Random Musings ...

[Steve B]

a couple of thoughts regarding the Great Derivatives debate ..


1) Vas in an email recently posted here (with his permission )mentioned that he is not so concerned about the IPPO issue because the main testing groups and organized tournaments dont take the engines seriously(im paraphrasing here)
seems to me that both highly respected testing groups can make a real difference in the computer chess world by at least considering to test these engines or at least notifying Vas that his lack of a clear statement is forcing their hands to begin testing the engines
this just might be the push Vas needs to make a clear and concise statement about IPPO (code similarities etc etc)
i realize this is a hard decision to make but the two groups can really carry the ball here and would perhaps be performing an enormous service to the hobby

2)where are the current day commercial engine authors opinions regarding all of this?
why is there no comment about the BB report by such highly respected current day engine authors like Mark Uniacke,Amir Ban,Stefan ..etc etc
im not saying they need to post here.. but nowhere?
surely they are all aware of this issue and yet all of them remain strangely silent?
i cant imagine that they have any legal issue with offering their expert opinions and i also cant imagine they are not following any of this or they are too busy
i mean at the end of the day who would be more interested in this then those making their livings from it?
the anonymity issue cant possibly be the reason they all don't offer their opinions

Regards
Steve

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Steve,when Vasik breathes,the air that comes out of him is croocked,so don't wonder why he's so silent and hiding in his slop....he has a lot of stuff to hide and going after the Ippo/Robbo thugs will cost him more damage than benifits....
Yep,I hate Vasik regards,
Dr.D

[Harvey Williamson]

2)where are the current day commercial engine authors opinions regarding all of this?
why is there no comment about the BB report by such highly respected current day engine authors like Mark Uniacke,Amir Ban,Stefan ..etc etc
im not saying they need to post here.. but nowhere?

Maybe they have but are not using their real names just like BB and certain other, alleged, authors.

Why should they submit themselves to the Computer Chess forums which (Rolf moment coming) are just full of Poison and vitriol, especially towards commercial authors.

If a court action is ever taken by any of them it would be very foolish for them to share their evidence in Public.

Rolf moment over regards,
Harvey

[frankp]

It would be interesting to see how common the methods and ideas are between the commercial engines and between commercial and the open source engines.

For example, do the commercial engines have 'magic' compared to Fruit etc or are all they broadly the same, but better tuned.

[Steve B]

2)where are the current day commercial engine authors opinions regarding all of this?
why is there no comment about the BB report by such highly respected current day engine authors like Mark Uniacke,Amir Ban,Stefan ..etc etc
im not saying they need to post here.. but nowhere?

Maybe they have but are not using their real names just like BB and certain other, alleged, authors.

Why should they submit themselves to the Computer Chess forums which (Rolf moment coming) are just full of Poison and vitriol, especially towards commercial authors.

If a court action is ever taken by any of them it would be very foolish for them to share their evidence in Public.

Rolf moment over regards,
Harvey

comments and analysis can be made on the commercial sites which are heavily moderated and vitriol will hardly be allowed
i guess you can say.. anything a commercial engine author says about any subject will be the subject of ridicule somewhere on the net
but that doesn't mean they should hide their opinions..if they have one

as to future legal challenges
dont see how showing clear and concise expert analysis changes anything for a future challenge
its not like you are giving anyone a head start in a court case
evidence today on engines code written today is just what it is and fixed in time..the other side cant change that code later to work around a challenge and say this was the code from its initial release

Steve

[Harvey Williamson]

2)where are the current day commercial engine authors opinions regarding all of this?
why is there no comment about the BB report by such highly respected current day engine authors like Mark Uniacke,Amir Ban,Stefan ..etc etc
im not saying they need to post here.. but nowhere?

Maybe they have but are not using their real names just like BB and certain other, alleged, authors.

Why should they submit themselves to the Computer Chess forums which (Rolf moment coming) are just full of Poison and vitriol, especially towards commercial authors.

If a court action is ever taken by any of them it would be very foolish for them to share their evidence in Public.

Rolf moment over regards,
Harvey

comments and analysis can be made on the commercial sites which are heavily moderated and vitriol will hardly be allowed
i guess you can say.. anything a commercial engine author says about any subject will be the subject of ridicule somewhere on the net
but that doesn't mean they should hide their opinions..if they have one

as to future legal challenges
dont see how showing clear and concise expert analysis changes anything for a future challenge
its not like you are giving anyone a head start in a court case
evidence today on engines code written today is just what it is and fixed in time..the other side cant change that code later to work around a challenge and say this was the code from its initial release

Steve

You say the commercial sites are heavily moderated. As you know on the Hiarcs forum discussion of the current situation has never been banned or the naming of the engines concerned. The Rybka forum takes the untenable position of denying they even exist, unless you have made 500 posts then you can enter the inner sanctum

[Albert Silver]

a couple of thoughts regarding the Great Derivatives debate ..


1) Vas in an email recently posted here (with his permission )mentioned that he is not so concerned about the IPPO issue because the main testing groups and organized tournaments dont take the engines seriously(im paraphrasing here)
seems to me that both highly respected testing groups can make a real difference in the computer chess world by at least considering to test these engines or at least notifying Vas that his lack of a clear statement is forcing their hands to begin testing the engines
this just might be the push Vas needs to make a clear and concise statement about IPPO (code similarities etc etc)
i realize this is a hard decision to make but the two groups can really carry the ball here and would perhaps be performing an enormous service to the hobby

The minute the authors of a list decide to do anything in order to force someone to do something they will have made it clear their goal is not longer to test engines, and that their agenda is in fact something else.

[Steve B]

a couple of thoughts regarding the Great Derivatives debate ..


