Komodo - Rybka in Danger?

[Robert Flesher]

Well, this stuff was made public by the clones, and anyway Vas had asked me to keep such general eval knowledge confidential for a year, and it's now been a year and a half. Still I won't reveal exact values of terms in R3 even if they are more or less public due to the clones (or "derivatives" if you prefer). I doubt that they would be of much use to a non-clone program anyway, as different programs require different values for terms.

I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

For what reason should they do this? Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, and whoever is left is not going to be convinced no matter what additional evidence is presented.

I know from my own dealings with people that if someone really want to believe something, no amount of evidence or logic is going to change them.

Make the case.

When a newbie with 11 posts questions one of the most respected (and well informed) programmers in the field, it just about sums everything that Don says quite nicely.

Although I agree with what you are saying Graham. It seems you jump to conclusion to fast and assume to much. To assign a relative value of a members posted based on the time he has been here is absurd. For instance, I have been at this and the old site since its beginning, long before you ever posted here (as far as we know). However, I chose to remain silent often and posted little. Subsequently, should my posts hold more value than yours? (of course not). But this seems to me what you are trying to apply with terms like "newbie". There are two sides to every coin, and although I agree Don should be met with respect, so should all members, new or old.

[benstoker]

Well, this stuff was made public by the clones, and anyway Vas had asked me to keep such general eval knowledge confidential for a year, and it's now been a year and a half. Still I won't reveal exact values of terms in R3 even if they are more or less public due to the clones (or "derivatives" if you prefer). I doubt that they would be of much use to a non-clone program anyway, as different programs require different values for terms.

I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

For what reason should they do this? Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, and whoever is left is not going to be convinced no matter what additional evidence is presented.

I know from my own dealings with people that if someone really want to believe something, no amount of evidence or logic is going to change them.

Make the case.

When a newbie with 11 posts questions one of the most respected (and well informed) programmers in the field, it just about sums everything that Don says quite nicely.

Although I agree with what you are saying Graham. It seems you jump to conclusion to fast and assume to much. To assign a relative value of a members posted based on the time he has been here is absurd. For instance, I have been at this and the old site since its beginning, long before you ever posted here (as far as we know). However, I chose to remain silent often and posted little. Subsequently, should my posts hold more value than yours? (of course not). But this seems to me what you are trying to apply with terms like "newbie". There are two sides to every coin, and although I agree Don should be met with respect, so should all members, new or old.

No biggie for me. I had read some threads on the debate, but could have read more before posting, searched more, and am still studying them. There's nothing personal about this issue with me; I don't see why ppl think maligning and denigrating character gets them any mileage when making a claim supposedly based on facts.

The truth value of whatever fact is posited, is most of the time testable. If it is not testable, it remains conjecture until a test is developed, e.g., string theory. Normal everyday experiential facts gets tested in courthouses everyday all over the world via demonstrative evidence and he-said-she-said witnesses. This forum is like a mini-courthouse with lots of experts piping in.

In the courthouses, we all know that some experts are "whores", meaning their testimony is purchased. But, ultimately, we sift through and test the claims, an arduous process and attempt to arrive at a final judgment. There is no other way. No one has the power to create a fact ex cathedra concerning the robbo issue or any other issue in life. You gotta make your case, period.

But, confusing normative judgments with declarative judgments is unhelpful to say the least and should be avoided most of the time.

[Graham Banks]

Although I agree with what you are saying Graham. It seems you jump to conclusion to fast and assume to much. To assign a relative value of a members posted based on the time he has been here is absurd. For instance, I have been at this and the old site since its beginning, long before you ever posted here (as far as we know). However, I chose to remain silent often and posted little. Subsequently, should my posts hold more value than yours? (of course not). But this seems to me what you are trying to apply with terms like "newbie". There are two sides to every coin, and although I agree Don should be met with respect, so should all members, new or old.

Some fair enough points Robert.
However, quite often it is the timing of when a person joins and then what their posts are mainly about that can be telling.

Cheers,
Graham.

