My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:52 pm
- Location: Polska, Warszawa
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
All engines have similarities and differrences but it not make them clones or illegal.
Polish National tragedy in Smoleńsk. President and all delegation murdered or killed.
Cui bono ?
There are not bugs free programs.
There are programs with undiscovered bugs.
Ashes to ashes dust to dust. Alleluia.
Cui bono ?
There are not bugs free programs.
There are programs with undiscovered bugs.
Ashes to ashes dust to dust. Alleluia.
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
"Zero details" is as imprecise as possible. This was part of my post that I linked to above:bob wrote:I believe that I responded to your post back then point by point also. Your "refutation" offers _zero_ details. And I _do_ mean _zero_. When we started the analysis, we were comparing rybka binary to fruit source, and since the binary is stripped of symbols, and since it is in asm, it takes some work to go from asm back to C. And that code was posted here. And there were howls of protest because our goal was to take the binary and map it directly back to C that matches fruit. I tried to point out that C to binary is a many-to-one mapping, as there are many ways to code up an algorithm where the source looks completely different but the binary is identical. Students try this all the time by changing variable names, procedure names, switching from a for loop to a while loop, and so forth. So going blindly from asm to C is not helpful, but _if_ you ask the question, "Can I use this assembly code, in its entirety without adding instructions or having any left over, and map it back to the exact C source in fruit?" then the answer was yes in more than one instance, the first was the main loop where commands are read and the infamous do_parse() procedure is called.Sven Schüle wrote:These percentages are very plausible for me. I don't know whether many non-programmers can follow but nevertheless I suggest to all interested members to reread what I already posted five weeks ago on that topic (EO subforum). Read especially my quite detailled comments on each of the points from Zach's pages under the heading "My details". If I had to match these 11 points with the 40-40-20 estimate by Vas then I would perhaps come to similar numbers as he did.
One note @Zach here: for me claiming that something is "wrong", or "standard CC concept" does not mean anything about your competence, and also nothing personal. I just try to keep as objective as possible. If someone would make 4 wrong statements out of 11 then this does not turn him "incompetent" at all. Just to let you know. EDIT: I see no reason why Vas should view this differently.
If you don't accept any of that, that's your choice. But there _is_ ample evidence to show that code was copied. It is not about how much was copied, it is about was _any_ copied, and the answer is most certainly "yes". It is time to get out from behind this false cover of "not too much" or "just a little". One more time, you can't be just a little bit pregnant. Ideas are not the same as code. We are talking about _code_.
Another new excuse is "Rybka is bitboard, fruit is not, can't be copied". Baloney. Much of my early evaluation was not bitboard since I have always maintained a mailbox copy of the board to make it easy to figure out what piece is on a particular square. And I converted that code directly to bitboard code later. Are you _really_ saying that is not copied. When I copy A to B, then modify B to use a different board representation, and now B is not a copy of A. That's convoluted thinking, to be kind about it.
What if the robo* guys convert from bitboards? Are they _also_ OK by this definition, even though it looks more and more like they are already OK, based on continually arriving data.
Code: Select all
piece square tables:
- I can see no similar code, just similar values used
pawn_get_info():
- I can see no similar code, just ideas may have been reused
eval_piece():
- "Rybka code" may look similar but is a bitboard translation with several other changes, so only ideas were reused but no literal code copying
eval_king():
- using a flag that defines whether king safety is used or not is a common idea that many programs share, and its existence in R1 does not prove copying of code but just reusing an idea
- attacks evaluation is a bitboard translation, so the code is changed => only idea reused
- final score calculation: one source line is shown that contains the same idea in R1 as in Fruit but has 3 changes in R1, so no unchanged literal code copying
- shelter: implementations show look quite similar BUT Zach states that this code is not present in Rybka binary but is "an equivalent" created manually by Zach so this can be ZERO proof for anything
"All of this shelter evaluation code in Rybka above is an equivalent; it doesn't appear in the Rybka binary. It is there simply to illustrate what is in the precomputed tables. These precomputed tables are used during the pawn evaluation to quickly evaluate shelters."
- storm: very different code, only same ideas
eval_passer():
- "Rybka code" presented looks very different, just ideas may have been reused
eval_pattern():
- common ideas but completely different implementations
material:
- implementations of "MatKingFlag", "DrawBishopFlag", and game phase look quite similar
=> assembler code of R1 should be shown to prove that the code shown as "Rybka" is really in R1, and not part of Strelka source only (which would not prove anything)
Regarding "bitboard translation": yes, if I copy code and modify it to use bitboards then it is no longer a literal copy. Simple.
Regarding "asm to C", this was not my topic at all in my referenced post, you have drifted to another topic with that.
Regarding "copying actual code" and "a little bit pregnant", you simply can't show actual code copying merely with a website like Zach's where left and right sides do not match, it needs some more work like the recent one from "BB" for that IMO. So *there is no code copying proven*. It is proven, and was admitted very early by Vasik, that R1 was influenced by many Fruit ideas. He says "legally", would you assume he does not know what that means, as a software developer? You say something like: he copied the evaluation code from Fruit to Rybka and adapted it to match the Rybka needs. He says something like: he wrote original code, took some ideas from Fruit and legally implemented them in Rybka. You come and say he is dishonest, and you "prove" that with a website where left and right sides do not match but the text says they were "virtually identical". A couple of serious chess programmers raise their doubts. But you insist. Fabien does not care about it, he obviously has no strong feelings in this area.
Why do you insist on this campaign, Bob?
I also think that it is important to carefully clean up the accusation that Rybka were derived from Fruit, simply because this "derivation" assumption may serve as kind of an excuse for having been allowed to publish parts of copyrighted material as "public domain" source code, provided that has happened (still open for me although many think that everything's fine now after the "BB report").
Sven
-
- Posts: 4186
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:31 pm
- Location: Sulu Sea
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
I feel this is common sense,
a vital part of person's "psyche"
A person's honor/reputation is very important.
If I'm correct, countries even went to war over honor/reputation.
R. Hyatt:
a vital part of person's "psyche"
A person's honor/reputation is very important.
If I'm correct, countries even went to war over honor/reputation.
R. Hyatt:
If one cares about his/her reputation, then one will take the necessary time to defend it when necessary. One will take the necessary time to produce supporting data if it is available.
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
-
- Posts: 8514
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:25 am
- Location: Jerusalem Israel
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
i.e., might (going to war) makes right (reputation)?mariaclara wrote: I feel this is common sense,
a vital part of person's "psyche"
A person's honor/reputation is very important.
If I'm correct, countries even went to war over honor/reputation.
R. Hyatt:
If one cares about his/her reputation, then one will take the necessary time to defend it when necessary. One will take the necessary time to produce supporting data if it is available.
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:56 pm
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
I wonder, did you get permission to publish private emails?
Private emails, like private conversations are not to be published without the consent of both sides. Without the consent its illegal.
Private emails, like private conversations are not to be published without the consent of both sides. Without the consent its illegal.
-
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
There will only be a problem if Vas decides to sue him, which I think is pretty doubtful. {read:no way there will be a problem}oreopoulos wrote:I wonder, did you get permission to publish private emails?
Private emails, like private conversations are not to be published without the consent of both sides. Without the consent its illegal.
However, I think it was a mistake to publish them. If Vas wanted them public, he would have made them public. I have a similar collection of email from Vas that I do not post because he never asked me to do it.
-
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:22 pm
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
oreopoulos wrote:I wonder, did you get permission to publish private emails?
Private emails, like private conversations are not to be published without the consent of both sides. Without the consent its illegal.
Hello Oreopoulos,
This is taken from Sven's first post in this thread.
Note the section in bold and underlined:
Dear readers,
in case someone is interested, please find below the full contents of an email dialogue I had with Vasik Rajlich during the past two days. I did not remove or edit any part of the original emails except mail addresses, line break issues, and presentation of URLs. Both involved parties explicitly allow publishing of these emails in the TalkChess forum.
Later.
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
If you read the actual emails you will see:oreopoulos wrote:I wonder, did you get permission to publish private emails?
Private emails, like private conversations are not to be published without the consent of both sides. Without the consent its illegal.
Date: Sat, 12. Jun 2010 13:59:04
Hi Vasik,
many thanks for your immediate reply! The following points are still open for me, sorry for bothering you again:
1) Do you agree that I publish our email correspondence on TalkChess?
Date: Sun, 13. Jun 2010 11:36:19
Hi Sven,
(1) Sure, that's no problem.
Albert
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:56 pm
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Oh thx. I did read the post twice, but it seems missed it.
mea culpa...
mea culpa...
-
- Posts: 1203
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:49 pm
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Exactly Sven. Thats what I am talking about. In this important point you changed your mind.Sven Schüle wrote:I do consider the theory that the initial working code base of Ippolit was another engine, like Kaissa, as not bad. Indeed I think it is quite likely, taking into account the many differences that have been found between Ippolit and R3,
But VR says Ipp*** is a decompiled Rybka with changes. That's unlikely considdering the differences.
You find your previous answers in EOF. It's not necessary to repeat all the stuff. We can move the further discussion to EOF to keep the general forum cleaner
Best wishes,
Alex