TalkChess.com

Rolf wrote:

lmader wrote: I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.

How do you know? Ok if you take sides for Bob and want to be against Vas then ok, but wouldnt your own statement be speaking for Vas too?? The main attack vs Bob is IMO that he worked with a split and inconsitant ethical basement.

Any chance you can provide something to back that statement up, or is it just another random personal attack? I've been 100% consistent in my comments about Vas. Fruit/Rybka is a done deal with enough evidence to convince anyone except those that simply won't be convinced. The Rybka/Ippo* case seems to be going in the opposite direction from what most want. There appears to be more and more evidence that this "clone" idea is not actually true.

The only inconsistency I have shown is that we originally took Vas' word that Ippo* was a clone and we disallowed links, but allowed discussion. After 3+ months with no supporting evidence, we allowed the links as well as more discussion. The only thing I regret is that we originally stopped allowing links, when it looks more and more like we were wrong even in that step...

This gets uglier as the days march on.

That was the biggest deception I ever saw in him. It's a psychological problem. Or is this also unallowed to use here in the debate? So, what did you mean that you knew and Al should know too that Bob isnt supporting what?

I asked him the crucial question: if the talks about these invisible vilains who are vilains because they are invisible, would serve to a good purpose then Bob would be right, but if not then Bob's position is unsound. For what Bob is standing for in our scene.

And if it turns out these "villains" (correct spelling) were misjudged, as the evidence mounts??? My "position" is anything but unsound, because I choose to stand on actual facts, not personal likes or dislikes. And the more facts that come out, the more doubt there is about the cloning claim directed toward IP*.

Thomas Mayer wrote:Hi Bob,

bob wrote:And so far, all we have for IP* is that the code _appears_ to be reverse-engineered. From what is unknown.

we definitely have a bit more then that, e.g. Gian-Carlo presented a lot more observations. Also we have the sayings of Don Daily & Larry Kaufmann - which you called real guys in one of your postings. They both clearly pointed out that they have seen enough to call it a Rybka derivative. With not accepting their foundings you clearly call them liars. Is that your real opinion about Larry & Don ?

Greets, Thomas

My opinion about Larry is that he said that a couple of the pc/sq tables in IP* were very close to the final pc/sq table values he sent to Vas. What does that mean? Did Vas take them with no changes? Did he use them at all? So no, I don't think Larry is a liar. But I am not reading more into his statement than was given, which you should try. I've not seen any real quotes from Don. My only negative comment has been that the IP* code looks quite unlike anything a human would write based on my experience, unless one is intentionally (as I did years back) work backward from optimized asm to a high-level language (I've already explained why I wanted to do this in another post). But looking like inhuman code doesn't make the thing a proven clone. And the more I read, the more evidence I see that it isn't a clone. And since Vas is not providing anything to show that it is, opinion is swinging the other way, naturally...

bob wrote:And the more facts that come out, the more doubt there is about the cloning claim directed toward IP*.

And we still see no author of Ippolit also......

Found anyone yet?

Albert Silver wrote:

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???

In the e-mail published he states that much was taken, but there are also many changes. What if you, a competitor (this is purely hypothetical), are only interested in what is from Rybka, as you do not trust the coding that is not. Why help identify which is which?

And that seems like a sane and rational explanation to my question? If that is all that can be argued, then the discussion doesn't need to go further. Why would it be important for him to let everyone know what was added? That is so far-fetched I won't even attempt to try to rationalize that as a possible explanation.

Christopher Conkie wrote:

bob wrote:And the more facts that come out, the more doubt there is about the cloning claim directed toward IP*.

And we still see no author of Ippolit also......

Found anyone yet?

I doubt I will find that which I am not looking for. In a few years it is possible nobody will be able to find _me_ either. Does that mean anything about Crafty's origin and status then??? I would hope not. There are more than a few chess programs around (old ones) where no author can be located. Does that mean anything? Yes, all of this stuff is oddball at best. But all the strangeness, all the tangents, all the obfuscation, etc, still don't equate to "stamp out the engine"...

bob wrote:

Christopher Conkie wrote:

bob wrote:And the more facts that come out, the more doubt there is about the cloning claim directed toward IP*.

And we still see no author of Ippolit also......

Found anyone yet?

I doubt I will find that which I am not looking for. In a few years it is possible nobody will be able to find _me_ either. Does that mean anything about Crafty's origin and status then??? I would hope not. There are more than a few chess programs around (old ones) where no author can be located. Does that mean anything? Yes, all of this stuff is oddball at best. But all the strangeness, all the tangents, all the obfuscation, etc, still don't equate to "stamp out the engine"...

obfuscation

bob wrote:

Rolf wrote:

lmader wrote: I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.

