Whether Rybka 4 Should Be Allowed To Play At the WCCC?

[bob]

Hi Zach, nice to see you, seems like the Rybka derivative debate is still alive and well. I am surprised after the release of your report on Rybka, that the WCCC did not demand the Rybka source code before being allowed to play at the WCCC. In addition, there are assertions now that Rybka has Crafty code in it too!

Zach, some questions for you:

1. Should the WCCC test Rybka to determine if it is a derivative?

I'm really not sure. I doubt they will do anything anyways. If they tried, I'm sure that Vas would drop out before cooperating with them.

2. If Rybka is allowed to play in the WCCC, should Houdini, Firebird, Ippo, etcetera be allowed to play in the WCCC?

I would say no, but it's a tricky issue.

On a side note, as Crafty is a GNU and cannot be sold commercially, does this leave Rybka open to a law suit from Hyatt

I haven't seen anything in Rybka that looks like it came from Crafty. I don't think anyone making these claims was serious, or alternatively they didn't know what they were talking about.

The rotated bitboard stuff is a likely candidate although I have not looked. But there are a number of signatures one could search for thanks to the large tables used for rotated lookups.

[Steve B]

amazing results

no sooner does option one take the lead..then a vote comes in for option two..and vice versa

i dont recall any poll ever seesawing back and forth like this

Regards
Steve

[bhlangonijr]

Have you _actually_ looked at any of the technical information that has been shown, or are you simply another brand of sheep following a different (and not so ethical) shepherd???

Hi Bob,

I only looked at Zach's report. It is a nice work and Zach definitely knows what he is talking about . Although I think it is not a smoking gun report for the "case". That said, I think it is not right to make such kind of allegations without a reliable proof - it is not ethical. Specially when it comes from respected names like yours.

[Sean Evans]

Have you _actually_ looked at any of the technical information that has been shown, or are you simply another brand of sheep following a different (and not so ethical) shepherd???

Hi Bob,

I only looked at Zach's report. It is a nice work and Zach definitely knows what he is talking about . Although I think it is not a smoking gun report for the "case". That said, I think it is not right to make such kind of allegations without a reliable proof - it is not ethical. Specially when it comes from respected names like yours.

Attention Bob Hyatt:

Would you please do us all a big favour, download Rybka 4 from their website and do a reverse engineering test to determine if Crafty is part of Rybka 4, making it a derivative program and not allowed to be used at the WCCC. If both you and Zach protest, hopefully, that will be enough to make the WCCC take this seriously.

Thank you,

Sean

[K I Hyams]

https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html

Rybka's evaluation has been the subject of much speculation ever since its appearance. Various theories have been put forth about the inner workings of the evaluation, but with the publication of Strelka, it was shown just how wrong everyone was. It is perhaps ironic that Rybka's evaluation is its most similar part to Fruit; it contains, in my opinion, the most damning evidence of all.

Whoever wrote that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Fruit and Rybka evaluations are worlds apart. I am talking from a chess evaluation tuning point of view as I have no clue how the inner workings coding wise. But the output of Fruit evaluation when compared to Rybka evaluation is so different, as to make any comparison "chess wise" completely ridiculous. The main reason why Rybka gained so much ELO over all other programs is because it has a totally different static evaluation (especially in unbalanced positions) over any other program.

https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html

Whoever wrote that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.

I wonder whether you looked at the code that accompanies the text within that document before you made such a derogatory statement. If you didn’t, I recommend that you do so now.

I am talking from a chess evaluation tuning point of view as I have no clue how the inner workings coding wise.

In that case, perhaps a bit more humility and open-mindedness is called for. Someone has done a lot of work preparing that document.

The degree of arrogance, hubris and intellectual dishonesty displayed by some of the more experienced member of CCC is depressing. Sadly, you are not the only culprit, another one of our “esteemed” members not so long ago passed judgment that Zach’s work was insignificant because it only referred to the UCI parser. It turned out that he hadn’t even bothered to look at Zach’s work.