[swami]

Komodo 1.0 JA
by Don Dailey

Strategic Test Suite Conditions:

Core2Quad 32 bits, Q6600, 2 GB RAM, 2.4GHZ
10 seconds per position
900 positions
Engine uses 130 Mb Hash.
Arena GUI

Subject-wise/Overall Performance:

Code: Select all

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                |  STS1  |  STS2  |  STS3  |  STS4  |  STS5  |  STS6  |  STS7  |  STS8  |  STS9  |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Komodo-10-32-ja  |    80    |    79    |    82    |    76    |    73    |    77    |    77    |    61    |    68    |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade              |    A+    |    A    |    A+    |    A    |    A-    |    A    |    A    |    B    |    B+    |
Score / 1000     |    854    |    776    |    885    |    841    |    821    |    893    |    835    |    692    |    789    |
Grade              |    S    |    A    |    S    |    A+    |    A+    |    S    |    A+    |    B+    |    A    |
Best Move :       673 / 900  74.77 %  Grade : A-
Total :           7386 / 9000  82.06 %  Grade : A+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,
Swami

[Leto]

Komodo x64 vs Naum 4 x64 1CPU, 50 game match, 40/4 repeating time control, perfect 8.32 book used. Komodo won a very close match 25.5-24.5.

Komodo's quickest win:
[Event "Komodo testing 1"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2010.01.22"]
[Round "5.1"]
[White "Komodo64 1.0 JA"]
[Black "Naum 4 x64 1CPU"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E63"]
[Annotator "0.38;0.29"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[EventDate "2010.01.21"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[TimeControl "40/180:0/0:0/0"]

{Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHzW=16.4 ply; 2,150kN/s; Perfect
v8.32.ctg B=14.9 ply; 1,385kN/s; Perfect v8.32.ctg} 1. Nf3 {B/0 0} Nf6 {B/0 0}
2. c4 {B/0 0} g6 {B/0 0} 3. d4 {B/0 0} Bg7 {B/0 0} 4. g3 {B/0 0} O-O {B/0 0} 5.
Bg2 {B/0 0} d6 {B/0 0} 6. Nc3 {B/0 0} Nc6 {B/0 0} 7. O-O {B/0 0} a6 {B/0 0} 8.
b3 {B/0 0} Rb8 {B/0 0} 9. Nd5 {B/0 0} Nh5 {B/0 0} 10. Bb2 {B/0 0} e6 {B/0 0}
11. Ne3 {0.38/14 4} f5 {0.29/16 11} 12. Rb1 {(Qd2) 0.56/14 5} f4 {0.28/15 6}
13. Nc2 {0.67/14 5} Bd7 {(Qe7) 0.28/16 20} 14. e4 {(Qd2) 0.72/14 4} Qe7 {(fxe3)
0.22/13 5} 15. e5 {(Qd2) 0.97/15 8} fxg3 {0.27/12 4} 16. hxg3 {1.01/15 6} b5 {
(a5) 0.56/14 10} 17. Qd2 {(exd6) 1.00/15 9} dxe5 {(Rf7) 0.58/14 11} 18. dxe5 {
1.06/15 5} Bc8 {0.51/15 11} 19. Qe3 {(Rfd1) 1.06/14 6} Bb7 {0.75/14 6} 20. Rfd1
{(a4) 1.10/14 6} Nb4 {(h6) 0.71/14 5} 21. Nxb4 {1.17/15 4} Qxb4 {0.71/6 0} 22.
Rbc1 {(Bd4) 1.12/15 6} Qa5 {0.67/14 2} 23. Bd4 {(a3) 1.28/16 14} bxc4 {(Ba8) 0.
87/14 6} 24. Rxc4 {1.38/16 6} Bd5 {(Ba8) 0.87/13 5} 25. Rc2 {(Ra4) 1.47/14 5}
Rbe8 {0.99/12 5} 26. Rdd2 {1.74/15 4} Ba8 {(Kh8) 1.31/13 3} 27. Bc5 {(Rc5) 1.
69/16 3} Rf5 {1.54/14 4} 28. g4 {1.61/17 5} Bxf3 {1.60/15 3} 29. gxf5 {1.67/17
5} Bxg2 {1.60/16 3} 30. Kxg2 {1.59/17 5} exf5 {1.52/17 19} 31. e6 {1.66/16 4}
Qb5 {1.53/17 14} 32. Kg1 {(e7) 1.56/15 9} Bf6 {1.53/14 2} 33. a4 {(e7) 1.52/15
4} Qb7 {1.46/15 2} 34. e7 {1.57/16 3} Kf7 {(Qc8) 1.46/15 7} 35. Rd8 {1.60/15 3}
Ng7 {1.80/14 3} 36. Rxe8 {(Ba3) 1.60/16 5} Nxe8 {1.43/15 2} 37. f3 {1.61/16 3}
Qd5 {1.42/14 1} 38. Rd2 {(Kf2) 1.55/16 10} Qe5 {(Qc6) 1.42/16 2} 39. Qxe5 {1.
81/16 5} Bxe5 {1.42/6 0} 40. b4 {(Rd7) 1.78/15 3} h5 {(Bf6) 1.38/16 6} 41. a5 {
(Kf2) 2.89/17 5} Bd6 {(c6) 2.73/13 6} 42. Bxd6 {4.21/20 4} cxd6 {(Nxd6) 4.96/
14 3} 43. b5 {(Rc2) 5.48/21 10} g5 {(axb5) 6.27/12 4} 44. bxa6 {9.62/15 3} Nc7
{9.26/13 3} 45. a7 {(Re2) 12.30/16 7} Kxe7 {10.16/12 3} 46. Rc2 {13.29/16 4}
Na8 {22.61/20 27} 47. Rc8 {14.50/15 9} 1-0


