Computer chess scene: a heap of ruins

[JuLieN]

Does anyone else see the sad irony in the fact that this thread, (which initially lamented the current state of of the computer chess community), has now devolved into two respected programmers having a drawn out cat fight?

I do, Tom. I was searching for a picture of a classroom where all the pupils would be wearing a dunce cap, but couldn't find it. I'll now make a last try to reason both camps. Let's see:

To Pro- and Anti- Rybka:
You CAN'T reach an agreement! Why? For a simple reason: you generate new dissension points faster than you can come to an agreement on previous points. So, mathematically, you just keep increasing the distance between you.

Why is it so? There are various reasons, each of you can pick up the ones he sees fit himself:
- because your character prevents you from acknowledging any counter-argument (this is the "I can't be wrong" illusion).
- because the topic is such a very complex matter that spans through a long time scale and many threads on many forums, that you eventually start discussing other points than those your opponent was waiting an answer for, hence ending unsynchronized between each others and not able at all to talk to each others.
- because you have an agenda and are ready to compromise with your own definition of what the truth is, in order to reach a goal you think is more important than your moral integrity.
- because you are very sensitive and tend to get upset and overreact, seeing allusions where your clumsy opponent put none.
- because you let personal hostility to someone from the other side shape your thinking, instead of letting it all into the hands of logics and truth seeking.
- because some retards from your side eventually get an influence over your judgement after having slowly but surely damaged your objectivity with their crazy obsessions.
- because some of you might even like to disagree, and just keep pouring oil over the fire for the sake of fighting.
- because, and maybe I should have started with this one, you feel you are protecting some important ethics but this one would be so blurry and badly defined that you keep skirmishing on distantly related topics you're opening, unable you are to focus on the big picture.

One last question: you are programmers, how comes you can't identify an infinite loop when you see one that is obvious to anyone else?

Oh, there it is, I finally found the picture I was searching for

[mhull]

If you're going to reach out your hand, you should make it on a point where you gave offense with false accusations (emphasis mine):

Conveniently quoting huh?

Skipping the rest of the posting you refer too ?

What's causing the huge branch factor difference between 23.2 and 23.3 ?
Whatever the answer, it's not your original idea. You heard it from someone. And that person heard it from another one.
And In the end the origin of the idea comes from the hacked Rybka.
You Robert Hyatt are using idea's in Crafty that smell Rybka.
Hacked Rybka.
Idea's never meant to be yours.
Yet you use them.

It's what you get if you declare full war on someone, things get a bit more spicy.

Within the scope (the red) it simply is valid. Still is, for every chess programmer, this from the beginning of CC times. Programmers taking ideas they hear, read in fora, read sources. All okay as long as you write you own CODE.

Now look back in that thread and show me where I accused Bob of copying. You won't find it. Don't refer to my initial remark, that was supposed to be a self-understood joke between 2 chess programmers which Bob took the wrong way.

You don't get it. I'm talking about how you were wrong to claim the source of the branching factor improvement was from rybka, insisting Bob could not possibly have found that resource on his own. That is highly insulting, implying "It came from anywhere but Bob (since he's not smart enough)".

[wgarvin]

Vas would be right where he is today with Rybka, strengthwise, even if Fruit had never existed. I admit Kaufman is not a programmer, but I agree with what he said about it- tho quote is not "word for word"- "What Vas took from Fruit basically saved him maybe 2, 3 weeks of work. I would say it had nothing to do with any increase in Rybka's strength. That came from Vas' abilities."

Tho I know you would rather be chained to a stovepipe in hell than hear that opinion from "anyone". Making sure he is out of the way has become your life's mission. If not, then somehow you are magically living in a world that has many more than 24 hours a day- or you would never get anything else done.

Opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one.

Here's mine:

I think an eval as strong as Fruit's takes a lot longer than 2-3 weeks to come up with. I think he saved himself at least several months of work, and if he had written his own eval from scratch there's no guarantee he would have even been able to make one as strong as the one from Fruit.

By copying the complete feature set from Fruit's eval, I think Vas gained a significant advantage over his competitors.

[Rebel]

You don't get it. I'm talking about how you were wrong to claim the source of the branching factor improvement was from rybka, insisting Bob could not possibly have found that resource on his own. That is highly insulting, implying "It came from anywhere but Bob (since he's not smart enough)".

What you don't get is that chess programmers (like any other group of specialists) have their own language use, they don't need long sentences to communicate, often half of a word is enough. Which was the case here.

Miguel got it, I received email from another programmer who got it. They all got it except Bob, or did he get it after all? Of course. Now think about why Bob took my (programmer language) the wrong way. It's not so hard if you claim to understand programmer language.

