To Moderation - personal attacks on Vas

[Nasir_Shaheen]

To me

Who's that? Another anonymous chess cyber terrorist?

Another anonymous chess cyber tourist.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

To me

Who's that? Another anonymous chess cyber terrorist?

Do I sense some kind of racism here Rolf
I bet if his name was pro western,you won't write right this,no
Dr.D

[Rolf]

To me

Who's that? Another anonymous chess cyber terrorist?

Do I sense some kind of racism here Rolf
I bet if his name was pro western,you won't write right this,no
Dr.D

I'm not western. In the depths of my heart I feel eastern.

[bob]

For the record then - are you accusing Vas of being a liar when he says Rybka is 100% original source code ?

If he says Rybka 1 has no fruit code whatsoever, then I would certainly say that. If he simply says "Rybka has no fruit code" that is a different statement, since I have not personally looked at any disassembled Rybka 2 or 3 code at all.

But rest assured, Rybka 1 does have code from Fruit. Unless you somehow believe that two different people can write identical code completely independently, for a program as complex as chess. Students don't write identical code for assignments that are 100-200 lines long. Or even for assignments 50 lines long. Statistically, I suppose it _could_ happen. Just as I could flip 1,000,000 heads in a row. But it is not very likely at all.

Hi Hyatt , Some young programmer Zach Wegner has given some points in rybka forum to show that rybka 1 is based on fruit , the points he given are following :

" Rybka's piece square tables are generated from the same code as Fruit's (same KnightRank, etc. constants, but different KnightRankOpening weights)
Rybka's pawn evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights again, candidate pawns and backward pawns have a very slightly different formulation)
Rybka's passed pawn evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (same bonuses using the quad array {0...,26,77,154,256}, only difference is weights and free_passer split into 3 separate bonuses and based on rank)
Rybka's piece evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights only)
Rybka's king shelter evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights again, king square generalized to C1, E1, or G1 to store in the pawn table, and a slightly different formula for shelter_file()/storm_file())
Rybka's king safety evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights for KingAttackWeight, KingAttackUnit)
Rybka's "pattern" evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights, TrappedBishop is not halved for A6/H6).

I have confirmed all of this from reverse engineering Rybka 1, though anyone can see for themselves by looking at *****. Rybka's entire evaluation is basically an optimized and tuned bitboard translation of Fruit's, with Fruit's material evaluation replaced by the infamous lookup table. EVERY single evaluation term in Rybka 1, except for the material imbalance table, appears in Fruit. If everyone wants to consider that "original", then computer chess is really dead.
And this is only the evaluation. There are many more similarities.. "
..........................................................................................................

As i don't have any back ground in Programming so I want your openion on these points . Are these points valid ?
If YES , then there is not doubt that Vas has violated the GPL.

Also in this case reverese engineering the current Rybka is absolutely legal.

The answer is YES. It has been YES for months. This is where we started with these discussions and I was asked to look at the data myself.

[arturo100]

Hi, Nasir. Has this been published somewhere? I mean is there an article carrying a more elaborated evidence about these claims.

For the record then - are you accusing Vas of being a liar when he says Rybka is 100% original source code ?

If he says Rybka 1 has no fruit code whatsoever, then I would certainly say that. If he simply says "Rybka has no fruit code" that is a different statement, since I have not personally looked at any disassembled Rybka 2 or 3 code at all.

But rest assured, Rybka 1 does have code from Fruit. Unless you somehow believe that two different people can write identical code completely independently, for a program as complex as chess. Students don't write identical code for assignments that are 100-200 lines long. Or even for assignments 50 lines long. Statistically, I suppose it _could_ happen. Just as I could flip 1,000,000 heads in a row. But it is not very likely at all.

Hi Hyatt , Some young programmer Zach Wegner has given some points in rybka forum to show that rybka 1 is based on fruit , the points he given are following :

" Rybka's piece square tables are generated from the same code as Fruit's (same KnightRank, etc. constants, but different KnightRankOpening weights)
Rybka's pawn evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights again, candidate pawns and backward pawns have a very slightly different formulation)
Rybka's passed pawn evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (same bonuses using the quad array {0...,26,77,154,256}, only difference is weights and free_passer split into 3 separate bonuses and based on rank)
Rybka's piece evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights only)
Rybka's king shelter evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights again, king square generalized to C1, E1, or G1 to store in the pawn table, and a slightly different formula for shelter_file()/storm_file())
Rybka's king safety evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights for KingAttackWeight, KingAttackUnit)
Rybka's "pattern" evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights, TrappedBishop is not halved for A6/H6).

I have confirmed all of this from reverse engineering Rybka 1, though anyone can see for themselves by looking at *****. Rybka's entire evaluation is basically an optimized and tuned bitboard translation of Fruit's, with Fruit's material evaluation replaced by the infamous lookup table. EVERY single evaluation term in Rybka 1, except for the material imbalance table, appears in Fruit. If everyone wants to consider that "original", then computer chess is really dead.
And this is only the evaluation. There are many more similarities.. "
..........................................................................................................

As i don't have any back ground in Programming so I want your openion on these points . Are these points valid ?
If YES , then there is not doubt that Vas has violated the GPL.

Also in this case reverese engineering the current Rybka is absolutely legal.

[BBauer]

Can you post some examples for personal attaks on Vas here at this forum?
When running rybka1 or rybka2 you see very low nps numbers.
Rybka is a fast searcher (a bean counter) and should have high nps numbers. The nps numbers given by rybka are not the true numbers. They are faked. Similar holds for depth.
Question: Why does someone will put efford in showing wrong information?
Some people think that the author of rybke had a reason.
kind regards
Bernhard

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Can you post some examples for personal attaks on Vas here at this forum?
When running rybka1 or rybka2 you see very low nps numbers.
Rybka is a fast searcher (a bean counter) and should have high nps numbers. The nps numbers given by rybka are not the true numbers. They are faked. Similar holds for depth.
Question: Why does someone will put efford in showing wrong information?
Some people think that the author of rybke had a reason.
kind regards
Bernhard

His greed will be his dawnfall....
Dr.D

[Alexander Schmidt]

It is proven that Rybka 1 is based on Fruit.

It is also proven Rybka 1 violated the GPL because Fabien didn't know about Rybka 1 using Fruit code. Rybka 2 and Rybka 3 have the same behavior. They are no rewrite of Rybka 1, so maybe there is no more original Fruit code inside, but it is at least based on Fruit.

Fabien spent a lot of work in Fruit, released it for free with opened source. He wanted the whole community to benefit from it.

It is nice that you want to defend VR. But think also about Fabien...

He for sure did not want people to take his code, his hard work, inprove it with a nice idea, and earn money with it. Fabien wanted that the improvements are also public. We don't know if VR redressed his fault, so I don't care about it as long as Fabien don't complain.

Still VR did not tell the truth, like he want to make us believe Rybka is an "intelligent" engine with the faked nps.

About Ippolit VR says "Rybka 3 code is used extensively verbatim". But, the Ippolit code is somehow generated automatically, it can't be verbatim.

He also says all parts of Ippolit contain Rybka 3 code, but if you compare the engines you don't find much similaries. Different UCI handling, different search, different movegeneration, different eval.

So as long as VR don't tell us at least how he found out all that, I take Ippolit as original engine, and I will comment it wherever I like. And in case Ippolit really contains Rybka code, you could also see it as a fair contiunation of the Fruit project.

Kind regards,
Alex

[Graham Banks]

It is nice that you want to defend VR. But think also about Fabien...

In case you hadn't noticed, Ray has had his account here deleted, so it is unlikely he'll read your response.

[arturo100]

It is proven that Rybka 1 is based on Fruit.

It is also proven Rybka 1 violated the GPL because Fabien didn't know about Rybka 1 using Fruit code. Rybka 2 and Rybka 3 have the same behavior. They are no rewrite of Rybka 1, so maybe there is no more original Fruit code inside, but it is at least based on Fruit.

I understand this point. Now would you mind to point out a link or an article where this allegation has been described in detail?