rybka 1.0 and plaggerism: has the case been compiled yet

[Terry McCracken]

BTW, the truth seekers are lions.

Brave Heart

[ozziejoe]

I will be most intrigued to see what the ones remaining silent will find. If after all this time, they find nothing (in addition to what they have presented thus far), will they state this on ICC.


e.g. one of the decompiler's might say, "after x months of searching, we were not able to find plagiarized code. But we still believe the code we showed earlier, which started the debate, is an example of plagiarism."

[Peter Aloysius]

I will be most intrigued to see what the ones remaining silent will find. If after all this time, they find nothing (in addition to what they have presented thus far), will they state this on ICC.


e.g. one of the decompiler's might say, "after x months of searching, we were not able to find plagiarized code. But we still believe the code we showed earlier, which started the debate, is an example of plagiarism."

most probably, whatever prove they gonna have, no matter how convincing it, you guys still reject it.

One of you gonna say "Hey, Vas is a truly genius. He must be smarter than Einstein. He can memorize the whole Fruit source code just by a single glance. That's explain similiarities between Fruit and Rybka. So, that's not prove at all"

[Uri Blass]

I will be most intrigued to see what the ones remaining silent will find. If after all this time, they find nothing (in addition to what they have presented thus far), will they state this on ICC.


e.g. one of the decompiler's might say, "after x months of searching, we were not able to find plagiarized code. But we still believe the code we showed earlier, which started the debate, is an example of plagiarism."

most probably, whatever prove they gonna have, no matter how convincing it, you guys still reject it.

One of you gonna say "Hey, Vas is a truly genius. He must be smarter than Einstein. He can memorize the whole Fruit source code just by a single glance. That's explain similiarities between Fruit and Rybka. So, that's not prove at all"

Even if you are right in everything that you say I do not believe that copying from fruit is the secret of rybka's success.

I do not express an opinion(positive or negative) about the question if Vas copied.

The point is that
my opinion is that in case that Vas copied then Vas replaced so much code that he could write his own program without copying.

This is the reason that I consider Vas as the best programmer regardless of the question if he copied or did not copy.

generating the best program is not enough and in case that rybka was 90% fruit and get the same results my opinion could be different.

Assuming that Vas copied
I think that at the time of Rybka1 Vas could easily delete the small part of similiarity in code to fruit without a big change in playing strength if he wanted to do it in 1 month of work.

Uri

[ozziejoe]

most probably, whatever prove they gonna have, no matter how convincing it, you guys still reject it.

I think people will be responsive to the evidence. You are making an assumption here..



J

[Peter Aloysius]

most probably, whatever prove they gonna have, no matter how convincing it, you guys still reject it.

I think people will be responsive to the evidence. You are making an assumption here..



J

in this case, surely not. You guys gonna defend Rybka and Strelka at all cost. Saying it's just purely coincidence, or vas able to memorize all Fruit source code, the decompiler just jealous, or whatever creative reason that might come into your mind.

See people reaction here? Personal attack to Bob, Christophe, Zach, and others?

[Uri Blass]

most probably, whatever prove they gonna have, no matter how convincing it, you guys still reject it.

I think people will be responsive to the evidence. You are making an assumption here..



J

in this case, surely not. You guys gonna defend Rybka and Strelka at all cost. Saying it's just purely coincidence, or vas able to memorize all Fruit source code, the decompiler just jealous, or whatever creative reason that might come into your mind.

See people reaction here? Personal attack to Bob, Christophe, Zach, and others?

Rybka is not identical to fruit so no need to memorize everything.
Memorizing some patterns may explain similiarity.

If you read and understand fruit then you can clearly remember some ideas even if you write from scratch.

Here are few ideas that you can easily memorize(without talking about code).
1)average between opening and endgame evaluation.
2)evaluating mobilities based on number of squares that the piece can go into them.
3)giving higher weight for mobility of minor pieces.

