Komodo - Rybka in Danger?

[bob]

I would also like to say that I don't know how I got sucked into this. I personally don't really care that much on a personal level there is nothing at stake for me - it's just that my own personal sense of justice is offended when I see someone get ripped off like Vas was, and this is followed up by character assassination cleverly disguised as concern for his well being.

Thanks for speaking it out in your position with your status. Because we have many members who cant understand something even if it#s right before their eyes - if the wrong or nameless people are telling them about it. This is my fate e.g., but I dont care because I know what is right and what is wrong.

Let me add this. Here in CCC we have most famous programmers (Theron, Hyatt) who simply dont get what this all about.

They prejudge Vasik as a person. a) Vas has no moral education - if I would behave this way, I could increase my Tiger to the same extent lkike Rybka [NB that exact proof for the allegation was never presented, nowhere, neither here or elsewhere on webpages] b) Vas is a liar [also here without proof]

Nobody sane would believe that Vas begins to elaborate in front of such people and their insults.

Now we have people (pseudo names) who argue as if Vas were stupid. Truth is Vas has thought about all these arguments and saw no way to finally convince a community that stands under the influence of such experts who attack ad hominem. Who make accusations without proving their claims in scientifically sober ways.

My verdict goes even deeper. Bob wrote in a seperate message that for him it's unacceptable that Vas made a claim (vs Rolino) and then decides to add nothing more because after Bob it's the obligation to prove a claim. Again, he himself, Bob Hyatt, did never prove his claim 'he's a liar' nor Theron proved that Vas had no moral education, but this just as an aside, for me the statement is nonsense and I'm surprised that Bob is going into such a provably false direction. Here is the proof that this is total nonsense:

Fact is Vas informed about a sort of blackmail approach via email. He didnt make a claim! In truth he reported what had happened and that he wouldnt care about it because it makes no sense to let your peace of mind be disturbed by crooks and cloners. This is the online description of a reaction but this is no claim at all.

We must learn that this sort of aggressiveness in communication isnt everybody's favorite! This <<Aha you pretend this or that , now tell "us" quickly where you got this. How can you make such a "claim". But I, Bob, oppose that and now you must prove it. It's a duty! Because else you should never have made this sort of claim!!!!>>

But again, it is no claim in reaL, it's Bob and other people who want to get into a fight with Vas, but Vas just ignores it. He doesnt see and doesnt want such conflicts because they dont lead nowhere. And that is a legal position of deepest wisdom. Because how you could defend against ad hominem?

My comments are _not_ "ad hominem". They are based on plain and simple fact. In the "liar" case, "there is no fruit code in Rybka" is false. It seems that some already admit that the UCI parser code was copied. But they say no "playing code". However, last time I checked, "no" means _none_. Not "just a little" or "just unimportant parts." However, there is much more than just UCI code here, some details have been published.

You keep saying it but it is not true. Zach did not make it public. At this point, I really do not understand why you insist.

Miguel

Some will be published at some point in the future. But "no" was a very poor choice of words, when you think about it. You can't be "just a little bit pregnant". You are or you are not.

There was a lot of stuff made public in discussions here before things got so heated the discussions were moved offline...

[bob]

I would also like to say that I don't know how I got sucked into this. I personally don't really care that much on a personal level there is nothing at stake for me - it's just that my own personal sense of justice is offended when I see someone get ripped off like Vas was, and this is followed up by character assassination cleverly disguised as concern for his well being.

Thanks for speaking it out in your position with your status. Because we have many members who cant understand something even if it#s right before their eyes - if the wrong or nameless people are telling them about it. This is my fate e.g., but I dont care because I know what is right and what is wrong.

Let me add this. Here in CCC we have most famous programmers (Theron, Hyatt) who simply dont get what this all about.

They prejudge Vasik as a person. a) Vas has no moral education - if I would behave this way, I could increase my Tiger to the same extent lkike Rybka [NB that exact proof for the allegation was never presented, nowhere, neither here or elsewhere on webpages] b) Vas is a liar [also here without proof]

Nobody sane would believe that Vas begins to elaborate in front of such people and their insults.

