Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Shouting in the Dark
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By K I Hyams (*) Date 2011-03-15 11:28 Edited 2011-03-15 11:34
A number of threads on the Rybka forum appear to have been motivated by the human need to shout in the dark to alleviate fear. The fear, in this case, is that the local hero may have feet of clay and the shouting consists of unsupported and therefore worthless statements, usually starting with the words “I think” or the more assertive, but equally weak, “I am sure that”.

In addition some members distort/eschew information in order to avoid it impinging on the comfort cocoon that they try to create around themselves. As it is clearly too much to expect such people to confront their own doubts by reading documents such as those produced by former Rybka forum expert BB, I will provide some information/thoughts in the probably futile hope that it will make some Rybka forum members confront their own prejudices.

Experts have found that one of the main ways in which El Chinito was demonstrated to be a Crafty clone was because both El Chinito and Crafty contained a piece of code that was a redundant legacy from an older version of Crafty and therefore would not have been programmed into El Chinito, had that been an original piece of work.  I understand that the same code is in Rybka 1.61 and it would not have been programmed into Rybka either, had that been an original piece of work.

1. The information in the paragraph above may indicate that there may be  a history of Vas Rajlich copying code.
In addition:
#Fabien Letouzey is capable of recognising his own code and sees it in Rybka 1 beta.
#Zach Wegner has produced peer reviewed evidence that Fruit code appears in Rybka 1 beta.
#Former highly esteemed Rybka member BB has produced a number of high quality and verifiable documents pointing to the conclusion that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code.
# A host of the world’s best programmers, most of whom have not got rival programs for sale, endorse the evidence that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code.

2. If there is enough evidence there to convince a jury that Fruit code was copied. Vas Rajlich would appear to have:
# Made statements that are at best “economical with the truth”.
# Made statements that some might consider hypocritical.
# Misled paying customers about the origin of his engine.
# Misled tournament directors about the origin of his engine.

3. If Vas entered and won some tournaments illegitimately, he will have improperly  deprived authors who came second in those tournaments of prize money.

4. Rybka 1 was released midway through the period in which Fruit was being sold. It was stronger than Fruit. If it contained Fruit code, Vas may have, in addition to improperly using that code, improperly diverted revenue from sales away from the pocket of Fabien and into his own pocket.

5. There is little that can be done to help those who make the ridiculous claim that, as Rybka was stronger than Fruit, Vas redeemed himself.  However, even if the comment was sensible, they need to realise that in order to gauge the value of the Rajlich contribution, they need to compare the improvement that Vas got not to Fruit itself but to the improvement that amateur programmer Gatsch produced in Toga. If they do so, they may realise that  the improvement that Vas made was perhaps unexceptional; Rybka 1 was not significantly stronger than the amateur generated Toga.

6. Similarly, there is little that can be done to help those who make the  claim that Vas was entitled to do what he did/ redeemed himself because his later engines are strong. However, they should compare Rybka 4 with the strongest of the engines that he claims contain his code. They may find that Rybka 4 is not as strong as one of those amateur produced engines. In other words amateurs, possibly using the same starting material, may have been able to make comparable strength gains to those seen in both Rybka 1 and Rybka 4.

7. There are those who claim that Vas should be forgiven for any trangressions that he may have  made because those transgressions happened some years ago. Those people should reflect upon the fact that it is common for crimes to be addressed if evidence emerges 5 years after the event. They should also reflect upon the possibility that, as they were not the putative victims of those actions, they do not have the right to demand forgiveness for his actions. Such a demand would legitimately come from Fabien. Fabien doesn’t appear to be in the mood to forgive.
Parent - - By Uri Blass (*****) Date 2011-03-15 12:06
point 5 is not correct.

Rybka1 beta was clearly better than toga at the point of time that Vas released it and note also that rybka1 beta does not have part of the knowledge that fruit has about basic endgames(for example rybka1 beta does not know about the blind bishop in KBP vs K) so unlike the case of toga Vas simply did not use all the fruit code and did not use part that is productive for fruit's playing strength(this is also the reason that a chess player that I talked with him did not believe that Rybka is based on fruit and he said that it is impossible because fruit has endgame knowledge that rybka does not have).
Parent - - By K I Hyams (*) Date 2011-03-15 12:38 Edited 2011-03-15 12:43
Rybka1 beta was clearly better than toga at the point of time that Vas released it
The wording that I used was"Rybka 1 was not significantly stronger than the amateur generated Toga.". I did so in order to cope with comments of that kind. In addition, the strength of Toga increased very rapidly after that and surpassed Rybka 1. In fact, I could point out the probable reason why the initial release of Toga was weaker than Rybka1. However, I shall refrain from doing so as it will introduce another red herring.

note also that rybka1 beta does not have part of the knowledge that fruit has about basic endgames(for example rybka1 beta does not know about the blind bishop in KBP vs K) so unlike the case of toga Vas simply did not use all the fruit code
I didn't claim that it was identical, did I? I merely pointed to the substantive evidence that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code. Neither I nor anyone else claimed that it contains "all the Fruit code"

"this is also the reason that a chess player that I talked with him did not believe that Rybka is based on fruit"
The fact that a chess player to whom you spoke did not believe that "Rybka is based on fruit" proves nothing whatsoever.

he said that it is impossible because fruit has endgame knowledge that rybka does not have).
No. That does not make it impossible that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code.

I have to admit that it was quite difficult to anticipate and deal in advance with comments made at that level.
Parent - - By Uri Blass (*****) Date 2011-03-15 17:36
Note that I do not claim that rybka1 is not a fruit derivative.

I only objected to the comparison between rybka1 beta and toga.
Rybka1 beta was clearly a bigger achievement than toga because time is clearly a factor and rybka1 beta came earlier.

I did not claim that you claimed that Rybka1 beta had all the fruit code but only used this fact to explain that
I believe that rybka1 beta could be stronger at the same time in case that Vas wanted to do it.

Rybka1 beta improved rapidly and if you look at toga at later time then the fair comparison is to compare with Rybka of the same time that is probably also a derivative of fruit.

The best Toga may be slightly better than rybka1 beta but it is worse than Rybka1.1 or Rybka1.2 so it is clear that Vas beat the amateur programmers who improved fruit by a significant margin in every point of time and I believe that he is simply a better programmer than them.
Parent - By Uri Blass (*****) Date 2011-03-15 17:44
Note that my objection was for the following words:

"However, even if the comment was sensible, they need to realise that in order to gauge the value of the Rajlich contribution, they need to compare the improvement that Vas got not to Fruit itself but to the improvement that amateur programmer Gatsch produced in Toga. If they do so, they may realise that  the improvement that Vas made was perhaps unexceptional"

I believe that Vas is quilty on illegal use of the fruit code based on the people who support the evidence(I do not understand assembly in order to analyze Rybka1 beta and compare it with fruit so I did not check it) but I disagree that the improvement that Vas made was unexceptional when rybka1 beta is probably only part of the improvement that he made because I see no reason to believe that later Rybka's versions are clean from fruit's code.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-03-17 21:18
Bogus reasoning.  When comparing Crafty's 'iterate.c" code to Rybka 1.6.1, we found code that had no business being there, as mentioned previously.  We also found that some parts of iterate.c had been removed.  Which happens.  I have removed and added parts to that code over the years myself.  It is not unlikely that if you copy someone's code, something doesn't work as well as expected.  That can be removed, and revisited another day after all the other issues are addressed.  I keep a "to-do" list myself for ideas that seemed reasonable but which did not pan out, in the hope that later, more investigation will lead to a better implementation or a more refined version of the idea that will work.
Parent - - By kunah (**) Date 2011-03-15 15:09
Toga 1.3.1 (came out sometime in 2006) should be (according to CEGT) about as strong and R1b. If you compare its sources against Fruit 2.1, you realize that there are not as many changes as one would expect;
most of them are in search, almost no changes to eval, several files not changed at all. This is why popular arguments like "Rybka(1b) cannot be Fruit because it's stronger" fail.
Parent - By K I Hyams (*) Date 2011-03-15 17:08 Edited 2011-03-15 17:20
I haven't heard that claim put forward for a long time. However, if it is still used, it is possible that there is an overlap between the cohort who claim that Rybka(1b) cannot be a  Fruit derivative because it's stronger than Fruit  and the cohort  who claim that H***** can be a Rybka derivative although it is stronger than Rybka.
Parent - - By Uri Blass (*****) Date 2011-03-15 18:00
It is not correct and Rybka1 beta is significantly stronger than Toga1.3.1 based on the CEGT list
It seems that you compare the 32 bit version of rybka that is handicapped because Vas did not optimize Rybka for 32 bits.

Here are the rating from the CEGT list(other bitboard programs like stockfish earn less speed from 64 bits for the simple reason that their programmers cared to optimize them also for 32 bits)

266 Rybka 1.0 Beta x64 2868 9 9 3255 55.6% 2829 40.3%
350 Toga II 1.3.1 2816 16 16 1104 49.5% 2820 39.1%
352 Rybka 1.0 Beta w32 2816 6 6 7411 58.9% 2753 34.6%
Parent - - By kunah (**) Date 2011-03-16 10:00 Edited 2011-03-16 11:26
What exactly is not correct Uri? Do the diffs and see for yourself. Toga 1.3.1 is ~100 elo stronger than Fruit 2.1. With little changes to the source.

FIX: I agree however that 52 elo difference between 32-bit and 64-bit version is significant. Vas sure didn't optimize the w32 version at all.
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2011-03-16 10:22

> EDIT: I agree however that 52 elo difference between 32-bit and 64-bit version is significant. Vas sure did a bad job optimizing the w32 version.


FTFY.
Parent - - By Lukas Cimiotti (Bronze) Date 2011-03-16 10:43
To be more precise: the w32 version was a by-product - it didn't get any optimization at all, just different compiler switch settings.
Parent - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2011-03-16 11:22

> To be more precise: the w32 version was a by-product - it didn't get any optimization at all, just different compiler switch settings.


I'm sure he at least compiled it with /O2.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 10:53

>> EDIT: I agree however that 52 elo difference between 32-bit and 64-bit version is significant. Vas sure didn't optimize the w32 version at all.


Last fix, then.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-03-17 21:21
Based on what I have seen, Vas did not optimize Rybka for either 32 or 64 bits.  The bitboard stuff seems to be "all Crafty".  The fruit stuff was copied but then modified to work with bitboards...
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-03-22 18:22
Dont want to sound personal but Uri, Keith is more a political propaganda minister for the critics against Rybka. Never saw him in computerchess that much than right now. I know him because he's somehow obsessed by the topic of antisemitism, there he is a dangerous correspondent though. He has a more religious hate fever position, not of our kind of collness. :wink:

Let me add another little feedback. For me it looks like a sensation and I admire you for this, you are commenting on exaggerations and such against Vas, although you are certainly not a 100% paty member of Rybka. This is what I like and what is so seldom to be seen also on CCC, I hate prejudices and the diffamation of minority opinions. The people there are either this or that, but you cant find real class of seeing with both eyes. In other words it's mostly about strong prejudices, exception of Bob who cant twist everything into its contrary as a scientist. Thanks just for your appearance. Regards. BTW I hope your sanity problem is under control again.
Parent - - By Elderta (**) Date 2011-03-15 17:31
+ Billion.

I would enjoy to see BANNED FOR LIFE and NELSON HERNANDEZ replying this. They are good in philosophy.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-15 19:17 Edited 2011-03-15 20:07
I'll be happy to respond here, albeit on a different level.

First, let me start off by repeating that this is a tempest in a teapot. There have been many very important legal battles over intellectual property rights. This isn't one of them. As examples, think mainframe computers (IBM, Burroughs, Sperry), personal computers (IBM and Compaq), or PC operating systems (IBM and Microsoft). Most of the people on this forum were oblivious to these important cases, which were infinitely more important than this incident. That said, I'll address each of the points that were made:

1) Having looked at the evidence regarding R1B, I find it to be of rather low quality. Most of the evidence seems to concentrate on demonstrating that Vas was intimately familiar with Fruit. But this was well known five years ago. On the other hand, if the FSF wants to go ahead with a civil law suit, that's their prerogative. But this would be between the FSF (and maybe Fabien if he can claim that he didn't know about this before he transferred rights to the FSF) and Vas. I have much less of a stake in this matter than I had in any of the three important events listed above.

2) I doubt that this case would be particularly convincing to the average jury member, remembering that the jury would not include anyone with engine developing expertise. I am sure that Vas is quite capable of providing subject matter expertise on his own behalf.

3) I hope this is not about the minuscule prizes offered for winning engine tournaments.

4) I purchased both and was happy with both. If Fabien thinks he was damaged, he knows what to do.

5) Toga was never a reasonable opponent for Rybka. Anyone who used the PCC to compete in engine-engine games knows this from personal experience. The difference in strength between the two engines was large at the beginning and got even larger as time went on. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.

6) Mr. RH is certainly a very capable engine developer, whatever his means. If Vas or anyone else think they have a claim against him, they know what to do. I suspect that Vas would still have the number one released engine, if he wasn't so concerned about reverse engineering efforts.

7) I don't object to Fabien or the FSF taking whatever steps they feel are warranted.
Parent - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-03-15 19:39
I will be happy to respond here too: where's FlicksKing (TM) when you really, really need him??
Parent - - By K I Hyams (*) Date 2011-03-15 21:07 Edited 2011-03-15 21:47

1) Having looked at the evidence regarding R1B, I find it to be of rather low quality. Most of the evidence seems to concentrate on demonstrating that Vas was intimately familiar with Fruit. But this was well known five years ago. On the other hand, if the FSF wants to go ahead with a civil law suit, that's their prerogative. But this would be between the FSF (and maybe Fabien if he can claim that he didn't know about this before he transferred rights to the FSF) and Vas. I have much less of a stake in this matter than I had in any of the three important events listed above.

You think that the evidence is of "rather low quality". I think that your statement is of "rather low quality" It is vague, it is unsubstantiated and it is pointless. In fact it is so vacuous that it offers nothing to refute.
Look at the list of signatures on the document submitted to the ICGA. Please list the names of the signatories whom you consider have less expertise than you have. I think that it is of great significance that at least 3 of those men initially refused to believe the copying allegations but were forced to change their opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence. Yet despite all of that, you have the arrogance to "find it of rather low quality"
Fabien Letouzey, Zach Wegner, Mark Uniacke, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, Ed Schröder, Don Dailey, Christophe Theron, Richard Pijl, Amir Ban, Anthony Cozzie, Tord Romstad, Ralf Schäfer, Gerd Isenberg, Johannes Zwanzger.
Professor Hyatt and BB will also add their weight to the matter, if it goes to court.

2) I doubt that this case would be particularly convincing to the average jury member, remembering that the jury would not include anyone with engine developing expertise. I am sure that Vas is quite capable of providing subject matter expertise on his own behalf.
It is blindingly obvious that the average jury would be unlikely to include anyone with engine developing experience.  Lay people on juries tend to either place too much significance on points that are irrelevant or not enough significance on points that are relevant. That is the main reason why I have no great interest in the outcome of a trial; it would prove nothing. However, my feeling is that a jury might well convict if it was presented with:
1. Evidence that indicates that Vas has a history of copying.
2. Evidence that an enormous increase in strength of the very weak Rybka 1.x series occurred shortly after Fruit was released.
3. The histories and credentials of the signatories of the letter to the ICGA.
4. Well prepared and properly annotated documents that clearly show areas of overlap between Fruit and Rybka and Crafty and Rybka.

3) I hope this is not about the minuscule prizes offered for winning engine tournaments.
You appear to have understood very little of what I said. Had that not been the case, you wouldn't have made such a pointless statement.

"4) I purchased both and was happy with both.
I am very glad that you enjoy both of your purchases. However that fact is totally irrelevant.
If Fabien thinks he was damaged, he knows what to do".
That statement does not further your argument either.

5) Toga was never a reasonable opponent for Rybka. Anyone who used the PCC to compete in engine-engine games knows this from personal experience. The difference in strength between the two engines was large at the beginning and got even larger as time went on. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.
Reread my post if you can't remember why I raised the issue.

6) Mr. RH is certainly a very capable engine developer, whatever his means. If Vas or anyone else think they have a claim against him, they know what to do. I suspect that Vas would still have the number one released engine, if he wasn't so concerned about reverse engineering efforts.
Your "suspicions" are of no relevance without evidence

7) I don't object to Fabien or the FSF taking whatever steps they feel are warranted.
Well, I am sure that both Fabien and the FSF will be incredibly relieved to hear that. As far as this particular discussion goes it is yet another irrelevancy.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-15 23:16
You offer nothing in the way of argument, but I have to admit that you're very good at being condescending. Did you learn this at Oxford? Shouldn't you be out saving the planet rather than wasting your precious time weighing in on this type of pointless drama? But as they say, right back at you...

However, my feeling is that a jury might well convict if it was presented with:
1. Evidence that indicates that Vas has a history of copying.
2. Evidence that an enormous increase in strength of the very weak Rybka 1.x series occurred shortly after Fruit was released.
3. The histories and credentials of the signatories of the letter to the ICGA.
4. Well prepared and properly annotated documents that clearly show areas of overlap between Fruit and Rybka and Crafty and Rybka.


Your feelings are completely irrelevant and it's clear that you know considerably less than nothing about the history of events. The Rybka 1.x series was not weak. In fact, it was incredibly strong. Far stronger than Fruit. It is simply not credible that this huge improvement in strength was simply due to copying other programs. Only a rube would believe this.

You appear to have understood very little of what I said. Had that not been the case, you wouldn't have made such a pointless statement.

I'm sure I didn't miss anything important. Your original post was complete nonsense.

Toga was never a reasonable opponent for Rybka. Anyone who used the PCC to compete in engine-engine games knows this from personal experience. The difference in strength between the two engines was large at the beginning and got even larger as time went on. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.

Reread my post if you can't remember why I raised the issue.


You raised the issue to make the ridiculous claim that Toga was as strong as Rybka. This is just another example of your specialization in revisionist history.

I suspect that Vas would still have the number one released engine, if he wasn't so concerned about reverse engineering efforts.

Your "suspicions" are of no relevance without evidence


The evidence is clear. Rybka has won the great majority of the tournaments it has entered, and the Rybka Cluster is certainly the strongest engine in existence today. This has been proven time and again.

But this is not an important matter. I'm not sure why anyone should care what conclusions the ICGA comes back with. It's their prerogative to exclude the top engines from competition and run a second class event. I assume they will do exactly that. Most people understand that this is the only way that the signatories on the letter will have any chance to win the WCCC with its wonderful prizes. I wish them all the best of luck.
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-03-16 01:35 Edited 2011-03-16 04:15
Alan can be a wonderful person to chat with... but this "debate" about Rybka has clearly brought out "the darkside" in him.

I have noticed when he has no substantive defense or counter-argument for something he zealously believes in, he... like "The Master of Disguise", "becomes another person"... one who has a penchant for demeaning or belittling "the enemy".

So, if he sees your character as the last bastion... he will attack that with the hope of 'winning' the argument.  This, of course, is a typical lawyer trick.  Discredit the witness (hence their testimony is untrustworthy) and you win your argument. With Bob he cannot do this. With Bob, he has to either "put up or shut up" as he knows an attack on him (Bob) will backfire.  It will plainly be seen as immature and petty.

But for those of us without "standing", the attempt is made to marginalize us.  So...  you make good points... he will say you have no points.  You make a good analogy... he will call it a poor analogy.  You chastise him or lambaste a friend for their weak / irrelevant / obtuse / ignorant argument: he will say you're a nobody ("you would instruct us???") and have no business here.  'You' do not make "arguments"... 'you' make "rants".  'You' "re-write history". He will project the idea he is the one who knows what he is talking about... and will attempt to dismiss you as "knowing nothing".  It's all the 'opposite' with him if you oppose him and he cannot refute your argument.

And you can see, he maintains several different standards on how he will debate with you... one for himself and his friends (those who agree with him) another standard for those who have a 'certain standing' and a third for those who could appear as not having any  'standing'.

but I have to admit that you're very good at being condescending.

Wow Alan... accusing someone of this when your posts have been rife with condescension, if not much more ignoble... is this not... hmmm... the very definition of hypocrisy?

Most people understand that this is the only way that the signatories on the letter will have any chance to win the WCCC

Oh... puh-leeze... yes this is precisely the reason the 14 named above have done what they have done. :roll:

Remember Alan when you attempted to totally dismiss what I said to Soren with the flimsy reply, "you did not address any of his points"  (flimsy because I had actually addressed his points; it was just you 'apparently' did not like 'the way' I did it... did not read it... etc... ).

Well now I put to you the very same thing; you totally ignored Mr. Hyams' point: "You think that the evidence is of "rather low quality". I think that your statement is of "rather low quality" It is vague, it is unsubstantiated and it is pointless. In fact it is so vacuous that it offers nothing to refute. Look at the list of signatures on the document submitted to the ICGA. Please list the names of the signatories whom you consider have less expertise than you have."

He gives you "an out"... you do not wish to take it?
Parent - By K I Hyams (*) Date 2011-03-16 11:53 Edited 2011-03-16 12:14
Watchman said: He gives you "an out"... you do not wish to take it?

I will quote part of the first paragraph of my first post, Rob.
The fear, in this case, is that the local hero may have feet of clay and the shouting consists of unsupported and therefore worthless statements, usually starting with the words “I think” or the more assertive, but equally weak, “I am sure that”.
To be honest, the "Banned for Life" character was one of those whom I had in mind when I made reference to the "I think" and the "I am sure that" club  that pervades this site. Because he is more of an "I am sure" man than an "I think" man, he may have gathered a coterie around him. I notice that the Lukas character has now contributed a sneer and a big picture to the debate. No valid, useful or even original input, simply a sneer and a big picture.

It may be time for me to go. Veni vidi vomui. I hope that is the correct form of the verb.
Parent - - By K I Hyams (*) Date 2011-03-16 07:20 Edited 2011-03-16 07:56
“You think that the evidence is of "rather low quality". I think that your statement is of "rather low quality" It is vague, it is unsubstantiated and it is pointless. In fact it is so vacuous that it offers nothing to refute.”

That quote is from my last post to you, I repeat it because you missed the point last time. The fact that you consider the evidence is of “rather low quality” is not a valid argument, it is not even an argument of any sort; it is a vacuous and unsubstantiated statement of opinion.  You make the ridiculous claim that my posts contain nothing in the way of argument, well I won’t even try to argue with vacuous and unsubstantiated opinions because there is no point. I have plenty in the way of argument and I have given you plenty of points with which you can argue. The trouble is that you can’t answer those points can you? Here is a selection, please “argue” with them now, instead of running away.

1. The version of Crafty that Vas is alleged to have copied contained a piece of code that had been useful in an earlier version of Crafty but was redundant in the version of Crafty that has been claimed to have been copied. Why then does the same piece of code appear in Rybka1.61?

2. Don’t you think that Fabien Letouzey is capable of recognising his own code if he sees it in Rybka 1 beta?

3. What is your reaction to the fact that at least 3 of those who signed that document were originally Rajlich supporters but they changed their minds when they became aware of the quality and quantity of the evidence that pointed to there being Fruit code in Rybka 1beta ?

4. What is your reaction to the fact that former highly esteemed Rybka member BB has produced a number of high quality and verifiable documents pointing to the conclusion that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code and that the top programmers on the planet are happy to associate themselves with those documents?

5. One of the unsubstantiated and snide claims that appears on this forum is that those who have signed the document are jealous of Rajlich’s success. Your final paragraph indicates that you have some sympathy with that view. Are you aware that few of those signatories have programs that are commercial rivals, preferring instead to gift their work and that all of those signatories are recognised as being the most talented chess engine programmers on this planet?

Another point that you failed to address referred to the arrogant and dismissive manner in which you dealt with the opinions of those experts with whom you disagree. I will therefore pose the same question again.

Look at the list of signatures on the document submitted to the ICGA. Please list the names of the signatories whom you consider have less expertise than you have. I think that it is of great significance that at least 3 of those men initially refused to believe the copying allegations but were forced to change their opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence. Yet despite all of that, you have the arrogance to "find it of rather low quality"
Fabien Letouzey, Zach Wegner, Mark Uniacke, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen, Ed Schröder, Don Dailey, Christophe Theron, Richard Pijl, Amir Ban, Anthony Cozzie, Tord Romstad, Ralf Schäfer, Gerd Isenberg, Johannes Zwanzger.

The rest of your post shows evidence that your ego may be larger than your brain; you use immature tactics. In fact, it seems that you may even be out of your depth in a shallow puddle. You write childish bluster when you can't think of a valid answer. Your suggestion that my post was “condescending” was a projection of your own problem. The posts that you write to other members of this forum consistently rank amongst the most condescending and unpleasant posts that appear here. You do not have valid arguments, simply a box full of snide comments. Just look at the reaction of “Watchman” to the material that you post.

You will not annoy me with your antics. However, I do find them boring. I refer you again to the 5 questions listed above and the question about those signatories whom you consider to be less qualified than you are. I remind you of the fact that I have now asked you for clarification of that point on two separate occasions. Until or unless you are willing to deal with those issues, don’t bother to reply.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 15:21 Edited 2011-03-17 07:30
The fact that you consider the evidence is of “rather low quality” is not a valid argument, it is not even an argument of any sort; it is a vacuous and unsubstantiated statement of opinion.  You make the ridiculous claim that my posts contain nothing in the way of argument, well I won’t even try to argue with vacuous and unsubstantiated opinions because there is no point. I have plenty in the way of argument and I have given you plenty of points with which you can argue. The trouble is that you can’t answer those points can you?

More nonsense. The evidence is being gathered by three people; Dr. Hyatt, Zach Wegner, and Dr. Watkins. I have debated the quality of the evidence in an objective way with two of these three people. You clearly haven't even bothered reading the evidence, and wouldn't understand it anyway.

1. The version of Crafty that Vas is alleged to have copied contained a piece of code that had been useful in an earlier version of Crafty but was redundant in the version of Crafty that has been claimed to have been copied. Why then does the same piece of code appear in Rybka1.61?

Probably because Rybka 1.6.1 was based on Crafty.

2. Don’t you think that Fabien Letouzey is capable of recognising his own code if he sees it in Rybka 1 beta?

Apparently not. It took five years and a tremendous amount of prodding by many members of the chess engine community to get him to the point where he came to this realization.

3. What is your reaction to the fact that at least 3 of those who signed that document were originally Rajlich supporters but they changed their minds when they became aware of the quality and quantity of the evidence that pointed to there being Fruit code in Rybka 1beta ?

My reaction is that it is completely irrelevant.

4. What is your reaction to the fact that former highly esteemed Rybka member BB has produced a number of high quality and verifiable documents pointing to the conclusion that Rybka 1 contains Fruit code

I have already commented on Dr. Watkins' analysis on this forum and he has responded to my comments on his forum. If he wishes to debate, he knows where to find me.

and that the top programmers on the planet are happy to associate themselves with those documents?

You're kidding, right? At this point in time, there is no reason to believe that any of the "top programmers on the planet" have any association with computer chess. Surely being a member of this elite group must have as a basic requirement, being associated with something more important to mankind than a chess engine.

5. One of the unsubstantiated and snide claims that appears on this forum is that those who have signed the document are jealous of Rajlich’s success. Your final paragraph indicates that you have some sympathy with that view. Are you aware that few of those signatories have programs that are commercial rivals, preferring instead to gift their work and that all of those signatories are recognised as being the most talented chess engine programmers on this planet?

You appear to be looking for a simplistic, monolithic reason for signing the letter. It doesn't exist. Some most likely did sign the letter to increase their chances of winning fabulous prizes. Some may have signed it because they don't like Vas. Some because they trust others who have signed it. Some may even have signed on because they actually reviewed the evidence and found it convincing. Of course there are many top engine developers who did not sign this letter.

Look at the list of signatures on the document submitted to the ICGA. Please list the names of the signatories whom you consider have less expertise than you have.

Less expertise in what? You lack the technical expertise to even phrase the question in a meaningful manner. Since you don't specify, I will claim to have more expertise than any member on the list in the area of optimization theory. This plays a small, but potentially important role in computer chess. Much more importantly, it allows  me to run a successful business that has absolutely nothing to do with computer chess.

Just look at the reaction of “Watchman” to the material that you post.

Watchman is the sole occupant of my ignore list because of his idiotic rants. He keeps promising that he will return to the HIARCS forum, where this behavior is encouraged. Unfortunately, he's still here.

Until or unless you are willing to deal with those issues, don’t bother to reply.

Who died and left you in charge?
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-03-17 15:47 Edited 2011-03-17 18:57
Watchman is the sole occupant of my ignore list because of his idiotic rants.

Just another example that reaffirms what I said above.  You cannot debate so you resort to attacking the man.

He keeps promising that he will return to the HIARCS forum, where this behavior is encouraged.

Wow 2 lies and an insult in one sentence! Bravo Alan!

Unfortunately, he's still here.

Yes, amazing I have not been kicked off for having a view contrary to you or Nelson.  Sorry to have turned your world upside down.  Instead of blaming me for confronting the situation and being willing to debate it... you should be blaming the one responsible for the situation.  Easier to attack me tho.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-17 17:56
I refuse to even open another idiotic rant from the thing that wouldn't leave.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-03-18 01:50
the thing that wouldn't leave

I must confess to having smiled when I saw that… however… what a thrill to find out (or to remember?) that this was the title for an SNL sketch in which John Belushi performed the title role.  How very kind of you Alan! How flattered I am to be thought of this way!  Despite all the mean and cockamamie things you have said… well! I do not know what to say! Except a sincere “Thanks!”. :grin::grin::grin:
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-03-18 04:47

>>I have now asked you for clarification of that point on two separate occasions. Until or unless you are willing to deal with those issues, don’t bother to reply.


>Who died and left you in charge?


Ummm.... psssssst Alan.... I think the K.I. is doing nothing more than what you demanded of me just a few days ago...

Remember?  You accused me of (and I quote): "You ignored the point he made in his post and responded with a long rant that contained no new information." 

I think he just expects you to hold to the same standard that you espouse.

>You're kidding, right? At this point in time, there is no reason to believe that any of the "top programmers on the planet" have any association with computer chess. Surely being a member of this elite group must have as a basic requirement, being associated with something more important to mankind than a chess engine.


Alan you wise-crackin' jokester you... you know full well he was referring to chess engine authors... why go off on some knuckleheaded tangent of a rant?  Just curious btw.
Parent - By Geomusic (*****) Date 2011-03-22 12:21
this might be going into drama llama soon!
Parent - - By Lukas Cimiotti (Bronze) Date 2011-03-16 08:55
Yes - it looks like it's all about this:
Parent - By sockmonkey (***) Date 2011-03-16 09:01
That is so unbelievably arrogant. Might makes right?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 12:16
It looks like you found a very nice place in your basement or garage to store these! :lol:
Parent - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) Date 2011-03-17 01:27
looks like Lukas outside shed to me judging by wall fittings.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-03-22 14:44
I have an office full of those.  I don't "get the point."
Parent - - By Lukas Cimiotti (Bronze) Date 2011-03-27 07:27
You didn't even participate in these events in the last years. So why shoud I think, you want the trophy? Maybe they use you to reach their goals?
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-03-27 16:45
I've not missed a CCT.  Nor an ACCA event.  And when they were "reachable" I didn't miss WCCC events.  They are now way too long, and too far away.  Taking off 2 weeks during a semester is certainly not fair to students.  If you check the ACM events from 1976 to 1994, the only time I missed one was when we had a WCCC in the same year and close enough in time that it caused the same problem.  The WCCC's I have missed were for the same reason except for a few where others volunteered to take the extended trip and operate Crafty.

My goal has always been to win anything I play in, and play in everything possible.  But.  "within the rules and within normal ethical boundaries."
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-03-22 18:36
Hi Keith long time no see in CTF. You wrote
1. Evidence that indicates that Vas has a history of copying.

Just because you always had a sense for logic at least in political debates.
Look at this please, say your sentence is true, would you admit that it's only a sentence of importance if it's clear that all the other programmers are sober, isnt it?
But did you check this? I dont think so. Nobody checked it.

I am just an outside observer with a basic understanding of
rational reasoning. Say, the whole professionals with their
closed sources contain copied stuff? What would this mean?

Wouldnt it be highly hypocritical if one would outsort Vas and scapegoat just him?
Would you say that the assumption that all copy is wrong? Can you prove it?

Do you have experience as a teacher what happened if a teacher would follow
this prejudiced reasoning. What others are doing doesnt interest me but I
concentrate my energies on Keith. Do you think that this is kosher? I dont.
Regards.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 02:09

> I suspect that Vas would still have the number one released engine, if he wasn't so concerned about reverse engineering efforts.


I think this is more because now commercial Rybka is in competition with Rybka Cluster than about his fears of RE. I mean, what was the worst case scenario? That an engine that uses RE code becomes stronger than Rybka, and this already happened.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 03:21
I think its a little of both. Certainly Vas wants to increase the distance between R4.1 and Cluster Rybka, but there is also good reason to believe that the current strongest released engine would not have been as strong if it hadn't been able to make use of R3 derived code.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 06:57
We're in agreement. I just think Vas is shooting himself in the foot with the infrequent updates that would be seen as the "win-win-win" solution (instead of keeping code private) for everyone.
Parent - - By isilverman (***) Date 2011-03-15 23:43
There is such a thing as a Statute of Limitations. At some point, a plaintiff can no longer bring an action because too much time has passed.

5 years is beyond the SOL for many things. Some things are longer. Like, for example, murder.

Is what Vas may have done for Rybka 1 in the same category as murder?

Is all programming done by Vas since Rybka 1 corrupt because of that? He's never had an original thought since then?.

By all means, then, string him up.
Parent - - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-03-16 01:36
There is such a thing as a Statute of Limitations.

