Twisted Logic new version!

[bob]

"I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period."


"That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.

So basically Bob's logic is that if a program is a truely slow-searcher it would not fair well against super-fast Crafty?

But then how does he explain HIARCS which is slow and strong?

Hiarcs does not search 80K nodes per second on fast hardware. I'd be happy to demonstrate if you want.

[bob]

So basically Bob's logic is that if a program is a truely slow-searcher it would not fair well against super-fast Crafty?

But then how does he explain HIARCS which is slow and strong?

Emphasis mine

There is _THAT_ problem, of course.

[Eizenhammer]

I don't recall making very many clone claims over the years, with the exceptions that were copies of Crafty. Or the case of Rybka/Fruit.

Well, how can one explain it to a not very sophisticated technician, who does not understand his own words, there is no way of course, but this is my final try and then you can repeat your nonsense without intervention, and feel like a winner, just as always:

You played some account on ICC. I dont care about CCT or what you think is "official", but it is just some account where someone plays something on some server, not the real engine. If you have a problem with this account: Deal with it where it belongs, on ICC in this case. Who should care about such nonsense?

What you did was very different:
Without any further checking you start a general public suspicion about an engine, no matter if you understand it or not, I don't care about this any longer, as you don't want to understand it and never will, but what you wrote here was just this. You said you think TL is a clone, with the usual caution, but obvious enough for everybody except the usual nitty pickies, this is how an average person with average understanding of human language understood what you wrote. Again it is really irrelevant if you understand this, or agree. This is not a court where one can say "Look, I avoided the exact word or phrase, I am not guilty; I never am!" and hope to get away with it.

You did not check the real engine, did not ask the author, you did nothing at all but starting "insinuations", if this sounds more honest to you than suspicion or accusation, what it really was.

Then it turns out that it was all about nothing, some account problem that should never have left ICC was the reason for this embarrasing behaviour of yours and of course there is no "I am sorry, looks like TL is not a clone, I was too fast and went too far with my actions", of course you did it all right and were right and could not have done anything in a different way.

Same procedure as always ...

[Edsel Apostol]

Try to be a bit more precise.
Bob has not accused TwistedLogic of being a clone.
He merely said TwistedLogic was displaying dishonest search infos on ICC.

Matthias.

Mr. Hyatt: "While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified."

I thought this was clear enough, but reading skills are a rare thing here.

Then you should work on yours. "TwistedLogicCCT" is the account used in the CCT events for TwistedLogic. It says it is twisted logic. It was running Rybka. Nothing I wrote was the least bit misleading.

Everything you wrote was complete nonsense, and totally misleading. I'll tell you what a naive reader like me had to think when reading your posting:

Again, absolutely _none_ of what I wrote was "complete nonsense". The only nonsense here is what you are writing, without any thought or consideration first. The old "put mind in gear before putting fingers in motion" would be good advice. Point by point below:

It started with this theme:
"Edsel Apostol wrote:
'There's a new Twisted Logic version here:
http://www.geocities.com/ed_apostol/index.htm
Just take a look at the readme file for more information.' "

Fine, a new version, always a pleasure for everyone.
Then the shock, all of a sudden:
Bob writes:
"I am not quite sure what to make of this program, but I can tell you one thing for certain. There is a certain level of dishonesty surrounding the thing."

Wow, I was shattered. Bob is certain, something is wrong with Twisted Logic. I had not expected this, but Bob would not write such a thing without hard evidence, of course.

He goes on:
"For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend."

This seemed not too convincing to me, only 4 games, does not tell you a lot, so he must mean anything else.

" It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. "

So it is about games on ICC, hardly a serious testing environment, one should think, so what is he after?

"Hardly a serious testing environment?" When the _author_ uses that account to play in online tournaments? When the notes for the program say it is using twisted logic? When this account is entered in events with the authors claim that this is not a copy of any other existing program?

It is not a copy of any other existing program.

"I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period."

Period always convinces me: People say it rarely and only when there is no room for further debate left. And I understand now, of course, TL must be Rybka, this is what Bob is after, isn't he?

And was I wrong? You seem to miss that _tiny_ detail. It _was_ Rybka. It was claiming to be twisted logic. You do the math.

It was only Rybka at that certain time when my tester is trying out his book. It was written in his notes. You're implying that it is Rybka all the time, it is not.

"That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.
I don't believe the kibitzing info. Nor the depth info. In short, it sounds so much like the original Rybka fiasco I am not sure what to think."

The Rybka fiasco, where a giant group of highly competent elite programmers spent months and months to prove that there might be some similarities in the declaration of the uci parameters between rybka beta and fruit 2.1. Further evidence would have been so overwhelming that the group decided better not to show it.

Please either grow up or stay out of these discussions. The "original Rybka fiasco" was a clear reference to Rybka's displaying bogus node counts, bogus NPS values, bogus depth values. Anyone can see _exactly_ what I referred to since I used those explicit terms in my post, in a clear way. You are apparently just another "program xxx supporter" that wants to jump into waters where you don't belong.

Bob continues like this:
"One thing is for absolute certain, however. It is absolutely _not_ what it claims to be, in terms of the info it is kibitzing. I find it both amusing and disappointing that this kind of stuff continually comes up. And then people get upset when someone uses the "clone/illegal-copy" tag." As if they can't understand why such a claim would be made."

This is of course the very clever kind of saying that one is suspicous that leaves all the room in the world to say that it is not, never an accusation, look it up please.

What is to look up? I meant _exactly_ what I wrote. The person running the account them posted that he _was_ running Rybka while claiming to be TwistedLogic. So exactly _what_ is your complaint here? It should be with the person running one program while claiming to be another, on an account used by the author of the program to play in online events.

It was a mistake on my tester's part to use Rybka to tune our book using that account as it was misleading. I repeat that it was only running Rybka at that certain time, your words seem to imply that it is Rybka all the time.

It turns out that some guy played with rybka, indeed, on the very reliable testing environment ICC. A simple download of the public TL would have been possible, and probably a personal mail might have been more than enough to show that someone just made a mistake, but Bob has greater things in mind, listen:

"I have suspicions about _several_ current programs that are actively being tested and even participating in CCT-type events. My intent is to start naming names before the next event, to get some minimal level of honesty back into the process. Right now, it is at rock-bottom, IMHO.
While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified. What's to hide? Why hide it? <sigh>

Wow, there is a flood of programs who showed strange behaviour when playing Crafty on ICC, this is so hard an evidence you just have to start naming names, everything else would be a complete no-no for an honest programmer.

Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote and meant. There _are_ several programs that are not what they claim. In CCT/ACCA events. In past WCCC events. And this was yet another case on ICC. Like it or not.

There is only a certain time when the account use Rybka, and that is to tune the opening book, and my tester admits to that. You're trying to generalize here that it is Rybka all the time, and that is just entirely false. How many times I'm going to repeat that idea so that you would understand. Maybe there's just no sense as you just don't want to understand. Are you trying to brainwash the people here into believing your half truths?

I'm wondering what are you really trying to achieve. You don't want Twisted Logic to join the next CCT? Are you still sore that 8 core Crafty running 20 million NPS loses against single core Twisted Logic running on an old Athlon X2 at 5% of Crafty's speed: http://www.cctchess.com/cct11/r7.htm

All I can say is that no matter how fast your program, may it search a billion nodes per second, if the idea behind the algorithm is not that good enough, it wouldn't be that good enough. It is not the speed that matters, it is the idea behind the algorithm.

Come on Bob. I'm thinking highly of you but it's starting to dwindle. Your ego seems inflated. No one can beat Crafty running on a very fast hardware. Come on. Even single core Rybka 3 will kick Crafty's arse even if it would run on some 16 core machine.

[Audmeister]

Sorry it was Vincent Diep. that accused

[CRoberson]

I don't recall making very many clone claims over the years, with the exceptions that were copies of Crafty. Or the case of Rybka/Fruit.

Well, how can one explain it to a not very sophisticated technician, who does not understand his own words, there is no way of course, but this is my final try and then you can repeat your nonsense without intervention, and feel like a winner, just as always:

You played some account on ICC. I dont care about CCT or what you think is "official", but it is just some account where someone plays something on some server, not the real engine. If you have a problem with this account: Deal with it where it belongs, on ICC in this case. Who should care about such nonsense?

What you did was very different:
Without any further checking you start a general public suspicion about an engine, no matter if you understand it or not, I don't care about this any longer, as you don't want to understand it and never will, but what you wrote here was just this. You said you think TL is a clone, with the usual caution, but obvious enough for everybody except the usual nitty pickies, this is how an average person with average understanding of human language understood what you wrote. Again it is really irrelevant if you understand this, or agree. This is not a court where one can say "Look, I avoided the exact word or phrase, I am not guilty; I never am!" and hope to get away with it.

You did not check the real engine, did not ask the author, you did nothing at all but starting "insinuations", if this sounds more honest to you than suspicion or accusation, what it really was.

Then it turns out that it was all about nothing, some account problem that should never have left ICC was the reason for this embarrasing behaviour of yours and of course there is no "I am sorry, looks like TL is not a clone, I was too fast and went too far with my actions", of course you did it all right and were right and could not have done anything in a different way.

Same procedure as always ...

I read Bob's statement. Nothing wrong with it. I understood it instantly and it meant nothing like your interpretation.

Here is my point: english sucks. The language is too ambiguous yet the North Eastern US makes fun of us southerners for saying "yall". It is the plural form of you.

In order to properly interpret a persons statement, one has to understand the culture it comes from. An example happened last year.
Bob, Brian Richarson and I were having a conversation at a conference table. Bob and I were communicating fine and Brian interjected
that we weren't making sense. It took 5 minutes to figure out that the problem was that there were some cultural definition differences.

Another example: when I lived in Oregon, my wife and I (both from southern USA) were at a party where she was playing a word game
and teamed with a woman from New Orleans. All the other people there were from Oregon, California and Washington. My wife and her
partner won the game. One of the other women said that it didn't make any sense; their clues were complete nonsense.
I found this entertaining because the clues made complete sense to me.

Given that people from different corners of the US can't completely understand each other due to cultural differences, just
how in the world do you expect people from the US, Germany, Belgium, Scotland, India, China, New Zealand and every where else
to fully understand each other. There is more to it than words!

[swami]

Bob,

I was the operater of Twisted Logic at ACCA. Audy Arandela wasn't the operater.

I'll tell you one thing - I used Twisted Logic last beta version at the time of ACCA that Edsel sent it to me, and the book from Audy Arandela.

I'd take offense if you claim that it was Rybka that played in ACCA under TwistedLogic account. Do you seriously suppose that Edsel would send me a Rybka in disguise of TwistedLogic?

Just because Audy tested out his book by using Rybka for a brief time in offline games, does it make it Rybka all the time...even during tournaments, eh? What a weird belief.

Just check the pgn's of the ACCA event, CCT event, ask the participants around to know the kibitzes, see the scores.

[bob]

I don't recall making very many clone claims over the years, with the exceptions that were copies of Crafty. Or the case of Rybka/Fruit.

Well, how can one explain it to a not very sophisticated technician, who does not understand his own words, there is no way of course, but this is my final try and then you can repeat your nonsense without intervention, and feel like a winner, just as always:

You played some account on ICC. I dont care about CCT or what you think is "official", but it is just some account where someone plays something on some server, not the real engine. If you have a problem with this account: Deal with it where it belongs, on ICC in this case. Who should care about such nonsense?

I _really_ don't care what you care about. It is absolutely irrelevant to me, and most likely anyone else involved in computer chess. When someone plays the "Crafty" account on ICC, they are _always_ going to be playing against "Crafty". _never_ Rybka. Never anything else but Crafty. They might get lucky and play against a Crafty that is unexpectedly weaker than normal as I test it there, but Crafty is _all_ they will get. This is true for _most_ accounts that are used by the program authors to test or actually play in online tournaments. Just because _you_ don't see the point, hardly means that _most_ don't see it.

What you did was very different:
Without any further checking you start a general public suspicion about an engine, no matter if you understand it or not, I don't care about this any longer, as you don't want to understand it and never will, but what you wrote here was just this. You said you think TL is a clone, with the usual caution, but obvious enough for everybody except the usual nitty pickies, this is how an average person with average understanding of human language understood what you wrote. Again it is really irrelevant if you understand this, or agree. This is not a court where one can say "Look, I avoided the exact word or phrase, I am not guilty; I never am!" and hope to get away with it.

Sorry, but you are only saying what you _imagined_ I said. The word "clone" does not appear in any comments about TwistedLogic. That's your imagination at work.

Here is my original post, in its entirety:

I am not quite sure what to make of this program, but I can tell you one thing for certain. There is a certain level of dishonesty surrounding the thing.

For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend. It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period. That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.

I don't believe the kibitzing info. Nor the depth info. In short, it sounds so much like the original Rybka fiasco I am not sure what to think. One thing is for absolute certain, however. It is absolutely _not_ what it claims to be, in terms of the info it is kibitzing.

I find it both amusing and disappointing that this kind of stuff continually comes up. And then people get upset when someone uses the "clone/illegal-copy" tag. As if they can't understand why such a claim would be made.

I have suspicions about _several_ current programs that are actively being tested and even participating in CCT-type events. My intent is to start naming names before the next event, to get some minimal level of honesty back into the process. Right now, it is at rock-bottom, IMHO.

While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified. What's to hide? Why hide it? <sigh>

Paragraph by paragraph:

Paragraph 1. There _was_ dishonesty surrounding the program. The notes said "twisted logic". It was _not_ twisted logic. That is the factual definition of dishonesty.

Paragraph 2. I gave an explanation of what I saw, and what I felt was bogus information. And pointed out it was bogus in the same way as the original Rybka node counts, nps, depths, and PVs were bogus. Most are sure that this is done in Rybka to hide details or make them difficult to uncover. Nothing to do with clones in these paragraphs.

The remainder of my comments were about the general clone problem that we are seeing in _every_ CCT.

Feel free to go away now, since you don't want to discuss actual facts.

You did not check the real engine, did not ask the author, you did nothing at all but starting "insinuations", if this sounds more honest to you than suspicion or accusation, what it really was.

Then it turns out that it was all about nothing, some account problem that should never have left ICC was the reason for this embarrasing behaviour of yours and of course there is no "I am sorry, looks like TL is not a clone, I was too fast and went too far with my actions", of course you did it all right and were right and could not have done anything in a different way.

Same procedure as always ...

I'm not embarassed at all. I pointed out a problem. About a specific program. And gave specific examples of what I was seeing, and why it was obvously bogus. Nothing more, nothing less. This is _the_ place to discuss computer chess issues. Why you are unable to grasp that is beyond me. Just look at (a) the name of this place (the computer chess club) and (b) the group of people that originally formed this place (I am one of them). This is one of many reasons why we started CCC, so we could discuss _anything_ related to current computer chess. Not just the topics _you_ feel are appropriate.

Again, the bogus output was explained. However, I'm not going to apologize for noticing it and pointing it out. Particularly after it was verified that it was bogus as I mentioned.

So yes, same procedure as always. Computer Chess can be done in a professional way. I can name dozens of programs that run and have run in the past on ICC, and they were _always_ what they claimed to be. From "Scratchy" (deep thought), thru ferret, wchess, ban (junior), zarkov, ... shoot, I am not going to name them all. If _one_ person can't get this right and realize why it is important to "be what you say you are" then that's hardly _my_ problem, now is it?

It should _never_ happen. _never_.

For many of us, it _never_ has, and _never_ will. I'd expect that others would feel the same. Apparently a few do not.

[bob]

Try to be a bit more precise.
Bob has not accused TwistedLogic of being a clone.
He merely said TwistedLogic was displaying dishonest search infos on ICC.

Matthias.

Mr. Hyatt: "While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified."

I thought this was clear enough, but reading skills are a rare thing here.

Then you should work on yours. "TwistedLogicCCT" is the account used in the CCT events for TwistedLogic. It says it is twisted logic. It was running Rybka. Nothing I wrote was the least bit misleading.

Everything you wrote was complete nonsense, and totally misleading. I'll tell you what a naive reader like me had to think when reading your posting:

Again, absolutely _none_ of what I wrote was "complete nonsense". The only nonsense here is what you are writing, without any thought or consideration first. The old "put mind in gear before putting fingers in motion" would be good advice. Point by point below:

It started with this theme:
"Edsel Apostol wrote:
'There's a new Twisted Logic version here:
http://www.geocities.com/ed_apostol/index.htm
Just take a look at the readme file for more information.' "

Fine, a new version, always a pleasure for everyone.
Then the shock, all of a sudden:
Bob writes:
"I am not quite sure what to make of this program, but I can tell you one thing for certain. There is a certain level of dishonesty surrounding the thing."

Wow, I was shattered. Bob is certain, something is wrong with Twisted Logic. I had not expected this, but Bob would not write such a thing without hard evidence, of course.

He goes on:
"For example, I watched Crafty lose 3 of 4 games to it last weekend."

This seemed not too convincing to me, only 4 games, does not tell you a lot, so he must mean anything else.

" It was kibitzing (TwistedLogicCCT) and claimed to be searching 80K nodes per second. "

So it is about games on ICC, hardly a serious testing environment, one should think, so what is he after?

"Hardly a serious testing environment?" When the _author_ uses that account to play in online tournaments? When the notes for the program say it is using twisted logic? When this account is entered in events with the authors claim that this is not a copy of any other existing program?

It is not a copy of any other existing program.

Au Contrare mon dieu. It _was_ a copy of another existing program on the day I was observing it. How do you continually miss that point?

"I'd be willing to play _any_ program really searching 80K, when the box I was using was searching 20M nodes per second. And I would not expect to lose 3 of every 4 games. Period."

Period always convinces me: People say it rarely and only when there is no room for further debate left. And I understand now, of course, TL must be Rybka, this is what Bob is after, isn't he?

And was I wrong? You seem to miss that _tiny_ detail. It _was_ Rybka. It was claiming to be twisted logic. You do the math.

It was only Rybka at that certain time when my tester is trying out his book. It was written in his notes. You're implying that it is Rybka all the time, it is not.

I _implied_ nothing. I stated that when I watched the games, looked at the kibitzing, I was absolutely convinced that the kibitzes were nonsense. I did not imply that it was Rybka or any other program. I said it was kibitzing bogus information just as Rybka does (bogus nps, depth, etc). It was then pointed out that it _was_ Rybka, if even for an hour or two. Just happened that I was watching during that "hour or two". So you don't get away with saying it is _always_ a unique program.

Why does your tester need to use a non-TL program to test his book? That makes _absolutely_ no sense either, but I'll leave that for another discussion.

"That is a speed difference of 250X. Or with an EBF of 2, about 8 plies. The kibitzes are pure crap.
I don't believe the kibitzing info. Nor the depth info. In short, it sounds so much like the original Rybka fiasco I am not sure what to think."

The Rybka fiasco, where a giant group of highly competent elite programmers spent months and months to prove that there might be some similarities in the declaration of the uci parameters between rybka beta and fruit 2.1. Further evidence would have been so overwhelming that the group decided better not to show it.

Please either grow up or stay out of these discussions. The "original Rybka fiasco" was a clear reference to Rybka's displaying bogus node counts, bogus NPS values, bogus depth values. Anyone can see _exactly_ what I referred to since I used those explicit terms in my post, in a clear way. You are apparently just another "program xxx supporter" that wants to jump into waters where you don't belong.

Bob continues like this:
"One thing is for absolute certain, however. It is absolutely _not_ what it claims to be, in terms of the info it is kibitzing. I find it both amusing and disappointing that this kind of stuff continually comes up. And then people get upset when someone uses the "clone/illegal-copy" tag." As if they can't understand why such a claim would be made."

This is of course the very clever kind of saying that one is suspicous that leaves all the room in the world to say that it is not, never an accusation, look it up please.

What is to look up? I meant _exactly_ what I wrote. The person running the account them posted that he _was_ running Rybka while claiming to be TwistedLogic. So exactly _what_ is your complaint here? It should be with the person running one program while claiming to be another, on an account used by the author of the program to play in online events.

It was a mistake on my tester's part to use Rybka to tune our book using that account as it was misleading. I repeat that it was only running Rybka at that certain time, your words seem to imply that it is Rybka all the time.

It turns out that some guy played with rybka, indeed, on the very reliable testing environment ICC. A simple download of the public TL would have been possible, and probably a personal mail might have been more than enough to show that someone just made a mistake, but Bob has greater things in mind, listen:

"I have suspicions about _several_ current programs that are actively being tested and even participating in CCT-type events. My intent is to start naming names before the next event, to get some minimal level of honesty back into the process. Right now, it is at rock-bottom, IMHO.
While it is hard to get a handle on the "is this a clone" question, clearly when a program kibitzes nonsense, suspicion is more than justified. What's to hide? Why hide it? <sigh>

Wow, there is a flood of programs who showed strange behaviour when playing Crafty on ICC, this is so hard an evidence you just have to start naming names, everything else would be a complete no-no for an honest programmer.

Again, read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote and meant. There _are_ several programs that are not what they claim. In CCT/ACCA events. In past WCCC events. And this was yet another case on ICC. Like it or not.

There is only a certain time when the account use Rybka, and that is to tune the opening book, and my tester admits to that. You're trying to generalize here that it is Rybka all the time, and that is just entirely false. How many times I'm going to repeat that idea so that you would understand. Maybe there's just no sense as you just don't want to understand. Are you trying to brainwash the people here into believing your half truths?

I'm wondering what are you really trying to achieve. You don't want Twisted Logic to join the next CCT? Are you still sore that 8 core Crafty running 20 million NPS loses against single core Twisted Logic running on an old Athlon X2 at 5% of Crafty's speed: http://www.cctchess.com/cct11/r7.htm

All I can say is that no matter how fast your program, may it search a billion nodes per second, if the idea behind the algorithm is not that good enough, it wouldn't be that good enough. It is not the speed that matters, it is the idea behind the algorithm.

Come on Bob. I'm thinking highly of you but it's starting to dwindle. Your ego seems inflated. No one can beat Crafty running on a very fast hardware. Come on. Even single core Rybka 3 will kick Crafty's arse even if it would run on some 16 core machine.

We could test that Rybka claim. But that's irrelevant here. Run Rybka at a _real_ 80K nps and I'll happily play it whenever you want. As far as "being sore" I'm not sore at all. Too old for that. But I do demand honesty. And I clearly was _not_ getting it in this circumstance, was I?

[bob]

Bob,

I was the operater of Twisted Logic at ACCA. Audy Arandela wasn't the operater.

I'll tell you one thing - I used Twisted Logic last beta version at the time of ACCA that Edsel sent it to me, and the book from Audy Arandela.

I'd take offense if you claim that it was Rybka that played in ACCA under TwistedLogic account. Do you seriously suppose that Edsel would send me a Rybka in disguise of TwistedLogic?

Just because Audy tested out his book by using Rybka for a brief time in offline games, does it make it Rybka all the time...even during tournaments, eh? What a weird belief.

Just check the pgn's of the ACCA event, CCT event, ask the participants around to know the kibitzes, see the scores.

Can we come back to reality for a bit? My post stands exactly as written. Didn't mention the last ACCA event. Didn't mention any other events. I said that on the day in question, it was kibitzing nonsense, as it claimed to be program A (TL) but turned out to be (in reality) Rybka. For reasons that make no sense to me, and I don't care about the reasons anyway. My original statements stand. I quoted the relevant output. Then apparently one of several using that account reported that it really was Rybka. And somehow I am wrong???