There is no arrogance or intellectual dishonesty, just my opinion based on EVALUATIONS of Fruit and Rybka 1.0. I remember at the time looking at many different positions and being quite surprised at some of the evaluations of Rybka. Chesswise Rybka's evaluation is world's apart from Fruit. The Rybka 1.0 beta was extremely strong but it also had glaring weaknesses and elementary code missing. I remember then thinking that if this thing was polished up it would really take chess engines by storm, and that is exactly what happened. Note that I am not talking about code such as the UCI parser (which I think is open source by the way) where some are claiming it is copied. I wouldn't know if it is copied if both source codes were in front of me. I will never even try to enter that type of debate as I do not have the technical background to even dare make an opinion. But here it is talk about chess EVALUATION, and by that it means the output by the engine of what it thinks of a position ... and here I feel confident enough to say that Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1.0 beta have extremely different evaluations, and I think most everyone who has tested both engines would agree.

Anyway even amongst the most experienced chess engine coders, there is absolutely no consensus that Rybka 1.0 beta violated Fruit's GPL. CW disagrees with a lot of what Zach says and even the Rebel author seems to doubt some of the points mentioned as proof that Rybka violated GPL. Even Hyatt who seems to follow in Zach's camp seems to think that if Vas had mentioned that he got some ideas from Fruit he should say so and all would be good. Of course you can argue that Vas DID more than give credit to Fruit author as well as many others in his release notes. But the point is this is all about Rybka 1.0 beta ... man this is EONS ago. Rybka 2.2 and Rybka 2.3.2a and then Rybka 3 and now Rybka 4 is here. I don't understand why nobody seems to be willing to admit that Vas has made tremendous advances in how to make a chess engine strong. Even when R3 was disassembled and its guts spilled out for all to see, nobody wants to give any credit to stuff that he created. I really can't figure it out, every day thousands are using his programs and thousands more are using engines that have gained strength from his work (without his consent) and yet some keep trying to make it seem like Vas had nothing to do with it. Even some of the most experienced guys here, who I am absolutely positive knew that Ippolit came from disassembled R3 code, would argue tooth and nail that it had nothing to do with R3 and it was an original work. Human nature is a very strange thing indeed!

Well, the points in your first paragraph have been commented upon and so I will try to address those in the second para.

Even Hyatt who seems to follow in Zach's camp seems to think that if Vas had mentioned that he got some ideas from Fruit he should say so and all would be good.

Hyatt does not seem to think that at all. There is no doubt whatsoever that Hyatt already knows that Vas has acknowledged the fact that he had legitimately used ideas from Fruit. Hyatt’s problem is that he can point to code that he believes was taken from Fruit and used in an illegitimate way. I mentioned intellectual dishonesty. You know Hyatt’s position as well as I do yet you seek to misrepresent it in order to suit your own purposes.

But the point is this is all about Rybka 1.0 beta ... man this is EONS ago.

You are not entitled to imply that Vas should be forgiven for his alleged actions because you are not the person who suffered directly as a consequence. The only people who are entitled to forgive him are professional programmers, such as the authors of Fritz HIARCS and Shredder who may have unfairly been deprived of large sums of money if GPL was violated.

However, if you want to look at the position from the point of view of the alleged miscreant, then if both Norman Schmidt and Vas are guilty of GPL violations, Norman may deserve a more sympathetic hearing than Vas. I understand that Norman has admitted what he did, apologised and repaid the small amount of money that he gained. If Vas has done something wrong, then if he apologised, stopped telling lies by denying wrong doing and set up a fund to repay the many thousands of dollars that he would have diverted away from other authors, he could be viewed more sympathetically.

I don't understand why nobody seems to be willing to admit that Vas has made tremendous advances in how to make a chess engine strong.

I suspect that the answer to that one is that, although most people realise it is true, most people realise that it is irrelevant to the issues outstanding. In addition I believe that you, a highly intelligent man, also realised that and so we have another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Even some of the most experienced guys here, who I am absolutely positive knew that Ippolit came from disassembled R3 code, would argue tooth and nail that it had nothing to do with R3 and it was an original work.

One of the reasons why the legitimacy of Rybka 1 will not go away is because people do recognise that there is likely to be “identical” code in both Rybka and Ipp**** (do I still have to refer to it as Ipp**** to avoid a deletion?). Firstly, that identical code may have originally come from Fruit, in which case there is no problem, and secondly, if Rybka 1 is illegitimate, then the onus is on Vas to prove that Rybka 3 and 4 are legitimate because he is not entitled to protection for GPL violations if Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 should be open source anyway.

[bob]

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/f ... s-2010.pdf

18th WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT RULES

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in the details of their submission form. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

I think it is important for them to define the term derivative.
It is very clear that Rybka 1.0 uses Fruit ideas (I do not know how much is known about current Rybka versions). Does the use of these ideas make it (Rybka 1.0) a clone?

Consider that all chess programs use Alpha-Beta from John McCarthy's 1956 proposal. So under a loose definition, all programs are clones. So what *exactly* is a clone?

I completely agree with you.
Using ideas is not cloning.
It is curious how this Fruit-Rybka topic got so much attention and no one could prove anything serious so far.

The funny thing is that most people attacking Vas are only doing that because they believe in others "experts" statements. They don't have a clue about the "thing" itself, they just like pointing fingers. Poor sheep following the shepherd.

Best to all,

Have you _actually_ looked at any of the technical information that has been shown, or are you simply another brand of sheep following a different (and not so ethical) shepherd???

Aren't you the Sheep? Following all these calls years after the event. You missed your chance to make a formal complaint when R1 was released. The author of fruit also missed his although he says he does not care.

Come back to the real world. This was first noticed when Strelka came out. Which was long after rybka 1 was out, and replaced by rybka 2 and maybe even 3. I don't know of anyone that has the time to disassemble every commercial engine and compare it to others looking for a copy. Strelka provided the disassembly of rybka 1 (again, according to Vas' own claim) and that opened Pandora's box.

[bob]

Have you _actually_ looked at any of the technical information that has been shown, or are you simply another brand of sheep following a different (and not so ethical) shepherd???

Hi Bob,

I only looked at Zach's report. It is a nice work and Zach definitely knows what he is talking about . Although I think it is not a smoking gun report for the "case". That said, I think it is not right to make such kind of allegations without a reliable proof - it is not ethical. Specially when it comes from respected names like yours.

My statements are based on _decades_ of grading student assignments and looking for this very same problem. There is more than enough evidence to convince technically competent people, unless they don't want to be convinced. Even Charles Manson had a defence lawyer that pleaded his case and professed his innocence.

[bob]

Have you _actually_ looked at any of the technical information that has been shown, or are you simply another brand of sheep following a different (and not so ethical) shepherd???

Hi Bob,

I only looked at Zach's report. It is a nice work and Zach definitely knows what he is talking about . Although I think it is not a smoking gun report for the "case". That said, I think it is not right to make such kind of allegations without a reliable proof - it is not ethical. Specially when it comes from respected names like yours.

Attention Bob Hyatt:

Would you please do us all a big favour, download Rybka 4 from their website and do a reverse engineering test to determine if Crafty is part of Rybka 4, making it a derivative program and not allowed to be used at the WCCC. If both you and Zach protest, hopefully, that will be enough to make the WCCC take this seriously.

Thank you,

Sean

If there are parts of Crafty in R4, I suspect they are acceptable parts. Vas has said he uses rotated bitboards. Since that idea was a Crafty development, it is likely that was copied. It has been copied by many others and we all agree that is OK, just as some of use are now using Pradu's magic move generation which is even more flexible.

[bob]

This is really a complex issue. Most opinions are formed from other than technical observation so it is really an almost random poll, anyway.

[S.Taylor]

Part of this thread was split due to a inappropriate personal attack plus a like response. Sorry to any others affected, but this can happen when posting responses to personal attacks.

I WISH!
I was once being personally attacked constantly, for a few weeks, and Cristopher Conkie refused to delete any posts of my attacker, of which i was complaining constantly, and begging help, from the moderators, but did not respond one word in kind, over the forum.