Steve B wrote:
if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we see that "anonymity" will be the last stand of those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water
I don't think the report answers the legality question definitely, so that statement makes no sense.
Attacking BB for being anonymous makes little sense either, anyway. Unless you can point out serious flaws in the analysis. Good luck with that.
my point was,...
for some it will make no difference whats actually in the report
some have even said they will not even read it because its not signed
they are all set to raise the banner of Anonymity at Fort Alamo regardless of anything programming wise the report contains
i get the distinct impression that if Vas himself were to post that Ippo is not a clone..and that Rybka was derived from Fruit when it first went commercial ...if he himself would say this
there will be those that would actually argue with him that he is wrong
thats why i think its the programming community that needs to weigh in on this and not those who know little about programming
Steve
IF he posted this without any source or proof why believe him
or anybody else who post all this stuff without any proof.
Vas is a real person all the rest are unknowns hiding their ids Until i can see real names and proof from source it
is all just talk.
Best,
Gerold.
you have met Vas in person?
then how do you know he exists?
because others have met him
Zach has met BB
he said so yesterday
i imagine he probably knows his full name
BB has spoken to Kaufman
Kaufman probably asked his full name
im guessing he doesn't want his full name all over the internet because he will be besieged by zealot nut jobs like i was
Steve
P.S. still cant find the post where Zach said all this
sigh..
I guess BB has the source code of Rybka
You a zeallot nut job give me a break.
Best,
Gerold.
P.S. Who would you pick as your running mates in the
elections in July.
P.S.2. you got my vote.
1.) over and over again that 'this is similar between the two engines, but it can be found in open source programs
2.) Rybka specific code/tables are almost completely missing from Ippolit
3.) he only found one oddity that exist between the two engines code that might be considered to be a 'smoking gun'. And he admitted that it was rather meaningless as it was redundant code that really didn't do anything.
4.) he pointed out a MOUNTAIN of dissimilarities between the two programs where things were just not done the same way.
BB has obviously greatly modified his opinion about the origins of Ippolit since he has finished his investigation. You of course have accepted from him his initial unsubstantiated feelings that he himself has proven to be false. You do not want to understand that careful investigation has changed his mind. You would rather accuse me of spouting off BS. barracuda.
Hello Michael,
Just let the thing simmer.
Eventually, all things eventually.
Then there are those who do not consider any evidence which may contradict their world-view.
I am not technically competent to assess the merits of the report but it is clear from programmers I admire and more importantly, respect, that there is food for thought in this report.
To reject it out of hand without weighing it seems rash at the very least.
Incidentally, you are in that list of programmers mentioned above.
Normally, those who blindly classified Ippolit as a reverse-engineered Rybka would now be expected to simply apologize for the mess they have caused. However, if you know them well enough, expect no apologies. BB's unbelievably detailed report is proof only to those who have been genuinely seeking to know the truth.
well, first of all, like with all documents, one have to be careful, I mean there is nearly no code comparison or whatever so like with all other statements about the topic we have to trust in the author.
But of course, how likely is it that someone would create such a 33 page report just for fun ? Not very likely. To compare this all with just objdump, chapeau !
Therefor I tend to agree that it's well possible that they re-engineered parts of Rybka, but it looks like most of the code is original, using ideas of Rybka, ideas of other engines and ideas of it's own. This would make Ippolit and all it's follow-ups absolutely legal and even morally safe. For a final conclusion I would like to wait whether Vas can come up with something different, but for now I want to say sorry to the unknown authors. You might say this is just a apologize light - and you are right, but understand me that I want to wait for a statement of Vas, after that I might make a clearer statement. But I wont wait forever, let's say about a month, after that I would even allow them in official tournaments if they would come up with a real name. (E.g. if Norman or Mr. Houdart would like to take part they would need the permission of the Ippolit authors according to ICGA rules)
Greets, Thomas
This post is based on the assumption that the BB document is accurate.
I don’t think that you have much to apologise for Thomas; you said what you thought was right. Decent people say and do what they think is right. Whether or not they are right is of relatively little importance. I believe that Graham Banks also said and did what he thought was right. The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.
It is not clear what motivated the Ippolit authors to attract suspicion to themselves however, whatever it was, they do not deserve a full-blown apology and I doubt whether they are looking for one.
Vas Rajlich appears to me to now have even more explaining to do. Not only does he need to talk about possible Fruit code in Rybka, in the light of the work of Bob and Zach, he needs to talk about his behaviour regarding the Ippolit series, in the light of the work of BB. Neither job should be too demanding because, unlike Bob, Zach and BB, he has access to all of the source code that he needs.
frcha wrote:Its possible that at least one of the authors used to be on the Rybka programming team -- the engine by itself is legal but the author might have signed some agreement preventing him from using the same ideas in another program independently. In that case Vas can sue him if he reveals himself.
In this case, I'm sure Vas would know who it is, so anonymity would be rather pointless.
Michael Sherwin wrote:
BB has obviously greatly modified his opinion about the origins of Ippolit since he has finished his investigation. You of course have accepted from him his initial unsubstantiated feelings that he himself has proven to be false.
The opinion about the origins and influence of the program, by the author of the study, was posted. No need to guess anything.
Normally, those who blindly classified Ippolit as a reverse-engineered Rybka would now be expected to simply apologize for the mess they have caused. However, if you know them well enough, expect no apologies. BB's unbelievably detailed report is proof only to those who have been genuinely seeking to know the truth.
well, first of all, like with all documents, one have to be careful, I mean there is nearly no code comparison or whatever so like with all other statements about the topic we have to trust in the author.
