strelka 2.0

[gerold]

will strelka be tested on time controls aside from 40/4?

Yes.

[rfadden]

By the way, some people are using the word "clone", and from past experience clone is used for a more mellow activity than this.

About the word "clone" in the context of a chess program:

Long ago some people took the open source code of Crafty and they changed some of the strings output by the program and they compiled and used the resulting binary, and these programs were identified as clones.

Fruit 2.1 open source was used with new developments or improvements and the result is considered a clone of Fruit.


Take a version of Fritz that plays 2850 uniprocessor 32 bit and disassemble it and completely recreate the C of the Original Fritz, and call this program "Jury" and then claim that you have made one of the best programs on the planet.

I wouldn't describe that as a clone of Fritz, that's a stolen, reverse engineered Fritz, and the result is a Fraud.

Stelka is not a clone, it's a Fraud. It is a direct Reverse Engineer of Rybka, and I can show you the exact constants, the exact math taken from Rybka, every function call in exactly the same location being passed exactly the same arguments, the same values and the same constants. A *direct* reverse engineering effort. There is no original content in Strelka, it is all a direct rip-off with some chunks of stuff left out.

I found one specially commented line of code that was not in Rybka, and then we found that line of code came from Fruit.

What a pure and complete rip off.

----

When I put on my temporary "reverse engineer" hat I also say that it was an amazing feat of reverse engineering. To do this effort would have taken me a year of effort. I think the person Jury or whoever, has some excellent skill.

I probably shouldn't say this but honestly I am now reading Rybka like a complete "open book." There is one reason why I can see everything. Because I used Strelka as the "primer" (similar to the use of the term in the movie "Contact"). With the "primer" in hand I was able to label every single variable in Rybka, and the position of these variables lines up in the same order as the variables in Strelka. It's spooky. All functions are called in exactly the same order, from the same functions.

There is no coincidence here because all of the wired constants in the x86 code are in Strelka in exactly the same spot. I'm saying the "primer" showed me everything, it completely exposed all of Rybka.

I was able to find all details of Node Count, and I was then able to patch Rybka to remove the node count obfuscation. Before I had the "primer" in my hand I could not have done this, I could not have labeled all of the varibales in Rybka. Strelka 2.0 is the primer it is the "open book" of Rybka.

[John Conway]

Strelka 2.0 is the primer it is the "open book" of Rybka.

This is exactly what I suspected when the source was first released. I posted my thoughts on 4 forums, but persons more knowledgeable than I dismissed my speculations.
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 61&t=18828

[Sylwy]

Was my fault !

[Osipov Jury]

Osipov is Belka 2.0.0 and Strelka 2.0.B the same engine.
Thanks,
Gerold.

Belka 2.0.0 is an experiment of Igor Korshunov (Wildcat author) with sources of Strelka 2.0.
I don't know what exactly he made.

[Osipov Jury]

Take a version of Fritz that plays 2850 uniprocessor 32 bit and disassemble it and completely recreate the C of the Original Fritz.

Rick.

Please take the Fritz binary and try completely recreate it into C.
If you can make this work during one year or two, you may claim that this is possible.
If not, don't talk about things in which you are not competent.

[Matthias Gemuh]

Rick.

Please take the Fritz binary and try completely recreate it into C.
If you can make this work during one year or two, you may claim that this is possible.
If not, don't talk about things in which you are not competent.

I think Rick has the competence to reverse engineer Fritz in 1 or 2 years.
However, he must have a very personal interest before doing so.
Nobody can invest so much time and effort just to prove to other people that it is possible.
Both of you have talent. Stop arguing each other .

Matthias.

[slobo]

Rick.

Please take the Fritz binary and try completely recreate it into C.
If you can make this work during one year or two, you may claim that this is possible.
If not, don't talk about things in which you are not competent.

I think Rick has the competence to reverse engineer Fritz in 1 or 2 years.
However, he must have a very personal interest before doing so.
Nobody can invest so much time and effort just to prove to other people that it is possible.
Both of you have talent. Stop arguing each other .