And remember, it was not me who started that war 3 months back.

Were things ugly? Yes. Why? Because Bob turned an innocent remark into a false accusation because....... well that's for you to figure out.

Also remember, it was not me who resurrected that old cow here on CCC.

[michiguel]

Your links actually fit in what I say.

BTW, I wrote Gaviota w/o studying other programs. Can I say that I was not influenced by them? No. Even when I tested ideas before they implemented them. For instance, I tested LMR/LMP before Glaurung ever existed. But I was influenced by it!! How? It did not work for me, and discarded it (same with Bob, because I tested something like that inspired in a comment from him, around 2001). But, when I came back to CC in 2005-6 after three year hiatus, I saw the success of the technique, and I put it in my to-do list. Knowing that it should work, I worked until I found a successful condition (last year).

Miguel

Hello Dr. Ballicora,

What's with the "Dr." and the last name?

Respectfully, we disagree.

Ed is not describing what you are describing up top.

Ed is around, so he can talk about it. I wanted to give the original links so the people could read by themselves.

Dr. Hyatt has always given credit where it is due in Crafty.
Always.

Yes, but was not the point.

I accept that Gavota is 100% original which means that any ideas in it were interpreted by you and implemented by you in your distinct style. I have always been a fan of your engine from way before Rybka incidentally. Not sure why you mention its genesis here but there has never been a doubt here....

As an example of how I was influenced by others.

I accept the same about Crafty. In a sense, what I accept is irrelevant, because Crafty is out there, under continuous development for decades, for all to see.

Yet there was even an attempt to indicate that Crafty copied from Fruit.

No, you have been misled, but it is not your fault.

I found a table in Crafty that is identical in Fruit after a "challenge". That did not demonstrate copying, it was related to completely different issue, but people pass information in an imperfect way. You got the final result of a broken chain, which had sarcastic comments by some, hyperbolic amplifications, and all of the sudden you hear "crafty copied fruit".

That is similar to what happened with Ed here. The original point mutated into something completely different.

Better to listen to Ed, rather than what any spectator claims he said.

Miguel

Yes I am aware that you said nothing of the sort Dr. Ballicora but it requires a literal mindset to conclude that merely learning from ideas was what was intended.

Perhaps I am unreasonable in my interpretive skills.

Later.

[bob]

Yes, Ed, I got that point: having signed a bit too fast the ICGA letter and then having second thoughts make you feel responsible for Vas.

Absolutely not my friend. I would do it for Bob in a similar situation.

Best to you,

Ed

Hmm from the SAME person that accused me of copying code from ippolit/robolito??? I didn't notice you defending me there. I noticed you making false statements and then being unable to back them up. I even gave you the diff output for the search code you said contained robo* code.

There's more to this story than just "I believe (now) that he didn't copy anything."

I witness the discussion, and he did NOT accused you of copying CODE.

Miguel

I saw some of it. Ed accussed Bob of copying code.

No.

Miguel

YES!

Open Chess, go look.

Look at page 1 of General Topics. Bob started a thread "Still waiting for Ed". The topic was whether or not ideas from Robbolito could be found in Crafty 23.4.

I've read it.

Talking about VR's legacy and how he indirectly influenced top programs
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... 1&start=13

And how the "ideas" word "turned" into "code" word
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... 1&start=32

Ed clearly did not mention code. But the myth propagated and stayed in many people's mind. It was repeated several times, and now, he is constantly accused of accusing Bob of copying CODE, and being called nuts because of that. Nobody remember how it started, but I do.

And by the way, Ed was completely right about the "legacy point" and how it was completely ignored in the press, when they released the news.

Miguel

No rational person discusses legacy when discussing a criminal act. "This guy donated millions to various charity organizations. Unfortunately, the ponzi scheme he was running caused WorldCom to fail and millions lost a big part of their retirement in the aftermath?" What a legacy. Would Vas have even had a "legacy" if he had not copied the code of others? Impossible to say.

Vas would be right where he is today with Rybka, strengthwise, even if Fruit had never existed. I admit Kaufman is not a programmer, but I agree with what he said about it- tho quote is not "word for word"- "What Vas took from Fruit basically saved him maybe 2, 3 weeks of work. I would say it had nothing to do with any increase in Rybka's strength. That came from Vas' abilities."

Tho I know you would rather be chained to a stovepipe in hell than hear that opinion from "anyone". Making sure he is out of the way has become your life's mission. If not, then somehow you are magically living in a world that has many more than 24 hours a day- or you would never get anything else done.

What Vas took from fruit saved a LOT more than 2-3 weeks. The savings is beyond even 2-3 months. Writing an ORIGINAL program from scratch is a serious programming exercise. Not a 2-3 week task.

[bob]

Vas would be right where he is today with Rybka, strengthwise, even if Fruit had never existed. I admit Kaufman is not a programmer, but I agree with what he said about it- tho quote is not "word for word"- "What Vas took from Fruit basically saved him maybe 2, 3 weeks of work. I would say it had nothing to do with any increase in Rybka's strength. That came from Vas' abilities."

Tho I know you would rather be chained to a stovepipe in hell than hear that opinion from "anyone". Making sure he is out of the way has become your life's mission. If not, then somehow you are magically living in a world that has many more than 24 hours a day- or you would never get anything else done.

Opinions are like assholes -- everybody has one.

Here's mine:

I think an eval as strong as Fruit's takes a lot longer than 2-3 weeks to come up with. I think he saved himself at least several months of work, and if he had written his own eval from scratch there's no guarantee he would have even been able to make one as strong as the one from Fruit.

By copying the complete feature set from Fruit's eval, I think Vas gained a significant advantage over his competitors.

You left out part of that quote:

"Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, nobody wants to look at anyone else's..."

[bob]

You said, explicitly, that there were "rybka ideas in Crafty." I am STILL waiting for you to point out one in the version you quoted. Still.

Bob, you CAN NOT repeat accusations without addressing my points first.

No good science.

Quote from open-chess: Finally, we changed the reduction (LMR) code very slightly. In version 23.2, I reduced by 1 ply. In 23.3 I reduce by 2 plies,

Please explain the ORIGIN of that idea.

Tord, and Fruit. Good enough? This was never a secret. You can find long discussions here when I started working on this. First thing I discovered, the history part of Fruit's reduction code was useless. (the "history threshold idea"). In fact, the first I heard of the idea was around 1997 from Bruce. We both experimented a bit but threw it away as too tactically damaging. But we were not being very selective about what was reduced and what was not. Fruit came out with some reasonable ideas such as not reducing checks, captures, pawn pushes, or moves with a "history value" > xxxx (this latter idea was useless).

Does that answer your question. I (and most others) were doing reductions before Rybka existed.

It's what the whole issue is about, taking idea's from others. And there is nothing wrong with that. You know that.

And not once have you seen me state otherwise, either...

But my initial teasing remark made you aware of something you never realized before, right ?

Nope. I still don't see the point, myself, since no "rybka ideas" have made it into Crafty (as of yet).

While I was expecting an usual teasing remark in return you declared full ware on me instead.

No "full war". I just expected you to retract a statement if you could not support it with some sort of evidence. You only have to read through my source to see ideas attributed to the person I first saw mention them.

[bob]

You don't get it. I'm talking about how you were wrong to claim the source of the branching factor improvement was from rybka, insisting Bob could not possibly have found that resource on his own. That is highly insulting, implying "It came from anywhere but Bob (since he's not smart enough)".

What you don't get is that chess programmers (like any other group of specialists) have their own language use, they don't need long sentences to communicate, often half of a word is enough. Which was the case here.

Miguel got it, I received email from another programmer who got it. They all got it except Bob, or did he get it after all? Of course. Now think about why Bob took my (programmer language) the wrong way. It's not so hard if you claim to understand programmer language.

And remember, it was not me who started that war 3 months back.

Were things ugly? Yes. Why? Because Bob turned an innocent remark into a false accusation because....... well that's for you to figure out.

Also remember, it was not me who resurrected that old cow here on CCC.

I turned a simple statement into a simple statement and asked for justification for it. Nothing more, nothing less. You made a direct implication that I had ideas that were copied from the "rybka family" into Crafty. I knew it was false. I asked for proof. Did you, at the time, say "this is a joke?" or "I was only joking?"

[Watchman]

What you don't get is that chess programmers (like any other group of specialists) have their own language use, they don't need long sentences to communicate, often half of a word is enough. Which was the case here.

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."

Miguel got it, I received email from another programmer who got it.

Ed and Miguel at Talkchess.

They all got it except Bob, or did he get it after all?

"Sokath... his eyes uncovered."

Of course. Now think about why Bob took my (programmer language) the wrong way. It's not so hard if you claim to understand programmer language.

"Kiteo... his eyes closed. Shaka... when the walls fell."

And remember, it was not me who started that war 3 months back.

"The beast at Tanagra."

Were things ugly? Yes. Why? Because Bob turned an innocent remark into a false accusation because....... well that's for you to figure out.

"Zinda... his face black... his eyes red. Uzani... his army with fists open."

Also remember, it was not me who resurrected that old cow here on CCC.

"The river Temarc... in winter. Darmok on the ocean."

"Temba... at rest."