Komodo's quickest loss:
[Event "Komodo testing 1"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2010.01.22"]
[Round "22.1"]
[White "Naum 4 x64 1CPU"]
[Black "Komodo64 1.0 JA"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A34"]
[Annotator "0.25;0.22"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "2010.01.21"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[TimeControl "40/180:0/0:0/0"]

{Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9650 @ 3.00GHzW=15.2 ply; 1,741kN/s; Perfect
v8.32.ctg B=16.5 ply; 2,466kN/s; Perfect v8.32.ctg} 1. Nf3 {B/0 0} Nf6 {B/0 0}
2. c4 {B/0 0} c5 {B/0 0} 3. Nc3 {B/0 0} d5 {B/0 0} 4. cxd5 {B/0 0} Nxd5 {B/0 0}
5. e4 {B/0 0} Nb4 {B/0 0} 6. Bb5+ {B/0 0} N8c6 {B/0 0} 7. d4 {B/0 0} cxd4 {B/0
0} 8. a3 {B/0 0} dxc3 {B/0 0} 9. Qxd8+ {B/0 0} Kxd8 {B/0 0} 10. axb4 {B/0 0}
cxb2 {B/0 0} 11. Bxb2 {0.25/14 2} Nxb4 {(f6) 0.22/15 4} 12. O-O {0.98/14 5} f6
{0.40/17 6} 13. Rfd1+ {(Rac1) 2.29/15 6} Kc7 {1.39/13 0} 14. Rac1+ {2.79/15 6}
Nc6 {1.94/17 4} 15. Ne5 {2.81/16 5} e6 {(Bg4) 2.58/18 17} 16. Nxc6 {3.19/15 5}
bxc6 {2.48/14 0} 17. Bxc6 {3.39/16 3} Rb8 {2.44/14 0} 18. Ba8+ {(Bxf6) 4.79/15
6} Kb6 {1.69/14 0} 19. Bd4+ {6.73/13 5} Ka5 {5.49/13 0} 20. Bc6 {6.73/13 5} e5
{(Ba3) 7.59/17 19} 21. Ra1+ {9.25/12 8} Ba3 {8.88/18 6} 22. Rxa3+ {9.25/13 8}
Kb4 {9.22/19 3} 23. Ra4+ {8.67/18 6} 1-0


Komodo's first move out of book, 11...Nxb4 seems to be the losing mistake. Komodo switches to the correct move, 11...f6 at 5 seconds on my system, 1 second too late for this game.