Now we have people (pseudo names) who argue as if Vas were stupid. Truth is Vas has thought about all these arguments and saw no way to finally convince a community that stands under the influence of such experts who attack ad hominem. Who make accusations without proving their claims in scientifically sober ways.

My verdict goes even deeper. Bob wrote in a seperate message that for him it's unacceptable that Vas made a claim (vs Rolino) and then decides to add nothing more because after Bob it's the obligation to prove a claim. Again, he himself, Bob Hyatt, did never prove his claim 'he's a liar' nor Theron proved that Vas had no moral education, but this just as an aside, for me the statement is nonsense and I'm surprised that Bob is going into such a provably false direction. Here is the proof that this is total nonsense:

Fact is Vas informed about a sort of blackmail approach via email. He didnt make a claim! In truth he reported what had happened and that he wouldnt care about it because it makes no sense to let your peace of mind be disturbed by crooks and cloners. This is the online description of a reaction but this is no claim at all.

We must learn that this sort of aggressiveness in communication isnt everybody's favorite! This <<Aha you pretend this or that , now tell "us" quickly where you got this. How can you make such a "claim". But I, Bob, oppose that and now you must prove it. It's a duty! Because else you should never have made this sort of claim!!!!>>

But again, it is no claim in reaL, it's Bob and other people who want to get into a fight with Vas, but Vas just ignores it. He doesnt see and doesnt want such conflicts because they dont lead nowhere. And that is a legal position of deepest wisdom. Because how you could defend against ad hominem?

My comments are _not_ "ad hominem". They are based on plain and simple fact. In the "liar" case, "there is no fruit code in Rybka" is false. It seems that some already admit that the UCI parser code was copied. But they say no "playing code". However, last time I checked, "no" means _none_. Not "just a little" or "just unimportant parts." However, there is much more than just UCI code here, some details have been published. Some will be published at some point in the future. But "no" was a very poor choice of words, when you think about it. You can't be "just a little bit pregnant". You are or you are not.

I agree with you this is all ok but still you are wrong and I will prove that again. Bob, I beg you to rethink it. If say in a case someone makes a weak statement does this P_R_O_V_E beyond doubt that he lied?? In my eyes you seek to find proof where you cant find it. Ok, in a private sort of court the slightest weakness would prove someone wrong but not in a court with science and justice experts. And for all not in a court like here on the net. You take every little bit and see something meaningful but you cant prove what someone meant with what he said. Our speech is too ambiguous to be taken in a 1-to-1 interpretation. If you want to make a case out of such indices you must at least collect several pieces of evidence not just a single expression.

I cant imagine that you really didnt know this. I am sure you know all this. But here you give the impression to young members as if you had a case. IMO it's a totally different task to check if a program has some Crafty code.

It would help us all if you would at least admit that you had no case beyond reasonable doubts. Please. Let's come to agreements about a minimal consent.

How many times does this need to be answered? Code from Fruit is _absolutely_ included in Rybka 1. It didn't just sneak in there by itself. So (a) there is definitely fruit code in Rybka. How much is irrelevant in this context. (b) Vas said there is _no_ fruit code in Rybka. "no" is pretty clear. Doesn't mean a little. Doesn't mean a few hundred or a few thousand lines. It means _zero_. Given (a), then (b) was a false statement, made knowingly. What do you call someone that makes a false statement _knowing_ it is false???

I have a little non-original code in Crafty. I have credited the sources (such as Pradu for the magic move stuff, but also any others that have contributed code). That's not so hard to do, and then one remains completely honest.

I have read that Vas stated that there were original code in R1 except some public domain. Now the eternal challenge: where is the proof for ingredients that are Fruit but not public domain or original Vas code? This is the sober question logically and scientifically. Not your "nothing, zero" and "a bit" verbal games. Where are the facts? The announced proof for many years by now for "knowing false" statements? Doesnt the emptiness of proof bother you a bit?

