A Very Novel Idea Concerning Vas- BE FAIR

[Romy]

They respond to a complaint from "Jury Osipov" of Tunguska!

No, they responded to a complaint signed by 16 well-known chess engine authors. If one turns out to be Osipov, so what?
You act like this revelation would be earth-shattering. In reality it would be like a cotton ball dropping to the floor for all the impact it will have...

We shall sees.

There is a big international press who is already interested. Which makes better storey headline:
"Creative Genius found to have been influenced by a predecessor's work"
(like Shakespeare, Mozart, Picasso and thousand other artists)
or
"Complainant of Fraud is himself Biggest Fraudster, and Stupids got Fooled"?

I guarantees you which one makes Der Spiegel.

You want me to materialise the Great Jury Osipov for you?

Here, read carefully this today thread - http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38444 and you discover "Jury Osipov" arrive just couple hours after I summons it.

You want "Jury Osipov" to dance cha-cha?

That also I can arrange for. On request, polite.

You are CompChess Grandfather so to you I make no warning, you are safe from any consequences except people will say you made mistake (and you will deny, all like usual, see Calculus example above, also incorrect omission of "+C" from integration answer).

But to fules who jump into Confederacy (of (relative) Dunces) and then into Letter-Signing Car which be driven either by Baboon or by "Jury Osipov" (Fake and non-existant), in effect CAR is DRIVERLESS and will crash.

For respect to Mr Levy, who has valuable time only, and particular his one colleague who has family history with cloneing, restraint should be shown.

It can be very much laughter against the Co-Signatories who signed next to "Jury Osipov", King of Cloners, whole lifetime will not live down.

Gens una sumus!

[Uri Blass]

Not is it is not so convenient and you now don't bother with his opinion at all...

OK, you watch someone kill somebody, with your own two eyes you see the entire act. Do you consider him innocent until he is found guilty in court? I do not. I _know_ what I saw. Same with the fruit/rybka issue. I _know_ what I saw.

It's not just a question of looking and seeing. IMO.

Go for it if you are so sure about it. I am the last who could contradict you because I am a technical layman.

But I know what I saw, namely the titles Vas got after making his program always stronger and stronger. Surely not through always finding new tricks in the old Fruit on Chrismas Eve. That is the reason why all the other programmers dont support the group of 4 or 5. 295 are just watching what is going on and possibly are shocked like me because it doesnt make sense to insinuate that Vas simply copied. Because from where came the material for all the titles???

It doesnt make sense in my eyes. I still beleive in Vasik, that's for sure. It's just not fair how his character has been torn through the mud. NB not every wrong that is done on this planet was intention to betray others. The history of the past five years should have told you a better story than what you are now so much focussed on.

There are two ways to do things. Nobody is not doubting the programming skills of Vas. But you can write your own program, or you can copy another and save 1-2-3 years of effort, and start your own effort on top of the program you copied. You might get to the same point, skill-wise. But not time-wise. And not effort-wise.

So just because Rybka became #1, one can't use that to justify copying the code of others, any more than an author could copy the plot from one book, the setting from another, the characters from a third, and form that into a best seller..

Say take the Matt Reilly book "Ice Station", change the location to South America, change the main character to willie makeit, and you would have a book that would sell. And be a knock-off at the same time.

BTW, what have we learned in the past 5 years? Certainly not one thing from Vas. He could have cleared this up and everyone could have moved on. But silence keeps it going. In this case, it was Fabien that started the discussion for the N+1th time.

Bob, thanks for your never tiring eloquence, but I must correct a delusion in computerchesscode once and for all. Your comparison with literature is a lame duck. The animal wont fly anymore.

1) you have no plot at all - chess is always the same outcome and since Vas is a good chessplayer he quickly understood the usual tone

2) everything in CC is technical setting. It's all thought and done. Also here no surprise. For all it cant be stolen or copied, because it's always the same. Proof: go and get a Shredder or Junior and then tell me about copying. But you dont want to do this because it would destroy your holy argument against Vas.

Here's a deal for you. I will likely retire in 2 years. At that point, offer me $100,000 to disassemble any two commercial engines of your choice and compare them to an open source program of your choice. I'll take the job and do it. That is a year's effort, for a year's pay. That is a pretty good estimate of the time it would require.

