Computer chess scene: a heap of ruins

[bob]

Read again: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?p=13104#p13104

The topic from the beginning was (and always has been) your flat out denial of the obvious, the denial your mind remained unaffected looking at Strelka (=Rybka) sources, discussing Strelka sources in fora etc.

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.

After my initial teasing remark (programmer to programmer) to remove all Rybka code from Crafty that came with a smiley you declared full war on me.

You took it the wrong way Bob and you wouldn't listen and became unreasonable.

You still do.

I reached my hand out here on CCC to you, instead of taking it you decided to bite by bringing up an old score.

So now what? Two old men have proven today they can behave at Rybka forum so why not here?

I will answer your questions nevertheless.

Simple and easy to answer question: You gave a specific version that saw an improvement in the branching factor, as your "smoking gun" that I had copied ideas (or code) from strelka/robo*.

It should have been an eye-opener because you don't know (and can't know) the origin of the idea (double LMR reductions), explained in the link on top.

I gave you a diff of that version and the previous version. Did you see ANY robo* idea that was ADDED? Or did you see two lines of code that were tuned, constant-wise, and which are not even present in robo*?

Wrong question because you were (and still are) moving outside the scope of my initial teasing remark from programmer to programmer (!!!) to remove all Rybka code from Crafty that came with a smiley.

Explain to me how you possibly could take that literal since we both know that copying CODE from an external source into your own code is nearly mission impossible due to all kind of conficting stuff, variable names to begin with.

It was always about idea's. And explained to you numerous times.

Your goal here, and then, was simply to divert attention away from the fruit/rybka discussion.

Funny, it was the time I held Vas for a copy boy.

Please show the "idea" that was ADDED to Crafty between the two versions you pointed out. I diff'ed the code to show that there was no new code at all, that I had tuned, via an accidental discovery, futility pruning to go beyond the "idea" that WAS taken from Heinz's "scalable search" dissertation. The Heinz paper far pre-dates fruit/rybka. See his explanation of futility pruning and extended futility pruning. I took it one level further by accident, and when I found it worked pretty well, I tried 2 levels further and got a better result. I tried 3 and found no change at all and stopped at 2. Without looking at or discussing strelka or rybka (ippolit).

You can easily verify this by comparing the two versions... I do not object to copying ideas when they work. And I have given credit to those whose ideas I HAVE used in the past. Thompson's hashing algorithm. Nalimov's EGTB stuff. Pradu's magic move actual code (although I had to modify it a bit). null-move. reductions (from fruit). etc. I simply have NOT looked at robo* and friends at all, except for one idea that others were discussing and which did not make sense to me (tt-singular idea). I tried it and tossed it.

And, like it or not, that is the way things actually are, rather than how you might imagine (or wish) they were... I don't see anything particularly "funny" about accusing anyone of doing something they explicitly say they did not do. And normally, should I do that, I would provide some sort of supporting evidence...

[bob]

This whole depressing episode is the direct result of numerous people violating one or more of the seven deadly sins, chiefly greed, pride, wrath, envy and sloth.

No. This whole depressing episode is the direct result of one person violating one or more of the instructions in Leviticus 19:11.

“Ye shall not steal; neither shall ye deal falsely, nor lie one to another”.

I'm not up on this whole episode with Fruit and the Clones, but as I recall Fabien put out Fruit as open source, unlicensed, and without restrictions.

Fabien knew Fruit was strong, but at that time, decided to release the code, anyway. Nobody pressured him unduly to do this. It was his choice, and I'd describe it as his "with full knowledge" choice.

At that point, any chess author could have used Fruit code, and done so without crediting Fruit, in any way, and without making any payment to Fabien.

A copyright lawyer could fill in the details, here.

So some people did just that, being smart, and being human, and OF COURSE, some didn't mention (or denied), that they'd used code from Fruit. For a commercial program, that's probably a mandatory thing to do. There just isn't that much money in commercial chess programming, not to take advantage of that.

So, like all the rest of us, they lied, and it hurt no one, since everyone was free to do the same thing, if they wanted to.

So now, several years after the fact, there's a big hullabaloo because somebody told a lie?

<< Well I AM shocked! >> <<--satire on!

I thought every boss, co-worker, spouse, son, daughter, preacher, and politician, were pure as the driven snow, and NEVER told a lie.

I guess you don't need me to tell you you're acting like hypocrites, do you?

If you want some Bible reference, try:
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God", and "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Programmers are only people, and people are sinners, and why would you expect a standard of behavior that no one can live up to?

I'm only referring to the open source Fruit code, that Fabien released without restriction.

You ARE aware that fruit was released under the GPL? Which means that in order to avoid copyright infringement, you MUST comply with the terms of the GPL?

Apparently not, or you would not have wasted the bandwidth needed to post the above...

[tomgdrums]

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?

[geots]

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

You see Miguel, the kind of roadblocks thrown up. I was right there the night you repeatedly asked Bob to show you proof of "A and B". Since obviously HE COULD NOT, he played the game of ignoring what you said, giving an answer to something entirely different. Then answering the same request with a question. Never did he take it on directly. Couldn't have been a communication failure- not as long as you stayed with it. Over and over you tried to pin him down- and he NEVER faced you directly. Does that sound to you like someone who sees the truth as important?

Then, I will be damn if a few days later, on another issue of the case, he did not pull the EXACT PLOY with Sven. He just could not follow the point Sven was trying to make. And he never took that issue on directly.

Look, I admit I don't know a grain of computer science. I have college degrees in 2 different majors. But I imagine both combined with a dollar bill might buy me a coke, if I'm lucky. But I could have stopped after elementary school and still understood what was going on both times.

