Rybka disqualified and banned from World Computer Chess Cham

[bob]

A sad day for computerchess?

Perhaps it's not the best day for computer chess, but it can be a good day if the actions taken serve as a positive influence on current and future authors who might otherwise might think that they can easily get away with unauthorized cloning.

The treatment of Vas is not consistent - lets now examine a few more top engines. I wonder how many would pass, who knows a few unknown authors might end up with a world title

If we can come up with a view on what can be copied / used and apply that consistently then perhaps something good will come of this mess.

Even if we assume Vas started from Fruit 2.1, something that I am not convinced of, he added over 450 elo (CCRL 40/40) over 6 years or so. This is not the same as taking an open source engine or decompiled source and making some tweaks...

Shaun

Law enforcement folks always tell the same "short story". Traffic is moving down an interstate at 85+ mph in a 70 mph speed limit zone. Trooper pulls one guy over and starts to write him a ticket. "But everybody was driving over 85 and I was just keeping up with traffic to be safer." The trooper responded "Yes, but I caught YOU."

Vas caught himself when the Strelka fiasco came to light. That started the ball rolling. Nobody is going to volunteer to disassemble every commercial engine because it is both hard and time-consuming. However, given some evidence to support a suspicion, things will happen. Problem is, most sit back and say "this isn't fair, somebody should look at every commercial program." That "somebody" could include the person writing the comment, of course...

Using your analogy it feels to me like the Trooper was following the driver for 6 years waiting for a mistake or the opportunity to reveal a mistake in the past...

And certainly if Loop gets awarded anything that would be a very bad joke.

I believe that the loop issue will be next, since it has already been discussed on the net previously. This was a complicated issue, and it didn't go on for 5+ years. The initial issue popped into public view when Strelka came along and Vas claimed it was a direct Rybka clone made by reverse-engineering. The ICGA was approached about 6 months ago or so and asked to investigate. That was just completed. Prior to the formal ICGA investigation, the investigation was simply something several of us got involved in due to the old "where there is smoke, there is usually fire" idea. Nobody was paid, so time was taken when possible to pursue the truth... The wheels of justice don't always grind fast, but they grind effectively.

[bob]

Correct. I have given _many_ permission to use the rotated bit-board code in older versions of Crafty. And I explained my reasoning that suggested that such code was OK to borrow. But then again, when someone asked, they included an acknowledgement. Vas claimed _everything_ in his code was original and written by him...

At some point i guess an algorithm becomes common ground and you dont have to write your code from scratch. I guess if you have to write a "sorting" code, you wont start writing it from scratch. There is simply no point at all.

It is not a competition of computer skills.

For example move generation. It has been done this way, that way... another way... ok. When you start, and you understand the code, there is no meaning to reinvent the wheel.

It depends on how far you take that.

For example, rotated bitboards is can be represented as y=F(x) where for any x, the function returns the same value for y. No variability at all, as it just returns a bit vector showing which square the piece attacks. Move generation goes beyond that, because it can include ordering information (and ordering itself, in fact) and other information that is not fixed based on the input. So copying a move generator is not acceptable, while the simple idea behind rotated bitboards, or magic move generation using bitboards, or 0x88 mailbox, are all perfectly OK to use...

[Chan Rasjid]

I see the claim Vas only took code because he was Lazy, not to help Rybka's Elo. Vas only stole code that any program needed just to save time, it had nothing to do with Rybka's elo rating.

"Vasik did some copying which was wrong and he had been 'stoned' and so all's over for the copying that added no ELO"

This is not true, those people need to read the report! And stop playing spin doctor for Vas.

Vasik did not copy Fruit; he only cloned Fruit and it was the cloning that gave Rybka the strength to start with. Be honest with your statements and don't twist things around.

