TalkChess.com

I was tipped off regarding some CCC hysteria and since I can never
resist a good flamewar, here I am I haven't read too much since the
volume of posts is amazing and most don't contain any substance
on whether or not Rybka violates the GPL.

But first let me say that regardless of its origins Rybka 3 is an
amazing program. Normally we associate a program with certain
weaknesses or strengths - Hiarcs attacks the king, perhaps too much,
while Shredder is strong in the endgame and Zappa gets good parallel
speedups but takes a while to get started. The amazing thing about
Rybka is that they managed to fix most of 2.3.2's weaknesses (poor
time management, king attacks, and tactics) while retaining its
strengths (super deep search and insane nps). A really impressive
piece of software.

Regarding the controversy, I can sympathise with Zach and Christophe,
especially because I have made similar mistakes in the past. Trying
to make a technical argument to an audience that has neither the
expertise to judge for themselves nor the discipline to stick to the
facts just doesn't work. And it is difficult to really criticize
normal people for either of those. I am sure that there are many
areas in which I would be the audience and they would be the expert,
and learning to stick to facts and debate dispassionately is hard. I
think it is a big part of graduate school - you get to say that you
are wrong a lot Accordingly I'm not going to give my personal
opinion on the issue, since after all I'm just another self-proclaimed
expert.

However, I am going to disregard my precepts slightly and try to give
an analogy. Multiple people have claimed that two programmers, given
the same ideas, could produce similar code. Bob has rightly claimed
this is very unlikely. Imagine that writing code is like a chess
game. Each move is equivalent to each statement in the program. What
is the chance of two identical chess games? Even if they are in the
same opening or by the same player or by two players with a similar
style? We can even throw some pseudo mathematics on this. The x86
instruction set is almost perfectly dense (this is a big problem
because almost any random byte string is a legal x86 program). So
there are some 10^100000 x86 programs of 500KB in size. Obviously,
most of them aren't chess programs, many won't run, but still - the
space is HUGE.

Finally, the people who think that Zach is somehow discrediting
himself with this are insane. He may or may not be wrong, but IMHO he
has conducted himself with remarkable composure, especially for
someone only 20 years old. When I was 20 I was busy insulting Charles
Worthington's Xeon and faking Fritz screenshots (actually, that thread
is still pretty funny - http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=292219 - but still a bit immature).

Anyway, back to my cave.

cheers,

anthony

P.S. If anyone is curious what I'm doing nowadays, you can check out
www.diggingfordatastructures.com (actually a side project for some
research published at OSDI). And if anyone says this is a tool for
reverse engineering Rybka, I will personally reach through the
internet and kick them. Chess engines don't use many data structures.

Hello Anthony!

Thanks for coming out of your cave for a few minutes to give your take. It does make me look at the whole flamewar and just laugh--one of the threads I started is almost 60 pages long, with maybe 10 meaningful posts... Pretty ridiculous, but I might set a record with that one!

Zappa wrote:Finally, the people who think that Zach is somehow discrediting
himself with this are insane. He may or may not be wrong, but IMHO he
has conducted himself with remarkable composure, especially for
someone only 20 years old. When I was 20 I was busy insulting Charles
Worthington's Xeon and faking Fritz screenshots (actually, that thread
is still pretty funny - http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=292219 - but still a bit immature).

That is pretty funny--I think I can remember reading it in fact. Just for kicks, here's a post I made a week later, at 16: http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=359959

P.S. If anyone is curious what I'm doing nowadays, you can check out
www.diggingfordatastructures.com (actually a side project for some
research published at OSDI). And if anyone says this is a tool for
reverse engineering Rybka, I will personally reach through the
internet and kick them. Chess engines don't use many data structures.

Very fascinating. Good to see that you're using Lisp too. Too bad I don't have that sort of money to spare, I would like to support you by getting that!

Really though, it's hard for you to say that the name wasn't inspired by Strelka!

Thanks Anthony,

I hope all is going well for you! It's always good to hear your views.

Take Care
Ted

More than to make your sharp, scholarly distinction between experts and we, low laymen, you does not say too much.
In this field I am certainly a layman and you are the expert, but experts and laymen obey the same laws of logic or simple common sense. And common sense say that no matter which part of a code Vas used from another guy, the final result, as you yourself recognizes, surpasse everything known to date.
I am still waiting the day when logic will be inverted in such a manner that a simple clone will be times better than the thing it copied. Clone is a clone is a clone. A derivative is only such. A program tha comes from other can be equal, worst in any degree or slightly better, but not so much better. If it is so much better, it is then another thing. It became another thing. And as such it digested to make something else of the opiginal stuff he devoured.

Hungry regards
Fern

Good to see you well and still kicking Anthony
Regards,
Dr.Wael Deeb

Zappa wrote:I was tipped off regarding some CCC hysteria and since I can never
resist a good flamewar, here I am I haven't read too much since the
volume of posts is amazing and most don't contain any substance
on whether or not Rybka violates the GPL.

