Rybka 1.0 source code

[Rebel]

Loop is "in progress." If you ask Mark or Harvey (or David) you can find out what has transpired to this point. So far, no email address has worked, no possible avenue of contact has worked.

You might want to check Nintendo via Jaap. I am sure they have Reul's email and home address for the money transfers, usually by bi-tri-monthly royalty payments.

[Rolf]

You also have implicitly premised that progress should be based on plagiarism and that this is "way forward."

I don't see how starting from freeware can be considered as something bad. 2009 (Ippo) became the start of a transition period where aspirant and established programmers can make choices to take or not and the percentage doesn't matter because it can't be measured.

Whatever the near future will bring forward the work every chess program, derived or not, stands on the shoulders of the former giants. McCarthy for inventing alpha/beta to begin with, Greenblatt for hash tables, Morsch for recursive nullmove Donninger for making it popular, SMK for LMR and Romstadt for making it popular etc. etc.

You came back after a long period of absence and surprised everybody with a 2900 elo program Doch. Now 2½ years later Komodo is 3150. That's great Don but it's mainly based on the ideas and novelty of others.

Coding and testing idea's (own or non-original) is the fun of chess programming, hard work of years indeed but let's not make computer chess a contest for the best coder, like in human chess it's all about elo.

"coding and testing ideas (own or non-original)" is the thing that has happened for years. It is encouraged by the ICGA, through the Journal it publishes. Copying the code of others is, however, not acceptable. And that is what happened in the case of Rybka...

a) we had that before. It's wrong and you cant prove it.
b) you persecute R1 because it was so strong and you didnt know the why, so that others could have copied its strength.

I dont understand the details either but I took the conclusion from experts in your field. For years I'm saying that you will destroy computerchess as a nice sport with that witchhunt. The secret guys who voted against Vas will of course suffer financially more than you as their spiritus rector. Nobody will buy their lame progs anymore. Players wanted the best and they got the best. The hardest man in CC -- Vas!

Bob, you must admit that the trouble isnt the scene anymore that you have likened from the 60s on. This is hate, whining and envy now. And that is something opinion leaders should be aware of, to prevent it.

a. This is not a "witch-hunt". It is a "cheat-hunt".

b. Not quite true either, now is it? Strelka was available with the source, which matches Rybka 1.0 beta, just find Fadden's analysis...

It is not "hate, whining, and envy". It is "honesty, integrity and ethics." Of which Vas seems to have little.

Just what you said is what the great inquisotors said too. That what they did was the right thing to do but in real they perverted the best of religion. Now this isnt about religion, it's about the application of computerchess intoa sport, you seem to confuse this, when computerchess as such is certainly a branch of computer sciences.

So, dont repeat that you are wanting the truth from your science origine, it's a trivial point, that I cant but respect and accept.

But I dont accept or tolerate that you destroy a whole community (the sport one) where the rules of science have no power. Here you cant argue the way you do. You are correct in forbiding to grant someone say a doctor title for programming Rybka in your institution, but you cant forbid and criminalize if someone who allegedly copied code if that copied code does always win in the tournaments of our community. Then for us it is the winner with the best program, dont you get that?

THerefore I say it again, to come with your truth out of science, without ever understanding and explaining why an alleged copied program does always wins and instead of seeking clarifications you organise a witchhunt (justifying it as a cheathunt) focussing on destruction.

If you would do it right you would try to clarify the process of decisionmaking if a program should be allowed to participate, there you could follow your science.

But what we have here is a smearact without justifications. I ndont believe the autonome rebirth of a quitter Letoutzy who flies in after 6 years and plays ignorant as if he had lived on an island without connections.

At this moment I call it lynch justice because legal justice respects certain time frames of nornal life.The wins of Rybka are a factual reality that cannot be spoiled by a Robinson Crusoe. The whole private lynch justice of the ICGA Harveys is illegal and that is also something you should respect coming from science. Also you shouldnt rely on invisible people or products like Strelka or Hippo. I think that you are not the FBI or CIA, no?

Please come back to the eternal principle of science, namely presenting yourself aS a decent role model that doesnt play games in the gutter. You cant have it both ways. Clean and still being involved in dirty games. Again, the State authorities, the military have other guidelines, but you should stop to copy them.

[Rebel]

I believe the original complaint by Fabien was early July.

Thank you Bob.

So just a couple of days after the Rybka verdict.

Fabien keeps you busy

[Houdini]

This decrease in active members is really impressive and show how sick the hobby has become. Casual visitors are probably scared and/or annoyed by the aggressive (or obsessive) tone they see in our forums nowadays.

Not only casual visitors, I'm afraid.
Visiting computer chess forums has become a complete waste of time.

Robert

[JuLieN]

This decrease in active members is really impressive and show how sick the hobby has become. Casual visitors are probably scared and/or annoyed by the aggressive (or obsessive) tone they see in our forums nowadays.

Not only casual visitors, I'm afraid.
Visiting computer chess forums has become a complete waste of time.

Robert

I partly agree with you. "Partly" only because of your use of the word "complete". Some topics here and there are still relevant. But in a general way you're right: the quality of the discussions has seriously sunk down. Even in the technical sub forums like the programming one: it used to be much more active. Nowadays, competent programmers are wasting their time quarreling, sadly.

But I believe it's not a fate: decisions can be made to reverse the process. For instance:

1) making Talkchess a nicer place. For example by strictly relocating any clone discussion into the "engine origins" sub forum, where they belong, and making this forum open, so no conspiracy theory can be elaborated anymore. That way, newcomers and usual users likewise could recover a safe and friendly environment in the three main forums (general topics, tournaments and programming discussions).

2) Solving the Rybka/Fruit case once and for all. To do that, I propose to open a wiki with a) specialists from both sides and 2) a neutral team of administrators that would ensure that both sides keep searching for the truth in a honest and fair way instead of trying to win arguments that became personal (as sadly they're doing right now).

3) In the same wiki, another section should be open to make a deep reflection about ethics, in order to prevent new Rybka/Fruit-like problems to arise in the future. When you read about things like "new software development paradigm" ignoring even simple respect of licenses and intellectual property, you measure how urging this reflection has become.

[towforce]

This decrease in active members is really impressive and show how sick the hobby has become. Casual visitors are probably scared and/or annoyed by the aggressive (or obsessive) tone they see in our forums nowadays.

Not only casual visitors, I'm afraid. Visiting computer chess forums has become a complete waste of time.

You might like the technical and programming forum:

. http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7 .

OT: you could if you wished just ask questions at that forum, and use it for no other purpose. My opinion about such help forums is that a mechanism should exist to prevent the number of times you've requested help and the number of times you've offered help in some sort of balance. Having said that, it's not such a problem at this forum, where there seem to be a sufficient number of people willing to offer help. From the perspective of people who want help, this is nothing less than wonderful!

[Don]

This decrease in active members is really impressive and show how sick the hobby has become. Casual visitors are probably scared and/or annoyed by the aggressive (or obsessive) tone they see in our forums nowadays.

Not only casual visitors, I'm afraid.
Visiting computer chess forums has become a complete waste of time.

Robert

I partly agree with you. "Partly" only because of your use of the word "complete". Some topics here and there are still relevant. But in a general way you're right: the quality of the discussions has seriously sunk down. Even in the technical sub forums like the programming one: it used to be much more active. Nowadays, competent programmers are wasting their time quarreling, sadly.

But I believe it's not a fate: decisions can be made to reverse the process. For instance:

1) making Talkchess a nicer place. For example by strictly relocating any clone discussion into the "engine origins" sub forum, where they belong, and making this forum open, so no conspiracy theory can be elaborated anymore. That way, newcomers and usual users likewise could recover a safe and friendly environment in the three main forums (general topics, tournaments and programming discussions).


2) Solving the Rybka/Fruit case once and for all. To do that, I propose to open a wiki with a) specialists from both sides and 2) a neutral team of administrators that would ensure that both sides keep searching for the truth in a honest and fair way instead of trying to win arguments that became personal (as sadly they're doing right now).

What is there to "solve?"

The reason this drags on is that there is nothing here to "solve", the case was closed a long time ago and the ICGA is not going to be persuaded to change the ruling. So how do you "solve" it? It's not an open case.

It's even more complicated by the fact that this is more about what we consider acceptable, not what was actually done. I think that is pretty obvious since 95% of the people on each side have the same philosophy respectively about what is acceptable or not. So it comes down to "I don't think he did anything wrong" or "I think what he did was wrong" and what he actually did is not that much of an issue (even though that is argued too.) You cannot "solve" that, you can just argue it.

3) In the same wiki, another section should be open to make a deep reflection about ethics, in order to prevent new Rybka/Fruit-like problems to arise in the future. When you read about things like "new software development paradigm" ignoring even simple respect of licenses and intellectual property, you measure how urging this reflection has become.

It's hard to get people to make these posts in the right place. I hope you realize that if you move the posts people are going to act like totally idiots and accuse you of violating their free speech and get all moral on you. I don't know if you have done this before or not, but I have. I just want to warn you (in case you don't already know) that it might not be what you think it will be.

[towforce]

It's hard to get people to make these posts in the right place. I hope you realize that if you move the posts people are going to act like totally idiots and accuse you of violating their free speech and get all moral on you. I don't know if you have done this before or not, but I have. I just want to warn you (in case you don't already know) that it might not be what you think it will be.

Non-conformists, eh...

[K I Hyams]

It's hard to get people to make these posts in the right place. I hope you realize that if you move the posts people are going to act like totally idiots and accuse you of violating their free speech and get all moral on you. I don't know if you have done this before or not, but I have. I just want to warn you (in case you don't already know) that it might not be what you think it will be.

I can see 19 threads on my latest screen and 2 refer to the “injustices” that may or may not have been inflicted on Rajlich. If I go back a page, I can see 20 threads and only I refers to the matter and if I go back 2 pages, I can see one thread referring to the issue from the 20 threads that appear and that one comes from the troll. Consequently, it is not clear to me why anyone using flat view would complain. If the complaints are coming from those who use thread view, obvious solutions are available.

If, in spite of those facts, it is felt necessary to move such threads to Engine Origins, some of the heat would be taken out of the (moot) issue of whether or not such action amounts to a serious suppression of free speech if Engine Origins was made visible to non-members.

[JuLieN]

If, in spite of those facts, it is felt necessary to move such threads to Engine Origins, some of the heat would be taken out of the (moot) issue of whether or not such action amounts to a serious suppression of free speech if Engine Origins was made visible to non-members.

This is my idea too. But it could get submitted to all the members through a poll:

"Q: Do you want a strict enforcement of the "Engine origin" sub forum policy?"
1- Yes, those threads are bothering me!
2- Yes, but make the Engine Origins sub forum visible to non members too!
3- No, those threads don't bother me, or their nuisance is acceptable to me.
4- No, and furthermore the Engine Origins sub forum should be made visible to non-members.

(I'd vote #2 )

Plain and simple. People decide. Maybe I'm in the minority who feel bored to death with those threads. But I believe in democracy and won't complain if I'm in minority.