Who, in their right mind, would want do that for free? Invest a year of time for something that won't help the person at all? I work on Crafty because I enjoy it. I do other things because I am paid for doing them (teaching classes, research, committees, advising students, etc). I hunt, fish, fly model airplanes, play the guitar, build things, etc. all for free, because I enjoy doing them. I don't enjoy taking a microscope to a program to disassemble it and try to track asm back to C. I know how, certainly. But it is a lot of work. It isn't fun. It pays nothing. So what is the incentive? If there was a legitimate question raised about them someone would likely take the time, myself included. But with no red flags waving, one could spend the time and discover absolutely nothing.

I'd rather spend that year working on Crafty. Or doing things I get paid for, or things I enjoy doing.

It really is that simple, and there is no dark motive lurking in the background.

3) Yes, you might have characters too but they are also interchangable. Nothing new under the sun. Look, a language has emotions that it can express, but your code must play vchess and not cause you weep some tears.

Programming is a _creative_ task. Not a mechanical one. Ditto for writing a novel, a screenplay, a poem, a song. Designing a building. Or a rocket to go to the moon. Things can be stolen or copied. In any of those. There is a great book "The eagle has landed" which is not about Apollo 11, but is instead about some Data General engineers that openly broke into the DEC plant in Massachusetts and openly went thru the design/hardware of the Vax 11/780 while they were designing the Data General MV series of machines. Copying happens. It saves a ton of time, which when selling things that evolve quickly is a major concern.

4) Now the most difficult part for me as a tech lay. Yes, I think I can imagine what code means. It's a permanent linkage of ordering stuff and here comes something of an ideal effectness into play because what could cause speed and depth that will end in chesswise more correct and deep moves and taken, the chess positions allow something and are not drawish then minimalism beats ranting.

5) Vas cannot have done just copying because that wouldnt have made his code win, he won because he's the better programmer in exploiting the little possibilities where programmers could differ. Everything else is the same and copied more or less.

You miss the point completely, whether that is intentional or not I can't tell. But the idea is about time. If you do things yourself, it takes a lot of time to catch the front-runners. I did this and it took me 11-12 years (I tied for first at the 1982 ACM event and won the 1983 ACM/WMCC event, where my program played its first move in 1968 and started competing in 1976). Time. If you can short-cut the development cycle, you deliver a product quicker. You reap the financial benefits quicker, and therefore over a longer period of time.

So this is about time, and money. And saving some of the former to make more of the latter. Wouldn't surprise me if Vas were able to write a world-champion program completely from scratch. But it would have taken far longer. Or one can cut a few ethical corners and get there quicker.

But I dont want to keep you away from court trials. Let Fabien learn his lessons. And you coach him. I know that you cant win such a case.

What makes you so omniscient that you can say that with certainty? A trial by jury is anything but a certainty. Juries are human.

Still I would prefer to applaud you and your teamsters because I want to know who the real hypocrits are in the story. It's so funny. You are talking about copying as if that were easier than writing from scratch.

It is. You copy a few years worth of effort and expend a few minutes of effort. You just saved several years of writing, debugging, testing, tuning, and such.

But layman Rolf says, it must be much more difficult. Proof: why not many walked on that same highway and became Champions? Houdini wont make it because on a single machine for two programs we have no hardware problemsolving. But in all his tournaments Vas had the best combination of software and hardware. Therefore it's boring what Martin does. Look, if I would fill you up with tons of whisky, I would be the better teacher of us in computerchess! It's a bad example but you get the drift. gringrin

I think the assumption about hardware is way too speculative. There are good systems out there. Cray makes one. As does Sun. And others. The cluster Rybka is using is a toy compared to some real shared-memory hardware platforms that are around. But they are expensive. However, I proved, years ago, that one could gain access to a machine that sold for way over $30 million, and use it to play chess. So the cluster superiority is not guaranteed. It is not even convincing me it is that much stronger than a good 16 core box anyway... way more hype than substance, IMHO.