But first let me say that regardless of its origins Rybka 3 is an
amazing program. Normally we associate a program with certain
weaknesses or strengths - Hiarcs attacks the king, perhaps too much,
while Shredder is strong in the endgame and Zappa gets good parallel
speedups but takes a while to get started. The amazing thing about
Rybka is that they managed to fix most of 2.3.2's weaknesses (poor
time management, king attacks, and tactics) while retaining its
strengths (super deep search and insane nps). A really impressive
piece of software.

Regarding the controversy, I can sympathise with Zach and Christophe,
especially because I have made similar mistakes in the past. Trying
to make a technical argument to an audience that has neither the
expertise to judge for themselves nor the discipline to stick to the
facts just doesn't work. And it is difficult to really criticize
normal people for either of those. I am sure that there are many
areas in which I would be the audience and they would be the expert,
and learning to stick to facts and debate dispassionately is hard. I
think it is a big part of graduate school - you get to say that you
are wrong a lot Accordingly I'm not going to give my personal
opinion on the issue, since after all I'm just another self-proclaimed
expert.

However, I am going to disregard my precepts slightly and try to give
an analogy. Multiple people have claimed that two programmers, given
the same ideas, could produce similar code. Bob has rightly claimed
this is very unlikely. Imagine that writing code is like a chess
game. Each move is equivalent to each statement in the program. What
is the chance of two identical chess games? Even if they are in the
same opening or by the same player or by two players with a similar
style? We can even throw some pseudo mathematics on this. The x86
instruction set is almost perfectly dense (this is a big problem
because almost any random byte string is a legal x86 program). So
there are some 10^100000 x86 programs of 500KB in size. Obviously,
most of them aren't chess programs, many won't run, but still - the
space is HUGE.

Finally, the people who think that Zach is somehow discrediting
himself with this are insane. He may or may not be wrong, but IMHO he
has conducted himself with remarkable composure, especially for
someone only 20 years old. When I was 20 I was busy insulting Charles
Worthington's Xeon and faking Fritz screenshots (actually, that thread
is still pretty funny - http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=292219 - but still a bit immature).

Anyway, back to my cave.

cheers,

anthony

P.S. If anyone is curious what I'm doing nowadays, you can check out
www.diggingfordatastructures.com (actually a side project for some
research published at OSDI). And if anyone says this is a tool for
reverse engineering Rybka, I will personally reach through the
internet and kick them. Chess engines don't use many data structures.

You say that Zach takes no damage even if he's wrong with all that here. I disagree. Because if Zach understood to decide if he's engaged in the right place against the right "culprit" for the right hypotheses, he definitely wouldnt participate in this here. Because it cant reach nowhere. Vas is classes better because he doesnt speak here.

Excuses to all members, but after the recent events it cant be said that everything relevant MUST by all means happen here in CCC. And with that argument this is all finished. And that will last on Zach for ages as a debt, no matter how talented he should be overall. In special also because Zach was always visiting and writing in Rybka forum.

Also this. The tone that came into all this here will last to burden on those who will be proven wrong in future. That's for sure. In this context it's also important how people like Zach qualified, disqualified Vas in a period of the debate when nothing has been proven yet. That is caled prejudice in Europe and everywhere.

A personal P.S.

I cant tell what is wrong here forobvious reasons. I have no idea. If I had suspicions or ideas then I would do something before I would attack someone like Vas for a wrongdoing: I would seek 100% proof and if possible the advice of legal experts for the question if what I saw would have any legal relevance at all.

Dont take me wrong. Everything could be researched and doubted - but not with these verbal terminology and with a personally directed insult. That should be clear out of itself.

If I for one had asked and attacked those who were to get Vas, it was always meant in that context. I have anothing point: if someone isnt absolutely sober himself, he shouldnt be in such a public campaign against someone like Vas. Because it hurts the whole arguments.

In this regard my purpose is similar to the one Fernando is trying to argue. Like him I see a clear gap between the tech side and what is legally meant against Vas. It would help if some of the crew would add something to this question. This here is a public demonstration and it should consider how something could backfire legally, especially to those from Europe. IMO. All IMO.

Zappa wrote:Finally, the people who think that Zach is somehow discrediting himself with this are insane. He may or may not be wrong, but IMHO he has conducted himself with remarkable composure, especially for someone only 20 years old.

Agree. I'm rather surprised Zach would put effort at what I would consider, with a little bit of experience in it myself, "the boring task" of manually analyzing engines (more interesting would be to create a program that finds similarities automatically ). However, from what little I've read in this discussion, I too do not believe he has done anything that would possibly damage his reputation in my eyes.

Yes, Zach is doing right. With dignity.

GenoM wrote:Yes, Zach is doing right. With dignity.

Agreed. No doubt about it. He's far more mature than most of the members even though he is only 20 something.

A lot of teenagers in the US back in college behave more or less like Holden character in "Catcher in the Rye"

swami wrote:Agreed. No doubt about it. He's far more mature than most of the members even though he is only 20 something.

20 exactly until November.

Thanks for the support guys. It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.