TalkChess.com

Michael Diosi wrote:Hi,

As any civilised person should start a posting... not many of those people left around.

No, I use my time for testing the new Arena 2.0.4 version. The engine link list is inclomplete. I might change it, many thanks for your application, where may I send my bill ?



Best,
Michael
http://www.playwitharena.com

Michael Diosi wrote:No, I use my time for testing the new Arena 2.0.4 version. The engine link list is inclomplete. I might change it, many thanks for your application, where may I send my bill ?

Michael Diosi wrote:Hi Wael,


You see I follow my own advice. I know many people do but besdies changed time managment, 8 engines at the same time ("a bit" buggy, needs some addirtional changes; Arena sends its name on FICS again so it could be used as an interface there, I hope; additional WB commands from HG). Other changes are marginal (as far as I can say by now). Gaviota TBs not in yet. Martin didn't say anything about supporting additional external boards like the DCS, Mysticum either. Maybe for the next testversion I will increase the number of testers, deppending on who sends what back

Best,
Michael
www.playwitharena.com

setboard r7/3k4/8/4KP2/8/8/8/1R6 w - - 0 1
bk
 White wins in   28 moves
 ----------------------------------
 Kf6      wins in  28 ( 55 plies)
 Rb7+     wins in  30 ( 59 plies)
 Rb4     DRAW
 Rb6     DRAW
 Rb3     DRAW
 f6      DRAW
 Rb2     DRAW
 Rd1+    DRAW
 Rc1     DRAW
 Rf1     DRAW
 Rg1     DRAW
 Rh1     DRAW
 Kd5     DRAW
 Kd4     DRAW
 Ke4     DRAW
 Kf4     DRAW
 Rb5     DRAW
 Re1     loses in  18 ( 36 plies)
 Rb8     loses in  17 ( 34 plies)
 Ra1     loses in  17 ( 34 plies)

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

bob wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:

bob wrote: No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.

Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?

How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.

When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.

At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.

Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.

If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.

PauloSoare wrote:

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

bob wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:

bob wrote: No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.

Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?

How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.

When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.

At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.

Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.

If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 63&t=34163

Similar views. But if Vas wait two years to prove that the Ippo family
is clone of Rybka 3, it has the same risk, unless he proves that it was
reverse engineering. For the other hand the problem now is that he would
have to open the Rybka 3 code to prove. Difficult.

Albert Silver wrote:

PauloSoare wrote:

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

bob wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:

bob wrote: No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.

Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?

How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.

When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.

At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.

Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.

If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 63&t=34163

Similar views. But if Vas wait two years to prove that the Ippo family
is clone of Rybka 3, it has the same risk, unless he proves that it was
reverse engineering. For the other hand the problem now is that he would
have to open the Rybka 3 code to prove. Difficult.

I think that's the key issue. Why expose himself and his hard work for this? I suspect the 2-year issue is when he feels it would be the least prejudicial.

bob wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

PauloSoare wrote:

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

bob wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:

bob wrote: No idea, since I have not participated in one in a long while. I suppose someone _could_ if they saw fit, as it is a real issue.

Then perhaps that would be the way to settle this long festering issue once and for all?

How so? Do you think Vas would release his source to them? ICGA is not going to go through the effort of reverse-engineering to prove/disprove this.

When you join the tournament, you submit to the rules, which is that you must be able to provide sources to the TD.

At least in the past, the ICGA applied them (Graz, 2003). I am not entirely confident they would do so for Rybka, but let's still assume the rules are valid for everyone.

Assuming then that Rybka was derived from Fruit (I am operating in a pure what-if scenario here, I do not want to make any claim for or against this), the question is still if it would be recognizable after x years of fulltime development.

If you believe it is, you should complain the next time Rybka and Crafty are together in a tournament.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 63&t=34163

Similar views. But if Vas wait two years to prove that the Ippo family
is clone of Rybka 3, it has the same risk, unless he proves that it was
reverse engineering. For the other hand the problem now is that he would
have to open the Rybka 3 code to prove. Difficult.

I think that's the key issue. Why expose himself and his hard work for this? I suspect the 2-year issue is when he feels it would be the least prejudicial.

Explain the reasoning. If IP* +is+ a clone, and since its source is available, does that not mean that the source of Rybka 3 is _already_ available as the IP* source?

This argument just does not hold water. If it is a clone, then releasing parts of R3 to show IP is reverse-engineered would (a) not reveal any source that is not already available; (b) completely stop this endless debate. If it is not a clone, then there is nothing to prove from releasing his source and that would reveal whatever secrets he has.

So explain to me again why one would not want to reveal something he claims has _already_ been revealed???