Matthias.

Don´t have pity of his time, Matthias.
Do you think, Rick had been wasting his noble time in a better way while trying to demonstrate that Strelka is a "fraud"? (By the way, he doesn´t know what the word "fraud" means, although he is an English speaker.)

But, I am sure, he would do much better use of his time if he tries to write his own engine; or, if he finds it too boring, he could at least try to reverse Fritz 5 to C, for a change.

[rfadden]

Rick.

Please take the Fritz binary and try completely recreate it into C.
If you can make this work during one year or two, you may claim that this is possible.
If not, don't talk about things in which you are not competent.

I think Rick has the competence to reverse engineer Fritz in 1 or 2 years.
However, he must have a very personal interest before doing so.
Nobody can invest so much time and effort just to prove to other people that it is possible.
Both of you have talent. Stop arguing each other .

Matthias.

Don´t have pity of his time, Matthias.
Do you think, Rick had been wasting his noble time in a better way while trying to demonstrate that Strelka is a "fraud"? (By the way, he doesn´t know what the word "fraud" means, although he is an English speaker.)

But, I am sure, he would do much better use of his time if he tries to write his own engine; or, if he finds it too boring, he could at least try to reverse Fritz 5 to C, for a change.

From Dictionary.com:

fraud

1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.

3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.

4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

----------------

This word fits what Jury Osipov has done, and this word fits the situation perfectly.

I have a few pages of proof, where I show an exact alignment and match of internal details in Rybka with the source of Strelka. I can show these internal details of Rybka because they are already published in Strelka.

Converting the machine language of Rybka into C and then putting your name on this software, that is fraud.

Also I read a posting by Vas on the Rybka forum where he says that his name should be on Strelka as the author. He says it's a reverse engineered Rybka.

[rfadden]

People are saying why not write an engine?

I did write an engine from scratch recently. I was feeling a little burnt out on chess engines so I wrote a system that plays the game of Chaxx. Later I found out the game is nearly identical to Camelot. My system has a lot of advanced algorithms adapted from Chess, and the play of the engine is amazing at times. So yesterday my engine played against the founder of the World Camelot Foundation. This excellent player, Michael Nolan says my engine is a tactical monster. So for part of the day today I worked on a few things to make this system easier to use (my program that plays Camelot).

With a number of folks saying "work on an engine"... Yes, I have been working on an engine. My system is 13,000 lines of highly readable C++ that I wrote recently, and the system works well but it also has a lot of potential for being significantly improved. For example I created a rudamentary Evaluation function based upon my observations of playing the game, and I also added a number of terms to counteract some blind spots that allowed me to win games.

Working on Camelot for a change is a true challenge because each move can extend on, taking possibly all of the oponents pieces. This is of course quite a bit different from Chess and so I find working on this game is challenging, it's fun, and working on this is like taking a vaction from computer chess. I feel refreshed from this experience.

My thoughts in computer chess lately have centered around curiousity about the successful techniques within Rybka. As I have unraveled Rybka (and the main tool was the use of Strelka) I have found the experience to be extremely satisfying. This is one of the most interesting things I've done in computer chess (recently).

People seem to be suggesting that I should attempt to write the worlds best chess engine. No way. I'm a realist. There's no way that my chess engine would become the top program.

Ok I can think of only one way that my program would catapult to the top of the list: If friendly space aliens come to earth and if they pick me as their key earthling friend, I will ask them to give me an algorithm that takes all other earthlings by surprise.

Writing "yet another mediocre chess program" is not my main hobby right now. Guess why? Because everyone else is doing that. People are doing this in Stereo, in Triplicate, in Parallel, in Synchronicity. Like synchronized swimming, whole groups of people are writing the same thing. Why should I be interested in writing another engine that does not stand a chance of being all that good (compared to Rybka)?

I'm working on other things. It's a hobby man... this is not my job.