There is no "public domain". If you copy _anything_ without credit, that is plagiarism. _anything_. Things like piece/square table values and such are not what one would normally consider "public domain" not that anyone seems to care about the distinction.

[bob]

My comments are _not_ "ad hominem".

You called Vas unethical and that is a personal attack on him.

They are based on plain and simple fact. In the "liar" case, "there is no fruit code in Rybka" is false. It seems that some already admit that the UCI parser code was copied. But they say no "playing code". However, last time I checked, "no" means _none_. Not "just a little" or "just unimportant parts." However, there is much more than just UCI code here, some details have been published. Some will be published at some point in the future. But "no" was a very poor choice of words, when you think about it. You can't be "just a little bit pregnant". You are or you are not.

Sorry, but that is just about the strangest reasoning I have ever seen here. He _was_ unethical in claiming a program is a clone without offering any proof of any kind (as well as unethical in copying parts of Fruit directly and using them in Rybka 1). But even if his behaviour _was_ unethical, it is an ad hominem (personal) when I point that out?

_That's_ a stretch...

An ad hominem attack doesn't come from a straight statement of fact.

Except that the fact isnt a fact and the claiming wasnt a claiming. In total, you cant substantiate a case by connecting indirectly what you interpretated as alleged facts. Therefore your allegations remain ad hominem because they refer to non-factual interpretations by yourself. It remains based on playing with words. But I thought you were a computer scientist. And not a Bugliosi who handled investigated facts. Where are your facts? Why do you ask Vas to make your case?

I ask vas to make _his_ case that robo* is a clone. That is not _my_ case. The other things I mentioned are facts, not opinions, and not debatable.

[bob]

I can't even read RobboLito code myself, I'm not a programmer. I based my conclusion on an email from a reliable independent chess programmer (no connection to Don, me, or Rybka) who sent this king table he either found in or derived from an early Ippo version. He had no access to Rybka code himself, he just sent this info along. I compared it with my files of the values sent to Vas for R3, and the resemblance was startling. I didn't ask for other tables to compare, one was enough for me. It was also obvious to me that using Ippo (or later Robbo) for analysis generally produced evals extremely close to R3 in most situations, with rare exceptions. This should be equally obvious to anyone who compares them in analyzing many positions.
I could post the king table I submitted, but as I said I have no proof that it is actually in R3, I only know that Vas told me any time he made even the slightest changes to my terms or values, so I have no personal doubt on this point. So I'll leave it to others to post the relevant section from the R3 code if they wish to do so.
I don't claim that Robbo has taken the entire Rybka eval. Rather it seems that some parts may have been too difficult to decipher and were left out. So of course I won't post the whole eval even if I could prove it to be in R3.

The danger of "one was enough for me" is to compare rybka 1 beta table values to fruit's. More than one is enough there. BTW that has been done with direct disassembly of the piece/square table values. I don't remember the specifics now, but there is some material value difference between the two that requires some sort of multiplier. For example, stockfish uses P=256, so to convert to my pc/sq table values, one would need to multiply mine by 2.56 or divide the stockfish values by the same constant. But that doesn't make the values different, obviously, just duplicated and then scaled properly. I agree that duplicate tables would be a problem. But in both cases here (fruit/rybka 1 and robo/rybka3).

Larry also said the following:

"It was also obvious to me that using Ippo (or later Robbo) for analysis generally produced evals extremely close to R3 in most situations"

I think that it is possible to prove similiarity in this case

take(rybka,robbo,stockfish,Naum,Shredder,toga) and give them to analyze many random positions at small depth(rybka can get depth 1 when other programs get depth that they have similiar strength to rybka depth 1)

If the difference between Rybka and Robbo is significantly smaller than the difference between other pairs then it is going to be an evidence against robbo.

Uri

And since robo* seems to be testing at rybka + 70 elo or so, it is quite likely that in many positions they will be almost identical since they are so strong, while in a few others, they will be quite different due to that 70 elo difference. It is not so easy to compare that way. Pick the right positions and Crafty will appear to be a perfect clone of Rybka.

[bob]

This entire argument is flawed beyond belief. If someone copied parts of his code, then I'd think everyone would agree those parts are _already_ public. It would be quite easy to take a couple of significant chunks of code from Rybka 3, lay them out side-by-side with the IP/Robo* code, and say "look, here is the properly formatted code from Rybka... here is the identical code from Robo (except that procedure names or variable names are different, and the code is slightly rearranged... and here is a third code where I took the robo code, line by line, and rearranged/restructured it so that it matches my code exactly.

That doesn't give away a single thing that is not already available in the Robo* source, and it would forever shut this endless debate down. It would not give any new insight into Rybka. It would reveal nothing that has not already been revealed (perhaps a few variable names) and would be more than convincing.

So how, exactly and why, exactly, would he need to reveal parts of the code that were _not_ in Robo*? And how/why would doing what I suggested reveal something that is not already "out there" for everyone to see.

A little logic now and again would go a long way. Just put the emotions aside and think for a bit, and most of this kind of excuse-making goes away.

Question is why you need Vas showing something if it reveils nothing new for you? What exactly would it mean to you if it's nothing new? Is this a secret language I miss somehow? Why cant you speak for Vas if it's irrelevant what he could say? Isnt it in truth just to keep such a topic alive with allegedly you urging Vas for something inexistent? Why not following my invitation for slowly establishing peace from your side, bad emotions aside? So, please, take away the "liar", "lack of moral education" and "unethical" allegations. Big thanks.

This would _clearly_ answer the question "was Robo* derived from Rybka by decompiling or reverse-engineering?" Quite simple.

[bob]

QED then. Ippolit/RobboLito/Igorrit/IvanHoe/Firebird are all close derivatives of R3

............which just happens to be a closed source engine.
Good that somebody has finally fessed up.

Cheers,
Graham.

What does "closed source" have to do with _anything_??? We now have a large inbred program "family" it would seem. Starting with fruit, and ending with robo*. Now, what to do about the mess? And it _is_ a mess, like it or not. Which program is the original? Which is the derivative? Clearly fruit came before rybka. Rybka came before robo*. If the one on the "end" of this chain is a problem, then the one in the middle must also be a problem. Or do we hand-wave that away???

[bob]

Vas could quite easily shut his big mouth

This is also beyond acceptable in my humble opinion.

And can we assume that (as a moderator) you would delete everything which is "beyond acceptable" in your opinion?

I wouldn't be accepting posts with personal attacks like this, so you I guess you'd better hope I don't get elected.

If that is _your_ definition of "personal attack" you _really_ have no business being a moderator. The only conclusion I could draw from that would be that anything you disagree with would be a "personal attack" somehow.

[Graham Banks]

The only conclusion I could draw from that would be that anything you disagree with would be a "personal attack" somehow.

Then you obviously don't know me very well.

[Rolf]

There is no "public domain". If you copy _anything_ without credit, that is plagiarism. _anything_. Things like piece/square table values and such are not what one would normally consider "public domain" not that anyone seems to care about the distinction.

Ok, fine, but only Vas is a liar and has unethical manners and a bad moral education. That is what is shocking me, because what we have here is a private lynching (well, internet flames and such) now already for several years. -- Why?

[BubbaTough]

If that is _your_ definition of "personal attack" you _really_ have no business being a moderator. The only conclusion I could draw from that would be that anything you disagree with would be a "personal attack" somehow.

I disagree. Dr. Wael Deeb has issued a large number of posts whose main point is to insult Vas, because he is angry about the patch issue. If the main point is to insult, it is a "personal attack" in my opinion, and does not belong here. It is fine to complain about no patch (preferably only within threads where the topic is relevant) but saying someone "should shut their big fat mouth" or "is a jerk" or whatever does not belong here. Just because it does not offend me personally to be called names, does not make it appropriate for others to be subjected to such things.

-Sam