TalkChess.com

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

Sven Schüle wrote:To the CCC mods: I suggest to leave this article here in the "General Topics" subforum as I think it might be of long-term general interest for everyone interested in computer chess, although I would also accept a different decision if that fits the current policy better.

I did not expect this post to stay in the general forum. But it looks like VR can accuse others of cloning without proof here, while discussions and defending opinions are moved to the private forum as well as founded accusations against Rybka.

Why don't you guys make VR's opinions sticky?

And why don't we place a Rybka banner at the top?

Instead of hysteria, you might consider that the mods live in different time zones, and some mods are not actually active anymore.

benstoker wrote:

Sven Schüle wrote: 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.

Best regards,
Vas

Vas says he doesn't have the source code for Rybka 3. Surely he doesn't mean he lost it. Did he just sell it to Chessbase or something? Is that what he means? Even so, why would he be so "careless"? What does that mean? Careless in losing the source code? Careless to sell it to someone?

He says he's keeping the source for Rybka 4, but doesn't have the source for Rybka 3. Therefore, Rybka 4 must have hardly any code from Rybka 3.

I can actually buy that particular point. Years ago, somewhere in the later 90's, I had a disk failure where one of the internal platters actually shattered and cratered the entire drive so that even a recovery company said "no can do." We had been doing backups for a couple of years using a SCSI tape drive. It never reported any sort of error, and we had so few file losses (mostly students removing files by accident) that we didn't use them very much. However, when my disk crashed and I replaced it, we discovered that not a single one of our backups of my files was usable. Not a one. As a result, I lost a ton of stuff, including every crafty version from 1.0 forward (I now have maybe 3-4 versions prior to 13.0 that others saved for various reasons). I lost all of my carefully saved Cray Blitz log files from various events we had participated in over the years. Copies of programs like chess 4.x, Coko IV, and you name-it.

So I can buy that given the right set of circumstances that source could be lost. I now have copies of everything on my office machine, our office NFS server, and on ny laptop, plus a few DVD backups here and there. Hopefully at least one of those survives the next catastrophic failure.

benstoker wrote: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.

Albert Silver wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote: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.

Vasik Rajlich wrote: (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).

bob wrote: 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.

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.

Zach Wegner wrote:

Vasik Rajlich wrote: (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.

Alexander Schmidt wrote: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.

K I Hyams wrote:

Zach Wegner wrote:

Vasik Rajlich wrote: (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

*@# 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.