I am feeling ill

[bob]

Strelka is a criminal offense. Yes or no? If yes, then how can you dare to work with such a thing?

Answer is easy. "NO". Because Rybka 1 clearly has pieces of fruit code in it, which makes R1's source bound by the GPL. Anyone can reverse-engineer a GPL program since the source is supposed to be public anyway.

Can you prove this? Please show the evidence. We have

1) Rybka 1 has Fruit code.

2) Vas took ideas he had understood but no code. As far as chess is concerned, not some techno stuff. Because stuff like this is everywhere in all progs. Nobody re-invents the wheel.

Bob, if you couldnt prove this, were Strelka then illegal, forbidden, and made by ruthless jerks under anonymity and will you help Vas to defend against such vilains?

There is no doubt that fruit code is in Rybka 1.0. Absolutely _no_ doubt. And that evidence has already been presented here once. Those who don't want to hear it turn such threads into a flame-war that instantly becomes non-productive.

We are _not_ talking ideas. We are talking _actual code_.

That's all there is to it.

[Rolf]

We are _not_ talking ideas. We are talking _actual code_.

That's all there is to it.

100% chess relevant code, correct? I remember that debate quite well. Where then is the link for something I must have missed? Always to examine: all other commercial progs have provenly ONLY original code from the respective author?

Bob, that here is what you want to know exactly but the names of the robber prog are not interesting. Why? Isnt it a bias?

[Graham Banks]

There is no doubt that fruit code is in Rybka 1.0. Absolutely _no_ doubt. And that evidence has already been presented here once. Those who don't want to hear it turn such threads into a flame-war that instantly becomes non-productive.

We are _not_ talking ideas. We are talking _actual code_.

That's all there is to it.

You should talk to Ryan. Rybka's strength isn't courtesy of Fruit, but predominantly from its exceptional search.

[bob]

We are _not_ talking ideas. We are talking _actual code_.

That's all there is to it.

100% chess relevant code, correct? I remember that debate quite well. Where then is the link for something I must have missed? Always to examine: all other commercial progs have provenly ONLY original code from the respective author?

Bob, that here is what you want to know exactly but the names of the robber prog are not interesting. Why? Isnt it a bias?

What "bias" are you talking about. We found a fair number of identical things. What is the probability of two different people coming up with identical piece/square table values? Oddball program structures. _really_ oddball procedure names. Etc. So yes, chess relevant code. What code in a program is _not_ "chess relevant"??? And no, so far as I know, no other commercial programs were examined. Again, no other commercial author had his program cloned (reverse-engineered in this case) and then outright claimed the code as his own, which is where this deal started.

[bob]

There is no doubt that fruit code is in Rybka 1.0. Absolutely _no_ doubt. And that evidence has already been presented here once. Those who don't want to hear it turn such threads into a flame-war that instantly becomes non-productive.

We are _not_ talking ideas. We are talking _actual code_.

That's all there is to it.

You should talk to Ryan. Rybka's strength isn't courtesy of Fruit, but predominantly from its exceptional search.

That's not the point. The point is that there is code from fruit inside Rybka. And Rybka's "exceptional search" is not where it gets its great strength from. It does a _really_ nice job of evaluating things. Had a chance to watch too many games since I've gotten to watch Crafty play it in each recent online event. I wasn't getting outsearched by Rybka in any position, and by out-searched, I mean cases where Crafty "fell off a cliff" due to insufficient search depth. Haven't seen that happen for last 2-3 games we have played in CCT/ACCA events.

[M ANSARI]

By far the most revolutionary thing in Rybka is its evaluation, especially evaluating material imbalances. Of course if you have an accurate evaluation function, then your search will automatically be very powerful as the search will be searching in the right paths. I think if chess is ever solved you will find that you can get this perfect evaluation with a simple algorithm with some clear exceptions. Rybka's advantage is that it is the engine that is closest so far to the perfect evaluation ... but as any quick testing will show, it is still very far from perfect.

[Graham Banks]

By far the most revolutionary thing in Rybka is its evaluation, especially evaluating material imbalances. Of course if you have an accurate evaluation function, then your search will automatically be very powerful as the search will be searching in the right paths. I think if chess is ever solved you will find that you can get this perfect evaluation with a simple algorithm with some clear exceptions. Rybka's advantage is that it is the engine that is closest so far to the perfect evaluation ... but as any quick testing will show, it is still very far from perfect.

Yes - you explained it better than I could.

[Rolf]

We are _not_ talking ideas. We are talking _actual code_.

That's all there is to it.

