Should downloadlinks for Ippo/Robbo be allowed again?

[Michael Sherwin]

I was asking what you found out, not what they claim. You claimed that there is evidence that it was derived from other engines. You made me believe that you found something.

Miguel, please let me tell you something. You, the entry into the computerchess programs. With all respect. Look, often experts dont see something that can be quickly be see from outside. This is such a case.

Vas has claimed that so and so is a Rybka clone. Normally I would understand that in a community of collegues who are trusting each other, because how else should they communicate,will trust such a statement too. End of the debate.

Because the popint is, you cant prove it.Vas cant prove it because then he had to show his own code. So, his statement had the idea that debates would not even begin.

But this is not what happened.

We have certain people here who simply ignore what Vas said. Who also doubt what he said. But again he cannot defend himself because then he would have to show his code.

So, on that background we have friends of the cloners or hackers or whatever, among them someone who is a proven several time cloner who was already selling the clones. These friends are here to re-open every couple of hours a new topic to basically insult Rybka and Vas. So, not the cloners are wrong but the accused Vas. Although he told us that he was informed per email how far the robbery had gone. So, I'm a lay, but experts do know that there is a leak that cant be closed. Clever cloners will use it.

And the scandal is that users download this. And talk about it.

A.Schmidt is a special case now because he the expert on human rights. He asks you to respect that nothing has been proved (again it cant be proved without code etc. see above) and therefore the cloners have earned as much respect as all people because nothing has been proven. Former guilt is no topic in such a scenario.

My main argument in such a debate is that the cloners are guilty alone because they dont appear under concrete real names with addresses where the police could find them. So topic closed at that moment. Because you cant successfully debate with hidden people who hide intentiously to do harm to other experts. Next time you become their victim and then?

So please I would say you should be careful. Basically you assist in their comedy which is sad for Vas and computerchess as such.

In the Rybkaforum these people openly ask for the following. Since decent science is also opening its secrets to the scientists it should be done likewise in the sports of computerchess so that someone like Vas with tricks that made him number one, should tell his tricks or it's robbed.

This is combined with a foolish communism debate that all goods belong to the people.

Unbelievable. This is shortsighted and will destroy computerchess as such. IMO

In his new project Vas IMO is trying to collect thieves and programmers to work on an online Rybka, so that also the jobless talents get a job. To me it looks like a fantastic idea. Very democratic and socially valuable.

If Ippolit is a close cloning of Rybka, then we already effectively have the source code to Rybka. Vas would suffer no harm and would greatly benefit by releasing just enough code snippets to prove it. So, as things stand Vas is hurting himself by not proving it. On the other hand if Ippolit is not a close clone of Rybka then Vas is helping himself by saying that it is and then not proving it.

[bob]

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

Rybka 3 does have separate search functions for white and black. No need to reverse engineer anything. You can find this trivially with a disassembler that gives stack dumps.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea but very clearly both Rybka 3 and Ippolit have this, and I know in fact of no other program that does.

Actually if you look at Cray Blitz, we did this. Since we couldn't use recursion when we started the program in FORTRAN, we didn't think of the negamax idea, so we had duplicated code for wtm and btm in search. We may have eliminated this in later years, I don't remember. It was certainly ugly as hell to have two pieces of code to change if you wanted to make a change to search.

[Rolf]

If Ippolit is a close cloning of Rybka, then we already effectively have the source code to Rybka. Vas would suffer no harm and would greatly benefit by releasing just enough code snippets to prove it. So, as things stand Vas is hurting himself by not proving it. On the other hand if Ippolit is not a close clone of Rybka then Vas is helping himself by saying that it is and then not proving it.

Hi, Mike. Your logic is too outlandish to be understood by lay like me. If I had the choice I would hope that number two is the solution. But exactly that brings certain guys into rage. Because there is no proof from Vas.

What offends me on the base of my education that you are making a sort of mathematical puzzle without mentioning who Vas is for you as a collegue. Have you no ethical bases among collegues? Or do you believe cloners and those who threatend Vas more than Vas himself? I cant believe it. Also because all of you could get into such a crisis. But again, you believe nothing or all no matter if it comes from Vas sort of people or anonymous thieves? I only ask because this is so strange to me. Do you really think this way in your sport? Having said that I wish you all the best for RomiChess. -Rolf

[Nimzovik]

I did not vote. I am not convinced either way in this issue of the validity of the engine. The experts seem not entirely convinced as well on this and other forums. It certainly has generated a lot of threads. However since the moderators on this forum have spoken on this issue I adhere to their judgement for this forum.

[Michael Sherwin]

If Ippolit is a close cloning of Rybka, then we already effectively have the source code to Rybka. Vas would suffer no harm and would greatly benefit by releasing just enough code snippets to prove it. So, as things stand Vas is hurting himself by not proving it. On the other hand if Ippolit is not a close clone of Rybka then Vas is helping himself by saying that it is and then not proving it.

Hi, Mike. Your logic is too outlandish to be understood by lay like me. If I had the choice I would hope that number two is the solution. But exactly that brings certain guys into rage. Because there is no proof from Vas.

What offends me on the base of my education that you are making a sort of mathematical puzzle without mentioning who Vas is for you as a collegue. Have you no ethical bases among collegues? Or do you believe cloners and those who threatend Vas more than Vas himself? I cant believe it. Also because all of you could get into such a crisis. But again, you believe nothing or all no matter if it comes from Vas sort of people or anonymous thieves? I only ask because this is so strange to me. Do you really think this way in your sport? Having said that I wish you all the best for RomiChess. -Rolf

I have posted and stood up for Vas and defended him in those post many times when the logic used to undermine him as a person was flawed.