But of course, how likely is it that someone would create such a 33 page report just for fun ? Not very likely. To compare this all with just objdump, chapeau !
Therefor I tend to agree that it's well possible that they re-engineered parts of Rybka, but it looks like most of the code is original, using ideas of Rybka, ideas of other engines and ideas of it's own. This would make Ippolit and all it's follow-ups absolutely legal and even morally safe. For a final conclusion I would like to wait whether Vas can come up with something different, but for now I want to say sorry to the unknown authors. You might say this is just a apologize light - and you are right, but understand me that I want to wait for a statement of Vas, after that I might make a clearer statement. But I wont wait forever, let's say about a month, after that I would even allow them in official tournaments if they would come up with a real name. (E.g. if Norman or Mr. Houdart would like to take part they would need the permission of the Ippolit authors according to ICGA rules)
Greets, Thomas
This post is based on the assumption that the BB document is accurate.
I don’t think that you have much to apologise for Thomas; you said what you thought was right. Decent people say and do what they think is right. Whether or not they are right is of relatively little importance. I believe that Graham Banks also said and did what he thought was right. The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.
It is not clear what motivated the Ippolit authors to attract suspicion to themselves however, whatever it was, they do not deserve a full-blown apology and I doubt whether they are looking for one.
Vas Rajlich appears to me to now have even more explaining to do. Not only does he need to talk about possible Fruit code in Rybka, in the light of the work of Bob and Zach, he needs to talk about his behaviour regarding the Ippolit series, in the light of the work of BB. Neither job should be too demanding because, unlike Bob, Zach and BB, he has access to all of the source code that he needs.
now that is funny!
Well, I am so glad it appeals to your sense of humour. However, I don’t see your point.
It looks like I am more inclined to forgive a person who makes a wrong decision with good motives than you are. If you do have a valid point other than a puerile belief in vindictiveness, kindly explain what it is.
Michael Sherwin wrote:
4.) he pointed out a MOUNTAIN of dissimilarities between the two programs where things were just not done the same way.
Whoever understands the amount and types of these dissimilarities and still has the nerve to speak of cloning, has to be knowingly dishonest.
A rough comparason for non-programmers is this:
when Rybka1 was found to be bitboard-based (contrary to Fruit21), many people took that as main proof that Rybka1 could not be a clone of Fruit.
It should however be noted that the amount of effort needed to transform a Rybka3 (full C/C++ source code assumed available) to Ippolit (taking into account the amount and types of dissimilarities mentioned in the BB report) would be at least 20 times the effort to introduce bitboards into Fruit and adapt all routines affected.
Normally, those who blindly classified Ippolit as a reverse-engineered Rybka would now be expected to simply apologize for the mess they have caused. However, if you know them well enough, expect no apologies. BB's unbelievably detailed report is proof only to those who have been genuinely seeking to know the truth.
well, first of all, like with all documents, one have to be careful, I mean there is nearly no code comparison or whatever so like with all other statements about the topic we have to trust in the author.
But of course, how likely is it that someone would create such a 33 page report just for fun ? Not very likely. To compare this all with just objdump, chapeau !
Therefor I tend to agree that it's well possible that they re-engineered parts of Rybka, but it looks like most of the code is original, using ideas of Rybka, ideas of other engines and ideas of it's own. This would make Ippolit and all it's follow-ups absolutely legal and even morally safe. For a final conclusion I would like to wait whether Vas can come up with something different, but for now I want to say sorry to the unknown authors. You might say this is just a apologize light - and you are right, but understand me that I want to wait for a statement of Vas, after that I might make a clearer statement. But I wont wait forever, let's say about a month, after that I would even allow them in official tournaments if they would come up with a real name. (E.g. if Norman or Mr. Houdart would like to take part they would need the permission of the Ippolit authors according to ICGA rules)
Greets, Thomas
This post is based on the assumption that the BB document is accurate.
I don’t think that you have much to apologise for Thomas; you said what you thought was right. Decent people say and do what they think is right. Whether or not they are right is of relatively little importance. I believe that Graham Banks also said and did what he thought was right. The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.
It is not clear what motivated the Ippolit authors to attract suspicion to themselves however, whatever it was, they do not deserve a full-blown apology and I doubt whether they are looking for one.
Vas Rajlich appears to me to now have even more explaining to do. Not only does he need to talk about possible Fruit code in Rybka, in the light of the work of Bob and Zach, he needs to talk about his behaviour regarding the Ippolit series, in the light of the work of BB. Neither job should be too demanding because, unlike Bob, Zach and BB, he has access to all of the source code that he needs.
now that is funny!
Well, I am so glad it appeals to your sense of humour. However, I don’t see your point.
It looks like I am more inclined to forgive a person who makes a wrong decision with good motives than you are. If you do have a valid point other than a puerile belief in vindictiveness, kindly explain what it is.
My statement was not an attack on anyone, or focused on any individual. However, with your logic, any action should be fine, as long as you meant well ? The point is before you make stance on an issue you should know the facts and have solid evidence. Or henceforth, one becomes a fool who is trapped within his own hypocrisy.
I have no problem with peoples opinions, but when you look at the damage that has occured to this forum, it does not take a genius to see something is messed up. But, hey I could be wrong ? Although, whether I am right or wrong is of relatively little importance. Correct ?
give me a break.
now that is funny!
