A Very Novel Idea Concerning Vas- BE FAIR

[Watchman]

Who is sane enough to think that Vas only won the titles because he copied Fruit and not his extraordinary talent as a programmer?

Me... it does not (appear) to take "extraordinary talent" to take a World Class chess engine and convert it to Bitboard (with a few personal changes in the code). Knowledge and talent... sure... but it is the kind I can do without.

Is this the kind of talent demonstrated in a University? Dollars to Donuts he would have been booted from a Grad program.

Just because somebody hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law (and even if they've been judged not guilty) doesn't mean that they didn't commit the crime. A lot of guilty people go free or are never caught in the first place.

Mr. Rajlich isn't going to admit he used Fruit source. He never let a qualified independent programmer look at the Rybka source to determine whether or not Rybka was derived from Fruit, nor is he likely to. It's unlikely that anything could be made to stick in a court of law. Does that mean he didn't use Fruit source? No, it does not. It only means he probably won't have to pay the penalty for the crime, at least not directly.

"Plus One"

Ok, Tom, would you agree with me if that is the ultimate legally sound conclusion, that then it wasnt worth it to tear that man's character through the mud?

Are there not enough respectable men among us to give "expert testimony" and the community make a decision based on their findings? I am not talking about "the wild west" and "western justice, partner". You are most correct Rolf... this is a very serious matter. But why is it so important to have it go to a criminal court... I half believe it will not see the inside of a civil court somewhere. Does that mean then we have totally ignore what evidence has been presented to us? Or that we cannot make a sound judgement based on what has been presented?

[michiguel]

BTW, Fabien did not give any opinion at all. He asked questions, and nothing else.

I sincerely "beg to differ" sir!

I did not post "questions" by him in the "notable quotes" above.

No, some statements that go nowhere.

"- Vasik claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0 (and you know what that would imply!)" >
Fabien Letouzey

I adressed this. In fact, you are ignoring that he said he did not find Strelka illegal. Anyway, we already knew this before.

" - Zach Wegner found many Fruit ideas (and nearly identical code) in Rybka 1.0; I think someone else did, too"
> Fabien Letouzey

Hearsay, that is not expert testimony. I addressed Zach's already.

Miguel

One could say, "Fabien did not give any opinion at all." And I would respond, you are correct he did not give opinion... it would aptly be termed "expert testimony" (in my opinion).

[geots]

Now that you mention Zach, i will give you a history lesson. A year and half ago he left and said he would be back in 2 weeks with irrefutable proof Vas was guilty. He didnt come back for 6 weeks- and came back with nothing.

Thanks for the education... but who cares how long it takes? Why the smugness?

So nothing eh? What do you call the below?

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

a good part of that was refuted 2 years ago by a couple of top notch programmers. I dont blame this guy- i wouldnt sign my name to all this horse shit either.

[Watchman]

I adressed this. In fact, you are ignoring that he said he did not find Strelka illegal. Anyway, we already knew this before.

I am not ignoring anything... I am not picking this statement from "here" and another one from "there" to support what I want to believe.

" - Zach Wegner found many Fruit ideas (and nearly identical code) in Rybka 1.0; I think someone else did, too" > Fabien Letouzey

One certainly could infer from that statement, that it is testimony.

Nevertheless, I look at everything he has said, and I use those statements (along with the statements of several chess engine authors, even HGM) to come to a conclusion. And I do not think my conclusion is "ignorant" or uninformed. I try to look at everything, "the totality" of what has been presented.

a good part of that was refuted 2 years ago by a couple of top notch programmers. I dont blame this guy- i wouldnt sign my name to all this horse shit either.

And those two programmers sir... the names please?

[geots]

I adressed this. In fact, you are ignoring that he said he did not find Strelka illegal. Anyway, we already knew this before.

I am not ignoring anything... I am not picking this statement from "here" and another one from "there" to support what I want to believe.

" - Zach Wegner found many Fruit ideas (and nearly identical code) in Rybka 1.0; I think someone else did, too" > Fabien Letouzey

One certainly could infer from that statement, that it is testimony.

Nevertheless, I look at everything he has said, and I use those statements (along with the statements of several chess engine authors, even HGM) to come to a conclusion. And I do not think my conclusion is "ignorant" or uninformed. I try to look at everything, "the totality" of what has been presented.

We disagree on most all of this, but at least you are civil and that gets my respect for you.

All the Best

[Ralph Stoesser]

Who is sane enough to think that Vas only won the titles because he copied Fruit and not his extraordinary talent as a programmer?

Me... it does not (appear) to take "extraordinary talent" to take a World Class chess engine and convert it to Bitboard (with a few personal changes in the code). Knowledge and talent... sure... but it is the kind I can do without.

Is this the kind of talent demonstrated in a University? Dollars to Donuts he would have been booted from a Grad program.

He proved his talents after the alleged crime. Being at the top for a long time and by far is no accident. It can't be achieved by reverse engeneer a program 150 Elo weaker than Rybka. Fruit itself was never the strongest engine. Every contender could have used all the Fruit ideas in a completely legal way by rewriting every single idea. Should have been easy to be at the top also for others, if there would not have been that extraordinary talent of the Rybka developer. A talent which the ippo cloners lack. A talent which R. Houdart seems to have as we can judge by now.

Please stop mixing the issues "copy crime" and "non-talent". Looking back at Rbyka's history there is no self-explaining connection.

[michiguel]

I adressed this. In fact, you are ignoring that he said he did not find Strelka illegal. Anyway, we already knew this before.

I am not ignoring anything... I am not picking this statement from "here" and another one from "there" to support what I want to believe.

I mean, you are ignoring that I pointed it out.

" - Zach Wegner found many Fruit ideas (and nearly identical code) in Rybka 1.0; I think someone else did, too" > Fabien Letouzey

One certainly could infer from that statement, that it is testimony.

"Mr. FL, did you or did you not take a look at the code?"
"mmmhhh.... no..."
"No further questions your honor."

Nevertheless, I look at everything he has said, and I use those statements (along with the statements of several chess engine authors, even HGM) to come to a conclusion. And I do not think my conclusion is "ignorant" or uninformed. I try to look at everything, "the totality" of what has been presented.

May the record show that I did not say that, did I?

I think I read all FL posts in that thread (there were not many) and I would call him to the stand... If I were defense attorney!

He has all the rights to be genuinely concerned and I truly support him in his quest. But, it is wrong to drop his name in all this. He did not contribute any condemning evidence. On the contrary.

a good part of that was refuted 2 years ago by a couple of top notch programmers. I dont blame this guy- i wouldnt sign my name to all this horse shit either.

And those two programmers sir... the names please?

I did not say that, but there were many that casts doubts on the conclusions. Some were Lance perkins, Sven schule, C. Whittington... and I am sure I can name at least one more if I think hard.

At that time, the evidence (the UCI parser) was bogus IMO. If there is currently any, we should study Zach's, and Zach's only.

Miguel

[Watchman]

He proved his talents after the alleged crime.

You have no need to school me on Vas's talent. I beta tested for him all throughout version 2.x... thousands of games at the Playchess engine room. Daily emails (or nearly so) for months during that time. I like Vas. I sincerely like the man. I have quite of bit of respect for him. But I cannot respect something of this nature. It certainly is the proverbial "fly in the oinment".

I am not saying he is without talent. Far from it. But… it sure seems he took a big short cut and that is what is so disappointing. Given a half dozen years maybe he could have come up with a Number 1. But who knows? And now we will not know.

It can't be achieved by reverse engeneer a program 150 Elo weaker than Rybka.

I have no idea if your 150 elo is correct (that is from CEGT or?)... What I do know he would have had a signifcant "speedup" translating to bitboard... 60% speedup 32bit vs. 64bit of rybka compiles, according to Vas. Plus whatever work he did.

What I do know... I had researched what the "strongest" engine was (starting 2003?) and it was Fruit. It placed behind Zap at 2005 WCCC and I remember it was Fruit that was dominating at the Playchess Engine Room. I build my "killer chess comp" in mid-2006 and suddenly I find out Fruit is "old news".

Looking back at Rbyka's history there is no self-explaining connection.

Again I do not need schooling about Rybka's history... but how about a) or b) for an explanation?

Let us think about this. As Fabien asked:
"Which is the hugher undertaking:
a) convert Fruit to bitboards
b) write a world-class engine (as of 2005) from scratch"

Which seems more reasonable to you?

And I just love Bob's quip, "We have now reached a totally insane point in computer chess where we have dozens of strong programs, claiming to not be derivative works."

Should have been easy to be at the top also for others, if there would not have been that extraordinary talent of the Rybka developer.

So the reverse must be true... all the other programmers are cursed with mediocre talent. Crafty, Shredder, Fruit, Fritz, Junior et al. must have been stuck in the mud because the programmers of those engines are on an order of magnitude of talent below Vas.

A talent which the ippo cloners lack.

I do not agree with this... they did display a certain degree of talent. Sir, are you involved (or have you been involved) to any significant degree in computer chess? I am talking on the order of ten of thousand of blitz games played... and/or thousands of "slow" games; something of that order.

Whether R. Houdart takes RobboLito and make much stronger engine out of it, or Vas takes Fruit and has done the same... I do not see that as talent I can respect.

In fact, what Houdart has done should make it perfectly plausible to you that Vas could have done the very same thing!

Please stop mixing the issues "copy crime" and "non-talent".

I really have absolutely no idea where you think I have said this. I have already addressed the “non-talent” issue… as far as “copy-crime” I have no idea if he has committed a crime recognized in any country.

We disagree on most all of this, but at least you are civil and that gets my respect for you.

All the Best

I appreciate that sir… we do agree that this is how we all should proceed, getting rid of the “emotional flotsam” to enable us to come to a logical conclusion, despite our differences and beliefs... whether or not those conclusions are in agreement.

To you sir also, all the best.

[Roger Brown]

What is surprising in these posts is that there is this short term memory loss issue.


(1) Strelka was outed as a Rybka clone by the one man who I think is an expert on Rybka - its author! There was no court case on this issue. A declaration was made and accepted by most.

(2) Strelka was then revealed to have a lot of Fruit in it. Again, I do not hear this being denied. What I hear is the fantastic proposition that an chess engine can be a clone of Rybka BUT have the Fruit parts which it contains excluded.

(3) I hear all sorts of standards of testimony - legal - being deemed necessary to settle this matter. Why exactly? I think that it does a signal disservice to the other clones of weaker engines which were outed and their authors banished to computerchess limbo with no legal fanfare at all.

(4) Who really lives their real life this way? I see someone in my neighbour's yard and hear my neighbour yell "Thief!" The person attempts to flee but is apprehended and various items from the neighbour's yard are taken from a bag in the possession of this person. Now you all can wait for the trial if you like but that man is a thief. I know it and anyone in that position knows it too.

I am NOT declaring that Vas is or not. I really am not technically competent to evaluate the code snippets etc. What I want is the same field for the supposed clones about which it seems that less evidence is being exposed....

The issue now becomes funny to me because one of the arguments of the no Fruit involved in Rybka side was that Rybka was so much stronger than Fruit - or anything else incidentally - on the serious, professional rating lists that if anything was taken it was at best, minimal.

Now the argument is that as Rybka is the strongest engine on said lists, any engine which is demonstrably stronger than Rybka must be a Rybka clone.

Huh?

I think that the hypocrisy and nonsense should stop and the two sides agree that science or evidence or facts has nothing to do with it. Both sides believe in what they believe and that belief will not accept a contrary view.

It is a lot simpler to dismiss that which does not accord with our world view - whatever that is.

Maybe if the two sides did that we could cease this pretence of considering evidence when what is being done is a considering of evidence which lines up with what we believe.

Later.


Ps. Rob Osborne, I am congratulating you, not for the final view you came to but at least for having the guts to admit publicly that you feel that you were wrong and that you can change. The process is the thing to me, not the final result.

[Steve B]

Ps. Rob Osborne, I am congratulating you, not for the final view you came to but at least for having the guts to admit publicly that you feel that you were wrong and that you can change. The process is the thing to me, not the final result.

Exactly
i have to say ...for all of the years i have been here ..it is very rare indeed to see someone publicly state they have changed their mind on an issue..any issue actually..big or small
let alone an issue as contentious as this one and from someone as well known as Rob
i am currently searching back through the CCC archives to see if i can find any other instance of it
so far i have searched as far back as 1998..
no luck yet

http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/

Lets Do The Time Warp Again Regards
Steve