However, I do not know Vas and I can not qualify as a character witness for him. But even if I knew him well and I knew that he was absolutely beyond reproach and trusted his word 100%, I would still offer defense to the Ippolit side against flawed logic by others. That is until proof was shown that Ippolit is a clone. You and others believe me to be on Ippolit's side. I am not--no more than I am on the side of Vasik. I just want people to think correctly on this issue. And yes that is just my own high opinion about my ability to judge correct logic--sorry.

[Michael Sherwin]

When I scanned Ippolit's code I noticed vauge similarities to Crafty as well as Fruit. Others noticed similarities to Kaissa. Maybe Kaissa is a clone of Crafty as I have herd before. However, Kaissa is open source and therefore it is just as valid to take ideas from Kaissa as it is from Crafty. Taking ideas is not the same as copying code. I looked at many sources before writing RomiChess. I did not copy anything and the only thing I took away from them was an understanding of how to approach writing a chess program. Still, I did not write RomiChess from totally inside myself. Should I have listed every source code that I have looked at? The Ippolit site listed more than I did!

Fine, so you say you didnt do something dirty. But Vas never mentioned IMO RomiChess. And you didnt threaten Vas in emails saying that you were building a copy of his Rybka. Correct? - So, please what has that from you to do with anything? Or do you argue that because you are sober nobody who threatens Vas is allowed to be called a cloner because he's also sober? With the little disadvantage that he has no address or concrete name?

The argument against, was that proper recognition was not being given. My counter argument is that all inclusive recognition is not necessary. The Ippolit site gives the most important recognitions. So what, that they looked at other sources and may have borrowed some things knowingly or unknowingly that are not very important to engine strength. At least they admit to have looked at other sources. It was a shorthand way of saying, 'And thanks to all the other authors of open source engine's too many to mention that have contributed to Ippolit.'

[rvida]

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

Rybka 3 does have separate search functions for white and black. No need to reverse engineer anything. You can find this trivially with a disassembler that gives stack dumps.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea but very clearly both Rybka 3 and Ippolit have this, and I know in fact of no other program that does.

Actually if you look at Cray Blitz, we did this. Since we couldn't use recursion when we started the program in FORTRAN, we didn't think of the negamax idea, so we had duplicated code for wtm and btm in search. We may have eliminated this in later years, I don't remember. It was certainly ugly as hell to have two pieces of code to change if you wanted to make a change to search.

Actually, I think it is a big help for branch predictors. And with clever use of C++ templates, the code duplication can be eliminated.

[slobo]

If Ippolit is a close cloning of Rybka, then we already effectively have the source code to Rybka. Vas would suffer no harm and would greatly benefit by releasing just enough code snippets to prove it. So, as things stand Vas is hurting himself by not proving it. On the other hand if Ippolit is not a close clone of Rybka then Vas is helping himself by saying that it is and then not proving it.

Hi, Mike. Your logic is too outlandish to be understood by lay like me. If I had the choice I would hope that number two is the solution. But exactly that brings certain guys into rage. Because there is no proof from Vas.

What offends me on the base of my education that you are making a sort of mathematical puzzle without mentioning who Vas is for you as a collegue. Have you no ethical bases among collegues?

Responsability is individual, not colective.

[slobo]

Hi Steve,

I really hope the moderation team will stand bold to its decision despite the outcome of the poll.

Though the can of worms is already open, CCC imho should not support those 'guys' by allowing direct links.

Regards,
Joerg.

Agreed.

So far you both are a minority

Perhaps, but I notice that those supporting it are in a minority when it comes to posting their support.
Allowing the hackers, crackers and cloners plus their supporters to take over CCC should not be permitted under any circumstances. Their is already a forum elsewhere set up for them, and don't forget, you're their hero at present.

You probably know that social exclusion is not good for anyone. It only stimulates misbehaviour, criminality etc.

Putting criminals into prison is one form of social exclusion.

Not allowing men into women's restrooms is another form of social exclusion.

Not allowing 6 year old children into x-rated movies is another form of social exclusion.

I would argue that none of these forms of social exclusion stimulates misbehavior or criminality.

Social exclusion can be benificial or detrimental. It depends upon the form of exclusion and the reason for the exclusion.

When you signed up for this forum, you agreed (among other things) that posts of questionable legality would not be permitted. I agree that this is a form of exclusion. Whether it is a good form or a bad form is debatable, but certainly it is something that you have agreed to obey.

You are mixing up things, sorry. You are mixing up social rules with social exclusion. You simply don´t make difference between them.

[Rolf]

Responsability is individual, not colective.

Dont steal my time! Never heard of a social group standard? How can you dare to spit on Vas, the best programmer alive? Have you no shame either?

If it comes to your political friends whom others call murderers like Karadzic, THEN of course you expect a kind of solidarity, right? But not in your hobby where you think it's ok if you spit on the leading figure just because you prefer the cloner people. Ok, I spit on that low solidarity and of preferences for crime people who are hiding behind anonymity.

It's all contradictions when I read you. There is no clarity, no ethical principle. It's more a kind of chaos, no logic but anarchy of moral.