From the report:

2.2 Sudden Strength Increase. Early versions of Rybka had a much lower rating.
For example, in the Chesswar 7 tournament: http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/
Chesswar007/Chesswar007CSt.htm, Rybka had a rating estimate of only 2064 ELO
(pre-Rybka version 1.6.1 was dated 19 April 2004). In a little over a year, its rating
had jumped in Rybka 1.0 beta to 2919 ELO (http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
rating_list_all.html). Rajlich has offered no explanation for the enormous rating increase over such a short period. Historically, after the first year of development, programs
increase a maximum of 50-100 ELO per year.

Don't say historically. Don't ask why. He is Vasik Rajlich and not Mark Young.

Rasjid

[mclane]

loop was sold as wii chess, i guess many many times.

[Christopher Conkie]

loop was sold as wii chess, i guess many many times.

And has never been proven as a clone of anything I might add. Even under the closest scrutiny to date.

Chris

[michiguel]

For now ChessBase is still selling Rybka.

clearly, he can keep selling it.

wouldn't further action would be needed, i.e. an expensive and victorious law suit,
brought by...FSF or Ryan Benitez, or Bob Hyatt for damages...hmmm
loss of income? no i guess not

well who knows?

this however is simply a disqualification from a gaming association, a rather harsh 'slap' on the fanny, and go stand in the corner,
(thanks John Conway for the nice image and apt analogy)

sorry, but it probably won't faze them one bit IMO, and it's clearly a product for which there's a demand.

I noticed in the investigation report that two people from ChessBase were also in the panel:

Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of Chessbase News (2010-present))

Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)

It seems they were at least interested in the outcome, what they'll do I don't know.

Neither of us were on the panel. We were merely given access to the forums where the debate and analysis took place.

Then why are they using your name? did you sign or agree on the final report?

Miguel

The "secretariat" was formed by David. Three of us. The "panel" was comprised of anyone that had forum access, as anyone could make comments, suggestions, provide new information, or criticize existing information...

From the report, it looked like the panel members (including A. Silver), signed it. Did they not?

Miguel

You are asking something I can't answer. There was a long voting process where each panel member either voted "agree" or "disagree" and before we finished, it was unanimous. Albert's status in that is (to me) unknown at the present, as to whether he voted or not (not all panel members voted, I am pretty sure).

So, ICGA received a report with names attached to it, but they may or may not have agreed to sign it.

Miguel

[bob]

For now ChessBase is still selling Rybka.

clearly, he can keep selling it.

wouldn't further action would be needed, i.e. an expensive and victorious law suit,
brought by...FSF or Ryan Benitez, or Bob Hyatt for damages...hmmm
loss of income? no i guess not

well who knows?

this however is simply a disqualification from a gaming association, a rather harsh 'slap' on the fanny, and go stand in the corner,
(thanks John Conway for the nice image and apt analogy)

sorry, but it probably won't faze them one bit IMO, and it's clearly a product for which there's a demand.

I noticed in the investigation report that two people from ChessBase were also in the panel:

Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of Chessbase News (2010-present))

Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)

It seems they were at least interested in the outcome, what they'll do I don't know.

Neither of us were on the panel. We were merely given access to the forums where the debate and analysis took place.

Then why are they using your name? did you sign or agree on the final report?

Miguel

The "secretariat" was formed by David. Three of us. The "panel" was comprised of anyone that had forum access, as anyone could make comments, suggestions, provide new information, or criticize existing information...

From the report, it looked like the panel members (including A. Silver), signed it. Did they not?

Miguel

You are asking something I can't answer. There was a long voting process where each panel member either voted "agree" or "disagree" and before we finished, it was unanimous. Albert's status in that is (to me) unknown at the present, as to whether he voted or not (not all panel members voted, I am pretty sure).

So, ICGA received a report with names attached to it, but they may or may not have agreed to sign it.

Miguel

I do not know what the "panel signatories" means. I approved the final document. All I can say is that there were no votes against. As far as who voted, I suppose all that is available in the Wiki pages...

No one was "placed" on the panel, to my knowledge. Each panel member had to apply, and be granted admission (not all applicants were accepted for various reasons such as unknown, no background, etc.) I do not know Albert's status in the panel.

[bob]

I see the claim Vas only took code because he was Lazy, not to help Rybka's Elo. Vas only stole code that any program needed just to save time, it had nothing to do with Rybka's elo rating.

"Vasik did some copying which was wrong and he had been 'stoned' and so all's over for the copying that added no ELO"

This is not true, those people need to read the report! And stop playing spin doctor for Vas.

Vasik did not copy Fruit; he only cloned Fruit and it was the cloning that gave Rybka the strength to start with. Be honest with your statements and don't twist things around.

From the report:

2.2 Sudden Strength Increase. Early versions of Rybka had a much lower rating.
For example, in the Chesswar 7 tournament: http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/
Chesswar007/Chesswar007CSt.htm, Rybka had a rating estimate of only 2064 ELO
(pre-Rybka version 1.6.1 was dated 19 April 2004). In a little over a year, its rating
had jumped in Rybka 1.0 beta to 2919 ELO (http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
rating_list_all.html). Rajlich has offered no explanation for the enormous rating increase over such a short period. Historically, after the first year of development, programs
increase a maximum of 50-100 ELO per year.

Don't say historically. Don't ask why. He is Vasik Rajlich and not Mark Young.

Rasjid

cloning _is_ copying. And he definitely copied code, as was proven many times in the final report...

Perhaps you are thinking of derivative rather than cloning since clearly Rybka is not a fruit clone, but is, instead, a fruit derivative...

[mjlef]

For now ChessBase is still selling Rybka.

clearly, he can keep selling it.

wouldn't further action would be needed, i.e. an expensive and victorious law suit,
brought by...FSF or Ryan Benitez, or Bob Hyatt for damages...hmmm
loss of income? no i guess not

well who knows?

this however is simply a disqualification from a gaming association, a rather harsh 'slap' on the fanny, and go stand in the corner,
(thanks John Conway for the nice image and apt analogy)

sorry, but it probably won't faze them one bit IMO, and it's clearly a product for which there's a demand.

I noticed in the investigation report that two people from ChessBase were also in the panel:

Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of Chessbase News (2010-present))

Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)

It seems they were at least interested in the outcome, what they'll do I don't know.

Neither of us were on the panel. We were merely given access to the forums where the debate and analysis took place.

Then why are they using your name? did you sign or agree on the final report?

Miguel

The "secretariat" was formed by David. Three of us. The "panel" was comprised of anyone that had forum access, as anyone could make comments, suggestions, provide new information, or criticize existing information...

From the report, it looked like the panel members (including A. Silver), signed it. Did they not?

Miguel

You are asking something I can't answer. There was a long voting process where each panel member either voted "agree" or "disagree" and before we finished, it was unanimous. Albert's status in that is (to me) unknown at the present, as to whether he voted or not (not all panel members voted, I am pretty sure).

So, ICGA received a report with names attached to it, but they may or may not have agreed to sign it.

Miguel

I do not know what the "panel signatories" means. I approved the final document. All I can say is that there were no votes against. As far as who voted, I suppose all that is available in the Wiki pages...

No one was "placed" on the panel, to my knowledge. Each panel member had to apply, and be granted admission (not all applicants were accepted for various reasons such as unknown, no background, etc.) I do not know Albert's status in the panel.

Albert Silver and Frederic Friedel both requested to join the wiki and panel. Both were accepted. I know of no postings or votes by either of them, although they were asked several times to give opinions (as were all other panel members).

[Chan Rasjid]

cloning _is_ copying. And he definitely copied code, as was proven many times in the final report...

OK! OK! Vasik Rajlich cloned Fruit 2.1 (that gave it an unacceptable ELO jump of 800 within a year).

Rasjid.