I am pretty sure the cluster is not hype. I have looked at some games and it is incredibly strong. Of course you could probably argue that the use of the hardware is not optimal, and so many cores could be put to better use by using a different cluster setup ... but at the moment the cluster is definitely much stronger than a 16 core box. Some time back Lukas from the Rybka forum posted that he tested a 40 core cluster against a 4 core box and I think he mentioned an over 200 ELO advantage. I am not sure if that was against identical Rybka executables, but if it was, then that is pretty impressive ... especially since the test games were done at fast time controls where I would think the latencies of the cluster would be at a disadvantage.

I do not believe the +200 Elo at all. Why? 200 Elo represents at least 3 doublings of speed, perhaps a bit more. 4 to 40 is 10x, or 3+ doublings. No way the cluster gets an optimal speedup.

As I said, _way_ more hype than fact.

They could show some 4 core and 40 core comparisons. But all we get is "the cluster is for playing chess, not running tests..." That says a lot, because if the numbers were impressive, they would be shown...

Going from 4 shared memory nodes, to 40 cluster nodes, I would be quite happy to see a +50 Elo gain. that is worth something. And possibly reachable.

based on my memory the claim was that +200 relative to Rybka4 came partly from software improvement and not from hardware improvement so +200 is possible.

The claim is simply that cluster Rybka 40 cpu is 200 elo better than Rybka4 4 cpu when part of the difference between Cluster Rybka 40 cpu and Rybka4 4 cpu is not the hardware.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Not is it is not so convenient and you now don't bother with his opinion at all...

OK, you watch someone kill somebody, with your own two eyes you see the entire act. Do you consider him innocent until he is found guilty in court? I do not. I _know_ what I saw. Same with the fruit/rybka issue. I _know_ what I saw.

It's not just a question of looking and seeing. IMO.

Go for it if you are so sure about it. I am the last who could contradict you because I am a technical layman.

But I know what I saw, namely the titles Vas got after making his program always stronger and stronger. Surely not through always finding new tricks in the old Fruit on Chrismas Eve. That is the reason why all the other programmers dont support the group of 4 or 5. 295 are just watching what is going on and possibly are shocked like me because it doesnt make sense to insinuate that Vas simply copied. Because from where came the material for all the titles???

It doesnt make sense in my eyes. I still beleive in Vasik, that's for sure. It's just not fair how his character has been torn through the mud. NB not every wrong that is done on this planet was intention to betray others. The history of the past five years should have told you a better story than what you are now so much focussed on.

There are two ways to do things. Nobody is not doubting the programming skills of Vas. But you can write your own program, or you can copy another and save 1-2-3 years of effort, and start your own effort on top of the program you copied. You might get to the same point, skill-wise. But not time-wise. And not effort-wise.

So just because Rybka became #1, one can't use that to justify copying the code of others, any more than an author could copy the plot from one book, the setting from another, the characters from a third, and form that into a best seller..

Say take the Matt Reilly book "Ice Station", change the location to South America, change the main character to willie makeit, and you would have a book that would sell. And be a knock-off at the same time.

BTW, what have we learned in the past 5 years? Certainly not one thing from Vas. He could have cleared this up and everyone could have moved on. But silence keeps it going. In this case, it was Fabien that started the discussion for the N+1th time.

Bob, thanks for your never tiring eloquence, but I must correct a delusion in computerchesscode once and for all. Your comparison with literature is a lame duck. The animal wont fly anymore.

1) you have no plot at all - chess is always the same outcome and since Vas is a good chessplayer he quickly understood the usual tone

2) everything in CC is technical setting. It's all thought and done. Also here no surprise. For all it cant be stolen or copied, because it's always the same. Proof: go and get a Shredder or Junior and then tell me about copying. But you dont want to do this because it would destroy your holy argument against Vas.

Here's a deal for you. I will likely retire in 2 years. At that point, offer me $100,000 to disassemble any two commercial engines of your choice and compare them to an open source program of your choice. I'll take the job and do it. That is a year's effort, for a year's pay. That is a pretty good estimate of the time it would require.

Who, in their right mind, would want do that for free? Invest a year of time for something that won't help the person at all? I work on Crafty because I enjoy it. I do other things because I am paid for doing them (teaching classes, research, committees, advising students, etc). I hunt, fish, fly model airplanes, play the guitar, build things, etc. all for free, because I enjoy doing them. I don't enjoy taking a microscope to a program to disassemble it and try to track asm back to C. I know how, certainly. But it is a lot of work. It isn't fun. It pays nothing. So what is the incentive? If there was a legitimate question raised about them someone would likely take the time, myself included. But with no red flags waving, one could spend the time and discover absolutely nothing.