100% chess relevant code, correct? I remember that debate quite well. Where then is the link for something I must have missed? Always to examine: all other commercial progs have provenly ONLY original code from the respective author?

Bob, that here is what you want to know exactly but the names of the robber prog are not interesting. Why? Isnt it a bias?

What "bias" are you talking about. We found a fair number of identical things. What is the probability of two different people coming up with identical piece/square table values? Oddball program structures. _really_ oddball procedure names. Etc. So yes, chess relevant code. What code in a program is _not_ "chess relevant"??? And no, so far as I know, no other commercial programs were examined. Again, no other commercial author had his program cloned (reverse-engineered in this case) and then outright claimed the code as his own, which is where this deal started.

I feel ill if the best thread ever that proves that Rybka is sane is hidden under I'm feeling ill. But for CCC it's still correct. The campaign has almost come to an end, Bob has some anonymous guys who are trying their best but no, they wont get tested and wecomed on tournaments.

I come from science and classical chess, not computerchess. So, I can only trust those who sad that >95% of chess code tricks is all the same or similar in today's top progs. Of all the commercial progs only Rybka was ripped and raped apart with the most immoral reasons. Nothing up to now could ever been proven.

Where is my bias!?? (this is a question of computerchess expert number one Bob Hyatt is asking and that's why it get's the following answer, unfortunately under such a psychoanalytically justified header)

As I mentioned already bias is all over the place.

Examples:

1) A young Bob got access to a supercomputer and implemented chess but when Vas learned from Fruit
he was foulplaying?

2) Computerchess on those megabillion expensive hardware
was the justification for example to let a GM Keres play an
invitational game although I could have played and won the game too, just like thousands of players. I.e. a sort of hypertrophic self-conscience is part of computerchess all the time.

3) Let's fly right into present times. Science is experiments and tests, correct, but the main thing is giving sound interpretation of numbers and results. If you dont examine commercial engines as such, you cant make conclusions with the data youve got from a singular example. This is a principle that cant be discussed or tweaked. If you still make public guesses on that restricted base you forcedly end in quak.

4) Crafty is an open source progr, but still it played in Jakarta during the East Timor massacres, in Rejkiavik, on ACCA, as if it were a real sports competitor. Ok, the intense tuning is always reduced to some days where the open source is sort of closed so that some news could be implemented for the purpose of interesting games. Commercial means you are tuning and privately implementing all the time. But in principle there is no difference. Now Bob, guess someone would publish a little paper with your latest tricks from last night? Anonymously! So that book etc. is known. It wont hurt your purse but perhaps your sense of fair play, wouldnt it? So, why playing dirty against commercial collegues at all. If I were you and had had my time of highest competition on the biggest irons and were now a teacher why would I want to build obstacles for a chosen unit, not all, to have a debate based on false propaganda as if I had it all checked and proven with my science? Isnt it biased? Isnt it evil all the more the guy had worked for months and years on his thing!

5) Anonymity cant be a tolerated trick if you blackmail, steal and destroy other honest people's business. If Crafty is raped you are in highest alert until you've stopped the criminal intruder. Not so with Rybka. There you would say, Vas could have spoken... Isnt it biased? For you in science? You need more examples?

[bob]

We are _not_ talking ideas. We are talking _actual code_.

That's all there is to it.

100% chess relevant code, correct? I remember that debate quite well. Where then is the link for something I must have missed? Always to examine: all other commercial progs have provenly ONLY original code from the respective author?

Bob, that here is what you want to know exactly but the names of the robber prog are not interesting. Why? Isnt it a bias?

What "bias" are you talking about. We found a fair number of identical things. What is the probability of two different people coming up with identical piece/square table values? Oddball program structures. _really_ oddball procedure names. Etc. So yes, chess relevant code. What code in a program is _not_ "chess relevant"??? And no, so far as I know, no other commercial programs were examined. Again, no other commercial author had his program cloned (reverse-engineered in this case) and then outright claimed the code as his own, which is where this deal started.

I feel ill if the best thread ever that proves that Rybka is sane is hidden under I'm feeling ill. But for CCC it's still correct. The campaign has almost come to an end, Bob has some anonymous guys who are trying their best but no, they wont get tested and wecomed on tournaments.

I come from science and classical chess, not computerchess. So, I can only trust those who sad that >95% of chess code tricks is all the same or similar in today's top progs. Of all the commercial progs only Rybka was ripped and raped apart with the most immoral reasons. Nothing up to now could ever been proven.

That is simply nonsense. I've been grading programs for 40 years now. And the programs I have been dealing with are not nearly as complex as chess engines. I've given assignments to write assemblers and compilers, write a simulator to derive correct basic strategy for the game of blackjack, play othello, and hundreds of much simpler programs. I've _never_ seen two students produce the same code. Or even pieces of identical code, where piece is > 1 or 2 lines, since everyone will have a print, etc.

This simply does not happen. Ask two students to write a report at least two pages long on the same topic/subject. What's the probability they will produce _identical_ text where "text" is defined as a single sentence or even something longer?

Where is my bias!?? (this is a question of computerchess expert number one Bob Hyatt is asking and that's why it get's the following answer, unfortunately under such a psychoanalytically justified header)

As I mentioned already bias is all over the place.

Examples:

1) A young Bob got access to a supercomputer and implemented chess but when Vas learned from Fruit
he was foulplaying?

Is that supposed to make sense? I was competing _against_ supercomputers. Chess 4.x ran on a Cyber 176. Chaos ran on a giant Amdahl box. Back in 1970 Berliner ran on the fastest thing at the time, an IBM /360 model 91. We had special purpose hardware in 1976 (Belle, then a much faster version in 1980 (Belle). Then faster hardware in 1985 (HiTech), then still faster hardware in 1986 (chiptest/deep thought), then faster hardware in 1992 (many deep thought processors). So what exactly is your point? Exactly what kind of hardware do I run on today? A PC that sells for under $3000 in every event for the past 5 years, that's what.

2) Computerchess on those megabillion expensive hardware
was the justification for example to let a GM Keres play an
invitational game although I could have played and won the game too, just like thousands of players. I.e. a sort of hypertrophic self-conscience is part of computerchess all the time.

That is totally incomprehensible, from start to finish, so I have no idea what it means.

3) Let's fly right into present times. Science is experiments and tests, correct, but the main thing is giving sound interpretation of numbers and results. If you dont examine commercial engines as such, you cant make conclusions with the data youve got from a singular example. This is a principle that cant be discussed or tweaked. If you still make public guesses on that restricted base you forcedly end in quak.

So if someone steals something, I can't convict them unless I first discover, locate and prosecute _every_ thief on the entire planet? Who makes that rule? I know of no one that follows it. Most criminals are caught because they made a mistake. Just like Vas made a huge mistake when he claimed Strelka as his own code. Which revealed the insides of Rybka 1 for all to see, and there was _plenty_ to see.

4) Crafty is an open source progr, but still it played in Jakarta during the East Timor massacres, in Rejkiavik, on ACCA, as if it were a real sports competitor. Ok, the intense tuning is always reduced to some days where the open source is sort of closed so that some news could be implemented for the purpose of interesting games. Commercial means you are tuning and privately implementing all the time. But in principle there is no difference. Now Bob, guess someone would publish a little paper with your latest tricks from last night? Anonymously! So that book etc. is known. It wont hurt your purse but perhaps your sense of fair play, wouldnt it? So, why playing dirty against commercial collegues at all. If I were you and had had my time of highest competition on the biggest irons and were now a teacher why would I want to build obstacles for a chosen unit, not all, to have a debate based on false propaganda as if I had it all checked and proven with my science? Isnt it biased? Isnt it evil all the more the guy had worked for months and years on his thing!

Last time I looked, _I_ published a "little book of my tricks." You do realize that my current code, as played in the last ACCA event, is now public? No secrets here.

5) Anonymity cant be a tolerated trick if you blackmail, steal and destroy other honest people's business. If Crafty is raped you are in highest alert until you've stopped the criminal intruder. Not so with Rybka. There you would say, Vas could have spoken... Isnt it biased? For you in science? You need more examples?

I just need to hear from someone with a little sanity, that's all...

[bob]

By far the most revolutionary thing in Rybka is its evaluation, especially evaluating material imbalances. Of course if you have an accurate evaluation function, then your search will automatically be very powerful as the search will be searching in the right paths. I think if chess is ever solved you will find that you can get this perfect evaluation with a simple algorithm with some clear exceptions. Rybka's advantage is that it is the engine that is closest so far to the perfect evaluation ... but as any quick testing will show, it is still very far from perfect.

This makes no sense. We are doing "full-width" searches. Formally known as a depth-first search on a minimaxed game tree, helped along by alpha/beta pruning. But _every_ program looks at 99.9% garbage, to find that 0.1% (or less) of interesting stuff to search. And the evaluation doesn't somehow magically steer us away from the garbage, an exhaustive depth-first search absolutely must traverse the garbage to find the gems.