My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

[bob]

It's just plain weird that Vas says he was careless for not keeping the rybka 3 source code. Why would you not keep the source?

See my comments above. It is possible to think you are protected by backups but not be. I'm now _way_ more careful, as a result.

I think it is a clever use of words. He does not have the exact source from R3 that may be true. I bet he has source from a version very close to R3. It is not uncommon to produce several versions every week.

If he doesn't have the exact source of the released version of Rybka 3, which presumably is what the Ippos stem from, then how is that a clever use of words?

Because many will misunderstand as Ben did. Maybe splitting hairs is a better description. The version may have been called Rybka 2.xxx that was compiled as R3 for release. He may have the 2.xxx code but not the R3!? Does he need the exact source code to prove anything?! I think a source with a few minor differences would be fine.

Sure, but I think his point was that if he tries to prove his case, someone may argue that he is trying to prove the IPPOs came from Rybka 3, but is using a twin instead of the original. That is how I read it in any case.

I read it as, " I am lo lazy and can't be bothered to prove it and I do not care what a few on CCC think."

Well, I read the phrase:

"Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult."

a bit differently.

[Zach Wegner]

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence. When I pushed him about this, he said that the PSTs have some constraints on them to make them easier to tune. Of course, these constraints are the exact same ones that Fruit uses, but it seems he'll never admit this. So I'm really not interested in what Vas will say if he's going to continue such evasions. I would be surprised if he can find one inaccuracy on my webpage (and actually say why it's wrong).

[Rolf]

So I can buy that given the right set of circumstances that source could be lost.

Bob, I wished you would always help in that style - showing your followers the even extremely seldom exceptions that could speak prothe prejudiced individual. This is what scientists ahould be good for, not waving hands and supporting premature condemnation. The truth will anyway come out. It doesnt need campaigns. In short, thanks for this nice clarification.

[wolfv]

I have a proposal: as you suggest that Rajlich's accusations should stay on as a sticky notice, why not also put up as a sticky Zach Wegner's analysis of the similarities between Rybka 1 (already commercial) and Fruit (GPL-d open source engine)? It would then be much easier for Rajlich to refute the documented points in Zach's analysis.

In this way at least some balance of information would be kept. Otherwise, with only one side kept available CCC would be one-sidedly promoting only one point of view.

Otherwise, the chasm looms even larger.

[K I Hyams]

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.

Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.

[Eastendboy]

But it looks like VR can accuse others of cloning without proof here...

That's rich. Isn't it logically impossible to accuse someone when no one has any idea who that someone is? I realize the accused no doubt feels the accusation was directed at him or her but how, exactly, is that Vas' problem? It isn't.

Nice soapbox though.

[Sven]

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.

Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.

I cannot see how the permission to publish emails, based on my question whether I may do so, should by any means be related to competence of other people, even more to aspersions about that. Appears very far-fetched to me.

Sven

[frcha]

*@# happens -- I guess a programmer can be forgetful and lose the source code to his most prized product that earns him 100% of his living ... highly unlikely but probable I guess -- there is a person who was hit by lightning 5 times so anything can happen.

So now we await an upcoming announcement from Vas and an actual writeup in about 2-3 years ..


Notice that Vas said did say the following::

Ippolit is disassembled Rybka 3 with changes. The changes are considerable but not even close to enough to leave any doubt. Robbolito is an evolved Ippolit, with more changes and more cleanup.

looks like "but not even close to enough to leave any doubt. " added in there to almost contradict the first statement .. Leave any doubt for who?

You would think that if the changes are considerable , it would leave some doubt -- so shoudn't the statement have said:
There were some changes but not enough to leave any doubt.

[K I Hyams]

(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.

Sigh... That's the same old Vasik nonsense we are used to. It's quite easy for him to say something is wrong, but he has yet to demonstrate anything proving it. I talked to him about my webpage before posting it, and the only example he could come up with of something that was wrong was the PSTs, which is one of the most clear-cut pieces of evidence.

Yes, I wondered whether you would pick up on that point. If he has given Sven permission to publish his email, it would appear that he is willing to publicly cast aspersions on your competence and indirectly that of Bob Hyatt without providing any evidence.

I cannot see how the permission to publish emails, based on my question whether I may do so, should by any means be related to competence of other people, even more to aspersions about that. Appears very far-fetched to me.

Sven

“I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong”, That implies that Zach’s analysis is riddled with mistakes.
“40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts”. That implies that Zach is unable to recognise standard computer chess concepts when they are staring him in the face..

In other words, he is saying that at least 80% of Zach’s work is either inaccurate or incompetent. That sounds to me to be a serious slur on Zach’s ability. He has made those slurs without providing a shred of evidence and he has allowed you to publish them in that form.

If I were to make such serious aspersions on the competence of a colleague, I would not dream of allowing them to go public without providing concrete examples. It appears that Vas Rajlich does not adhere to that standard.

[bob]

So I can buy that given the right set of circumstances that source could be lost.

Bob, I wished you would always help in that style - showing your followers the even extremely seldom exceptions that could speak prothe prejudiced individual. This is what scientists ahould be good for, not waving hands and supporting premature condemnation. The truth will anyway come out. It doesnt need campaigns. In short, thanks for this nice clarification.

Sorry, but I _always_ speak "without supporting premature condemnation." Many are angry with me that I refuse to blindly follow the masses and accept the statement "this is a clone" with no proof. Many are angry with me because I have looked at the fruit/rybka comparison an am convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that parts of fruit were copied verbatim. No comment on how much, but guaranteed to be "not tiny".

He's had plenty of time to resolve this. And resolving it would not disclose anything that has not already been disclosed. I, like many others, believe it will _never_ be resolved, for reasons unknown to me.