Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / FIDE Congress Tallinn, Estonia, 7-8 October 2013
- - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-09 09:32
FIDE Congress Tallinn, Estonia, 7-8 October 2013

5.16 . Ethics Commission.
Mr. R. Rivello to report.

------------------------

I am going to keep a low profile till then since all has been said by now about RV's RE work. Furthermore I see no goal to waste my time any longer with a Vas hater (he called him a hooligan long before the ICGA investigation) who through his obsession can't separate things properly any longer. The latest example in a nutshell -

Bob (1) - Taking notes CAN capture exactly what the code does. That IS "copying code".

Bob (2) - I've tested everything in Glaurung 2, fruit 2, toga 2 [ regarding LMR ]

Instead of taking back his statement, or rephrase it, Bob is still defending.

If (1) were true then there was no need for the RE work of Zach and Watkins, no need for the foundation of a Panel as Vas' statement 2 weeks after the Rybka 1.0 beta release would have been enough for the ICGA.

Vasik Rajlich - the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on. I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-09-09 10:12
Profile of Mr R Ravello and the FIDE Ethics Commission

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4003844
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 13:42
I'm going to correct your distortions when I see 'em.  Respond or not, it doesn't matter.

I STILL have the same challenge open to you:

look at either fruit or glaurung.  Compare their LMR implementations to what is in Crafty.  Compare them point by point.  The ONLY common feature you will find is that all three reduce the depth of certain moves.  They don't reduce the depth the same amount.  They don't reduce the same moves.  They don't do ANYTHING the same way Crafty does, EXCEPT to reduce the depth of some of the moves.  That is copying an IDEA in it's most abstract sense.  No "detailed notes".  No feature matches.  EXCEPT for depth = depth - reduction;

is it possible to get back to the real world.

You once asked "when are you going to remove the robolito code from Crafty."  You had a rather harsh look at reality when it was proven there was NO robolito code in crafty, period.  Yet you want to continue with that same insane implication moved to fruit/glaurung.  I don't copy code.  I don't copy implementation details.  I don't consider it to be very enjoyable to work like that, myself.

YMMV of course.
Parent - - By siam (**) Date 2013-09-09 17:26
Well i don't know what is worse.

Stealing ideas and than translate that by not all to difficult coding?
Or reading code and than getting better ideas and translate that in not all to difficult coding?

Your claim that using ideas from others is legal looks to me Ok but only when the idea maker gives you permission.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 19:12
I don't think anyone believes they need permission to use an idea someone else thought of.  I do believe you need permission to copy source code, and even with that permission, your program might be considered not original by rule two, without some sort of prior discussion at the participant's meeting...
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-09 20:03
If you go through other people's source code and take all their ideas, your program is legal.
But it isn't original.
I think that should be pretty obvious.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 21:45
If you take all of their ideas, and implement them in the same framework, it would not even be legal according to ICGA rules.  If you take an idea here, an idea there, absolutely no problem.  If you note ALL of the ideas in general terms, then go away and write all the code, you are STILL ok.  You understand what this is about.  Why you want to be disingenuous I do not know.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-09 22:00
You don't understand what I am saying.
I am not talking about violation of ICGA guidelines.
I am not talking about violation of the law.

If you stitch together other people's ideas to make your program, that is not original.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 22:14 Edited 2013-09-09 22:17
I would say it depends on how you "stitch together ideas from others."

For example, take the current Chrysler Hemi.  Original or derivative of an automobile motor from the 1900 era?  Both have pistons, valves.  Is it original?  What about compared to contemporary v8s of its era?  1950's?  All had 8 cylinders.  A 1, 2, 4 bbl carb, or 3 deuces, or two 4's.  But are the cylinder heads not different enough to make the hemi "original"?  It blew everything away until NASCAR outlawed it.  Hemispherical combustion chamber produces a more even burn than a wedge.  Spark plug can be placed dead center in a hemi, harder in a wedge.  So original or not.  Step forward to today's hemi.  Runs on 4, 6 or 8 cylinders depending on power demand.  Is that original when compared to the 1950's era hemi, or is it too similar.

The basic idea of an 8 cylinder motor, two banks 90 degrees apart, and such is a basic "idea".  The implementation is hardly related to that basic idea.  What about the direct injection motors, no carbs, no fuel injection into intake manifold.  Etc.  There are so many ways to "stitch together 8 cylinders" to make a motor...  Maybe at some level we might agree NO motors are original.  But at a reasonable level, they are as original as anything...

If you copy everything and just use a tube of glue, not very original.  But you can STILL take existing ideas and put them together in a unique and useful way and produce something that most would call "original".  Is the Wankel original?  The SR-71?  It is JUST a couple of jet engines, airframe, control systems, etc...
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-09 22:17
Everytime you take someone else's idea, that is not original.
Crafty's rotated bitboards, for instance, were totally original.  *You* got the idea and implemented it.
Whenever we see rotated bitboards in someone else's program, that is not original.
The definition of the word original will make my point better than anything else, I think.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 22:19
A simple quote:

"the whole CAN be greater than the sum of the parts."  CAN.  Not MUST.

I've seen my son make quite original things from various things like LEGOs, or CONSTRUX, etc...  Original or not?
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-09 22:35
I suppose that Gestalt theory can be applied to chess, but I never thought very much of it (Gestalt theory, that is).  But I am not sure how existentialism might fit in either.

The combination part can offer originality (but the combination is the only part of it that is original).  Both the lego blocks and the construx elements are totally unoriginal.

Similarly, a chess program might combine various borrowed elements in novel ways.  That combination itself would be novel.  But all of the borrowed concepts are unoriginal.

That is the great humor of ICGA rule number 2.  All chess programs borrow heavily from those that came before them.  But rather than modestly echo Newton's words about standing on the shoulders of giants, the chess programmers all pretend that they are the giant.  And we might even see a scapegoat hauled out into the public and receive a heavy flogging for his unabashed unoriginality.  When in fact, his work is far more original than many of those administering the beating.

Anthony Cozzie spelled it out elegantly {the absurd lack of originality in chess programming}, and described it as the reason that he lost interest in computer chess.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 23:47
How do you figure about construx parts?  Wheels.  Gears.  Drive mechanisms.  Straight pieces.  angled pieces.  1/4 of a circle pieces.  The list goes on and on.  Simple shapes, but recognizable.  Can you copy those "parts" and make something original.  Or would the creator still have to deal with the current complaint of "but you took the ideas" from someone else, those various parts that they chose to form and sell as a kit?

Anthony has his idea about originality.  I have mine.  We are a LONG way from writing the final chapter of new ideas in computer chess...  Some can't see the forest for all the trees.  Some can't create new because they spend their time copying what already exists..

Your characterization about "standing on the shoulders of giants being missing in computer chess" is pure garbage.  MOST of us carefully acknowledge those that came before us and what they created.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-09 23:53
I would accept your characterization if you did not point the finger at others and claim they were unoriginal when what they are actually guilty of is what everyone else is doing.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 00:41
Who?  Vas?  He did not just "take an idea or few and implement them himself in his own framework.  He simply copied stuff.  LOTS of stuff.  That's not the same thing at all...
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-10 00:52
It is possible that he did as you claim.  Unfortunately, that has not been demonstrated.
As Ed and others have shown, there are significant differences between the original algorithms and the algorithms implemented in Rybka.
The claims of "non literal copyright" should have been supported with the Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test.  Since this was not done, you cannot claim to have proven what your report claims to have proven.

What you have managed to convincingly demonstrate is that Vas has done what everyone else, including you, are doing.
Vas has the added benefit of having credited the other engine authors.
When you went back and forth through Fruit and Stockfish to collect the LMR algorithm, you could have said in your release notes, "I went back and forth through Stockfish and Fruit and took many things."  Did you do that?
So perhaps Vas is even less guilty (on average) than most chess programmers.

A previous post using the CCRL similarity based on ponder hits shows that all of the top commercial engines show similarity at least on par with that in Rybka as far as that goes.

The similarity in ponder hits of certain Hiarcs versions to
1. Crafty
2. Fruit
is incredibly ironic.

Note that I am not accusing anyone of cheating.  I am only saying that the evidence against Vas is not convincing and that the procedures use to make specific claims were not followed correctly and that it appears that Vas was doing exactly the same thing that all the other chess programs are doing (as far as actual proof goes).
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 02:31
1.  I do not believe the "ponder hit" data shows anything useful.  I suspect this "similarity rate" is more a function of the difference in ratings of the two programs as opposed to anything related to copying code or lots of ideas. 

2.  The similarity test results are somewhat more interesting, but again, there has been no detailed study to see how many "false positives" it tends to kick out.  Which would (to me) problematic for using it as anything more than a "hint" that requires more investigation of the proper kind...
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-10 03:05
Both of your points are good points.
I am not sure what the data means for certain either.

I am suspicious that some commercial programs are using ideas from other programs, but I lack the motivation to investigate it myself.

On the other hand, we sometimes have sensible explanations for such things (e.g. Larry Kaufman working on the eval for Vas and for Don would logically lead to similar evaluations).

Unfortunately, we can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 15:04
Things are chaotic.  I began to "see the light" after I decided to make Crafty open-source.  The idea was, IMO, a good one.  But I apparently made one error in judgement, namely overlooking just how much some want to win at all costs, without having to do the preliminary work for themselves...

If you could somehow build a tennis racquet that GREATLY improved your game.  By magically having a "sweet spot" that covers the entire strung area, one which corrected the angle of the surface plane so that shots would not go long nor hit the net, would you use it in real competition?  You'd be invincible.  And if nobody could discover how you were doing it, you'd reach #1 and win nearly every event you played in (assuming a health issue might hold you back every now and then, say a pulled muscle or sprained ankle.)

The more interesting question is "would ANYBODY use it?"  I'd like to think no.  But in the almost 20 years since Crafty became open-source, I've learned that my own "sense of fairness" is not shared by all.  There are plenty of people that would cheerfully use such a racquet.  Beyond me why, but I am certain it would happen.  And I simply do not "get" that concept.  Where's the thrill of victory if you had help that your opponent did not.  Where's the fun in competition if you and your opponent both use the magic racquet?

In computer chess, we are "there".  Some want to maintain the fairness, equal competition, and such.  Some only want to win.  Hard to envision both continuing together...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-09-10 15:18 Upvotes 1
Suppose somebody could get hold of a fantastically poweful supercomputer that greatly increased the performance of an otherwise mediocre program such that it could reach #1 and win nearly every event it played in. You'ld be invincible.

Would ANYBODY use it? Where's the thrill of victory if you had help your opponent did not? I simply do not "get" that concept. Some want to maintain the fairness, equal competition, and such. Some only want to win.

Would you use it, Bob?
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:30
1).  Basic assumption is wrong.  I actually HELPED others get access to the same Cray hardware I used.  I got access to a very fast univac dual-cpu box in 1978.  At the last minute, the day of round one, another competitor lost access to their hardware due to a major failure.  I chose to give them one of my two CPUs and just not use the parallel search.  Several OTHER programs ran on Crays.  Burt Wendroff (Lachex), Cube, Slate (Nuchess).  Several ran on even FASTER custom hardware.  Etc.

2).  Basic assumption is wrong AGAIN.  When we won the world championship in 1983, we were searching about 10K nodes per second.  Belle, with custom-designed hardware (search, move generation, everything, done in hardware) was searching 160K+ nodes per second.  16x faster.

Given the light of actual circumstances, does your statement make any sense?  Of course not, you weren't there and had absolutely no clue about what was going on.  There are other good examples.  Hitech was as fast or faster than belle, much smarter, special-purpose custom hardware (again).  We beat them in 1986 to repeat.  Did the Cray help?  It helped LEVEL the playing field a bit at the top.  But it was not the fastest thing there by at least an order of magnitude.

Want to try again, using actual facts this time???
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-10 16:42
There was a survey given to high level athletes and a question was asked,
If you could take a pill that would make you world champion but you would die in five years would you take it?
75% said yes.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-10 17:41
The root of all evil, ego.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-10 18:48
I had the figure wrong.  It was 'only' 65%.  Here is the actual citation from "Education Update":

*** g 11/08 p. 3 When Success Is Elusive ***
According to medical researchers, more and more young athletes are taking potentially harmful performance-enhancing drugs in order to excel in sports. Education Update online reported: “When college students in a recent survey were asked: ‘If you knew you’d win or make the team by taking steroids, but in five years you’d get sick, would you still do it?,’ nearly all said yes. When the question was changed to ‘if you knew you would die within five years,’ 65 percent still said yes.”

Related citation:
(Galatians 5:25, 26) 25 If we are living by spirit, let us go on walking orderly also by spirit. 26 Let us not become egotistical, stirring up competition with one another, envying one another.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-10 19:23
Related citation:
(Galatians 5:25, 26) 25 If we are living by spirit, let us go on walking orderly also by spirit. 26 Let us not become egotistical, stirring up competition with one another, envying one another.


Sure, let's talk Bible :wink:

Jesus:
Matt 18:9 - And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.

ICGA version:
And if your eye causes you to look in foreign source code, tear it out and throw it away.
Parent - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-10 20:34
Re:And if your eye causes you to look in foreign source code, tear it out and throw it away.


Incorrect pronoun.

And if their eye causes them to look in foreign source code, tear it out and throw it away.  
If it's your eye, it's only concepts and not code.
Parent - By michiguel (***) Date 2013-09-10 20:42

> There was a survey given to high level athletes and a question was asked,
> If you could take a pill that would make you world champion but you would die in five years would you take it?
> 75% said yes.


The other 25% must have said no because they won't be able to defend their gold medal in the next Olympics.

Miguel :-)
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-09-11 13:24
Most of us carefully acknowledge those that came before us? I don't think so. It is a clear minority. I have almost never seen a commercial programmer crediting his predecessors in a meaningful way: especially the "pre Fruit" authors are completely silent about this. But maybe you can prove me wrong and give some black & white examples of the opposite.

Besides, the more predecessors you are crediting, the less original you are.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-11 13:35
If all you do is download executables, you would miss all the citations inside the Crafty source, because compilers instantly strip the comments away and they do not become a part of the final executable image.  Hard to say what commercial guys do since they don't distribute source code.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-09-11 14:00
Your claim was: Most of us carefully acknowledge those that came before us. And now you tell me you don't know, because you need the citations inside the source code. Which you do not have, in the large majority of the cases.

Can we conclude that "most of us" should in reality be: "I credit my sources, but I don't know about the others"?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-11 15:05
No, because over the years, I have exchanged source programs with several.  I've already mentioned I had a copy of Coko IV from the very early 70's.  Chess 4.x from Slate.  Chaos.  Duchess.  I have not looked at every program.  But most of the ones mentioned above also published articles about their program where they carefully cited sources as is normal.  So I know about many.  I don't know about all.  One can simply peruse the JICCA to get a good feel...
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-09-11 15:53
That is a clear answer, so "most of us" = "the old generation". Not today's commercial programmers. Shouldn't this last group credit their sources as well, in your opinion? Or do you think these commercial programmers only used their own ideas?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-11 16:13
Of course they use old ideas.  Whether they credit others or not I do not know.
Parent - - By John (**) Date 2013-09-11 16:37
But shouldn't they do so? When I read ICGA's rule number 2, you can read "between the lines" that this is necessary.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-11 23:09
Not sure how this would be done.  In comments there are natural places to reference the origin of an idea/algorithm.  In a separate document, that most likely users will never see or never read, not so useful...
Parent - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2013-09-11 12:47

> That is the great humor of ICGA rule number 2.  All chess programs borrow heavily from those that came before them.  But rather than modestly echo Newton's words about standing on the shoulders of giants, the chess programmers all pretend that they are the giant.  And we might even see a scapegoat hauled out into the public and receive a heavy flogging for his unabashed unoriginality.  When in fact, his work is far more original than many of those administering the beating.


Terrific paragraph.
Parent - - By siam (**) Date 2013-09-10 05:09
Any idea why ideas have to be protected by patents?
Parent - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-10 05:26
Because they are not protected by ordinary copyrights.
Whether computer algorithms should be patented or not is under some debate, but many countries do allow patents on computer algorithms.

See, for instance:
http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / FIDE Congress Tallinn, Estonia, 7-8 October 2013

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill