My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Albert Silver
Posts: 2673
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Albert Silver » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:35 pm

oreopoulos wrote:I wonder, did you get permission to publish private emails?
Private emails, like private conversations are not to be published without the consent of both sides. Without the consent its illegal.
If you read the actual emails you will see:
Date: Sat, 12. Jun 2010 13:59:04

Hi Vasik,

many thanks for your immediate reply! The following points are still open for me, sorry for bothering you again:

1) Do you agree that I publish our email correspondence on TalkChess?
Date: Sun, 13. Jun 2010 11:36:19

Hi Sven,

(1) Sure, that's no problem.


Albert
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

oreopoulos
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:56 pm

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by oreopoulos » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:56 pm

Oh thx. I did read the post twice, but it seems missed it.

mea culpa...

Alexander Schmidt
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:49 pm

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Alexander Schmidt » Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:16 pm

Sven Schüle wrote:I do consider the theory that the initial working code base of Ippolit was another engine, like Kaissa, as not bad. Indeed I think it is quite likely, taking into account the many differences that have been found between Ippolit and R3,
Exactly Sven. Thats what I am talking about. In this important point you changed your mind.

But VR says Ipp*** is a decompiled Rybka with changes. That's unlikely considdering the differences.

You find your previous answers in EOF. It's not necessary to repeat all the stuff. We can move the further discussion to EOF to keep the general forum cleaner :)

Best wishes,
Alex

Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Steve B » Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:42 pm

Alexander Schmidt wrote:
You find your previous answers in EOF. It's not necessary to repeat all the stuff. We can move the further discussion to EOF to keep the general forum cleaner :)

Best wishes,
Alex
are your guys actually DEBATING these issues in your new forum or is everybody drinking koolaid and celebrating already?
here we have debate..both sides

i see the Internet regarding CC this way now
on the far right ..we have the commercial interests who allow no discussion of any kind ..verbotin.....its our way or the highway...have a nice day..

to the far left..we have you guys and your new forum
everyone agreeing beforehand that every engine is fine and dandy..here's the links..go enjoy yourselves
we might have elections or maybe not
who knows or who even cares..here are your links

and in the middle
STILL ..to this day...13+ years and counting.. the Premiere site on the net for CC
the industry watchdog..
Where lively debate is always welcome and indeed encouraged

so tell me Alexander..are there raging debates going on over there?

Koolaid Regards
Steve

Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:22 pm

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Roger Brown » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:00 pm

Steve B wrote:
are your guys actually DEBATING these issues in your new forum or is everybody drinking koolaid and celebrating already?
here we have debate..both sides

Hello Steve,

You do know that there are persons who might disagree with this? Particularly with the censoring, moving and deleting that took place here in the recent past?


Steve B wrote: i see the Internet regarding CC this way now
on the far right ..we have the commercial interests who allow no discussion of any kind ..verbotin.....its our way or the highway...have a nice day..

to the far left..we have you guys and your new forum
everyone agreeing beforehand that every engine is fine and dandy..here's the links..go enjoy yourselves
we might have elections or maybe not
who knows or who even cares..here are your links

and in the middle
STILL ..to this day...13+ years and counting.. the Premiere site on the net for CC
the industry watchdog..
Where lively debate is always welcome and indeed encouraged

I have no issue with your classifications. What is debatable is the fact that you have seemingly moved the commercial interests to point A, the linkers etc. to point B and have Talkchess as some point C.

I submit that all those classes reside right here.

Lively and open debate would have doused this fire ages ago too.

My opinion.

Later.

bob
Posts: 20340
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by bob » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:05 pm

Sven Schüle wrote:
bob wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote: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.
"Zero details" is as imprecise as possible. This was part of my post that I linked to above:

Code: Select all

piece square tables:
- I can see no similar code, just similar values used[/quote]

"piece/square tables have _NO_ code.  Just values.  So exactly what does the above mean?

[quote]


pawn_get_info():
- I can see no similar code, just ideas may have been reused[/quote]

You have to read Zach's comments.  If you take fruit, convert it to bitboards, the code will, of necessity, morph significantly.  Yet if one is interested, one can "un-morph" the code to see how it looked pre-bitboard, and then draw conclusions.  Zach mentioned exactly this.

[quote]


eval_piece():
- "Rybka code" may look similar but is a bitboard translation with several other changes, so only ideas were reused but no literal code copying[/quote]

That is simply utter baloney.  If one looks carefully, one can find code in the released version of Cray Blitz that was copied, converted to bitboards, and then used "as is".  So that isn't copying code?  Would it be ok for the IP* guys to convert back to a mailbox board representation.  would that stop all complaints since the code would no longer match anything in Rybka perfectly.  This is flawed logic.  _badly_ flawed logic.

[quote]


eval_king():

- using a flag that defines whether king safety is used or not is a common idea that many programs share, and its existence in R1 does not prove copying of code but just reusing an idea

- attacks evaluation is a bitboard translation, so the code is changed => only idea reused[/quote]

same bogus idea, once again.  Copy the code, modify it to use bitboards, all is OK.  Copy a book, convert from English to German, all is now ok since the text does not match.

[quote]

- final score calculation: one source line is shown that contains the same idea in R1 as in Fruit but has 3 changes in R1, so no unchanged literal code copying

- shelter: implementations show look quite similar BUT Zach states that this code is not present in Rybka binary but is "an equivalent" created manually by Zach so this can be ZERO proof for anything[/quote]


Someone copies book written in English.  Converts to German.  Converting the German version back to English for comparison is "zero proof"?

[quote]
  "All of this shelter evaluation code in Rybka above is an equivalent; it doesn't appear in the Rybka binary. It is there simply to illustrate what is in the precomputed tables. These precomputed tables are used during the pawn evaluation to quickly evaluate shelters."