People can clearly memorize more than it and they can also memorize code patterns(without memorizing the exact source).


You can say that if somebody memorize code patterns he is not allowed to use them.
I will express no opinion about it but you have no way to prove that rybka started from fruit if this is what you try to convince us.

I believe that memorizing every line of fruit is clearly impossible for humans but nobody claims that it happened and even some similiar codes that you posted were clearly not identical.

Uri

[Peter Aloysius]

Here are few ideas that you can easily memorize(without talking about code).
1)average between opening and endgame evaluation.
2)evaluating mobilities based on number of squares that the piece can go into them.
3)giving higher weight for mobility of minor pieces.

People can clearly memorize more than it and they can also memorize code patterns(without memorizing the exact source).

ummm, isn't that common sense? Are you gonna say that queen should valued higher than knight is based on Fruit too? Is queen valued 900, rook 500, knight and bishop 300, based on Fruit too?

You can say that if somebody memorize code patterns he is not allowed to use them.
I will express no opinion about it but you have no way to prove that rybka started from fruit if this is what you try to convince us.

I believe that memorizing every line of fruit is clearly impossible for humans but nobody claims that it happened and even some similiar codes that you posted were clearly not identical.

Uri

What I say is, IF, someone find a lot of similiarities code between Fruit and Rybka, folks here WILL say that Vas able to memorize the whole fruit source code, or just coincidence, or variable names is different, or whatever ridiculous reason to defend Rybka.

Well, they did that already.
See : http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php ... =&start=20

There's no way they let Rybka and Strelka get verdict as not original, whatever the evidences are, since they were too strong.

And by the way, I DO NOT try to convince you that Rybka is based on Fruit. I just DO NOT like the way you defend Rybka, I don't like all ridiculous reason you made just to defend Rybka, and I don't like personal attack to Bob, Christophe, and other decompiler.

[Rolf]

Here are few ideas that you can easily memorize(without talking about code).
1)average between opening and endgame evaluation.
2)evaluating mobilities based on number of squares that the piece can go into them.
3)giving higher weight for mobility of minor pieces.

People can clearly memorize more than it and they can also memorize code patterns(without memorizing the exact source).

ummm, isn't that common sense? Are you gonna say that queen should valued higher than knight is based on Fruit too? Is queen valued 900, rook 500, knight and bishop 300, based on Fruit too?

You can say that if somebody memorize code patterns he is not allowed to use them.
I will express no opinion about it but you have no way to prove that rybka started from fruit if this is what you try to convince us.

I believe that memorizing every line of fruit is clearly impossible for humans but nobody claims that it happened and even some similiar codes that you posted were clearly not identical.

Uri

What I say is, IF, someone find a lot of similiarities code between Fruit and Rybka, folks here WILL say that Vas able to memorize the whole fruit source code, or just coincidence, or variable names is different, or whatever ridiculous reason to defend Rybka.

Well, they did that already.
See : http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php ... =&start=20

There's no way they let Rybka and Strelka get verdict as not original, whatever the evidences are, since they were too strong.

And by the way, I DO NOT try to convince you that Rybka is based on Fruit. I just DO NOT like the way you defend Rybka, I don't like all ridiculous reason you made just to defend Rybka, and I don't like personal attack to Bob, Christophe, and other decompiler.

I hope that you wont gonna emotionally overheated because if you consider for a moment what you actually have in your "hands", you dont gonna accuse and insult someone as a proven culprit, am I right? Because Uri gave you some minor importent little small reasons how that what we actually know - _also_ could be interpreted. But you sounded as if you wanted that we all would gonna into smear activities against Vas simply because _you_ have decided that you would never ever gonna give Vas a fair chance of a fair debate. A second motivation which is neither acceptable could be along the line that yo would gonna argue that you would grant Vas all the rights in this World but he "must" appear her and subito and answer all your questions, if 'not', well, then bad luck, then you had again and even more the right to enter into smear mode. Of course also this is low and ethically forbidden. It's a sort of public lynching.

Let me tell you and also all of your allies who are thinking along a similar track: you all are basically making a verdict on "facts" whose interpretation is ambiguous but _not forcedly_ the only possible one could gonna make. Hence in such a case you can ask questions, you can repeat it if you couldnt understand, but you are not allowed to turn the question on its head as if all who are patiently waiting on better evidence would have mean intentions to defend a proven culprit, more, to praise such a culprit as a holy man. What you simply are missing, that is the logic, why someone is held innocent as long as he wasnt proven guilty. What you also confuse is that your questions and insults against many here is by no means gonna establish proof and verdict. What you do is a sort of daydreaming and hoping that your dreams are gonna become true.

Thanks Uri, for stating the selfunderstood logical rational of the case too.

[Peter Aloysius]

Here are few ideas that you can easily memorize(without talking about code).
1)average between opening and endgame evaluation.
2)evaluating mobilities based on number of squares that the piece can go into them.
3)giving higher weight for mobility of minor pieces.

People can clearly memorize more than it and they can also memorize code patterns(without memorizing the exact source).

ummm, isn't that common sense? Are you gonna say that queen should valued higher than knight is based on Fruit too? Is queen valued 900, rook 500, knight and bishop 300, based on Fruit too?

You can say that if somebody memorize code patterns he is not allowed to use them.
I will express no opinion about it but you have no way to prove that rybka started from fruit if this is what you try to convince us.

I believe that memorizing every line of fruit is clearly impossible for humans but nobody claims that it happened and even some similiar codes that you posted were clearly not identical.

Uri

What I say is, IF, someone find a lot of similiarities code between Fruit and Rybka, folks here WILL say that Vas able to memorize the whole fruit source code, or just coincidence, or variable names is different, or whatever ridiculous reason to defend Rybka.

Well, they did that already.
See : http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php ... =&start=20

There's no way they let Rybka and Strelka get verdict as not original, whatever the evidences are, since they were too strong.

And by the way, I DO NOT try to convince you that Rybka is based on Fruit. I just DO NOT like the way you defend Rybka, I don't like all ridiculous reason you made just to defend Rybka, and I don't like personal attack to Bob, Christophe, and other decompiler.

I hope that you wont gonna gonna emotionally overheated because if you consider for a moment what you actually have in your "hands", you dont gonnagonna accuse and insult someone as a proven culprit, am I right? Because Uri gave you some minor importent little small reasons how that we actually know - also could be interpreted. But you sounded as if you wanted that we all would gonna into smear activities against Vas simply because you have decided that you would never ever gonna give Vas a fair chance of a fair debate.

Let me tell you and also all of your allies who are thinking along a similar track: you all are basically making a verdict on "facts" whose interpretation is ambiguous but not forcedly the only possible one could gonna make. Hence in such a case you can ask questions, you can repeat it if you couldnt understand, but you are not allowed to turn the question on its head as if all who are patiently waiting on better evidence would have mean intentions to defend a proven culprit, more, to praise such a culprit as a holy man. What you simply are missing, that is the logic, why someone is held innocent as long as he wasnt proven guilty. What you also confuse is that your questions and insults against many here is by no means gonna establish proof and verdict. What you do is a sort of daydreaming and hoping that your dreams are gonna become true.

Thanks Uri, for stating the selfunderstood logical rational of the case.

Oops, sorry Rolf. I forgot that it was YOU who made up all ridiculous reason to defend Rybka.

And now you just simply keep saying "innocent until proven guilty" no matter how many prove presented.

Yes, I aware of principle "innocent until proven guilty". But, If it is a trial to Vas, You folks doing whatever you can to keep the prove away, you folks made personal attack to someone who trying to present a prove, you folks keep rejecting a prove without actually looking.

Is that fair? You don't want a fair trial, and now you say "innocent until proven"?