A Very Novel Idea Concerning Vas- BE FAIR

[wolfv]

Hi,

to the five programmers that you mentioned I suggest you add (most emphatically perhaps) Christophe Theron (the author of Chess Tiger) who was very vocal (and right so far I am concerned) in his description of the whole issue. If you wish you may dig up threads in which he voiced his opinion but was marginalized mostly for exhibiting typical programmers' jealousy...

However, I am glad that the old adage seems to be confirmed: that 'truth will out' one way or another. And, may I add, sir, that I admire your self-examination. Because life not examined is simply not worth living.

[bob]

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

I'm that sane. Fruit was at or near the top. Naturally, if Rybka was a near-copy of Fruit, supposedly rewritten for bitboards, and whatever else, it would be logical that it would start near the top, too. Of course it would need to improve over time. How it improved is open to debate.

I couldn't say how talented Mr. Rajlich is as a programmer. Frankly, my belief is that his biggest asset might well be the ability to aggregate the best ideas/code/routines/whatever of others and combine them into Rybka. That could possibly be done without any significant unique ideas of his own. That's not a novel concept.

Frankly, it's a moot point. It doesn't matter to me how talented Mr. Rajlich is as a programmer. It doesn't matter if Rybka 4 was rewritten from scratch and contains no Fruit code whatsoever (beyond the generic things that all chess programs may need). It doesn't matter if Mr. Rajlich is the greatest chess programmer of all time. Based on what I've read and seen, Rybka at some point in its closed-source existence (perhaps even to a large degree at the present) is/was an almost direct derivative of Fruit. If it wasn't a clone/copy, it was nearly so, rewritten or not for whatever new technologies/code/etc. existed. That's against the rules. If Mr. Rajlich writes an entirely new program from scratch with an ELO of 4000, then good for him... but HE STILL BROKE THE RULES. Breaking the rules, then lying and saying he didn't, then trying to cover up by saying that he lost the source code, and also refusing to let a trusted independent source verify once and for all his claims that he didn't cheat..... well, if it looks like bull manure and smells like bull manure, then it's probably bull manure. It smacks of charlatanry, and the fact that his forum is so heavily moderated doesn't help his credibility. Why is there a need to hide anything if he's innocent.

The "He doesn't have to prove himself to anybody" line is another heap of bull manure. This isn't one crank with an isolated complaint. There's substantial doubt among many that he's broken the rules. Somebody in that position doesn't do his credibility any good by sweeping it all under the rug. He's made no real effort to prove us all wrong. Why not? If he's innocent, he can prove it easily enough. In fact, if he were innocent, I would dare guess that he'd have done so instantly, just to show us all how wrong we were. In my book and that of others, he's guilty as charged, and saying "he's a great programmer who improved Rybka and set the bar higher for all others to improve" (assuming that's true) doesn't change the fact that he's guilty.

And now to address some other issues.

Some Rybka defenders keep quoting that Rybka has advanced X number of ELO (the figure changes). These people don't point out that a lot of other programs also advanced in ELO during the same time period. They also neglect to say that some of the ELO increase might be due to bitboards or whatever else changed, multiple cores, 64 bit vs 32 bit, improved functionality put forth by somebody and shared by whoever wished, and any other improvements that were available to the programming masses.

I'm a civil person by nature, provided I'm treated in the same manner. Those who are civil to me get a civil reply, regardless of whether I agree with them. Those who start unwarranted attacks lose the right to civility and deserve the same ball bat that they tried to use on me, except that I probably won't be as crude with them as they were with me.

One other thing: I don't need to be a programmer to understand what's going on here. If a=b and b=c, then a=c. If Rybka=Strelka, and Strelka=Fruit, then Rybka=Fruit. It's that simple to me. Trying to muddle matters by saying that they aren't exactly alike, Rybka retooled many Fruit things or added some things, etc., is just putting another diversionary spin.

Calling others names, even if said names are true, doesn't justify any wrongdoing by the accused. Changing the topic, accusing others of wrongdoing, attacking the credibility of the accusers: these are all common tactics used when there's no sound defense.

Hi Tom,

I broadened your in your thoughts strongest accusations and reflections. My short answer is this:

a) computerchess for the Rybka author is a business

b) he isnt a fool opening his secrets of his talent how he did what he did, because his collegues are proof that copying Fruit alone wouldnt be enough for the top

c) the strongest injustice against Vas is to say that he had to open his secrets but anybody else had NOT to do that

d) I asked that years ago and got no satisfying answer from Bob Hyatt. He just waved hands and said actually we have the Rybka case in our focus

I did not "wave my hands". I answered quite succinctly. Namely that someone _else_ had raised the red flag. First was Yuri and Strelka. Which he claimed was a reverse-engineered Rybka 1 beta + changes. Then along came Vas with the biggest red flag of all, claiming that Strelka was his code, without a doubt. Then the third red flag came when someone (don't recall who) noticed that strelka had a lot of fruit in it. And the link between fruit/rybka/strelka was established.

If someone wants to do the same with Shredder, or junior, or HIarcs, or Fritz, or Naum, or any other existing program, more power to them. The more light shed on those who copy the work of others, the better. But it represents a significant amount of effort. For me, I spend part of my effort on teaching classes, part on doing research, part on university service activities (committees, etc) and part on Crafty. There's not enough of a part left to spend a lot of time trying to catch all the copycats. If someone has the time, more power to 'em however.

But this wasn't a conspiracy to catch _only_ Vas. He just piped up and pointed a finger at himself with the Strelka post, and the rest was a result of a small snowball starting down a big hill, where it grew into a big one.

e) Logically would be to assume that the whole little scene of commercial authors go back and through the content of other strong programs without that would be cheating but then the same by Vas isnt cheating too

f) so first of all we must face the somewhat irritating news that commercial chess isnt science with its openess, but this similar to the practice of military projects, to single out someone would be likewise a somewhat outlandish nono

If one chooses to "hoist themselves on their own petard" then they have to suffer the consequences/embarrassment/etc. And that is exactly what happened here.

g) so, if you prove to me that Shredder, Junior and Hydra are absolutely sane and innocent thenwe had a different situation, but since that wont happen, Vas is innocent too

Common faulty logic often used in court. "Your honor, everyone else on the interstate was going 85mph in a 70mph zone, I was the only one that got pulled over..." In other words, "if everybody isn't caught, nobody should be." Great way to have an orderly society. Since you can't catch everybody, you catch nobody. That is illogical, and judges throw it out every time, as they should.

i) we just dont have a legal systen that allows private people to insinuate that others must prove that they did something against the law; if you want to do this you must obey to certain practical issues; until now nobody did this

j) you among others want to impress by a certain realism in saying that although Vas is the best that this isnt a big thing; fine, believe into that; if we qould analyse the deepest details of Einstein's theories, they would lose their flair too; the same with all creative talents, it's all hard work and the digesting of former achievements and ideas

k) as you and especially Bob likes to argue: if it smells like a champion, looks like it too, has that outstanding superior decency, it is decency and superor genius, but aside that, we all could be able to do it in the very same manner - not exactly but then in our own genial way - me too (sigh)

l) we have a problem in CC if someone like scientist Hyatt thinks that commercial closedness is evil, but we must decide if we like that sort of ancient enjoyment to look at such a circus, if we all do, then a certain secrecy is part of the game, crying about the lack of openess like it's used in science is just hypocritical

I have not ever said "commercial closedness is evil." I have said it shows poor character to take a lot and give nothing back. If you want to work in your basement to write a new program, by yourself, as Hsu did with deep thought, more power to you. But if you copy fruit, then make changes, that is not so OK.

m) it's beyond me why some 5 people plus claque think it's reasonable to single out specific individuals, forgetting about tradition in sports and to hold extended lynch courts instead of just showing some style and taking the irregular bugs as the essence of the whole feature if it enjoys a little community

Courts and police do this every day. They catch who they catch. They know they don't catch every criminal. Perhaps not even most. But for each one that is caught and punished, there is just a bit of deterrent effect for others that don't want to get punished, so they don't do the crime in the first place.

n) with true chess computerchess is still a bit overasked actually, I hope we agree on that one too, so what is your problem, real life will never be able to compete with the delusions of the internet...

[ozziejoe]

You argued "Vas behaved unethically but so did others". I don't think this is a strong defense, to say the least

[ozziejoe]

Hi Robert, you were one of the ones i argued against at the begining of the Rybka affair, and I can now say I was probably wrong and you were probably right.

I can't believe I long for the days when Ruffian ruled the world (or was a close second) and computer chess seemed a little simpler.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hi Robert, you were one of the ones i argued against at the begining of the Rybka affair, and I can now say I was probably wrong and you were probably right.

I can't believe I long for the days when Ruffian ruled the world (or was a close second) and computer chess seemed a little simpler.

Yeah....it was the 0.76 private version of Ruffian which ruled the world and was playing in a league of it's own....
I remember regards,
Dr.D

[Rolf]

You argued "Vas behaved unethically but so did others". I don't think this is a strong defense, to say the least

No, I didnt say that. What got my protest that was the focus on Rybka and its author, not the outcome of the examination. And there you see the main point of my argument. If in a little community it would be announced that all commercial people had to open their sources because we would doubt their integrity THEN I doubt that anyone would applaud this except Bob Hyatt and other open source programmers. See the difference of my argument to your assumption.

Question for you, why Donninger didnt reengineer Shredder or others?

At the time I was told that how I would think to control something that were forbidden but still couldnt be prevented, how I wanted to forbid that at all? Ok.

As psychologist I learned the following lesson out of that scandal.

Computerchess has the inborn twilight of rules for everybody but since the respect for these rules cannot be supervised they educate already the beginner to follow a double standard. In public you agree with the rules and in your private realm you violate these same rules. Only to proclaim in public that you had never done something wrong. You cannot expect human beings to behave differently. Because nobody is a fool and he knows that all others disrespect the rules too.

Either we control everybody or nobody. But since control is impossible the myst should be forgotten. It's just a tool to misguide people and to stir their emotions. If single programmers watch possible cloning of their programs this is a different story because this is what can be done. See Crafty and Bob Hyatt. But even the professor cannot watch all the many different programs.

Vasik never lied because he said that he went through Fruit and took many good ideas. If others would have understood these ideas as well, they could have become champions. But they failed. And even after Rybka had been ripped apart they continued to fail. Could there be a better proof for the superiority of Vas?

Let's stop the bashing of Rybka's author and let's show him the due respect.

Chess isnt copyrightable. Neither its code. What we see is better or worse chess. Rybka played the best computerchess during the last 5 years. Since the community is only focussing on Rybka Vas left the naive software distribution and started his online Cluster. Where he will become an immortal part of chess history since all player talents will work with Cluster Rybka.

On the surface of tournament chess the community will now live with anonymous figures who cant appear in public and who neither could participate in competition. But ok, a community that burns its best talents must now live with comrades of destruction. This way the ethical considerations of some few Vas critics have found a goal. Admiration of invisible anons who must hide because they wouled else be sued. Well done! NOT.

[Ant_Gugdin]

You argued "Vas behaved unethically but so did others". I don't think this is a strong defense, to say the least

No, I didnt say that. What got my protest that was the focus on Rybka and its author, not the outcome of the examination. And there you see the main point of my argument. If in a little community it would be announced that all commercial people had to open their sources because we would doubt their integrity THEN I doubt that anyone would applaud this except Bob Hyatt and other open source programmers. See the difference of my argument to your assumption.

Question for you, why Donninger didnt reengineer Shredder or others?

At the time I was told that how I would think to control something that were forbidden but still couldnt be prevented, how I wanted to forbid that at all? Ok.

As psychologist I learned the following lesson out of that scandal.

Computerchess has the inborn twilight of rules for everybody but since the respect for these rules cannot be supervised they educate already the beginner to follow a double standard. In public you agree with the rules and in your private realm you violate these same rules. Only to proclaim in public that you had never done something wrong. You cannot expect human beings to behave differently. Because nobody is a fool and he knows that all others disrespect the rules too.

Either we control everybody or nobody. But since control is impossible the myst should be forgotten. It's just a tool to misguide people and to stir their emotions. If single programmers watch possible cloning of their programs this is a different story because this is what can be done. See Crafty and Bob Hyatt. But even the professor cannot watch all the many different programs.

Vasik never lied because he said that he went through Fruit and took many good ideas. If others would have understood these ideas as well, they could have become champions. But they failed. And even after Rybka had been ripped apart they continued to fail. Could there be a better proof for the superiority of Vas?

Let's stop the bashing of Rybka's author and let's show him the due respect.

Chess isnt copyrightable. Neither its code. What we see is better or worse chess. Rybka played the best computerchess during the last 5 years. Since the community is only focussing on Rybka Vas left the naive software distribution and started his online Cluster. Where he will become an immortal part of chess history since all player talents will work with Cluster Rybka.

On the surface of tournament chess the community will now live with anonymous figures who cant appear in public and who neither could participate in competition. But ok, a community that burns its best talents must now live with comrades of destruction. This way the ethical considerations of some few Vas critics have found a goal. Admiration of invisible anons who must hide because they wouled else be sued. Well done! NOT.

This looks like a windup to me.

[Tom Barrister]

(snipped... same old double talk)

How many hemorrhoids does Mr. Rajlich have? Also, can you describe each one's shape and size?

[Roger Brown]

(snipped... same old double talk)

How many hemorrhoids does Mr. Rajlich have? Also, can you describe each one's shape and size?

Hello Tom,

Despite provocation, let it not be said...

Later.

[Damir]

Roggie baby, don't be so serious. Let people have some fun here...