How do you know? Ok if you take sides for Bob and want to be against Vas then ok, but wouldnt your own statement be speaking for Vas too?? The main attack vs Bob is IMO that he worked with a split and inconsitant ethical basement.

Any chance you can provide something to back that statement up, or is it just another random personal attack? I've been 100% consistent in my comments about Vas. Fruit/Rybka is a done deal with enough evidence to convince anyone except those that simply won't be convinced. The Rybka/Ippo* case seems to be going in the opposite direction from what most want. There appears to be more and more evidence that this "clone" idea is not actually true.

The only inconsistency I have shown is that we originally took Vas' word that Ippo* was a clone and we disallowed links, but allowed discussion. After 3+ months with no supporting evidence, we allowed the links as well as more discussion. The only thing I regret is that we originally stopped allowing links, when it looks more and more like we were wrong even in that step...

This gets uglier as the days march on.

That was the biggest deception I ever saw in him. It's a psychological problem. Or is this also unallowed to use here in the debate? So, what did you mean that you knew and Al should know too that Bob isnt supporting what?

I asked him the crucial question: if the talks about these invisible vilains who are vilains because they are invisible, would serve to a good purpose then Bob would be right, but if not then Bob's position is unsound. For what Bob is standing for in our scene.

And if it turns out these "villains" (correct spelling) were misjudged, as the evidence mounts??? My "position" is anything but unsound, because I choose to stand on actual facts, not personal likes or dislikes. And the more facts that come out, the more doubt there is about the cloning claim directed toward IP*.

You avoid to see a serious problem for you as a scientist. A scientist at least in my books speaks out his conclusion after the research has been done and not when the hate figures preach their propaganda. Of course you can hate whom and what you want but that is then not based on your experience and fame as a scientist.

In the whole nonsense about the propaganda about Fruit code been taken for Rybka 1 beta I can prove that you have a split ethical mind frame, it just takes 10 seconds:

You condemned Vasik already with your hate partner Theron years ago, but what is then the webpage analyses by Wegener intended for?? If this proved something then it couldnt been proven years ago when you were involved in your evil hate campaign. If this webpage stuff was not necessary for havin a proof finally - then we sere even lies because exactly this "proof" by Wegener was always announced as the final proof that would prove it. So, either years ago you had proof but then it was a lie that Wegener were important. If you had no proof at the time then you lied with Theron in your evil hate campaign.

QED.

P.S. Remember, Theron phrase was "if I (Theron) had the same lack of ethics like Vasik then I (Theron) already had a "Tiger" that were equally strong than the Rybka of Vasik". I opposed that crap from the moment on Theron had expressed that. It was pure hate and envie. And you assisted him.

Later you even tolerated the Hippo invisibles which is a real ethical no-go in a scene where individuals launch their engines for a competition. Subproof: you are well against tournaments with several engines from the same source but you tolerate invisible "authors" and not knowing how many babies they have running in the race or test.

There are many more inconsistences, much more a decent scientist should have in his mind frame.

Still for me as a lay you with your experience are still the instance, mainly because you are friendly to write in the forum. I cant speak about experts who prefer to abstain from such a forum where they might fear getting into a similar conflict for their basic ethics as scientists. So in the end, there is no doubt that you did a huge lot for the extension of computerchess among lays like me. Thank you so much for the infinite answers.

Rolf wrote:but what is then the webpage analyses by Wegener intended for??

It's Wegner. Better call him Zach. I don't think you can argue with programming people using your kind of psychology as the basis. It doesn't work.

swami wrote:

Rolf wrote:but what is then the webpage analyses by Wegener intended for??

It's Wegner. Better call him Zach. I don't think you can argue with programming people using your kind of psychology as the basis. It doesn't work.

And who told you that he understands Psychology either

swami wrote:I don't think you can argue with programming people using your kind of psychology as the basis. It doesn't work.

Ok, here I agree with you. If you see me attributing psychology on programmers' codes then count be out, but if I someone's motivation to finally prove another one's wrong then psychology and life experience isnt completely misplaced. The wrong cant be proven with tech alone. That doesnt take away anything of Zach's expertise in pure programming skills. I thought that this was common knowledge. Please give me some freedom of thoughts here in the _general_ forum. On the special programming section I wouldnt elaborate on such stuff. Is this ok with you now?