bob wrote:Rybka 1.6.1 [..] was a full copy of Crafty
I read that Rybka 1.6.1 was at 2100 ELO level. Can you tell us where the 'full copy' job went wrong, since Crafty was much stronger at that time.
I have not tried to look. It would require a complete RE of at least the full eval and search, and that isn't worth the significant effort it would require.
So it was not a full copy then?
One thing to note in that CCT tournament was that Crafty was running on good hardware. The Crafty(Rybka) engine was running on very average hardware.
Not to diminish the value of that observation, but what I was going for with my post was to try and understand the degree of certainty of Bob's claim that Rybka 1.6.1 = Crafty.
Simple. Absolute, 100%, zero.zero chance for error...
Look at the crafty/rybka evidence included with the ICGA report. To call it overwhelming is an understatement...
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.
If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.
Plagiarism rewarded.
Best
J
I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.
Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
Non original is not the same as stolen and
I see no proof that houdini is illegal.
Uri
Uri, that's just Bob and more useless and unfounded bullshit. But I don't want him to stop. The engines he singles out are the ones that I know will be worth the money. And I buy them immediately. I'm not joking, lying or kidding when I tell you this: I went back after Bob's whining and bought a second copy of Houdini- and told Robert to donate the money to the charity of his choice, but to be sure he made the donation in the name of Dr. Robert Hyatt, UAB- Birmingham, Alabama.
I would suggest you buy as many copies of gnuchess 5.0x as you can get your hands on...
Uri Blass wrote: It is not the main explanation to Rybka's bad results because programs that are not stronger than Crafty could score 50% with average hardware in that CCT tournament when Rybka1.6.1 was clearly weaker than that.
IMHO, it is not even clear that1.6.1 was what played in the CCT event. The prior versions seemed to be yet another program, looking nothing like Crafty. There is no way to actually verify what played in the tournament, all we have to go on was what Vas supplied at the time. If someone has the time, and the energy, it would be interesting to see what the FIRST version was based on if it was not original. We've found enough copying already to make this less than interesting to me.
Uri Blass wrote: It is not the main explanation to Rybka's bad results because programs that are not stronger than Crafty could score 50% with average hardware in that CCT tournament when Rybka1.6.1 was clearly weaker than that.
IMHO, it is not even clear that1.6.1 was what played in the CCT event. The prior versions seemed to be yet another program, looking nothing like Crafty. There is no way to actually verify what played in the tournament, all we have to go on was what Vas supplied at the time. If someone has the time, and the energy, it would be interesting to see what the FIRST version was based on if it was not original. We've found enough copying already to make this less than interesting to me.
Bob,
I can't help to think you made a type or so?
Not that I know of. I have a Rybka 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.1 (all pre-rybka-1.0beta).
I did not spend a lot of time, but certainly 1.4 was very different, which is beyond strange. You'd think a clean copy of Crafty would start a new major version rather than just a 1.5 to 1.6 (I do not remember what I found in 1.4/1.5, but one of them was clearly not crafty, Actually, I just looked and it looks like neither is Crafty after a fairly quick glance, while 1.6.1 is absolutely no doubt Crafty 19.x...
bob wrote:Rybka 1.6.1 [..] was a full copy of Crafty
I read that Rybka 1.6.1 was at 2100 ELO level. Can you tell us where the 'full copy' job went wrong, since Crafty was much stronger at that time.
I have not tried to look. It would require a complete RE of at least the full eval and search, and that isn't worth the significant effort it would require.
So it was not a full copy then?
One thing to note in that CCT tournament was that Crafty was running on good hardware. The Crafty(Rybka) engine was running on very average hardware.
Not to diminish the value of that observation, but what I was going for with my post was to try and understand the degree of certainty of Bob's claim that Rybka 1.6.1 = Crafty.
Absolutely, 100% certain. Look at the rybka/crafty evidence in the ICGA stuff. That is absolutely 100% convincing...
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.
If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.
Plagiarism rewarded.
Best
J
I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.
Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
Non original is not the same as stolen and
I see no proof that houdini is illegal.
Uri
I will repeat. Houdini came from Robo*. IF, and not a very big IF, robo is found to have fruit code, and we KNOW it contains Vas code, copying any of that code is certainly a criminal act, because it is a clear copyright infringement.
IF, and that is a GIGANTIC IF, houdini contains no Fruit or Rybka code, it will be OK. But Robolito certainly contains both Fruit and Rybka code. And that is a problem in that one can not then take the robo source and use it as if nothing is wrong, because that is very similar to receiving stolen property and then reselling it. That IS also a criminal act...
Just wait a bit. Took a while to prove Rybka was based on Fruit/Crafty. Give it a little more time for more evidence to be presented. Won't be long until the cat is out of the bag, again. And this won't be the last such case, either...
Well be sure the authorities know I have an illegal copy, and if there is a God in Heaven, they would send you to my door to confiscate it or make a citizen's arrest. Clint Eastwood aint got shit on me, IOW- MMD.
I'm really worried. How about a dual at 200 yards with pistols? I can put every round from my 44 mag into a 15" circle. Whenever you want... Threats don't particularly concern me, I come prepared.
Uri Blass wrote: It is not the main explanation to Rybka's bad results because programs that are not stronger than Crafty could score 50% with average hardware in that CCT tournament when Rybka1.6.1 was clearly weaker than that.
IMHO, it is not even clear that1.6.1 was what played in the CCT event. The prior versions seemed to be yet another program, looking nothing like Crafty. There is no way to actually verify what played in the tournament, all we have to go on was what Vas supplied at the time. If someone has the time, and the energy, it would be interesting to see what the FIRST version was based on if it was not original. We've found enough copying already to make this less than interesting to me.
Bob,
I can't help to think you made a type or so?
Not that I know of. I have a Rybka 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.1 (all pre-rybka-1.0beta).
I did not spend a lot of time, but certainly 1.4 was very different, which is beyond strange. You'd think a clean copy of Crafty would start a new major version rather than just a 1.5 to 1.6 (I do not remember what I found in 1.4/1.5, but one of them was clearly not crafty, Actually, I just looked and it looks like neither is Crafty after a fairly quick glance, while 1.6.1 is absolutely no doubt Crafty 19.x...
I had a quick look at the 1.6.1 version and the "999999" makes a compelling case. But you also said: IMHO, it is not even clear that1.6.1 was what played in the CCT event.
