I felt basically the same way about your post.Sven Schüle wrote:Has basically the same contents as: "I have not read your post. But it is wrong."bob wrote:I am not going thru the rest of your comments point by point as that serves no purpose. If you don't want to believe he copied code, that's your choice. But certainly nothing you offer above says _anything_ about the topic.
*sigh*
Sven
My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 1922
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:51 am
- Location: Earth
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
-
- Posts: 12540
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Here is what I feel is the basic problem:Zach Wegner wrote:I felt basically the same way about your post.Sven Schüle wrote:Has basically the same contents as: "I have not read your post. But it is wrong."bob wrote:I am not going thru the rest of your comments point by point as that serves no purpose. If you don't want to believe he copied code, that's your choice. But certainly nothing you offer above says _anything_ about the topic.
*sigh*
Sven
Both sides have valid points.
The opinions of both sides have some possible merit.
In chess programming, we have a very competitive environment. If we see something has been done and it feels wrong, we assume that wrongdoing must have taken place. Is it possible that what we want is what we prove?
On the other hand, there is very compelling evidence that some Rybka code has striking resemblance to some Fruit code. Since Fruit is GPL, to simply use the the code is definitely breaking the law. Is it possible that we ignore abuse of the Fruit code simply because we like Vas or because we like Rybka? (BTW, I am guilty of liking both Rybka and Vas and so this may possibly color *my* decision making process).
Many have probably noticed that I tend to err on the absurd side of not assuming guilt. Personally, I think that is the best approach, but your actual mileage may vary.
-
- Posts: 6081
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
- Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Since I was informed of a deletion of a message I repeat the text which was slightly edited by Graham for reasons unknown to me because I didnt write anything offensive or against the charter. But I dont dispute decisions by mods.
quote of the text:
bob wrote:
"leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.
BB isnt expert but anonymous. Zach isnt expert but a youngster without experience, not mentioning other aspects and questions questions. Who are your experts? The whole Hipp experts are anonymous cowards. Who else? Norm Schmidt? A cloner? So, who are your experts? Mine are Vasik, The Champion and some others.
Also to Sven Schüle many thanks and compliments for the hard work.
quote of the text:
bob wrote:
"leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.
BB isnt expert but anonymous. Zach isnt expert but a youngster without experience, not mentioning other aspects and questions questions. Who are your experts? The whole Hipp experts are anonymous cowards. Who else? Norm Schmidt? A cloner? So, who are your experts? Mine are Vasik, The Champion and some others.
Also to Sven Schüle many thanks and compliments for the hard work.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
-
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:05 am
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?Rolf wrote:Since I was informed of a deletion of a message I repeat the text which was slightly edited by Graham for reasons unknown to me because I didnt write anything offensive or against the charter. But I dont dispute decisions by mods.
quote of the text:
bob wrote:
"leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.
BB isnt expert but anonymous. Zach isnt expert but a youngster without experience, not mentioning other aspects and questions questions. Who are your experts? The whole Hipp experts are anonymous cowards. Who else? Norm Schmidt? A cloner? So, who are your experts? Mine are Vasik, The Champion and some others.
Also to Sven Schüle many thanks and compliments for the hard work.
-
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:13 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
He didn't read/comprehend the BB report, so yeah.benstoker wrote:Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?Rolf wrote:Since I was informed of a deletion of a message I repeat the text which was slightly edited by Graham for reasons unknown to me because I didnt write anything offensive or against the charter. But I dont dispute decisions by mods.
quote of the text:
bob wrote:
"leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.
BB isnt expert but anonymous. Zach isnt expert but a youngster without experience, not mentioning other aspects and questions questions. Who are your experts? The whole Hipp experts are anonymous cowards. Who else? Norm Schmidt? A cloner? So, who are your experts? Mine are Vasik, The Champion and some others.
Also to Sven Schüle many thanks and compliments for the hard work.
Oh, and BB isn't anonymous, Zach Wegner met him in person, and IIRC Larry Kaufman thinks the report is accurate.
Peter
-
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:12 pm
- Location: Whitchurch. Shropshire, UK.
- Full name: Harvey Williamson
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
I still think it would be nice for him to come out of the closet so all can evaluate his credibility.alpha123 wrote:He didn't read/comprehend the BB report, so yeah.benstoker wrote:Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?Rolf wrote:Since I was informed of a deletion of a message I repeat the text which was slightly edited by Graham for reasons unknown to me because I didnt write anything offensive or against the charter. But I dont dispute decisions by mods.
quote of the text:
bob wrote:
"leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.
BB isnt expert but anonymous. Zach isnt expert but a youngster without experience, not mentioning other aspects and questions questions. Who are your experts? The whole Hipp experts are anonymous cowards. Who else? Norm Schmidt? A cloner? So, who are your experts? Mine are Vasik, The Champion and some others.
