chrisw wrote:Vas has this to say, together with a proposal.
Rybka is and was always completely original. He is aware there are rumours about Fruit for a long time but never really understood where they are coming from. He is more than happy to try and address concrete questions or curious similarities with Fruit.
So, may I suggest you use this thread to put together a concrete and formal concern list to send to Vas. He can answer here, or here by email or on Rybkaforum or wherever.
Basically, prepare a list of concerns/question which have some suitable evidential backing, and append the evidence/data. We'll email it to him.
Christophe/Zach - do you want to put together a (small) team to do this?
Excellent
well done Chris
Best Regards
Steve
Chris, not that I don't trust you or the moderators in any way, but why a private conversation behind the scenes?
are you intending to post the emails, or interpret them or what?
i would certainly prefer that he speak for himself (publicly),
but ok, i won't complain...his involvement in any way is a good thing.
I appreciate your effort...
Que?! I have private conversations with many people, do you object?!
I simply asked Vas to say what he thought. His response is as written.
If a concrete concern/questions list is produced, I'll send it on to him. He will choose where and how to answer it himself. He may suggest the questions be put on the Rybkaforum. He may answer via email for reposting onto CCC. He may do whatever. Up to him.
you mentioned that you notified him (i assume via email) soon after these threads began.
you have steadfastly, rigorously (and sometimes bombastically as you stated yourself) argued in his favor from the start.
i'm suggesting you are not completely unbiased, as you have made your position clear...and i don't understand why you (or anyone) needs to serve as a communication conduit to or for Vas.
for ex:
how will 'you' determine if a concern/questions list is 'concrete'...
if you believe it's not, will you not send it?
why don't you simply create an account for him, so he can reply personally...
this whole idea reminds me of mediums trying to contact Harry Houdini after he died...
I'm not in any way biased. I simply believe stuff is legal and people are honest unless solid proof to the contrary exists. I have nothing to do with Rybka or Vas, I've no copy of the program or any of its earlier versions. Your suggestion is just plain ridiculous nit-picking. Biased? Ridiculous.
Putting the concerns into readable, readily understandable, concrete form and getting them answered is the way to resolve this. I begin to see though that you prefer the public "spectacle" more. One can only wonder why.
Christophe and Zach (for example) are invited to generate a concrete concern list. Of course I won't decline to send it. They can send it themselves if they want.
chrisw wrote:Vas has this to say, together with a proposal.
Rybka is and was always completely original. He is aware there are rumours about Fruit for a long time but never really understood where they are coming from. He is more than happy to try and address concrete questions or curious similarities with Fruit.
So, may I suggest you use this thread to put together a concrete and formal concern list to send to Vas. He can answer here, or here by email or on Rybkaforum or wherever.
Basically, prepare a list of concerns/question which have some suitable evidential backing, and append the evidence/data. We'll email it to him.
Christophe/Zach - do you want to put together a (small) team to do this?
Thanks for your efforts regarding Rybka. I think Rybka is clean.
Vas does not really have to say anything or show anyone his code.
Best to you,
Gerold.
Hi Gerold,
i agree, he should not and does not have to show anyone his code.
he seems interested in answering the questions, though...
people are simply requesting an explanation as to why hundreds of (identical/equivilent) lines of code appear in both fruit 2.1 and strelka 2.0.,
etc.
i think that's a fair question...
A fair question would be to list identical/equivalent lines of code that appear in both Fruit and some version of Rybka, if any exist, and request an explanation. Not between Fruit and Strelka, imo, ultimately that proves nothing at all. You want to assert a problem with Rybka? Ok, compare Rybka with whatever.
kranium wrote:
i'm suggesting you are not completely unbiased, as you have made your position clear...
Norm, I don't think Chris is biased, he has made several well reasoned posts although I have only some 3/4 of his posts concerning this issue.
If anything at all, I would argue that you are little more biased than what you wrote of Chris since you have posted some things that are obvious exaggerations to the extent such as the one where you claimed that 2 engines are nearly 40-50% identical.
Ofcourse, I'm not being critical, just writing what I honestly think in order to try to refute your point that looks bit provocative.
The problem is, his statement is pure and utter nonsense. He is making _no_ distinction between "program" and "algorithm". Yes we order moves the same way, more or less. But the "how" is hugely different. For example, let's say everyone does moves in _exactly_ this order:
hash
winning captures
equal captures
killer moves.
rest of moves
how many that have written programs do this: Search hash move before generating a single move? Search killers before generating non-captures? Generate captures and non-captures separately? Generate captures and non-captures and check evasions separately? generate captures and non-captures and check-evasions and qsearch checking moves separately? How many rank captures by SEE, vs MVV/LVA? If you are in check, do you generate legal moves only, or generate pseudo-legal and exclude illegal ones by testing for in check after making the move? Or reject it by capturing the king?
The _programming_ differences are limitless. Very much like the room full of monkeys, except that each monkey is a programmer. So while the "algorithms" might look close, the programming will not. And to suggest that it will is _really_ a dishonest statement. One can find dozens of academic references on detecting plagiarism in programming, where we don't give 40,000 line projects.
This post was just so much nonsense that it is hard to believe a _real_ programmer would write such garbage. That makes him look worse than had he remained silent, in fact.
chrisw wrote:Vas has this to say, together with a proposal.
Rybka is and was always completely original. He is aware there are rumours about Fruit for a long time but never really understood where they are coming from. He is more than happy to try and address concrete questions or curious similarities with Fruit.
So, may I suggest you use this thread to put together a concrete and formal concern list to send to Vas. He can answer here, or here by email or on Rybkaforum or wherever.
Basically, prepare a list of concerns/question which have some suitable evidential backing, and append the evidence/data. We'll email it to him.
Christophe/Zach - do you want to put together a (small) team to do this?
Thanks for your efforts regarding Rybka. I think Rybka is clean.
Vas does not really have to say anything or show anyone his code.
Best to you,
Gerold.
Hi Gerold,
i agree, he should not and does not have to show anyone his code.
he seems interested in answering the questions, though...
people are simply requesting an explanation as to why hundreds of (identical/equivilent) lines of code appear in both fruit 2.1 and strelka 2.0.,
etc.
i think that's a fair question...
Unfortunately, based on a post of his (link given above) you are not likely to get substantive answers. Just "it is likely that if we use the same algorithm, we will produce the same code." Even though decades of academic experience spread over every university offering a computer science or programming degree says otherwise.
kranium wrote:
i'm suggesting you are not completely unbiased, as you have made your position clear...
Norm, I don't think Chris is biased, he has made several well reasoned posts although I have only some 3/4 of his posts concerning this issue.
If anything at all, I would argue that you are little more biased than what you wrote of Chris since you have posted some things that are obvious exaggerations to the extent such as the one where you claimed that 2 engines are nearly 40-50% identical.
Ofcourse, I'm not being critical, just writing what I honestly think in order to try to refute your point that looks bit provocative.
Hi Swami-
yes i see your point. i wasn't trying to exaggerate...i posted immediately afterward that it probably wasn't accurate, and only an esitmate.
as far as possible bias by Chris, i simply meant that he has made his position clear...(and is therefore no longer impartial.)
chrisw wrote:Vas has this to say, together with a proposal.
Rybka is and was always completely original. He is aware there are rumours about Fruit for a long time but never really understood where they are coming from. He is more than happy to try and address concrete questions or curious similarities with Fruit.
So, may I suggest you use this thread to put together a concrete and formal concern list to send to Vas. He can answer here, or here by email or on Rybkaforum or wherever.
Basically, prepare a list of concerns/question which have some suitable evidential backing, and append the evidence/data. We'll email it to him.
Christophe/Zach - do you want to put together a (small) team to do this?
Thanks for your efforts regarding Rybka. I think Rybka is clean.
Vas does not really have to say anything or show anyone his code.
Best to you,
Gerold.
Hi Gerold,
i agree, he should not and does not have to show anyone his code.
he seems interested in answering the questions, though...
people are simply requesting an explanation as to why hundreds of (identical/equivilent) lines of code appear in both fruit 2.1 and strelka 2.0.,
etc.
i think that's a fair question...
Unfortunately, based on a post of his (link given above) you are not likely to get substantive answers. Just "it is likely that if we use the same algorithm, we will produce the same code." Even though decades of academic experience spread over every university offering a computer science or programming degree says otherwise.
I see. So there's no point in putting concrete concerns with evidence to him because, according to you, you won't get a substantive answer. Your decades trll you so.
Are you actually able to generate a list of concrete concerns? For example some code similarities between Rybka and Fruit?
If not, the case against Rybka is just so much hot air.
kranium wrote:
i'm suggesting you are not completely unbiased, as you have made your position clear...
Norm, I don't think Chris is biased, he has made several well reasoned posts although I have only some 3/4 of his posts concerning this issue.
If anything at all, I would argue that you are little more biased than what you wrote of Chris since you have posted some things that are obvious exaggerations to the extent such as the one where you claimed that 2 engines are nearly 40-50% identical.
Ofcourse, I'm not being critical, just writing what I honestly think in order to try to refute your point that looks bit provocative.
Hi Swami-
yes i see your point. i wasn't trying to exaggerate...i posted immediately afterward that it probably wasn't accurate, and only an esitmate.
as far as possible bias by Chris, i simply meant that he has made his position clear...(and is therefore no longer impartial.)
My position is that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.
The problem is, his statement is pure and utter nonsense. He is making _no_ distinction between "program" and "algorithm". Yes we order moves the same way, more or less. But the "how" is hugely different. For example, let's say everyone does moves in _exactly_ this order:
hash
winning captures
equal captures
killer moves.
rest of moves
how many that have written programs do this: Search hash move before generating a single move? Search killers before generating non-captures? Generate captures and non-captures separately? Generate captures and non-captures and check evasions separately? generate captures and non-captures and check-evasions and qsearch checking moves separately? How many rank captures by SEE, vs MVV/LVA? If you are in check, do you generate legal moves only, or generate pseudo-legal and exclude illegal ones by testing for in check after making the move? Or reject it by capturing the king?
The _programming_ differences are limitless. Very much like the room full of monkeys, except that each monkey is a programmer. So while the "algorithms" might look close, the programming will not. And to suggest that it will is _really_ a dishonest statement. One can find dozens of academic references on detecting plagiarism in programming, where we don't give 40,000 line projects.
This post was just so much nonsense that it is hard to believe a _real_ programmer would write such garbage. That makes him look worse than had he remained silent, in fact.
Interesting you ignore this part of his post
Vas wrote:
Generally, code theft is easy to show - just show the two sections of identical code, side-by-side. There isn't much to debate in such cases.
and choose to insult him instead.
It's put up or shut time, Bob.
Show the sections of identical code, Rybka - Fruit.
I don't know either way. Maybe they exist and maybe they don't, but I, for sure, and others probably, are not going to believe these accusations without them.
chrisw wrote:Vas has this to say, together with a proposal.
Rybka is and was always completely original. He is aware there are rumours about Fruit for a long time but never really understood where they are coming from. He is more than happy to try and address concrete questions or curious similarities with Fruit.
So, may I suggest you use this thread to put together a concrete and formal concern list to send to Vas. He can answer here, or here by email or on Rybkaforum or wherever.
Basically, prepare a list of concerns/question which have some suitable evidential backing, and append the evidence/data. We'll email it to him.
Christophe/Zach - do you want to put together a (small) team to do this?
Thanks for your efforts regarding Rybka. I think Rybka is clean.
Vas does not really have to say anything or show anyone his code.
Best to you,
Gerold.
Hi Gerold,
i agree, he should not and does not have to show anyone his code.
he seems interested in answering the questions, though...
people are simply requesting an explanation as to why hundreds of (identical/equivilent) lines of code appear in both fruit 2.1 and strelka 2.0.,
etc.
i think that's a fair question...
Unfortunately, based on a post of his (link given above) you are not likely to get substantive answers. Just "it is likely that if we use the same algorithm, we will produce the same code." Even though decades of academic experience spread over every university offering a computer science or programming degree says otherwise.
I see. So there's no point in putting concrete concerns with evidence to him because, according to you, you won't get a substantive answer. Your decades trll you so.
Are you actually able to generate a list of concrete concerns? For example some code similarities between Rybka and Fruit?
If not, the case against Rybka is just so much hot air.
You think he can't??
The sad part is, your defence for Vas obviously biased, (although I don't know your motives), are not helping Vasik's case. In fact the reverse is true.
Speaking of hot air...
Anyway, the FSF has to get involved.
Regardless of all this I hope things work out in the wash as I'd like to see Rybka continue to evolve, it's just too good a program to see it killed!
However, I don't want to see people breaking the GPL to get ahead as the new trend in computer programing.