Now he says Ed accused him of copying code. Must have slipped his mind that you were there, because you witnessed the discussion and said it never happened. Lo and behold- he's caught again.

I remember very well when a day or so later you had had enough, and told him you were not one of his students, and this was the 2nd time you had asked him to stop talking down to you.

Is this the stuff you should have to fight when simply looking for the truth?


gts

I was right there the night you repeatedly asked Bob to show you proof of "A and B".

What on earth are you talking about. What is "proof of A and B?"

Surely you are smart enough to understand "A and B" only referred to the fact I did not go back to Rybka forum and find the correct wording to use. Since that was irrelevant and had nothing to do with the point I was making.

[geots]

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.

[Terry McCracken]

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

You see Miguel, the kind of roadblocks thrown up. I was right there the night you repeatedly asked Bob to show you proof of "A and B". Since obviously HE COULD NOT, he played the game of ignoring what you said, giving an answer to something entirely different. Then answering the same request with a question. Never did he take it on directly. Couldn't have been a communication failure- not as long as you stayed with it. Over and over you tried to pin him down- and he NEVER faced you directly. Does that sound to you like someone who sees the truth as important?

Then, I will be damn if a few days later, on another issue of the case, he did not pull the EXACT PLOY with Sven. He just could not follow the point Sven was trying to make. And he never took that issue on directly.

Look, I admit I don't know a grain of computer science. I have college degrees in 2 different majors. But I imagine both combined with a dollar bill might buy me a coke, if I'm lucky. But I could have stopped after elementary school and still understood what was going on both times.

Now he says Ed accused him of copying code. Must have slipped his mind that you were there, because you witnessed the discussion and said it never happened. Lo and behold- he's caught again.

I remember very well when a day or so later you had had enough, and told him you were not one of his students, and this was the 2nd time you had asked him to stop talking down to you.

Is this the stuff you should have to fight when simply looking for the truth?


gts

I was right there the night you repeatedly asked Bob to show you proof of "A and B".

What on earth are you talking about. What is "proof of A and B?"

Surely you are smart enough to understand "A and B" only referred to the fact I did not go back to Rybka forum and find the correct wording to use. Since that was irrelevant and had nothing to do with the point I was making.

You were making a point? Give us a break.

[Terry McCracken]

Distinguished sirs... The AIM of this thread was to make you realize (and grant the fact) that you could keep discussing for CENTURIES and still not being able to reach an agreement, because none of you CAN.

Dear Julien, hi all,

I'm observing all this as a lay, I'm just a chessplayer. When this all started (it wasnt yesterday!) years ago, I contacted Bob (because he's for me the expert number one) and begged him to consider the consequences in case that this would develop into a yearlong campaign. Bob disagreed. So this is no natural hurricane, but it's man-made.

Often peers claimed that Vas remained silent which would send bad signals. I disagreed and contradicted because Vas has spoken with a very clear statement. He felt singled-out and confirmed that he didnt do anything what all did per usual, probably he meant all the commercial guys with their closed sources. Again I contacted Bob but he disagreed again. It would be outlandish to investigate others if someone did something wrong. So, IMO this is the circle of argumentation that you observed, Julien. Because it's trivially clear that if others did the same like Vas, then what could legal justice do? The ICGA and its supporters however made unfair moves. I cant jusge if that is justified. If others did the same in a similar way like Vas, IMO the movess of the ICGA were wrong.

I agree that Vas must take legal steps if he thinks he was treated unfairly.

But as I could foresee it, the problems and mistrust in our scene came from the suspicion what others might have done but still they remained intact. Only Vas was singled out. That could be repaired if the peers would agree that the wrong should and could be healed.

The disadvantage of a declared silence is the idea who could possibly be next as being singled out in computerchess where almost all details are basied on common knowledge.

If however new controls are proposed so that the demands of the ICGA could be better met, the whole situation will quickly change back towards friendship. It's the best for creative minds.

I beg you to find better protection against stolen code which then is published for free. RE code is a private learning tool, but we should not tolerate that such contructed code is being published. If we dont solve these two problems at best with new ethical rules and social control, it is evident that commercial closed source programmers will lose their motivation to compete anylonger. Although they are traditionally the top guys who produced progress. It would be counterproductive to enforce all players to become open source, so that they dont even get a minimal recompensation for their ideas. Academic players with their open source get their living elsewhere so that their wishes should be politely ignored. Good players who could make money with their commercial engines shouldnt be handicapped or destroyed by open source campaigns.

With Ed Schroeder I ask all of you, do we really want to influence the standards of living of our best programmers after they could make a living with their talents? For what is our legal justice system there if we in such hobby areas begin to practice self-justice? IMO this is the reason for the actual situation in our community, the lack of legal justice, not that a singular member did something irregular. Again, it has not been examined if Vas is correct with his defense that he did nothing what isnt common practice.

Last but not least I beg you all for your understanding that as a lay I am not the one who could discuss all this. Let's have our experts into this. I could give you my observations from the outside. I wish you all a nice weekend. In Germany we will have our Unification Day on Oct the 3rd.

Look what crawled out of the woodwork.

I suppose you think you have a point as well...

[Dave Mitchell]

I knew that Fruit 2.1 was released under the GPL, but thought that the first Fruit program, was just released into the public domain, without license.

One of the forum members was kind enough to show that it was also released under the GPL.

Sad to see that Rybka's author didn't just take ideas from Fruit, but appears to have taken plenty of code directly, in a cut and paste manner.

Has FSF launched a suit against him, yet?

[Rebel]

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.

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

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

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

[Dave Mitchell]

And now for his next joke, Ed will go into a theater, and jokingly yell "Fire!", and close out his comedy routine with a joke about a bomb being on a jet at his nearest airport.

What a funny guy Ed is.