rbarreira wrote:I find it strange that your post doesn't contain the word "code" even once.
All of the code used to commit Vas is from reverse engineering.
Have you seen the post I made some time ago that showed two completely different code bases in C produced identical assembly (even the control structures were different).
Vas has been convicted of stealing code in a court made up of his opponents. There is literally no Rybka code available.
From assembly, the only thing that can be demonstrated is the algorithm similarity. I recall that 64% similarity was a quoted figure somewhere.
Your example was no good. Why? Because if you want to construct such an example, it is not that hard to do. But the question is, does it happen _naturally_? The answer is no. There is a ton of academic research on plagiarism detection that discusses this issue to death...
64% makes no sense to me. The parts that I examined were 100% matches. Not close. Not approximate. Identical.
Clearly though, the code cannot be identical because the binary is 4MB in size and 300 Elo stronger than its opponents when it was released.
Some things must be identical (e.g. strcpy).
The process of having his opposition decide against him does not sit well with me. What sort of justice is that?
Dann Corbit wrote:Only that every single programmer here is guilty of the same crimes as Vas, to one degree or another.
Every single programmer here has directly copied non-public-domain code without attributing it to the original author, released this code as part of their own software and/or later denied doing it when directly asked about it?
Those are some big accusations especially when talking about "every programmer here".
The "jury of his peers" consisted of his opponents.
They simply do not have his source code.
If the algorithm Vas wrote was the same, there is nothing wrong with that. It is the implementation and not the algorithm that is protected. I simply do not believe that what is claimed to have been proven has been proven.
Now, I do not think that Vas was blameless. I have made that clear.
He may be very guilty, he may even be a criminal {I am not yet convinced by anything that this is true}. But the methods used to dismiss him forever from computer chess were easily as bad as anything he has ever done, if not worse.
rbarreira wrote:I find it strange that your post doesn't contain the word "code" even once.
I do want to make it clear that I do not absolve Vas completely.
However, I think what has been done to him is disgraceful.
A murder is sentenced to death. Disgraceful? Someone swindles thousands of people of their retirements. They are sentenced to years of prison. Disgraceful?
The only things I see that merit "disgraceful" are (1) Vas copying code and then denying it over and over, even in the presence of absolute proof; (2) your (and others) acting like he is a scapegoat of some sort. He created this mess all by himself. He has no one else to blame but himself...
Bob,
mentioning a "murder" in this context is very disgraceful, too.
As to "copying code" and its "absolute proof", this is pure nonsense, an absolute proof is impossible without having the original source code of both sides. (I am talking about Fruit/Rybka only here.) What you must have meant is "strong evidence", the same as we only have in case of Ippo/Robbo and of Houdini. After reading the published ICGA material I would even rename it into "strong belief", nothing more. But since so many Rybka competitors and other programmers are convinced of the opposite it now appears almost impossible to discuss the topic any longer. The ICGA decision seems to be taken as something final, like a fundamental physical constant.
The Crafty/Rybka case is a different animal but I do not see the big relevance for the ICGA since the pre-beta Rybka did not compete in ICGA events.
Furthermore I fully agree to Dann's statements. The treatment of Vas has been highly unacceptable. "Disgraceful" is really the right word for it.
I mostly agree with what you wrote, although what sets Rybka apart, as I wrote in the other post, is that Vas charged money for the program.
imho, of course
Regards
Richard
I agree that this is important. And it is also possible that Vas has (indeed) done something wrong.
But if the code really is 100% identical (as found in quotes else-thread), how is it that Fruit's non-bitboard code runs without changes using a bitboard framework?
Yes, there may be wrong actions.
I see wrong actions by all parties concerned.
I think it is time for me to leave computer chess now, because I am at odds with the community as a whole.
I mostly agree with what you wrote, although what sets Rybka apart, as I wrote in the other post, is that Vas charged money for the program.
imho, of course
Regards
Richard
I agree that this is important. And it is also possible that Vas has (indeed) done something wrong.
But if the code really is 100% identical (as found in quotes else-thread), how is it that Fruit's non-bitboard code runs without changes using a bitboard framework?
Yes, there may be wrong actions.
I see wrong actions by all parties concerned.
I think it is time for me to leave computer chess now, because I am at odds with the community as a whole.
No, that's not you Dann. You speak your mind without prejudice. It is never time to leave when your opinion is as valid as anyone else's (more so in fact because yours is always considered by those who matter).
Dann Corbit wrote:
But if the code really is 100% identical (as found in quotes else-thread), how is it that Fruit's non-bitboard code runs without changes using a bitboard framework?
when implementing bitboards, not everything has to change...?
normally only a small portion of the code, mostly board representation, etc.
see tscp181 and compare/diff to Michael Sherwin's tscp181 port to bitboards
...tscp181_mjs
you'd be amazed how little has changed...
for ex:
9 out of lines out of 398 in eval.c
Last edited by kranium on Thu Jun 30, 2011 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dann Corbit wrote:
But if the code really is 100% identical (as found in quotes else-thread), how is it that Fruit's non-bitboard code runs without changes using a bitboard framework?
when implementing bitboards, not everything has to change...?
normally, only a small portion of the code.
see tscp181 and compare/diff to Michael Sherwin's tscp181 port to bitboards
...tscp181_mjs
you'd be amazed how little has changed...
This maybe a first (let's not make it a habit). Yes they are in general the same. The point is that it is correctly attributed.
I would also point out in general to everyone that Tom has a nice new page.
Dann Corbit wrote:I think it is time for me to leave computer chess now, because I am at odds with the community as a whole.
Definitely not "as a whole"!
The point is also that there might be some people who do not want to understand that others (like you, me, Shaun, Miguel, Uri, a lot of others) are not willing to adapt their opinion to the one of the "majority". We have good reasons to believe what we believe, and not to believe what others believe, or even call "proven". This should be respected but some don't.
Don't leave, stay with us. "Games are never won by resigning." (based loosely on a sentence by Tartakower).
