fruit.

Nobody with any sense will accept this line of reasoning as anything other than libel.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 00:10
Right.  He ALSO never copied Crafty before copying fruit, right?
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-09-07 05:20
I think user Banned For Life pointed out a very legitimate point - see the last few lines of his post.

So why are you changing the subject to Crafty again, without going into what he says?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 14:52
I have addressed the PST stuff enough.  My opinion has not changed.  My statement has not changed.  Zach's report has not changed.  End of story.
Parent - By John (**) Date 2013-09-07 15:41
You are the only one holding this weird view about the PST story. So be it. I just hope that one day you'll come to your senses and realise it is crazy.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 07:15 Edited 2013-09-07 07:29
He used Crafty as a testbed for ideas, something that has occurred hundreds of times before. His mistake was entering his testbed with your code in basement tournaments. He realizes this was a "stupid thing to do".

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the ICGA investigation, where no Crafty or Fruit code has ever been found in any version of Rybka that competed in an ICGA event.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 14:52
"he realizes"???  He would not even acknowledge it when ask directly, here.  I don't call that "he realizes" in any form.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 18:30
The discussion here was about the ICGA matter. Vas correctly pointed out that your question wasn't pertinent.

In another forum, Vas has acknowledged that entering testbed code into basement tournaments was "stupid".
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 19:08
No he did not say "it is not pertinent".  The discussion was not exclusively about the ICGA.  He simply said "that question is not for today."  Or ever, it seems...

What forum?  I've never seen a link to such...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 19:17
"that question is not for today." => Your question isn't pertinent to the discussion.

What forum?

He has stated such to many people in a non-public forum.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-08 06:14
Aha.  The magic "forum only you can read."  Convinces me...
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-08 07:17
I'll show you the email if you'll admit that you're a moron. Deal? :lol:
Parent - - By siam (**) Date 2013-09-07 15:03
Why are you always switching from one argument to another?
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-07 15:05
BOTH are part of existing, known facts?
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-09-05 15:17
Fruit code on one side, MODIFIED fruit code on the right

Excuse me?? What an incredible liar you are. "Just read", you tell BFL. Don't make me laugh, you distort anything to back up your fairy tales.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-05 18:53
To be more explicit:

Fruit code on left.  Copied/modified fruit code on right, used to produce Rybka's PST values.
Parent - By The Mike Machine (**) Date 2013-09-06 02:16
To be even more explicit:

Left:Original     Right: Modified/Copied
Bob                Boob

You can see they're basically the same thing.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-08-27 16:16
Maybe eventually ONE person will believe it.

Many do. I do. And not 'maybe'. Surely not 'eventually'. But from DAY 1 when you made this hilarious mistake.

I have never seen somebody hiding for his own mistakes in such a childish way.

We are awaiting your apologies for this mistake, as you have promised Ed elsewhere.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-08-27 16:13
People keep saying "show me side by side comparisons."  First page of Zach's report has _exactly_ that.  Two columns.  The comparison goes on for  pages and pages.  Side by side.  Piece by piece...

THIS is what you said. There is NO room for misinterpretation. YOU said there were side by side code comparisons. And that it goes on for pages and pages. No disclaimer whatsoever.

You were the FOOL. The fool who believed that the report showed code. And now you are making up stories to hide that ugly fact. Pathetic.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Re: "I directly claimed that Vas copied the Fruit PST..."
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill