Sven Schüle wrote: K I Hyams wrote: Sven Schüle wrote: 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.
“I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong
”, That implies that Zach’s analysis is riddled with mistakes.
“40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts”
. That implies that Zach is unable to recognise standard computer chess concepts when they are staring him in the face..
In other words, he is saying that at least 80% of Zach’s work is either inaccurate or incompetent. That sounds to me to be a serious slur on Zach’s ability. He has made those slurs without providing a shred of evidence and he has allowed you to publish them in that form.
If I were to make such serious aspersions on the competence of a colleague, I would not dream of allowing them to go public without providing concrete examples. It appears that Vas Rajlich does not adhere to that standard.
These percentages are very plausible for me. I don't know whether many non-programmers can follow but nevertheless I suggest to all interested members to reread what I already posted five weeks ago
on that topic (EO subforum). Read especially my quite detailled comments on each of the points from Zach's pages under the heading "My details". If I had to match these 11 points with the 40-40-20 estimate by Vas then I would perhaps come to similar numbers as he did.
One note @Zach here: for me claiming that something is "wrong", or "standard CC concept" does not mean anything about your competence, and also nothing personal. I just try to keep as objective as possible. If someone would make 4 wrong statements out of 11 then this does not turn him "incompetent" at all. Just to let you know. EDIT: I see no reason why Vas should view this differently.
I believe that I responded to your post back then point by point also. Your "refutation" offers _zero_ details. And I _do_ mean _zero_. When we started the analysis, we were comparing rybka binary to fruit source, and since the binary is stripped of symbols, and since it is in asm, it takes some work to go from asm back to C. And that code was posted here. And there were howls of protest because our goal was to take the binary and map it directly back to C that matches fruit. I tried to point out that C to binary is a many-to-one mapping, as there are many ways to code up an algorithm where the source looks completely different but the binary is identical. Students try this all the time by changing variable names, procedure names, switching from a for loop to a while loop, and so forth. So going blindly from asm to C is not helpful, but _if_ you ask the question, "Can I use this assembly code, in its entirety without adding instructions or having any left over, and map it back to the exact C source in fruit?" then the answer was yes in more than one instance, the first was the main loop where commands are read and the infamous do_parse() procedure is called.
If you don't accept any of that, that's your choice. But there _is_ ample evidence to show that code was copied. It is not about how much was copied, it is about was _any_ copied, and the answer is most certainly "yes". It is time to get out from behind this false cover of "not too much" or "just a little". One more time, you can't be just a little bit pregnant. Ideas are not the same as code. We are talking about _code_.
Another new excuse is "Rybka is bitboard, fruit is not, can't be copied". Baloney. Much of my early evaluation was not bitboard since I have always maintained a mailbox copy of the board to make it easy to figure out what piece is on a particular square. And I converted that code directly to bitboard code later. Are you _really_ saying that is not copied. When I copy A to B, then modify B to use a different board representation, and now B is not a copy of A. That's convoluted thinking, to be kind about it.
What if the robo* guys convert from bitboards? Are they _also_ OK by this definition, even though it looks more and more like they are already OK, based on continually arriving data.