1) Vas in an email recently posted here (with his permission )mentioned that he is not so concerned about the IPPO issue because the main testing groups and organized tournaments dont take the engines seriously(im paraphrasing here)
seems to me that both highly respected testing groups can make a real difference in the computer chess world by at least considering to test these engines or at least notifying Vas that his lack of a clear statement is forcing their hands to begin testing the engines
this just might be the push Vas needs to make a clear and concise statement about IPPO (code similarities etc etc)
i realize this is a hard decision to make but the two groups can really carry the ball here and would perhaps be performing an enormous service to the hobby

The minute the authors of a list decide to do anything in order to force someone to do something they will have made it clear their goal is not longer to test engines, and that their agenda is in fact something else.

actually i did not mean it as a blackmail attempt
i meant it as a good faith concern that the two groups have ..given this point in time
i was thinking along the lines of both groups coming together ,speaking in concert as one and contacting Vas.. asking him to consider making a public comment which can give them at least some assurance that they should not in fact be testing these engines
unless of course the groups still have absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the engines
there does some to be a lack of independence "in appearance"at least if both groups simply refuse to go on testing with nothing concrete to go on at this point
maybe they have some evidence they are relying on that casual observers like myself are not privy to..i dont know


Steve

[Harvey Williamson]

a couple of thoughts regarding the Great Derivatives debate ..


1) Vas in an email recently posted here (with his permission )mentioned that he is not so concerned about the IPPO issue because the main testing groups and organized tournaments dont take the engines seriously(im paraphrasing here)
seems to me that both highly respected testing groups can make a real difference in the computer chess world by at least considering to test these engines or at least notifying Vas that his lack of a clear statement is forcing their hands to begin testing the engines
this just might be the push Vas needs to make a clear and concise statement about IPPO (code similarities etc etc)
i realize this is a hard decision to make but the two groups can really carry the ball here and would perhaps be performing an enormous service to the hobby

The minute the authors of a list decide to do anything in order to force someone to do something they will have made it clear their goal is not longer to test engines, and that their agenda is in fact something else.

actually i did not mean it as a blackmail attempt
i meant it as a good faith concern that the two groups have ..given this point in time
i was thinking along the lines of both groups coming together ,speaking in concert as one and contacting Vas.. asking him to consider making a public comment which can give them at least some assurance that they should not in fact be testing these engines
unless of course the groups still have absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the engines
there does some to be a lack of independence "in appearance"at least if both groups simply refuse to go on testing with nothing concrete to go on at this point
maybe they have some evidence they are relying on that casual observers like myself are not privy to..i dont know


Steve

The testers need to decide what they are. Are the independent. At the moment i would say no as on the ratings lists you see many beta versions of Rybka 4. The testers are being used as last minute beta testers before release. For me a true list for public consumption should contain only engines available to the public. Ingo produces a list that has only available engines. However in his private testing it contains Shredder betas but he, rightly, chooses to keep those games off the published list.

I remember a few years ago asking for a Hiarcs setting to be tested we were told no we do not do that. Although they had already several engines with various settings on their list. Perhaps the lists should only test default settings, of released engines? They would get more games played and provide a better service to those reading the list.

I think some testers would test any gas released by Rajlich if asked to.

I have even seen 1 member of the testing groups publishing how the list would look if he added one of the engines his group will not test?!

At the moment the benchmark they should perhaps use for what engines to test is the engines that are allowed to compete in events sanctioned by the CSVN and the ICGA etc....

[Albert Silver]

a couple of thoughts regarding the Great Derivatives debate ..


1) Vas in an email recently posted here (with his permission )mentioned that he is not so concerned about the IPPO issue because the main testing groups and organized tournaments dont take the engines seriously(im paraphrasing here)
seems to me that both highly respected testing groups can make a real difference in the computer chess world by at least considering to test these engines or at least notifying Vas that his lack of a clear statement is forcing their hands to begin testing the engines
this just might be the push Vas needs to make a clear and concise statement about IPPO (code similarities etc etc)
i realize this is a hard decision to make but the two groups can really carry the ball here and would perhaps be performing an enormous service to the hobby

The minute the authors of a list decide to do anything in order to force someone to do something they will have made it clear their goal is not longer to test engines, and that their agenda is in fact something else.

actually i did not mean it as a blackmail attempt
i meant it as a good faith concern that the two groups have ..given this point in time
i was thinking along the lines of both groups coming together ,speaking in concert as one and contacting Vas.. asking him to consider making a public comment which can give them at least some assurance that they should not in fact be testing these engines
unless of course the groups still have absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the engines
there does some to be a lack of independence "in appearance"at least if both groups simply refuse to go on testing with nothing concrete to go on at this point
maybe they have some evidence they are relying on that casual observers like myself are not privy to..i dont know


Steve

I tend to view the position a bit differently, but to each his own. On the one hand they have an engine that comes out by anonymous authors who claim they are against capitalism, aim to take from the wealthy and give to the poor, and support the Decembrists. On the other hand you have the author of a well-known engine who claims that this is another ripoff of his work, just as had taken place a couple of years before.

Strelka had all the same earmarks as Ippo: Huge similarities (search and other), but also some significant changes (bitboards and other things IIRC), again, just as here with IPPO.

By now, there are several derivatives of this source with declared authors, but these authors are still building on that shady code. It is true, neither the author of Rybka, nor the authors of Ippo have been forthcoming in detailing evidence one way or the other, so it is a judgment call. Since a similar case *has* happened in the past, and the author of Strelka admitted what he had done, there is a past record that speaks in Vas's favor. With this incomplete information, each one must do as their conscious dictates.