Michael Sherwin wrote:What Vas did with Rybka is perfectly fine. He made a better wiget--that is what us humans do--we make better wigets! Okay, he may have used a very good wiget as a base model, but then he used a better material for his wiget (bitboards) and made many improvements. His wiget is a far superior widget and he deserves the credit for his improved wiget!
My gripe is that Fruits source code was released in the first place. I wish that it hadn't been released. This is purely selfish as I believe that my program would have a substantially higher position in the rating list if Fruits sources hadn't been released and would be more important to people today than it is. The number of new/improved programs just skyrocketed after Fruit was released. My program though has not benifited from Fruits release as I have taken nothing from it or any other program except that I learned the basics from TSCP!
But, now my originality does not count for much and to even get close to the top, I must consider doing what Vas may have done!
Rolf wrote:
Do you fear being guilty of unallowed activities? Do you want to help Vas by NOT starting further analyses? Do you need money?
Money? One can never have enough, but I am quite fine, thanks.
I fear that it would eat all my time and energy - and even if it becomes evident that Rybka 1 beta was a bitboard clone of Fruit, the implications and consequences are unclear. Would we apply different, double standards, considering the huge improvements Vasik made? Would we apply an act of grace for all former cloners?
For the rest of your post, I agree with Bob's reply.
Michael Sherwin wrote:What Vas did with Rybka is perfectly fine. He made a better wiget--that is what us humans do--we make better wigets! Okay, he may have used a very good wiget as a base model, but then he used a better material for his wiget (bitboards) and made many improvements. His wiget is a far superior widget and he deserves the credit for his improved wiget!
My gripe is that Fruits source code was released in the first place. I wish that it hadn't been released. This is purely selfish as I believe that my program would have a substantially higher position in the rating list if Fruits sources hadn't been released and would be more important to people today than it is. The number of new/improved programs just skyrocketed after Fruit was released. My program though has not benifited from Fruits release as I have taken nothing from it or any other program except that I learned the basics from TSCP!
But, now my originality does not count for much and to even get close to the top, I must consider doing what Vas may have done!
Why don't you complain about the release of TSCP?
Miguel
You're joking right?
But, just in case you're not.
TSCP is only a very basic engine that was written as a teaching aid for dummies like me, so I could grasp the very rudiments of chess programming with out a whole bunch of perifery algorithms getting in the way. Any engine based on TSCP needs a huge amount of work to be a threat to any engine in the top 150 or so engines. There are plenty of books that give more information than TSCP gives.
I should complain about TSCP? Really?
I think that something else motivates your question!
If you are on a sidewalk and the covid goes beep beep
Just step aside or you might have a bit of heat
Covid covid runs through the town all day
Can the people ever change their ways
Sherwin the covid's after you
Sherwin if it catches you you're through
bob wrote:
So let's get off this bad analogy approach unless you can choose an analogy that actually supports your position rather than contradicts it.
It's my fault that you missed the main point I made. Therefore just for completeness reasons. You are repeating the same output, the moves and such but my example meant this: following you it was the same, a copy or whatever term of your choice, but how could it be faster, in my example of the cars, and in chess 100 points better all of the time with rising version numbers? I'm only speaking about this surplus.
If it were so easy to at first begin with the copy then why many others arent doing the same? In my books that speaks clearly against your hypothesis that Rybka1beta was a copy. Then what is your final verdict? I measn, what relevance legally, justice, court, this what you see and claim does have?? Violations of past experiences? Into what category that crime belongs? We have never done this, this would be completely new... It will always insult masters of concrete/beton/past.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
bob wrote:
So let's get off this bad analogy approach unless you can choose an analogy that actually supports your position rather than contradicts it.
It's my fault that you missed the main point I made. Therefore just for completeness reasons. You are repeating the same output, the moves and such but my example meant this: following you it was the same, a copy or whatever term of your choice, but how could it be faster, in my example of the cars, and in chess 100 points better all of the time with rising version numbers? I'm only speaking about this surplus.
If it were so easy to at first begin with the copy then why many others arent doing the same? In my books that speaks clearly against your hypothesis that Rybka1beta was a copy. Then what is your final verdict? I measn, what relevance legally, justice, court, this what you see and claim does have?? Violations of past experiences? Into what category that crime belongs? We have never done this, this would be completely new... It will always insult masters of concrete/beton/past.
I don't see why you don't get this. You steal a super-secret high-performance engine, and then mount it in a better carbon-fiber chassis/body so that it now is faster than anything around. Partially because of the innovation of the carbon-fiber chassis, but also because of the stolen high-performance motor. Is this OK? Not in my mind. If you steal something and improve it, it is still stolen property...
Rolf wrote:
Do you fear being guilty of unallowed activities? Do you want to help Vas by NOT starting further analyses? Do you need money?
Money? One can never have enough, but I am quite fine, thanks.
I fear that it would eat all my time and energy - and even if it becomes evident that Rybka 1 beta was a bitboard clone of Fruit, the implications and consequences are unclear. Would we apply different, double standards, considering the huge improvements Vasik made? Would we apply an act of grace for all former cloners?
For the rest of your post, I agree with Bob's reply.
Thanks, I hadnt seen Bobs answer before. Then the money thing was a question of what such a analysis would cost you, just you?
I am interested in the result when it will NOT come out what you suggested. And after all the efforts. How would you feel yourself in such a mess? In the case of the former cloners, it shouldnt be used this term in context with Ryka, where is a similar case that such a clear clone was better than everybody else? IMO you cant just handwave that fact away!
And what Bob said about Fritz as a 20 years old known entity... Who decides that in Fritz the yearly new found devices arent implemented copies? Who controls it? NB Fritz is a theoretical example.
If such a control isnt there, I still accuse everybody involved here in a deliberate outsingling of Vasik's Rybka on the case of violating forbidden activities with a free given program. We discussed it, you can do with it, chessically, what you want, doesnt imply you can rip it apart to reveil its secrets and to publish them! I ask everybody why nobody is controling the former leading commercial programs on their potential stolen material?? Where is the answer? I wont hold my breath.
Last edited by Rolf on Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
bob wrote:
So let's get off this bad analogy approach unless you can choose an analogy that actually supports your position rather than contradicts it.
It's my fault that you missed the main point I made. Therefore just for completeness reasons. You are repeating the same output, the moves and such but my example meant this: following you it was the same, a copy or whatever term of your choice, but how could it be faster, in my example of the cars, and in chess 100 points better all of the time with rising version numbers? I'm only speaking about this surplus.
If it were so easy to at first begin with the copy then why many others arent doing the same? In my books that speaks clearly against your hypothesis that Rybka1beta was a copy. Then what is your final verdict? I measn, what relevance legally, justice, court, this what you see and claim does have?? Violations of past experiences? Into what category that crime belongs? We have never done this, this would be completely new... It will always insult masters of concrete/beton/past.
I don't see why you don't get this. You steal a super-secret high-performance engine, and then mount it in a better carbon-fiber chassis/body so that it now is faster than anything around. Partially because of the innovation of the carbon-fiber chassis, but also because of the stolen high-performance motor. Is this OK? Not in my mind. If you steal something and improve it, it is still stolen property...
Then what is with the almost 80% you all have stolen/taken from your forefathers?? And again, Vas didnt just once improve the performance on the base of the bitboard design but he does it with every new version. From where did he steal this? If not from his own genius!
Bob, guess is the best student you ever had, and better than yourself, cant you imagine a method in the field itself plus some ingenious marketing ideas, that Vas might have followed? That is the difference, Bob, where mere stealing is transforming into genius creativity. You speak of a secret that you would want to know. But then at first consider that Vas is really some improvement. Lay asks, could it be that a genial programmer could have introduced a sort of loop - invisible - that forces false output to rippers? IMO the secret doesnt lie in a concrete place, it's the overall design. Ok, now make some jokes about my ignorance.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