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

r1bk1b1r/pp2pppp/2n5/1B6/1P2P3/5N2/1B3PPP/R3K2R b KQ - 0 1

Analysis by Komodo64 1.0 JA:

11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rfd1+ Kc7 14.Rdc1+ Kb8 15.Bd4
= (0.22) Depth: 6 00:00:00 24kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rfd1+ Kc7 14.Rdc1+ Kb8 15.Bd4
= (0.22) Depth: 6 00:00:00 27kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Bd7 14.Rfd1 Nc6 15.h3
= (0.20) Depth: 7 00:00:00 37kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Bd7 14.Rfd1 Nc6 15.h3
= (0.20) Depth: 7 00:00:00 42kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Nc6 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Rxc6 Rb8 16.Rfc1
+/= (0.32) Depth: 8 00:00:00 63kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Nd4 Bd7 14.Rc1 e5 15.Nxc6+ Bxc6 16.Rxc6 Bxb4+ 17.Ke2
= (-0.05) Depth: 8 00:00:00 99kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Nd4 Bd7 14.Rc1 e5 15.Nxc6+ Bxc6 16.Rxc6 Bxb4+ 17.Ke2
= (-0.05) Depth: 8 00:00:00 104kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Rb8 14.Bc3 Kc7 15.0-0 Rb7 16.Rfd1 Be6
= (0.06) Depth: 9 00:00:00 169kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Rb8 14.Bc3 Kc7 15.0-0 Rb7 16.Rfd1 Be6
= (0.06) Depth: 9 00:00:00 183kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfe1 Kc7 16.Nd4 g6 17.Ra6
= (0.10) Depth: 10 00:00:00 301kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfe1 Kc7 16.Nd4 g6 17.Ra6
= (0.10) Depth: 10 00:00:00 331kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Rb8 16.Rxa7 Rxb4 17.Ba3 Rc4 18.Rb1 Ke8
= (0.21) Depth: 11 00:00:00 471kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Rb8 16.Rxa7 Rxb4 17.Ba3 Rc4 18.Rb1 Ke8
= (0.21) Depth: 11 00:00:00 558kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Rb8 15.Rfd1+ Kc8 16.Nd4 Bd5 17.Rxa7 fxe5 18.Nf5 Rxb4 19.Bxe5
+/= (0.31) Depth: 12 00:00:00 879kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Rb8 15.Rfd1+ Kc8 16.Nd4 Bd5 17.Rxa7 fxe5 18.Nf5 Rxb4 19.Bxe5
+/= (0.31) Depth: 12 00:00:00 1328kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Ke8 16.Nd4 Rb8 17.Rxa7 Rxb4 18.e6 Bxe6 19.Nxe6 Rxb2 20.f3 Rb6
+/= (0.31) Depth: 13 00:00:00 1937kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Ke8 16.Nd4 Rb8 17.Rxa7 Rxb4 18.e6 Bxe6 19.Nxe6 Rxb2 20.f3 Rb6
+/= (0.31) Depth: 13 00:00:01 2298kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Kd7 16.Ra6 Kc8 17.Bd4 Rb8 18.Bc5 Bxf3 19.gxf3 fxe5 20.Rxa7 Rb7 21.Ra8+ Rb8
+/= (0.34) Depth: 14 00:00:01 2941kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Nc6 14.Rfd1+ Kc7 15.Nd4 Bd7 16.e5 Kb6 17.e6 Be8 18.Nxc6 Bxc6 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Bd4+ Kb7 21.Rb1+ Ka6 22.Ra1+ Kb7
= (0.10) Depth: 14 00:00:02 4942kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Nc6 14.Rfd1+ Kc7 15.Nd4 Bd7 16.e5 Kb6 17.e6 Be8 18.Nxc6 Bxc6 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Bd4+ Kb7 21.Rb1+ Ka6 22.Ra1+ Kb7
= (0.10) Depth: 14 00:00:02 5239kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Nc6 14.Rfd1+ Kc7 15.Nd4 Bd7 16.e5 a5 17.e6 Be8 18.Ba3 Rd8 19.f3 Kc8 20.Bc5 g6 21.Bb6 Rd5 22.Nxc6 Rxd1+ 23.Rxd1 Bxc6 24.Bxc6 bxc6 25.Bxa5
= (0.22) Depth: 15 00:00:03 7190kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Nc6 14.Rfd1+ Kc7 15.Nd4 Bd7 16.e5 a5 17.e6 Be8 18.Ba3 Rd8 19.f3 Kc8 20.Bc5 g6 21.Bb6 Rd5 22.Nxc6 Rxd1+ 23.Rxd1 Bxc6 24.Bxc6 bxc6 25.Bxa5
= (0.22) Depth: 15 00:00:03 7980kN
11...Nxb4 12.0-0 f6 13.Rac1 Nc6 14.Rfd1+ Kc7 15.Nd4 Bd7 16.e5 a5 17.e6 Be8 18.Nxc6 bxc6 19.Ba4 g5 20.Bd4 Rb8 21.Bc3 Ra8 22.Rb1 Bg7 23.f3 Bg6 24.Rd7+ Kc8
+/= (0.36) Depth: 16 00:00:04 10204kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Kd7 16.Ra6 Kc8 17.Bd4 Rb8 18.Bc5 e6 19.Bxf8 Rxf8 20.Rxa7 Rb7 21.Ra8+ Rb8 22.Rxb8+ Kxb8 23.Nd4 Kb7 24.exf6 gxf6
= (0.24) Depth: 16 00:00:05 12882kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Kd7 16.Ra6 Kc8 17.Bd4 Rb8 18.Bc5 e6 19.Bxf8 Rxf8 20.Rxa7 Rb7 21.Ra8+ Rb8 22.Rxb8+ Kxb8 23.Nd4 Kb7 24.exf6 gxf6
= (0.24) Depth: 16 00:00:06 14273kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Kd7 16.Ra6 Kc8 17.Bd4 Kb7 18.Rca1 e6 19.Rxa7+ Rxa7 20.Rxa7+ Kb8 21.Ra6 Rg8 22.h3 Be7 23.Nd2 fxe5 24.Bxe5+ Kb7 25.Ra4
= (0.18) Depth: 17 00:00:07 18515kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Kd7 16.Ra6 Kc8 17.Bd4 Kb7 18.Rca1 e6 19.Rxa7+ Rxa7 20.Rxa7+ Kb8 21.Ra6 Rg8 22.h3 Be7 23.Nd2 fxe5 24.Bxe5+ Kb7 25.Ra4
= (0.18) Depth: 17 00:00:09 21507kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Kd7 16.Ra6 Kc8 17.Bd4 Kb7 18.Rca1 e6 19.Rxa7+ Rxa7 20.Rxa7+ Kb8 21.Ra4 Be7 22.Nd2 Rd8 23.f3 f5 24.Bb6 Rd7 25.Bc5 Bg5
= (0.13) Depth: 18 00:00:13 30679kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Be6 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Rfc1 Kd7 16.Ra6 Kc8 17.Bd4 Kb7 18.Rca1 e6 19.Rxa7+ Rxa7 20.Rxa7+ Kb8 21.Ra4 Be7 22.Nd2 Rd8 23.f3 f5 24.Bb6 Rd7 25.Bc5 Bg5
= (0.13) Depth: 18 00:00:14 34405kN
11...f6 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.e5 Rb8 14.Bc3 a6 15.0-0 Kc7 16.Rfc1 Rb6 17.Nd2 Rg8 18.f3 f5 19.Nc4 Rb5 20.Na5 Be6 21.Bd4 Bd5 22.e6 Rxb4 23.Be5+ Kb6
+/= (0.29) Depth: 19 00:00:33 76744kN

