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

[bob]

There it is in bold just substitute the word Crafty with Fruit and that is the proof In every lie, there is always some truth.

Cordially,

Sean

The 1st version of Rybka was before Fruit. It played in CCT tournaments although it did not do well.

Was it called Rybka at that time. I think he did take a lot from
Crafty before he came out with Rybka beta which he said he
took a lot from Fruit. I was one of the first to test the
Rybka beta versions that had the big elo jump. At that time he
said he took a lot of ideas from Crafty and Fruit.
Maybe Bob H. helped him on some things with Crafty ideas.

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. IMO at that time i think he gave the impression that
Rybka would be free and not be a comm. engine.

You "think" he did take a lot from Crafty. Do you have any analysis that confirms your assertion? Perhaps, Hyatt could assign some of his students a task to reverse engineer Rybka and determine how much Crafty code was copied into Rybka, if any at all.

Cordially,

Sean

He's mentioned "rotated bitboards" which almost certainly would have come from Crafty. And I did not consider that an issue as many used the ideas or code.

[Harvey Williamson]

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.

[Zach Wegner]

I don't know what I am talking about? Maybe you don't know what you are talking about. I don't give a rats ass what you consider what evaluation is, but for me evaluation is STATIC EVALUATION of a position. It has been a while since I tested Fruit or Rybka 1.0, but I can assure you that the evaluations of both programs are completely different. Now if for you evaluation means the SEARCH + EVALUATION SKELETAL CODE + OBFUSCATED RYBKA OUTPUT , then that is your problem. As for me being quiet you little moron, that will be in your dreams. As for respect, ... jeeezz where the hell do you come from. Respect for what and by whom??? Is that why you are here ... respect?? If you want respect, then maybe you can do something original instead of copying and pasting. Now be a good boy and go back to your cloner site where you get the "respect" you deserve.

I'm sorry, but you really do not know what you are talking about. The only way you can talk about Rybka's "static evaluation" is by disassembling it. Whether it evaluates positions differently is not relevant to this discussion, which is about code similarities.

[Damir]

Even if Fruit author doesn't care, it doesn't necessarily mean he agrees in what kind of a way his code has been stolen. You have to keep in mind, that after Rybka first showed up Fruit became history... as Fabien decided to release all commercial Fruit versions for free...

[Harvey Williamson]

Even if Fruit author doesn't care, it doesn't necessarily mean he agrees in what kind of a way his code has been stolen. You have to keep in mind, that after Rybka first showed up Fruit became history... as Fabien decided to release all commercial Fruit versions for free...

But who else can bring any kind of case? If Fabien does not? It is also now years after the event. Challenging R4 is not going to be accepted by any TD. Challenging R1 may have been if it was made at the time.

[Zach Wegner]

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.

[Zach Wegner]

This is just silly now. If Bob or Fabien thought that and were bothered they should have challenged when Rybka 1st entered. They did not so case closed for the ICGA. I am pretty sure that if Bob thought it was a Crafty clone he would have complained.

That's some mighty fallacious reasoning. The vast majority of the evidence against Rybka wasn't discovered until years after it was released (and well after Fabien retired from computer chess).

[Harvey Williamson]

This is just silly now. If Bob or Fabien thought that and were bothered they should have challenged when Rybka 1st entered. They did not so case closed for the ICGA. I am pretty sure that if Bob thought it was a Crafty clone he would have complained.

That's some mighty fallacious reasoning. The vast majority of the evidence against Rybka wasn't discovered until years after it was released (and well after Fabien retired from computer chess).

if you feel strongly put up or shut up as you are entered in Japan. The ideal time to make a formal complaint but Fabien will say he does not care if you ask him.

[Sean Evans]

This is just silly now. If Bob or Fabien thought that and were bothered they should have challenged when Rybka 1st entered. They did not so case closed for the ICGA. I am pretty sure that if Bob thought it was a Crafty clone he would have complained.

That's some mighty fallacious reasoning. The vast majority of the evidence against Rybka wasn't discovered until years after it was released (and well after Fabien retired from computer chess).

if you feel strongly put up or shut up as you are entered in Japan. The ideal time to make a formal complaint but Fabien will say he does not care if you ask him.

Yes, I think that is a good idea. Zach, ask the WCCC to test Rybka as a derivative of Fruit. You already have the report done amongst other information floating around on the Internet. Let's see is Rybka "Puts Up Or Shuts Up". Perhaps, we can get Hyatt to enter Crafty in the WCCC and he can back you up on the request!!

Cordially,

Sean Evans (alias Rybka killer )

[Harvey Williamson]

This is just silly now. If Bob or Fabien thought that and were bothered they should have challenged when Rybka 1st entered. They did not so case closed for the ICGA. I am pretty sure that if Bob thought it was a Crafty clone he would have complained.

That's some mighty fallacious reasoning. The vast majority of the evidence against Rybka wasn't discovered until years after it was released (and well after Fabien retired from computer chess).

if you feel strongly put up or shut up as you are entered in Japan. The ideal time to make a formal complaint but Fabien will say he does not care if you ask him.

Yes, I think that is a good idea. Zach, ask the WCCC to test Rybka as a derivative of Fruit. You already have the report done amongst other information floating around on the Internet. Let's see is Rybka "Puts Up Or Shuts Up".

Cordially,

Sean

I used to think you had a contribution to make but lately your posts are just trolling. Zach's report was about R1 v Fruit. Even if R1 has shared code with fruit I am sure a complaint against R4 is a total waste of time. A complaint against R1 in one of the tournaments it entered would have been interesting. But where were you then?