Michael Diosi wrote:No, I use my time for testing the new Arena 2.0.4 version. The engine link list is inclomplete. I might change it, many thanks for your application, where may I send my bill ?
Don't tell me how much effort it is to remove a link to a illegal program. It is done within a minute. For sure it is less time intensive as your anti-Ipp*** posts. As long as you have links to illegal programs on your site you should not attack people here with links to engines of "questionable legal status".
You can send me a bill if you like. I am always happy to support freeware projects. If you think I have not done enough for Arena and freeware engines, please send me a bill.
Maybe you can put it here, so that all people can see it. Maybe you can encourage more people to pay the Arena bill.
And here is my "Hi" for you: Hi.
I see a forum discussion like a real discussion. I don't say always "Hi" before i start a sentence. And I don't always sign it. I expect to get an answer. That is not meant as offence in any way.
You see I follow my own advice. I know many people do but besdies changed time managment, 8 engines at the same time ("a bit" buggy, needs some addirtional changes; Arena sends its name on FICS again so it could be used as an interface there, I hope; additional WB commands from HG). Other changes are marginal (as far as I can say by now). Gaviota TBs not in yet. Martin didn't say anything about supporting additional external boards like the DCS, Mysticum either. Maybe for the next testversion I will increase the number of testers, deppending on who sends what back
Regarding Gaviota TBs for a GUI, a very portable option could be to connect to a "TB engine" that provides info about a particular position when requested. I could easily write one with an "ad hoc" protocol, or even Gaviota in WB mode could serve as one. After setboard, the command bk or tb spits all the info needed for a GUI.
bob wrote:
No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.
Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?
How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.
When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.
At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.
Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.
If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.
Similar views. But if Vas wait two years to prove that the Ippo family
is clone of Rybka 3, it has the same risk, unless he proves that it was
reverse engineering. For the other hand the problem now is that he would
have to open the Rybka 3 code to prove. Difficult.
Sent this posting it to Martin too but he also got the entire stuff you posted before and he seemed very intereste,d it seems he will implement it (can't say exactly) so let's see.
bob wrote:
No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.
Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?
How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.
When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.
At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.
Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.
If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.
Similar views. But if Vas wait two years to prove that the Ippo family
is clone of Rybka 3, it has the same risk, unless he proves that it was
reverse engineering. For the other hand the problem now is that he would
have to open the Rybka 3 code to prove. Difficult.
I think that's the key issue. Why expose himself and his hard work for this? I suspect the 2-year issue is when he feels it would be the least prejudicial.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
bob wrote:
No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.
Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?
How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.
When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.
At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.
Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.
If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.
Similar views. But if Vas wait two years to prove that the Ippo family
is clone of Rybka 3, it has the same risk, unless he proves that it was
reverse engineering. For the other hand the problem now is that he would
have to open the Rybka 3 code to prove. Difficult.
I think that's the key issue. Why expose himself and his hard work for this? I suspect the 2-year issue is when he feels it would be the least prejudicial.
Explain the reasoning. If IP* +is+ a clone, and since its source is available, does that not mean that the source of Rybka 3 is _already_ available as the IP* source?
This argument just does not hold water. If it is a clone, then releasing parts of R3 to show IP is reverse-engineered would (a) not reveal any source that is not already available; (b) completely stop this endless debate. If it is not a clone, then there is nothing to prove from releasing his source and that would reveal whatever secrets he has.
So explain to me again why one would not want to reveal something he claims has _already_ been revealed???
bob wrote:
No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.
Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?
How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.
When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.
At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.
Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.
If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.
Similar views. But if Vas wait two years to prove that the Ippo family
is clone of Rybka 3, it has the same risk, unless he proves that it was
reverse engineering. For the other hand the problem now is that he would
have to open the Rybka 3 code to prove. Difficult.
I think that's the key issue. Why expose himself and his hard work for this? I suspect the 2-year issue is when he feels it would be the least prejudicial.
Explain the reasoning. If IP* +is+ a clone, and since its source is available, does that not mean that the source of Rybka 3 is _already_ available as the IP* source?
This argument just does not hold water. If it is a clone, then releasing parts of R3 to show IP is reverse-engineered would (a) not reveal any source that is not already available; (b) completely stop this endless debate. If it is not a clone, then there is nothing to prove from releasing his source and that would reveal whatever secrets he has.
So explain to me again why one would not want to reveal something he claims has _already_ been revealed???
In the e-mail published he states that much was taken, but there are also many changes. What if you, a competitor (this is purely hypothetical), are only interested in what is from Rybka, as you do not trust the coding that is not. Why help identify which is which?
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
lmader wrote:
I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.
How do you know? Ok if you take sides for Bob and want to be against Vas then ok, but wouldnt your own statement be speaking for Vas too?? The main attack vs Bob is IMO that he worked with a split and inconsitant ethical basement.
Any chance you can provide something to back that statement up, or is it just another random personal attack? I've been 100% consistent in my comments about Vas. Fruit/Rybka is a done deal with enough evidence to convince anyone except those that simply won't be convinced. The Rybka/Ippo* case seems to be going in the opposite direction from what most want. There appears to be more and more evidence that this "clone" idea is not actually true.
The only inconsistency I have shown is that we originally took Vas' word that Ippo* was a clone and we disallowed links, but allowed discussion. After 3+ months with no supporting evidence, we allowed the links as well as more discussion. The only thing I regret is that we originally stopped allowing links, when it looks more and more like we were wrong even in that step...
This gets uglier as the days march on.
That was the biggest deception I ever saw in him. It's a psychological problem. Or is this also unallowed to use here in the debate? So, what did you mean that you knew and Al should know too that Bob isnt supporting what?
I asked him the crucial question: if the talks about these invisible vilains who are vilains because they are invisible, would serve to a good purpose then Bob would be right, but if not then Bob's position is unsound. For what Bob is standing for in our scene.
And if it turns out these "villains" (correct spelling) were misjudged, as the evidence mounts??? My "position" is anything but unsound, because I choose to stand on actual facts, not personal likes or dislikes. And the more facts that come out, the more doubt there is about the cloning claim directed toward IP*.
bob wrote:And so far, all we have for IP* is that the code _appears_ to be reverse-engineered. From what is unknown.
we definitely have a bit more then that, e.g. Gian-Carlo presented a lot more observations. Also we have the sayings of Don Daily & Larry Kaufmann - which you called real guys in one of your postings. They both clearly pointed out that they have seen enough to call it a Rybka derivative. With not accepting their foundings you clearly call them liars. Is that your real opinion about Larry & Don ?
Greets, Thomas
My opinion about Larry is that he said that a couple of the pc/sq tables in IP* were very close to the final pc/sq table values he sent to Vas. What does that mean? Did Vas take them with no changes? Did he use them at all? So no, I don't think Larry is a liar. But I am not reading more into his statement than was given, which you should try. I've not seen any real quotes from Don. My only negative comment has been that the IP* code looks quite unlike anything a human would write based on my experience, unless one is intentionally (as I did years back) work backward from optimized asm to a high-level language (I've already explained why I wanted to do this in another post). But looking like inhuman code doesn't make the thing a proven clone. And the more I read, the more evidence I see that it isn't a clone. And since Vas is not providing anything to show that it is, opinion is swinging the other way, naturally...