Sure is!  In a Criminal Court of Law! Is this where these discussions are taking place? Don't think so!  Is this where the complaint was filed?  A Criminal Court of Law? Don't think so!

And fwiw... there is such a thing where the Statute of Limitations is tolled... like... put on hold (I love how that rhymes) for various reasons - which can include when the 'injured' party actually becomes aware of the 'harm'.

As I said... less knuckleheadedness please... let us think about what we are saying.

Note to Alan:  Alan please observe and note for future reference... the isilverman's analogy is a 'very good' example of what a 'poor analogy' looks like.
Parent - - By isilverman (***) Date 2011-03-16 01:52
There is such a thing as a Statute of Limitations.

Sure is!  In a Criminal Court of Law! Is this where these discussions are taking place? Don't think so!  Is this where the complaint was filed?  A Criminal Court of Law? Don't think so!
-----------
Now, you see what happens when someone pretends to be a lawyer? It's "Open Mouth, Insert Foot" time. SOL's also exist in civil actions.

-----------
And fwiw... there is such a thing where the Statute of Limitations is tolled... like... put on hold (I love how that rhymes) for various reasons - which can include when the 'injured' party actually becomes aware of the 'harm'.
-----------
And you are saying that before the last few weeks, and certainly not years ago, no one thought there was "borrowing" going on? Really? In all seriousness? You need a better joke writer. Also, you did not address at all any of the other points.
Parent - By Watchman (***) Date 2011-03-16 02:46
Now, you see what happens when someone pretends to be a lawyer? It's "Open Mouth, Insert Foot" time. SOL's also exist in civil actions.

Wow you don't say? :roll:  But it's called something different thus I do not 'get into it'. :razz::razz::razz:

So... this is where the complaint was filed?  A Civil Court of Law? Don't think so!  And who has put their foot in their mouth?  :roll:

"And you are saying that before the last few weeks, and certainly not years ago, no one thought there was "borrowing" going on?"

Putting words in my mouth makes you look silly... not me.  It is called knuckleheadedness.

If you bothered to think (I know this is too hard for some) about my statement: "...which can include when the 'injured' party actually becomes aware of the 'harm'." you might... just might have correlated what I said with Fabien and 'his return'.
Parent - By bob (Gold) Date 2011-03-22 14:49
The "statute of limitations" does not start when the crime is committed.  It starts when it is discovered, or when it reasonably should have been discovered.   In some cases, it starts when charges are filed to prevent the investigation from going on forever.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 11:46
1.  Nolo contendere.  I am not an expert in these matters.  But my impression is that "copying" is a matter of degree, not a yes/no proposition.

2.  Same answer.  Question of degree.  And this muddles things more than you would care to admit.

3.  That is a big "if".  Prove that the engine he used in such prize tournaments (i.e. not Rybka 1.0 Beta), which he won (key clause), deprived someone else of money.  And if you can prove it, which I doubt, consider the stakes involved.  You make this into a capital crime rather than a petty larceny.  I suppose you could argue that "tournament wins equals more sales which could have gone to someone else" but I would like to see you convince a court of that and have them arrive some kind of judicial solution.  This would make for a ludicrous class action lawsuit.  Consider the sequence of things you must prove and, once again, the trivial stakes involved. 

4.  This whole line of argument is unworthy of you, Keith.  The train of logic you use here is non sequitur.  Perhaps you should dissect your original, unedited paragraph into a syllogism and you will see what I see: serious flaws in your argument.

5-6.  I reiterate my claim that increasing program strength is a virtuous act.  Why?  Because all economic activity comes from giving the public something it wants, and the public wanted stronger chess programs and was prepared to pay for them.  Simple law of economics.  Provide weak programs: the public won't pay at any price.  Provide the strongest program: they will pay, in accord with price-demand curves.  To claim otherwise is, as you cheerfully state, a "ridiculous claim".  There is ample evidence that Vas added strength to his program continuously from 2005 forwards.  There is no evidence that this incremental strength came from Fruit or any other program.  There is no argument that you could put forward that delegitimizes this incremental strength.  Attempts to delegitimize this incremental strength are mischief, and it is very difficult to not opine that anyone who attempts to do so is animated by something other than facts.

As for the rest of your statements in #5-6, poppycock.  Irrelevant sophistry and agitation.  Make the case in court and see how far you get.

7.  The planted axiom in your argument is that "crimes" have been committed.  Sir, have you no sense of proportion?  WTF with a whit of sense cares, and why does someone with your esteemed credentials care?  This seems to me to be nothing more than an academic exercise at this point, and if I may advance something in your field of expertise, I think it is a mindless attempt to regulate and bring everyone to the same miserable level.  It is astonishing to me that even in this utterly obscure field of inquiry we find political ethicists intruding, seeking to prosecute, regulate, socialize!  Hayek might have said it is the road to serfdom writ very, very small.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2011-03-16 15:24
She might have some insights on economic theory too, you never know.
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2011-03-17 01:21
Or Natalie Portman! She's wicked smart!
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Shouting in the Dark
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill