TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
User avatar
M ANSARI
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by M ANSARI » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:21 pm

beram wrote:
M ANSARI wrote:The settings might have affected Rybka, but if you look at a bunch of Rybka 4 losses, you will find that many of them are due to not giving a drop in evaluation for blocked bishops or "bad" bishops. As for Ivanhoe and Houdini evaluating differently than Rybka ... they simply don't and evaluate almost identical to Rybka 3. Of course they have some changes and modifications, but essentially they are all based on Rybka 3 with some improvements and bug fixes. The biggest difference I can see is that they are thread based engines rather than process based.
Dear M. Ansari, you haven't read or don't agree on BB+ report published by Zach Wegner ?
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... =110#p1220
Respectable programmers as Ed Schroder and Chris Wittington have said that this report proves that Ippolit is not a Rybka clone

to quote BB:
..Ironically, it was M ANSARI who kept on saying (essentially) that when I dug deeper into it I would find more evidence of cloning...

I think you should go back to the Rybka forum and digg up some of the the posts I had with BB. At the time the question was if the Ippolit engines were original or not, and by original I mean that they started as code without ANY Rybka 3 RE. I had tested it with R3 and come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no way that the Ippolit engines were original and that the engine HAD to be based on R3 code. The Ippolit engines were weak in exactly the same positions as was Rybka 3 and would lose games to weaker engines in exactly the same way. Others (many posting in this very thread) were trying to convince the world that Ippolit had NOTHING to do with R3 and it was totally clean original work. I think what BB and Zach would emphatically tell you is that Ippolit is 100% for sure based on R3 code ... and if anything they put to rest ridiculous attempts to show that Ippolit had nothing to do with R3. As a matter of fact I think Zach mentioned that Ippolit gets its strength from R3 and BB clearly points out that Ippolit is RE R3. The relation that Ippolit is RE R3 is no longer in contention, but there is differing conclusions as to whether legal or ethical lines were crossed in the RE of R3. So if anything BB has shown that by digging deep into the issue, there is no doubt that the Ippolit source was derived from R3 ... now the issue is if it was legally or illegally derived ... for that to be cleared up I think Vas would have to bring out a lawsuit against the author or authors of Ippolit ... which would be difficult as they are anonymous (maybe for good reason).

So if your intention of using BB's quote was to disprove the fact that Ippolit engines were cloned or derived from R3 (which was my assertion) then you are completely wrong, as he clearly states that he thinks they were cloned from R3 ... it is just that he thinks that "cloning" or "RE" or "deriving" code ... where the code is not identical ... is IHHO fair game.

Now with regards to the continuous controversy about Rybka being a Fruit clone ... this again has gone endlessly and for some reason nobody seems to note that the issue was regarding Rybka 1.0beta which was a free engine and which Fabien himself considered re-written and clean (after looking at Strelka). I think BB himself mentioned that he would look at Zach's report and seemed to disagree with parts of it and have yet to hear him say that he thought Rybka 1.0 beta was a Fruit clone. But anyway that was Rybka 1.0 beta ... and here we still are talking as if Rybka 3 was a clone of Fruit. I have yet to see one single person say that Rybka 3 has anything to do with Fruit ... not one ... yet we have the continuous babble about ALL Rybka's being Fruit clones and thus Vas must be punished and thus cloning or stealing his work is fine and dandy ... viva la communist revolution!

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by Don » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:50 pm

notyetagm wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
Tom Barrister wrote:It's apparent to me that if Mr. Rajlich were to bring a lawsuit against the clones, he would need to
...identify who he was suing.
Wow, is this controversy *ever* going to end?

Is it not clear that Rybka 1 was heavily dependent on the Fruit source code? And that Houdini is partially based on the Ippolit family, as the author clearly states on his website?
I'm only going to comment on this one point, as I don't really want to get sucked into another Rybka discussion.

The question is whether Rybka is "heavily dependent" on the Fruit source code. Fruit is a 32 bit program and Rybka is a 64 bit program so I think the answer is no. However I think a more relevant question is whether Rybka derived it's strength by stealing the Fruit code.

What do you think the answer is? I looked on the IPON rating list and Fruit is 2626 ELO, and 32 bit Rybka on this same list is 2849 which is a difference of 223 ELO points which is massive. It's much more if you consider the 64 bit version.

So even if Vas did start with the open source fruit program, it has nothing to do with Rybka now - there is nobody who can say that Vas was some loser who only has a strong program because he stole "Fruit" and changed a couple of lines of code because he did not have any original ideas of his own.

This is a completely different issue from what the so called "cloners" are being accused of. Regardless of where you stand on this issue the accusation is that the so called "cloners" took some strong program, made a few changes without making any substantial improvements, and put their name on it.

If you want to accuse Vas of something, accusing him of adding several hundred ELO of strength without using some else's ideas.

As far as the "clones" are concerned, that is for you to decide but you really need to take this point that Rybka is a Fruit clone off the table - it's just so hollow sounding and it makes you look stupid (not directed to anyone in particular, but to all those that keep saying it over and over.)

Tom Barrister
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by Tom Barrister » Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:35 pm

Don wrote: What do you think the answer is? I looked on the IPON rating list and Fruit is 2626 ELO, and 32 bit Rybka on this same list is 2849 which is a difference of 223 ELO points which is massive. It's much more if you consider the 64 bit version.
Isn't that a bit like comparing apples to oranges? The entire engine community has gone up about how much per year? 100 ELO per year? Fruit hasn't been developed since 2006 or 2007.
This production is being brought to you by Rybka: "The engine made from scratch.™"

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by Don » Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:14 am

Tom Barrister wrote:
Don wrote: What do you think the answer is? I looked on the IPON rating list and Fruit is 2626 ELO, and 32 bit Rybka on this same list is 2849 which is a difference of 223 ELO points which is massive. It's much more if you consider the 64 bit version.
Isn't that a bit like comparing apples to oranges? The entire engine community has gone up about how much per year? 100 ELO per year? Fruit hasn't been developed since 2006 or 2007.
This is another ridiculous argument. The only progress made was by Rybka herself and then much LATER by those who copied her. You are mixing up the cause and effect. And you are helping me make my point by acknowledging that Fruit is generations behind Rybka. Thank you for that.

And the point is the distance Rybka put between herself and everyone else in a very short period of time. Does anyone seriously think Rybka achieved that much superiority between the second best program an herself by stealing ideas from some open source program?

How can anyone say (with a straight face) that Rybka is "heavily dependent" on Fruit without looking like an idiot?

You little diatribe was an emotional appeal to fools and contained very little actual logic, it just sounded good. Someone reacted with tears which is no surprise, it is what emotional appeals invoke in people.

I'm not interested in rehashing who or what new program is or is not a clone of Rybka - that discussion bores me to tears at this point. The only thing I am reacting to is this totally ridiculous notion that Vas did not do anything original, but all these new program have fresh original ideas - that is so silly that it makes anyone who implies it look like a fool. It's so obvious that they are reaching to even bring that up but it's one of those emotional appeals that works if you are not thinking too clearly.

Gino Figlio
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:10 am
Location: Lamar, Colorado, USA

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by Gino Figlio » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:09 am

It seems like you are the one mixing up cause and effect.
Was code stolen from Fruit? Was code stolen from Rybka?
Those are the questions and not the quality of the consequences.

Tom Barrister
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by Tom Barrister » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:26 am

Don wrote: [snip]
I'm not interested in rehashing who or what new program is or is not a clone of Rybka [snip]
Yeah, you are. You came back again after stating the same thing earlier.

I'm afraid that I don't see the point to your last post, unless calling me names and flaming me is the goal here. I suppose you've had a lot of practice at that, but I really don't care to read all 1065 of your posts to find out. You're certainly in good company here; a lot of others do the same thing. I try to stay out of that, but it's difficult sometimes.

In a decade that saw massive improvement in chess engines as a whole, wouldn't you expect a program that's not been developed in over three years to lag behind those which have been actively worked on? It would be absurd to think otherwise.

