Interesting reflection on a past statement

[bob]

Graham, this statement is about using ideas and algorithms, where you have zillions ^ zillion possible ways to implement stuff, and not about taking an open source program to translate already implemented ideas only to make it conform to own data structures, and then to do some modifications.

Hi Gerd,

You make an interesting statement. IMO the accusation stands or falls if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Vas took the Fruit sources as WHOLE, modified it and called the end-result (R1) his OWN.

If I understand your choice of words right you suggest another (guilty) scenario. That Vas had an OWN engine, learned a lot from Fruit how to do things right and then took many things, but wrote his own CODE nevertheless.

Have I understood you correct so far ?

Ed

No. Why do you have to take "fruit source as a WHOLE"? Where is copyright law does it say "you can copy parts, but not copy the whole thing?" Where, in the ICGA rules, does it say "if parts of your code were written by someone else, you must identify them as authors on your program?" Oh yes, that would be rule # 2, would it not?

Why this continual nonsense of trying to change the meaning of a statement by injecting one new word, that was not there before, "whole" in this example? That is nothing short of dishonest, as you well know...

It'd be nice to see this kind of junk stop.

[Terry McCracken]

Graham, this statement is about using ideas and algorithms, where you have zillions ^ zillion possible ways to implement stuff, and not about taking an open source program to translate already implemented ideas only to make it conform to own data structures, and then to do some modifications.

Hi Gerd,

You make an interesting statement. IMO the accusation stands or falls if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Vas took the Fruit sources as WHOLE, modified it and called the end-result (R1) his OWN.

If I understand your choice of words right you suggest another (guilty) scenario. That Vas had an OWN engine, learned a lot from Fruit how to do things right and then took many things, but wrote his own CODE nevertheless.

Have I understood you correct so far ?

Ed

No. Why do you have to take "fruit source as a WHOLE"? Where is copyright law does it say "you can copy parts, but not copy the whole thing?" Where, in the ICGA rules, does it say "if parts of your code were written by someone else, you must identify them as authors on your program?" Oh yes, that would be rule # 2, would it not?

Why this continual nonsense of trying to change the meaning of a statement by injecting one new word, that was not there before, "whole" in this example? That is nothing short of dishonest, as you well know...

It'd be nice to see this kind of junk stop.

It would, but as long as there are manipulating liars who want to do harm it never will stop. The net is a tool for many things and not all things are equal or good.

Graham has a big problem as well and needs to back off. He too is being dishonest, that or he's stupid.

[Gerd Isenberg]

Graham, this statement is about using ideas and algorithms, where you have zillions ^ zillion possible ways to implement stuff, and not about taking an open source program to translate already implemented ideas only to make it conform to own data structures, and then to do some modifications.

Hi Gerd,

You make an interesting statement. IMO the accusation stands or falls if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Vas took the Fruit sources as WHOLE, modified it and called the end-result (R1) his OWN.

If I understand your choice of words right you suggest another (guilty) scenario. That Vas had an OWN engine, learned a lot from Fruit how to do things right and then took many things, but wrote his own CODE nevertheless.

Have I understood you correct so far ?

Ed

Hi Ed,

no, it was a general statement on the nuances and degrees of "own work", between re-implementing a choosen subset of well known ideas, let say I subset of K, and eval-features E subset F with first- (only linear dependent from E) and higher-order eval terms (depending on combinations of E, with two or more features involved, let say E*E), and literal copying. That is almost taking I and E, E*E, and to translate them from board representation M to B.

One may argue, Vas learned the lesson and did quite well in understanding the papers and discussions on knowledge versus search, to chose the right paradigm to stay with a relative small number of easy tunable features and their interactions. Despite selecting his initial set E' and more importantly ExE' and its implementation depending order of execution by himself, I believe Vas took a shortcut not conform with ICGA rule #2 in taking Fruit's I, E and E*E.

We know that Vas had Rybka versions before 1.0 beta, playing with MTD(f) and Crafty. I guess he had a kind of perft framework based on Crafty's rotated bitboards, and got best results from 1:1 incoorporating Fruit's ideas and features.

Gerd

[Rebel]

Then he should appeal based on that. Still not our concern.

Just recorrected you on a factual error you made.

[Harvey Williamson]

Fortunately it is utterly irrelevant which guilty scenario applies to Vas,if indeed any applies at all. Vas is guilty by default, as he failed to comply with the rules that stated he should have supplied source code on request. End of story. No need to (re-re-re-)discuss it at nauseam here...

As long as someone does not supply source code, there will always be doubt. And as long as there is doubt, he is guilty!

Vas refused to coperate with the panel if he had I am sure some source would have been asked for.

[Graham Banks]

Graham has a big problem as well and needs to back off. He too is being dishonest, that or he's stupid.

All I have done is post Fabien Letouzey's own thoughts quoted from an interview he did with Frank Quisinsky. Those were his words, not mine. How is that being dishonest and stupid?

[Rebel]

no, it was a general statement on the nuances and degrees of "own work", between re-implementing a choosen subset of well known ideas, let say I subset of K, and eval-features E subset F with first- (only linear dependent from E) and higher-order eval terms (depending on combinations of E, with two or more features involved, let say E*E), and literal copying. That is almost taking I and E, E*E, and to translate them from board representation M to B.

One may argue, Vas learned the lesson and did quite well in understanding the papers and discussions on knowledge versus search, to chose the right paradigm to stay with a relative small number of easy tunable features and their interactions. Despite selecting his initial set E' and more importantly ExE' and its implementation depending order of execution by himself, I believe Vas took a shortcut not conform with ICGA rule #2 in taking Fruit's I, E and E*E.

We know that Vas had Rybka versions before 1.0 beta, playing with MTD(f) and Crafty. I guess he had a kind of perft framework based on Crafty's rotated bitboards, and got best results from 1:1 incoorporating Fruit's ideas and features.

Hi Gerd,

Interesting view, but I also see a lot of assumptions.

My view... something in the mid-90's happened --> INTERNET. A few years later better full sources became available replacing the old and weak GNU-chess. Crafty, TCP, Gerbil. Email, RGCC, an explosion of knowledge was the result.

New programmers no longer have to reinvent all the painful wheels as we had to do in the pre-internet days. We needed years before we got things right. Modern post-internet programmers read the freely downloadable sources as a chess player reads a chess book and the modern programmers do things right the first time.

In the early 80's I got my hands on every instructive chess book that was available and TOOK everything that was useful and put that into EVAL. I don't feel I did anything wrong.

And now (anno 2011) the same knowledge you can freely download and I really do not see any difference taking GENERAL PUBLIC AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE from books or from freely downloadable sources. That is of course as long as they write that learned KNOWLEDGE in their own code, as we did.

Anything else feels like we are punishing the new generations of programmers and force them to follow our outdated way of working while times have changed.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Graham has a big problem as well and needs to back off. He too is being dishonest, that or he's stupid.

All I have done is post Fabien Letouzey's own thoughts quoted from an interview he did with Frank Quisinsky. Those were his words, not mine. How is that being dishonest and stupid?

Graham,it's not your fault....you just opened the can the worms spread all over the place

[Terry McCracken]

Graham has a big problem as well and needs to back off. He too is being dishonest, that or he's stupid.

All I have done is post Fabien Letouzey's own thoughts quoted from an interview he did with Frank Quisinsky. Those were his words, not mine. How is that being dishonest and stupid?

Your motivation behind it. It was a sucker ploy. Obviously you knew what you were doing. You knew it would bring more chaos and confusion to the table rather than clarifying the issue. Using someone else's words in this limited format was provocative and is simply propaganda, again trying to support Vas.

I've come to the conclusion many here want their version of the truth rather than what simply is the truth.

Nothing I can do about that. When hard facts can't convince nothing can.

Personally I go with what's unpopular it seems, as I go with the facts.

I go with the facts even if I can't stand them. The truth, the reality is more important than what I wish or believe. Sometimes it feels like a curse as it pits many against you. I'm only human.

[K I Hyams]

as he failed to comply with the rules that stated he should have supplied source code on request.

Vas was never asked to hand-over his source code.

Well, there is the post below from Cimiotti that shows that the suggestion that he should hand his code over, thereby proving his innocence, was put to him but he refused to do so. His excuse that it would help his competitors is a non-runner for the following reasons:
1. The code was way out of date.
2. It would have been handed over to a secure source.
3. The Rybka 1 code was already, according to Rajlich, freely available in the form of Strelka.

"- N/- By Lukas Cimiotti (*****) [de] Date 2011-08-14 10:28
Vas and I discussed whether or not he should give source code to the ICGA. He really didn't like that idea. My idea was removing all comments and maybe changing all names of variables to make the code harder to understand. But as the guys that disassembled Rybka hadn't understood several parts of the code, we agreed it's safer to not give anything to our competitors.
So Vas only defended himself by saying: I did nothing wrong."
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ;hl=source