[George Tsavdaris]

We have some hints that you are correct about move-ordering. If so, Komodo may turn out to be stronger than we think at serious time limits.

What do you exactly mean by "serious" time limits?
Which is a serious time limit and which are non serious?

And what does this means anyway? Does this mean that playing at blitz levels is pointless or something?


BTW due to hardware, do you suggest that people of 1995 or 1997 for example didn't play serious time limits?

[slobo]

Well, this stuff was made public by the clones, and anyway Vas had asked me to keep such general eval knowledge confidential for a year, and it's now been a year and a half. Still I won't reveal exact values of terms in R3 even if they are more or less public due to the clones (or "derivatives" if you prefer). I doubt that they would be of much use to a non-clone program anyway, as different programs require different values for terms.

I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

For what reason should they do this? Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, and whoever is left is not going to be convinced no matter what additional evidence is presented.

I know from my own dealings with people that if someone really want to believe something, no amount of evidence or logic is going to change them.

"Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, "

You mean:
1. I am not a reasonable person because I don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;

2. and also that Robert Hyatt is not a reasonable person, because he doesn't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;

3. and also that all those who don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka - they don't know it because Vasic did not provide any evidence in this sense -, are not reasonable persons.

You know what?

This statement of yours reminded me a short tale called: "The Emperor's New Clothes", by Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers-crooks who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes invisible to those who are incompetent or not enough inteligent.

I really hope you are not a programmer-crook, and that what you said was a simple accident, a LAPSUS LINGUAE, because stupidity it was not, for sure.

[mariaclara]

Sllobo,

You know why you will never ever convince them no matter any amount of evidence or logik

because:

"if someone really want to believe something,
no amount of evidence or logix is going to change them"

Here's a simple answer from Don. He knows..

I know from my own dealings with people that if someone really want to believe something, no amount of evidence or logic is going to change them.

[lkaufman]

By "serious time limits" I mean time limits that are considered serious by human players, i.e. slow enough to count on human ratings. Of course if you are interested in just engine vs. engine play there is nothing special about 40/2 hours vs 40/4 minutes, but many human players either want to play against the engine at some "serious" level or else let the engine analyze their games at some level like a minute or two per move.

[Don]

Well, this stuff was made public by the clones, and anyway Vas had asked me to keep such general eval knowledge confidential for a year, and it's now been a year and a half. Still I won't reveal exact values of terms in R3 even if they are more or less public due to the clones (or "derivatives" if you prefer). I doubt that they would be of much use to a non-clone program anyway, as different programs require different values for terms.

I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

For what reason should they do this? Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, and whoever is left is not going to be convinced no matter what additional evidence is presented.

I know from my own dealings with people that if someone really want to believe something, no amount of evidence or logic is going to change them.

"Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, "

You mean:
1. I am not a reasonable person because I don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;

I apologize for my choice of wording. I don't mean to say that you are an unreasonable person, only that the conclusion you are drawing is unreasonable.

Please understand that I'm not saying you are stupid. I have seen very smart people come to the wrong conclusions based on emotion or some kind of bias. It's part of being human and we are all subject to it.

I don't want to get too psychological here, but humans tend to make judgments based on what they want to believe, not what it actually the case. I personally believe the facts in this case are really obvious and that if you don't see them, you don't want to see them.

The way this works is that if something is presented that you don't like, it's "innuendo" and "opinion" and if you like it, it's "fact" and "evidence."

2. and also that Robert Hyatt is not a reasonable person, because he doesn't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;

Name dropping to make a point is hardly evidence one way or the other. And even if you take Bob as the ultimate judge or authority on this he said he doesn't know and that is not particularly unreasonable (unless he really looked at the facts and still thinks it is in doubt.)

3. and also that all those who don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka - they don't know it because Vasic did not provide any evidence in this sense -, are not reasonable persons.

Vas is under no compulsion to provide evidence on this just because you think he should. Is this another example of how you reason on things? To do so would be counter-productive for him. Please tell me WHY he needs to do this, and how it would benefit him. Do you think people will buy Rybka if he reveals that another program is based on Rybka? If he sues do you think it will help his case to reveal his arguments to give his opponents time to prepare? Do you think he should actually reveal his code to the world to make some kind of point that he cannot benefit from? And Vas must surely know that even if he reveals sections of identical or similar code it will not stop unreasonable people from explaining it away. Go the web sites and look at the people who still believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing were faked and you will see exactly what Vas would be dealing with - and then tell me why he should deal with this when there would be no benefit whatsoever in doing so - and in fact would be a huge distraction for him.

It's presumptuous and arrogant to believe that Vas must answer to us just because we want a show. In my opinion he is showing wisdom and restraint by just moving on - which is what you and I need to do.

You know what?

This statement of yours reminded me a short tale called: "The Emperor's New Clothes", by Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers-crooks who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes invisible to those who are incompetent or not enough inteligent.

I really hope you are not a programmer-crook, and that what you said was a simple accident, a LAPSUS LINGUAE, because stupidity it was not, for sure.

I think in this case you are being unreasonable again.