I stated nowhere (yet) that Mr. Rajlich stole code from Fruit. I did offer it as a hypothesis. There's a long line of others ahead of me who support that hypothesis, and contrary to your beliefs, not all of them are "fools" or "idiot(s)" (your words) for believing it.

As far as Rybka itself goes, it's arguably the strongest program available to the public, although its lead is tenuous, and the competition is closing in. Since Mr. Rajlich has stated that Rybka 5 won't be out until the fall of 2011, it would be logical to believe that at least one of the competition will pass Rybka in the interim. Some believe that it's happened already. Stockfish, Houdini, Ivanhoe, Firebird, and probably a few others could make a good case to stake a claim to the top spot.

I also believe that if Fabien Letouzey started seriously working on chess engines again, that his engine would, in time, be a major player, possibly the best out there. in my opinion, he's that good.

The more I see the Rybka community spouting about their almighty engine and Deity of a programmer, and the more I see almost every one of them flame anybody who dares attack either, the more disenchanted I get with Rybka as a whole. It's been my experience that when multitudes of people all proclaim something is so (in this case, that Rybka stole nothing/little from Fruit and that Mr. Rajlich is innocent of any chicanery) and flame anybody who disagrees, the opposite is generally true. I've tried to be objective about the whole clone issue, but I'm inclined to believe that the folks who say that Rybka was largely derived from Fruit are correct.

Then there's the matter that I haven't touched on (but many others have) that Rybka just happened along, out of thin air, and rose to the top in a very short time.....just about the same time Fruit's last release, and about the time it went open-source. It's almost as though xann (Mr. Letouzey) knew or at least believed that Mr. Rajlich ripped Fruit almost line-for-line, got fed up, and left in disgust. According to what I've read, Mr. Letouzey did make a comment, at about that time, inferring that several people were using Fruit's source (possibly even before it was open-source) for their engines. That may be relevant, or it may not, but one is certainly not an "idiot" or "fool" for wondering.

I don't discount (or credit) Mr. Rajlich's abilities as a programmer. He probably added much to Rybka over the years. Where the improvements came from is open to speculation. Perhaps all/some/none were his own.

And another point: I find it totally laughable that many of the ratings lists refuse to include the alleged clones in their lists and/or tournaments. Where's the proof that they're clones of Rybka? Did Mr. Rajlich release the source to them? I doubt it.

Surely there must be at least one reputable, objective, third party who would be trusted by both Mr. Rajlich and the programming community, who could look at the source of Rybka, compare it line-for-line to the alleged clones and to Fruit, and who could report on same.

Frankly, the whole thing smells, and it's not a fragrance I'd want to bottle and sell as perfume or cologne.
This production is being brought to you by Rybka: "The engine made from scratch.™"

User avatar
M ANSARI
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:10 pm

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by M ANSARI » Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:42 am

There we go again ... all Rybka's are clones of Fruit and Ippolit is not RE from R3. I think if you would put up a Poll and ask who believes that R3 is a clone of Fruit, very predictably you will get the same clueless group voting that R3 is a Fruit clone and that Ippolit has nothing to do with R3. You ask "where is the proof" that they are clones ... I think the best proof is the BB report. Even the most stubborn Ippolit supporters will now crassly admit that the code is RE from R3 ... yet you will still get people who are not convinced. No wonder Vas was never interested in getting involved in this whole affair, people will believe what they want to believe even if the truth would stare them in the face. Many of you still don't seem to understand that with Rybka, the real breakthrough in dramatic strength increase came with R3 and not in earlier Rybka versions. Even with Rybka 2.3.2a, at LTC Zappa Mexico II was scoring very close or even equal to Rybka 2.3.2a. The big breakthrough in chess engine strength came with R3 ... and R3 is the original creation of Vas and he has the respect of many in the computer chess community because of that. The plethora of R3 clones out there today all owe their strength to R3 ... it is as simple as that. Yet many will act like these cloned engines are purely original works of art and will fail to even mention Vas as the major contributor.

Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:22 pm

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by Roger Brown » Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:48 am

Don wrote:
This is another ridiculous argument. The only progress made was by Rybka herself and then much LATER by those who copied her. You are mixing up the cause and effect. And you are helping me make my point by acknowledging that Fruit is generations behind Rybka. Thank you for that.

And the point is the distance Rybka put between herself and everyone else in a very short period of time. Does anyone seriously think Rybka achieved that much superiority between the second best program an herself by stealing ideas from some open source program?

How can anyone say (with a straight face) that Rybka is "heavily dependent" on Fruit without looking like an idiot?

You little diatribe was an emotional appeal to fools and contained very little actual logic, it just sounded good. Someone reacted with tears which is no surprise, it is what emotional appeals invoke in people.

I'm not interested in rehashing who or what new program is or is not a clone of Rybka - that discussion bores me to tears at this point. The only thing I am reacting to is this totally ridiculous notion that Vas did not do anything original, but all these new program have fresh original ideas - that is so silly that it makes anyone who implies it look like a fool. It's so obvious that they are reaching to even bring that up but it's one of those emotional appeals that works if you are not thinking too clearly.



Hello Don,

I have never had any reason to call your qualities as an individual into question but after reading this post I am saddened (another foolish emotional response I suppose). My response had nothing to do with your points here but notwithstanding, who are you to call me or anyone else a fool? Illogical? Not thinking clearly?

You may very well be a talented programmer, better chess player and even a better human being overall but quite frankly, the things you find repugnant in others you ought not to find attractive in yourself.

I bow to your intellectual superiority sir. Enjoy life at the top.

Later.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 9769
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by Laskos » Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:29 am

"How can anyone say (with a straight face) that Rybka is "heavily dependent" on Fruit without looking like an idiot?"

This one was nice. I must admit I am an utter idiot, and can affirm clearly that Rybka 1.0 beta heavily borrowed from Fruit 2.1 (or higher Fruits). Also, in my idiocy, I can go to court affirming that Vas Rajlich is a LIER. "Fully knowledgeable engine", I think those were the words, LOL (dividing nps by 16, probably, LOL again).

Just a firm idiot,
Kai

kasinp
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:47 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: TEST position TCEC5- Houdini 1.03a-DRybka4 1-0

Post by kasinp » Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:06 pm

Don wrote:
notyetagm wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
Tom Barrister wrote:It's apparent to me that if Mr. Rajlich were to bring a lawsuit against the clones, he would need to
...identify who he was suing.
Wow, is this controversy *ever* going to end?

Is it not clear that Rybka 1 was heavily dependent on the Fruit source code? And that Houdini is partially based on the Ippolit family, as the author clearly states on his website?
I'm only going to comment on this one point, as I don't really want to get sucked into another Rybka discussion.

The question is whether Rybka is "heavily dependent" on the Fruit source code. Fruit is a 32 bit program and Rybka is a 64 bit program so I think the answer is no. However I think a more relevant question is whether Rybka derived it's strength by stealing the Fruit code.

What do you think the answer is? I looked on the IPON rating list and Fruit is 2626 ELO, and 32 bit Rybka on this same list is 2849 which is a difference of 223 ELO points which is massive. It's much more if you consider the 64 bit version.

So even if Vas did start with the open source fruit program, it has nothing to do with Rybka now - there is nobody who can say that Vas was some loser who only has a strong program because he stole "Fruit" and changed a couple of lines of code because he did not have any original ideas of his own.

This is a completely different issue from what the so called "cloners" are being accused of. Regardless of where you stand on this issue the accusation is that the so called "cloners" took some strong program, made a few changes without making any substantial improvements, and put their name on it.

If you want to accuse Vas of something, accusing him of adding several hundred ELO of strength without using some else's ideas.

As far as the "clones" are concerned, that is for you to decide but you really need to take this point that Rybka is a Fruit clone off the table - it's just so hollow sounding and it makes you look stupid (not directed to anyone in particular, but to all those that keep saying it over and over.)


Not to randomly change the topic, but can you share your plans for (hopefully) releasing a new version of Komodo?

Regards,
PK

Post Reply