Vas Rajlich Video...

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by George Tsavdaris »

Alexander Schmidt wrote:
M ANSARI wrote:I mean my God, do you really think Rybka is only strong due to Fruit ??? I think any reasonably gifted programmer can create a chess engine
No, but Fruit was taken as a basis, and VR earns a lot of money with the work of someone else.
If the basis was the ideas of Fruit then nothing is wrong and you are not correct, if the basis was some code similarities then you are right.

But how do you know that he did not take only ideas from Fruit? Have you seen Rybka 1.0beta code?
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
Milos
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by Milos »

George Tsavdaris wrote:But how do you know that he did not take only ideas from Fruit? Have you seen Rybka 1.0beta code?
Asking this kind of question after so much discussion on this topic here on CCC is nothing but a troll.
At least try to ask a meaningful question like: "Have you seen Rybka 1.0beta source code?"
And then you might get the meaningful answer as: "You do not need the actual source code to undoubtedly conclude which code was copied directly from Fruit."
User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by George Tsavdaris »

Milos wrote:
George Tsavdaris wrote:But how do you know that he did not take only ideas from Fruit? Have you seen Rybka 1.0beta code?
Asking this kind of question after so much discussion on this topic here on CCC is nothing but a troll.
At least try to ask a meaningful question like: "Have you seen Rybka 1.0beta source code?"
And then you might get the meaningful answer as: "You do not need the actual source code to undoubtedly conclude which code was copied directly from Fruit."
I'm not trying to troll. I'm trying to see a definite proof.

So can you give me some links here on CCC or some other inarguable facts that can show undoubtedly that Rybka 1.0 has started with Fruit code inside it and not just ideas from it.

Because all this time i see strong speculations and more strong speculations and even more strong speculations and even promises for concrete proofs and in-depth analysis, but so far i failed to see something 100% concrete.
Perhaps i've missed it so can you show it to me. But i don't want strong speculations or almost sure facts. I want a 100% proof.
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
Milos
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:47 am

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by Milos »

George Tsavdaris wrote:But i don't want strong speculations or almost sure facts. I want a 100% proof.
You can't even have a 100% proof that grass is green.
This is not math, you need to have some conventions on what is a copied code, and what is sufficient for you. Regarding your attitude (which is really a troll), you won't be convinced even if somebody presented you the source code of Rybka 1.0 vs. Fruit (2.1 or any suitable version). You would say, yes, but variable names are changed, and for is replaced with while, etc. It's like ppl that still believe that America didn't land on the moon or similar stuff.

For anybody with at least basic knowledge of assembler and programming this (http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... fruit+zach) is enough to undoubtedly conclude that some code in Rybka 1.0 is copied directly from Fruit.
Even if 1 line is directly copied, GPL is violated and this is the end of story.
adieguez

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by adieguez »

the other day Dann mentioned a page made by Zach in which he explained more details in a clearer manner. The similarities shown were beyond normal (obviously one would have to believe Zach). The post was edited and the link removed as Zach said he didn't want to show that until his report is more complete.. who knows.. maybe in 2011..
Milos wrote:
George Tsavdaris wrote:But i don't want strong speculations or almost sure facts. I want a 100% proof.
You can't even have a 100% proof that grass is green.
This is not math, you need to have some conventions on what is a copied code, and what is sufficient for you. Regarding your attitude (which is really a troll), you won't be convinced even if somebody presented you the source code of Rybka 1.0 vs. Fruit (2.1 or any suitable version). You would say, yes, but variable names are changed, and for is replaced with while, etc. It's like ppl that still believe that America didn't land on the moon or similar stuff.

For anybody with at least basic knowledge of assembler and programming this (http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... fruit+zach) is enough to undoubtedly conclude that some code in Rybka 1.0 is copied directly from Fruit.
Even if 1 line is directly copied, GPL is violated and this is the end of story.
User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6401
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by michiguel »

Milos wrote:
George Tsavdaris wrote:But how do you know that he did not take only ideas from Fruit? Have you seen Rybka 1.0beta code?
Asking this kind of question after so much discussion on this topic here on CCC is nothing but a troll.
Yet, you joined a month ago...

You are quoting in another post a Zach as a proof. Well, that was discussed ad nauseum and no conclusion was drawn. IMHO, it demonstrated squat, as many other programmers thought. It was certainly not unanimous. The specific topic about the longjmp and setjmp was declared as too weird to be used in an engine. Lance Perkins showed very well how that is not weird and in fact, he uses it. In fact if anybody uses modern error handling techniques (Try, catch, unless etc.) the assembler will end up showing that. After that discussion, a groups of programmers promised to come back with the smoking gun in public. That NEVER happened, yet, everybody talks like this was an obvious thing. No, it was controversial at best.

Yes, Zach has more evidence and I tend to believe him because he is a serious guy, but I will wait until he speaks. On the mean time, the least everybody can do is just stay quiet, or show their own data.

Second, this is v1.0. The evidence that somehow some of those lines are in v3.0 is zero. It is not?

Miguel
At least try to ask a meaningful question like: "Have you seen Rybka 1.0beta source code?"
And then you might get the meaningful answer as: "You do not need the actual source code to undoubtedly conclude which code was copied directly from Fruit."
shiv
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:03 am

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by shiv »

mcostalba wrote:"NH: What chess engines in public domain when you got started had the biggest influence on the earliest versions of Rybka?
VR: Well, actually, I started in kind of a strange way. I printed out just about every single paper there was to print out about computer chess—all of these academic papers.
"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry, but me as a programmer, reading that a programmer learned how to develop a chess engine reading papers really made me laugh, and laugh out loud.

Even the dumbest doesn't drink that silliness ! :lol:

I can understand his reasons, but if I were in him I would eventually asked the interviewer to put that question in the "forbidden questions list"....a list that, reading the whole interview, it seems to me it was far from empty anyway :D

Anyhow happy new year to everybody and to Rybka's author too !
Actually this opinion is sadly quite common. Researchers do not respect engineering ideas enough and in turn engineers do not respect research ideas/papers. I think there should be more communication between researchers and engineers. Being on both camps, I can sense strong disregard for the other community.

I personally think sharing ideas across research and engineering can lead to a lot of good. Many researchers are capable programmers (though they do not necessarily do it in an industrial setting), and many engineers are quite capable of innovative research (though they do not do it in an academic setting :) ).
User avatar
Zach Wegner
Posts: 1922
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:51 am
Location: Earth

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by Zach Wegner »

Steve B wrote:
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
Alexander Schmidt wrote:
Leto wrote:In this game it looks like Rybka 2004 lost on time in a drawn position:
It was also tested in some private rating lists, with the same results.

Maybe you can find it somewhere on chesswar, I don't remember others.
I think it was "Systeme du Suisse".

.
The Wiki Entry for Rybka makes no mention of the Engine before its Release in Dec 2005
actually i never rely too much on Wiki myself(for any subject)because the info can be very spotty at times
the Rybka entry for example,, makes no mention of the two odds matches it played against GM Joel Benjamin..one of which i co-sponsored

however this might be of interest to some members
this site is an archive of CCC posts before the change over to the new forum software(March 06) we use now
by inserting a search term someone with a little patience might be able to find some info on Rybka before 2005

http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/

for example..
by entering the search term ..CCT
this interesting Thread started by Anthony Cozzie in Feb 2005 popped up ..
notice the reply by Vas in the thread
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=410729



Steve
Wow, cool to see that I called Zappa as the single winner with 7.5/9. Good times. 8-)

I'm going to guess that I got question 8 right too.

Also, we see an example of a very rare occurrence: humor from Uri Blass (responding to Anthony, http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=410756)

Code: Select all

>>7. Which engine pair do you think will win the Brilliancy prize, and who will be
>>on the winning side?
>
>My prediction is that Zappa beats Movei with a beautiful Knight sacrifice after
>Movei opens with 1. a3 e5 2. h3

Why do you expose my opening preperation?
Now I need to replace my opening book:(_
Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:26 pm

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by Steve B »

Zach Wegner wrote:
Also, we see an example of a very rare occurrence: humor from Uri Blass (responding to Anthony, http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=410756)

Code: Select all

>>7. Which engine pair do you think will win the Brilliancy prize, and who will be
>>on the winning side?
>
>My prediction is that Zappa beats Movei with a beautiful Knight sacrifice after
>Movei opens with 1. a3 e5 2. h3

Why do you expose my opening preperation?
Now I need to replace my opening book:(_
Hi Zach
Yes a rare moment of levity from Uri
however he quickly recovers with his reply to Antony's Last Question ..
8. Which author will write the most lines to channel 64?

Not important question.
Uri


Happy New Year Regards
Steve
User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: Vas Rajlich Video...

Post by Rolf »

michiguel wrote: After that discussion, a groups of programmers promised to come back with the smoking gun in public. That NEVER happened, yet, everybody talks like this was an obvious thing. No, it was controversial at best.

Yes, Zach has more evidence and I tend to believe him because he is a serious guy, but I will wait until he speaks. On the mean time, the least everybody can do is just stay quiet, or show their own data.
This isnt sound science nor logic. You state truthfully that 4 people had announced they would show proof. This was repeated in a loop. For years. Now tere is still no proof. At such a moment it's not sound to declare that all have better to be quit until someone comes with the proof.

Sound would be to tell people like these announcers to shut up because they have no proof and never will. All what they are doing is defamating Vas.

And to let it look the least suspicious they did NOT push a Norm S. in front, no, the youngest student is making these claims so that it always can be explained and excused that he's still so young.

That style isnt right. But as I told Zach years ago. Ok, he can well follow such agendas but in the long run it will deteriorate his own life as individual and potentially scientist. Such agendas are always wrong because it cant promote someone's own career in science. Not to speak of illegal methods that must be applied to do the investigation. Only caveat. The FBI does the same but it's a State institution in crime affair examinations. But poor private Zach is private and seeing him on the run accusing a Wch this is NOT authorized at all. It's his own agenda, fed by his other supporters. It's a private lynch-like permanent smear on Vas Rajlich.

My other killer argument against Zach is simply the question what is he investigating in the codes of the other commercial engines? Aha, he's not interested at all. Well, then it's clear that he is hunting someone with a special agenda. He isnt doing science or such some.

(The argument explained to young readers: if say all other commercial competitors grab other code into their closed prog code, THEN where is the offense in the allegated violation of whatever by Vas? Is this sound to scapegoat a single player? Where is the crime if all are doing the same?? So, before Zach accused Vas for anything at all he should describe the general situation which is BTW the typical procedere in science. What Zach is doing isnt science. And that will be his burden for the future in his life as scientist if that should ever be his plan at all. There is no excuse because it was well explained why his agenda like research isnt sound. Now you might say, how could I know that everybody is doing the same. That is a good question. Of course I dont know this at all, but the one who is crying wolf against a specific player, must by all means investigate that question, because if he cant find out how will he exclude that they all are doing the same what he especially accused Vas of? This is such a basic argument against Zach's investigation, that he also could have stopped it years ago. The only reason for continuing is that Vas should be scapegoated, nothing else. Please ask me if you dont understand something.)
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz