Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / ICGA SHAME - Statements of critical chess progrogrammers
- By Rebel (****) Date 2019-11-29 08:40
Text with links at -

Statements of dissenting (critical) chess programmers

•Chris Whittington  games programmer and entrepreneur:
There may be some anecdotal evidence for your model, but, as far as I can tell there is no good proof, just a groupthinky belief. Basically I think your argument is: Vas started with Fruit because he is a thief. Vas is a thief because he started with Fruit. Or, in other words, your argument is circular: the conclusion is the premise and the premise is the conclusion. More

•Marcel van Kervinck  a Dutch software engineer and author of the chess program Rookie: Second, I would also like to inform you that with the knowledge I have today, I would have voted differently in the investigation process. More
and -
This is a manufactured justification. A lot more people didn't follow the forum rules and that was just let go. Chris was excluded because he would undermine the purpose of the panel: to provide a case against Rybka. One member announced preliminary findings in a public forum. One member leaked discussions on a public forum. Half of the panel was discussing things behind the backs of the rest, despite the rules forbidding this. In retrospect, and from my point of view, that panel was just setup to lend credibility to the desired outcome, and nothing else. Link...

•Ed Schröder  producer of the REBEL series and 2-times world champion:
After 15 months of intensive research it's my final conclusion the accusers who investigated the Rybka chess program researched an original program. Strength is one aspect of originality and the way Rybka ruled (on equal hardware) was unprecedented in computer chess history. Rybka obviously was inspired by Fruit (which Vasik Rajlich never denied, even credited the Fruit author for) doing all the same things other (good) programs also do, only way better. Rajlich revolutionized computer chess, dominated the computer chess rating lists for almost a decade till the Stockfish community effort took over. The ICGA verdict and ban are uncalled for. Link...

•Sven Schüle  a German computer scientist and author of the chess program Surprise:
This kind of statement has now been repeated by Bob approximately some thousands of times. So frequently that most people seem to have accepted this as a matter of fact, even many programmers who had doubts about it before. I also believe that Zach has done a great work by no doubt. I just do not share his final result, which is most important here. More

•Miguel A. Ballicora  an Argentinean Biochemist and Associate Professor and author of Gaviota:Your question is a very good question. Taking ideas from one source? many? is it the same? I do not know, and probably there is no simple answer for ICGA purposes, but the question is relevant. The problem is, rule #2 is terribly worded and was designed eons ago with only cut&paste clones in mind. The part that says "e.g. programs that play nearly the same moves" (or something like that) is extremely naive. Let's suppose that I write a program following Ed's document about how rebels plays. That would probably be a program that is 80-90% identical. There was zero code copy because I did not even see it. Is that ok? I believe yes... what would be the difference if I saw the code? More

•Dann Corbit  an American programmer and computer chess expert, tester and advisor:
My main complaint is with the process of fault-finding itself. I think that the design of the process was flawed and with a flawed process flawed decisions are far more probable than via correct process. I do not expect the majority of chess programmers to agree with me or with my analysis. My opinion is mine alone but I wanted to say something since it appears to me that a bad process has been used to reach a final decision that affects a man's career in a significant way. More

•Uri Blass  an Israeli mathematician and author of the chess program Movei:
Rybka is not designed to be a copy of fruit and you cannot show me a big similiarity in the analysis between rybka and fruit that is a strange similiarity between different engines. More

•José C. Martínez Galán - a Spanish computer chess programmer and author of Averno:
People is not condemned for doing unsual things. To condemn someone, to be able to say you have proven guilt, you must refute even the most unusual possibilities. Otherwise, the "in dubio pro reo" must be applied. More

•Charles Roberson  an American computer scientist and chess programmer author of the chess engines NoonianChess, Telepath and Ares and as ICGA panelist during the official voting: I think the key to the Fruit eval issue is whether or not they both could have been inspired by other previous open source code and open technical discussions. On this issue, I've found some of Zach's paper to be incorrect as to the originality of Fruit's eval. I am working on a report to fully detail my thoughts.

•Sergei Markoff  a Russian chess programmer and author of SmarThink:
As the Rybka source was never published, the only possible thing to do with disassembly is to say that it contains a code that compiles at the same instuction sequences. But it's not a prove of direct copying of the code. More

•Chrilly Donninger an Austrian chess programmer famous for his Nimzo and Hydra engines: I was looking at the dissassembled Rybka code. Its definetly not a Fruit-clone. See also my other postings to this topic. Link…  and - I have looked in the code and found no direct similarieties with Fruit. Both use PVS, but almost all programms (besides SOS) use PVS. Thats no argument for a clone and of course no argument that is no clone. According my inspections are the board-representation, the movegenerator, the eval and also the search different. Its unavoidable that there are some general techniques like PVS in common. Link...

•Daniel Shawul an Ethiopian computer scientist and civil engineer and author of Scorpio:
Jose, of course you and the lawyer are correct. You just have to look at the panel members to see it was a case of defamation for perceived personal gain (one way or another). I don't need a village jurist to explain me what is clear as the day. Link... and on the question: Was the ICGA decision bad? he answered: Yes ofcourse. Mob justice is never good. Link...

•Ken Thompson an American computer scientist, inventor of UNIX and the first Endgame Databases, winner of the 3rd World Computer Chess Championship 1980 in Linz: if rybka-3 had been entered in its first icga event, i would say it was not derivative. Links [ 1 ]  [ 2 ]

•Matthew R. Brades an English chess programmer author of various chess engines such as Magic, FruitFly and Dorpsgek: All of the "Rybka is Fruit" stuff is a lie. I side with the "Rybka is an original program" side, but with a twist. Link... 

•Ronald de Man a Dutch mathematician, lawyer, inventor of the Syzygy bases, author of Sjaak and Cfish: When I first read about the investigations I assumed he was guilty. I had not followed computer chess for some years, but I remembered reading about Rybka reporting incorrect node counts. Things seemed to add up.

Since then Bob has convinced me that the process leading to the "verdict" was severely flawed. This is my main gripe.

In addition, the evidence I have seen is not very convincing in my view. I do not contest that the similarities in the eval are not coincidence, but we all know that Vas took inspiration from Fruit. The question is not if he looked at Fruit (which we can prove), but whether he took "too much". That depends on the one hand on what he did exactly and on the other hand on what Rule 2 really means. Link...  

Text with links at -
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / ICGA SHAME - Statements of critical chess progrogrammers

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill