That's the claim, yes. I'm not saying that it is the case, or that I believe it, I only say that's the reason they give for normalizing the node counts (so that the number equates strength).bob wrote:Please don't continue to quote "crap". With all the authors of chess programs around, only Vas has seen it necessary to "normalize" his node counts?
Fabien's open letter to the community
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 4556
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:30 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
-
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
I'm quite sure Graham will do the honorable thing and immediately stop testing Rybka 1.0 and 2.0.Matthias Gemuh wrote:"those versions" only ?Graham Banks wrote:...
Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.
Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions ...
Matthias.
-
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:26 pm
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
On RobotsJuLieN wrote:If I'm not mistaken, the absolute record in terms of posts is the thread entitled "BB+ on the matter", with 253 posts, and the most poplar one in term of view count is the one entitled "On Robots", with 69043 views.Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Damn,this thread is taking over mine related to the match against Excalibur Ivan II in terms of popularity
Records are made to be broken.
i wonder who started that thread?
another huge thread was
Collector's Corner..2007 Annual Physicals ....Regards
Steve
-
- Posts: 4556
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:30 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
What is your definition of "new"?slobo wrote:The newest one is that Rybka´s codes suddenly became lost ( or deleted), and cannot be examined by experts anymore.
2009-04-14 00:34
"Actually, I seriously don't have the Rybka 3 source code.
Vas"
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... pid=151823
-
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:00 pm
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
"(statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense)"IWB wrote:Hi Graham
Ask yourself if you ever got that much certanty from VR about the Littos!?Graham Banks wrote:
Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists ....
Actually I remember a posting where VR said that he lost the code and cant prove anything in front of a court and I am pretty sure you remember that as well ...
I think the only thing a tester can stick on is the good advice you once gave me: "There has to be a real name", and I like to add ", thats all!"
Bye Ingo
Now that we know Mr. Banks standard of evidence for what programs can and can not be on his Rating List. That have been accused of being clones, or programs with accusation of stole code or ideas.
I am sure Mr. Banks will be posting the Houdini 1.5 results on his rating list today. Since Houdini does not meet this standard of evidence for exclusion on Mr. Banks CCRL rating list.
-
- Posts: 3245
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:10 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
You could have quoted me without cutting out the key point of my post:Houdini wrote:I'm quite sure Graham will do the honorable thing and immediately stop testing Rybka 1.0 and 2.0.Matthias Gemuh wrote:"those versions" only ?Graham Banks wrote:...
Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.
Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions ...
Matthias.
Code: Select all
Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?
My engine was quite strong till I added knowledge to it.
http://www.chess.hylogic.de
http://www.chess.hylogic.de
-
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
No professional software developer would ever work this way.Ovyron wrote:Easy, you make one change to the code and now you have Rybka 3.1, you delete Rybka 3 code, you make a change and call it Rybka 3.2, you delete Rybka 3.1 code.
By the time you're at Rybka 4, you've already rewritten most(?) of the code and the original code has been lost (as a fact it happened with the time control code and Vas had to code a new one).
Please Google "VCS", Version Control System.
Robert
-
- Posts: 41435
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
1. I am only one tester. CCRL is a group of testers.mwyoung wrote:Now that we know Mr. Banks standard of evidence for what programs can and can not be on his Rating List. That have been accused of being clones, or programs with accusation of stole code or ideas.
I am sure Mr. Banks will be posting the Houdini 1.5 results on his rating list today. Since Houdini does not meet this standard of evidence for exclusion on Mr. Banks CCRL rating list.
2. I have personally chosen not to test the Ippo family of engines.
This thread is supposed to be about the Rybka/Fruit issue, not about CCRL or myself.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
I always try to quote exactly the text my response applies to.Matthias Gemuh wrote:You could have quoted me without cutting out the key point of my post
Robert
-
- Posts: 41435
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Because I choose not to, just as many others have also chosen not to. Personal choice.Matthias Gemuh wrote:You could have quoted me without cutting out the key point of my post:Code: Select all
Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?
gbanksnz at gmail.com