Also to Sven Schüle many thanks and compliments for the hard work.
Oh, and BB isn't anonymous, Zach Wegner met him in person, and IIRC Larry Kaufman thinks the report is accurate.
Peter
I am 99% certain I know who he is. I have seen his posts as BB on the Rybka forum for many years. His real name was not one I had heard of although he has a presence on the web.
-
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:34 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Harvey Williamson wrote:I still think it would be nice for him to come out of the closet so all can evaluate his credibility.alpha123 wrote:He didn't read/comprehend the BB report, so yeah.benstoker wrote:Rolf, are saying that the BB report should be disregarded and ignored?Rolf wrote:Since I was informed of a deletion of a message I repeat the text which was slightly edited by Graham for reasons unknown to me because I didnt write anything offensive or against the charter. But I dont dispute decisions by mods.
quote of the text:
bob wrote:
"leave it to the experts" means just that. But if you "leave it to them" you have to act based on their discussions.
BB isnt expert but anonymous. Zach isnt expert but a youngster without experience, not mentioning other aspects and questions questions. Who are your experts? The whole Hipp experts are anonymous cowards. Who else? Norm Schmidt? A cloner? So, who are your experts? Mine are Vasik, The Champion and some others.
Also to Sven Schüle many thanks and compliments for the hard work.
Oh, and BB isn't anonymous, Zach Wegner met him in person, and IIRC Larry Kaufman thinks the report is accurate.
Peter
I am 99% certain I know who he is. I have seen his posts as BB on the Rybka forum for many years. His real name was not one I had heard of although he has a presence on the web.
Shaun Press is in Canberra as far as i know.
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~shaun/
.....not Canada.
http://www.rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka ... l?uid=2060
You mean the Vanilla Chess author right?
Also....those are not the piece square tables in Rybka as we know them. The ones in the paper I mean. Here is just a little sample somewhat more precise from something we assume is quite close to what he says he used.
king_a1_op=43.97
king_a2_op=42.97
king_a3_op=40.97
king_a4_op=38.97
king_a5_op=36.97
king_a6_op=34.97
king_a7_op=32.97
king_a8_op=31.97
king_a1_eg=-66.28
king_a2_eg=-44.19
king_a3_eg=-33.13
king_a4_eg=-22.09
king_a5_eg=-22.09
king_a6_eg=-33.13
king_a7_eg=-44.19
king_a8_eg=-66.28
Still waters run deep.
Chris
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
Lets assume (just assume nothing more) for a second that what you write is true. These values are far more different from Ippolit values than the values BB presented (btw. Larry agreed on BB's values )Christopher Conkie wrote:Also....those are not the piece square tables in Rybka as we know them. The ones in the paper I mean. Here is just a little sample somewhat more precise from something we assume is quite close to what he says he used.
king_a1_op=43.97
king_a2_op=42.97
king_a3_op=40.97
king_a4_op=38.97
king_a5_op=36.97
king_a6_op=34.97
king_a7_op=32.97
king_a8_op=31.97
king_a1_eg=-66.28
king_a2_eg=-44.19
king_a3_eg=-33.13
king_a4_eg=-22.09
king_a5_eg=-22.09
king_a6_eg=-33.13
king_a7_eg=-44.19
king_a8_eg=-66.28
So, are you trying to defend Ippolit Chris? Because, this is exactly that what you are doing here...
-
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:34 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
I'm saying that the values he is using for Rybka 3 in his paper, are not the values we know.Milos wrote: Lets assume (just assume nothing more) for a second that what you write is true. These values are far more different from Ippolit values than the values BB presented (btw. Larry agreed on BB's values )
So, are you trying to defend Ippolit Chris? Because, this is exactly that what you are doing here...
Apart from that I have shown you only one file, which is no use whatsoever to you to compare things, if you do not know the complete table.
The values he has for Ippolit are correct, so I suppose he is half right.
It kinda makes the comparison of the two things a dead duck if half his data is wrong.
-
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am
Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich
I don't know how to tell you this, but these values are quite well known and of course what BB presented is correct.Christopher Conkie wrote:I'm saying that the values he is using for Rybka 3 in his paper, are not the values we know.
Apart from that I have shown you only one file, which is no use whatsoever to you to compare things, if you do not know the complete table.
The values he has for Ippolit are correct, so I suppose he is half right.
It kinda makes the comparison of the two things a dead duck if half his data is wrong.
For example:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=15164
And your values is something you've just invented. Similarly as you invented the values for LMR last time you posted "similarities" between Rybka and Ippo.
But I just let you write a bit of gibberish as usual because your "invented values" were actually defending Ippo. In your hopeless attempt to discredit BB, you didn't even check the values. Now, that's the really funny part.
Funny is also that Larry didn't know the right values, or at least he got confused, and latter admitted the values are correct .
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 18&t=31972
So did you also mistakenly take the values from some previous Rybka?