- storm: very different code, only same ideas


eval_passer():
- "Rybka code" presented looks very different, just ideas may have been reused


eval_pattern():
- common ideas but completely different implementations


material:
- implementations of "MatKingFlag", "DrawBishopFlag", and game phase look quite similar
  => assembler code of R1 should be shown to prove that the code shown as "Rybka" is really in R1, and not part of Strelka source only (which would not prove anything)
How is that "zero"? You have to open a second browser window or tab with the related Zach pages, of course, to see, parse, and understand what I mean. Is it that difficult to get the meaning of my comment that I see no similarities of the presented code pieces left and right side, for instance? Do I have to repeat what is written on Zach's pages to make my comment more readable? I guess no. I guess you have not even read my comments to 11 points. That excuses your reply.

Regarding "bitboard translation": yes, if I copy code and modify it to use bitboards then it is no longer a literal copy. Simple.

Regarding "asm to C", this was not my topic at all in my referenced post, you have drifted to another topic with that.

Regarding "copying actual code" and "a little bit pregnant", you simply can't show actual code copying merely with a website like Zach's where left and right sides do not match, it needs some more work like the recent one from "BB" for that IMO. So *there is no code copying proven*. It is proven, and was admitted very early by Vasik, that R1 was influenced by many Fruit ideas. He says "legally", would you assume he does not know what that means, as a software developer? You say something like: he copied the evaluation code from Fruit to Rybka and adapted it to match the Rybka needs. He says something like: he wrote original code, took some ideas from Fruit and legally implemented them in Rybka. You come and say he is dishonest, and you "prove" that with a website where left and right sides do not match but the text says they were "virtually identical". A couple of serious chess programmers raise their doubts. But you insist. Fabien does not care about it, he obviously has no strong feelings in this area.

Why do you insist on this campaign, Bob?


I also think that it is important to carefully clean up the accusation that Rybka were derived from Fruit, simply because this "derivation" assumption may serve as kind of an excuse for having been allowed to publish parts of copyrighted material as "public domain" source code, provided that has happened (still open for me although many think that everything's fine now after the "BB report").

Sven
I am not going thru the rest of your comments point by point as that serves no purpose. If you don't want to believe he copied code, that's your choice. But certainly nothing you offer above says _anything_ about the topic.

Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Steve B » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:06 pm

Roger Brown wrote:
Steve B wrote:
are your guys actually DEBATING these issues in your new forum or is everybody drinking koolaid and celebrating already?
here we have debate..both sides

Hello Steve,

You do know that there are persons who might disagree with this? Particularly with the censoring, moving and deleting that took place here in the recent past?


Steve B wrote: i see the Internet regarding CC this way now
on the far right ..we have the commercial interests who allow no discussion of any kind ..verbotin.....its our way or the highway...have a nice day..

to the far left..we have you guys and your new forum
everyone agreeing beforehand that every engine is fine and dandy..here's the links..go enjoy yourselves
we might have elections or maybe not
who knows or who even cares..here are your links

and in the middle
STILL ..to this day...13+ years and counting.. the Premiere site on the net for CC
the industry watchdog..
Where lively debate is always welcome and indeed encouraged

I have no issue with your classifications. What is debatable is the fact that you have seemingly moved the commercial interests to point A, the linkers etc. to point B and have Talkchess as some point C.

I submit that all those classes reside right here.

Lively and open debate would have doused this fire ages ago too.

My opinion.

Later.
full debate is still allowed here Roger
you simply need to register to participate
anyway..how can somebody join in a debate without registering?
AFAIK no no one can post on the new forum without registering although i guess you can read everything and silently nod in agreement or disagreement

we fought long and hard last year to keep the debate flowing
creating an EOC forum and then making it hidden was a compromise to keep everyone happy after our terms ended
it worked for awhile then blew up i guess
Sigh Regards
Steve

Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:22 pm

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Roger Brown » Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:33 pm

Steve B wrote: full debate is still allowed here Roger
you simply need to register to participate
anyway..how can somebody join in a debate without registering?
AFAIK no no one can post on the new forum without registering although i guess you can read everything and silently nod in agreement or disagreement

we fought long and hard last year to keep the debate flowing
creating an EOC forum and then making it hidden was a compromise to keep everyone happy after our terms ended
it worked for awhile then blew up i guess
Sigh Regards
Steve


Hello Steve,

I know, I know. In the EOF you will see that I wanted to encourage this process of discussion. That did not work. There was no reason for this mess to happen.

Incidentally you do know that I never expressed an opinion on this issue as to hide versus not hide. In fact I left that up to the moderators.

Later.

Alexander Schmidt
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:49 pm

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Alexander Schmidt » Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:33 pm

Steve B wrote:
Alexander Schmidt wrote: Best wishes,
Alex
are your guys actually DEBATING these issues in your new forum or is everybody drinking koolaid and celebrating already?
Steve? What the hell are you talking about? I posted 1 message in the new forum, wishing them good luck.

I am not a friend of 2 forums, one for every opinion...

Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

Post by Steve B » Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:14 pm

Alexander Schmidt wrote:
Steve B wrote:
Alexander Schmidt wrote: Best wishes,
Alex
are your guys actually DEBATING these issues in your new forum or is everybody drinking koolaid and celebrating already?
Steve? What the hell are you talking about? I posted 1 message in the new forum, wishing them good luck.

I am not a friend of 2 forums, one for every opinion...
woops my Bad Alexander
i apologize

haven't checked the other forum all that much so im clueless as to their goings on

for all i know they are debating the issues but for some reason i doubt it

Sorry Again Regards
Steve

Post Reply