I'd rather spend that year working on Crafty. Or doing things I get paid for, or things I enjoy doing.

It really is that simple, and there is no dark motive lurking in the background.

3) Yes, you might have characters too but they are also interchangable. Nothing new under the sun. Look, a language has emotions that it can express, but your code must play vchess and not cause you weep some tears.

Programming is a _creative_ task. Not a mechanical one. Ditto for writing a novel, a screenplay, a poem, a song. Designing a building. Or a rocket to go to the moon. Things can be stolen or copied. In any of those. There is a great book "The eagle has landed" which is not about Apollo 11, but is instead about some Data General engineers that openly broke into the DEC plant in Massachusetts and openly went thru the design/hardware of the Vax 11/780 while they were designing the Data General MV series of machines. Copying happens. It saves a ton of time, which when selling things that evolve quickly is a major concern.

4) Now the most difficult part for me as a tech lay. Yes, I think I can imagine what code means. It's a permanent linkage of ordering stuff and here comes something of an ideal effectness into play because what could cause speed and depth that will end in chesswise more correct and deep moves and taken, the chess positions allow something and are not drawish then minimalism beats ranting.

5) Vas cannot have done just copying because that wouldnt have made his code win, he won because he's the better programmer in exploiting the little possibilities where programmers could differ. Everything else is the same and copied more or less.

You miss the point completely, whether that is intentional or not I can't tell. But the idea is about time. If you do things yourself, it takes a lot of time to catch the front-runners. I did this and it took me 11-12 years (I tied for first at the 1982 ACM event and won the 1983 ACM/WMCC event, where my program played its first move in 1968 and started competing in 1976). Time. If you can short-cut the development cycle, you deliver a product quicker. You reap the financial benefits quicker, and therefore over a longer period of time.

So this is about time, and money. And saving some of the former to make more of the latter. Wouldn't surprise me if Vas were able to write a world-champion program completely from scratch. But it would have taken far longer. Or one can cut a few ethical corners and get there quicker.

But I dont want to keep you away from court trials. Let Fabien learn his lessons. And you coach him. I know that you cant win such a case.

What makes you so omniscient that you can say that with certainty? A trial by jury is anything but a certainty. Juries are human.

Still I would prefer to applaud you and your teamsters because I want to know who the real hypocrits are in the story. It's so funny. You are talking about copying as if that were easier than writing from scratch.

It is. You copy a few years worth of effort and expend a few minutes of effort. You just saved several years of writing, debugging, testing, tuning, and such.

But layman Rolf says, it must be much more difficult. Proof: why not many walked on that same highway and became Champions? Houdini wont make it because on a single machine for two programs we have no hardware problemsolving. But in all his tournaments Vas had the best combination of software and hardware. Therefore it's boring what Martin does. Look, if I would fill you up with tons of whisky, I would be the better teacher of us in computerchess! It's a bad example but you get the drift. gringrin

I think the assumption about hardware is way too speculative. There are good systems out there. Cray makes one. As does Sun. And others. The cluster Rybka is using is a toy compared to some real shared-memory hardware platforms that are around. But they are expensive. However, I proved, years ago, that one could gain access to a machine that sold for way over $30 million, and use it to play chess. So the cluster superiority is not guaranteed. It is not even convincing me it is that much stronger than a good 16 core box anyway... way more hype than substance, IMHO.

I am pretty sure the cluster is not hype. I have looked at some games and it is incredibly strong. Of course you could probably argue that the use of the hardware is not optimal, and so many cores could be put to better use by using a different cluster setup ... but at the moment the cluster is definitely much stronger than a 16 core box. Some time back Lukas from the Rybka forum posted that he tested a 40 core cluster against a 4 core box and I think he mentioned an over 200 ELO advantage. I am not sure if that was against identical Rybka executables, but if it was, then that is pretty impressive ... especially since the test games were done at fast time controls where I would think the latencies of the cluster would be at a disadvantage.

I do not believe the +200 Elo at all. Why? 200 Elo represents at least 3 doublings of speed, perhaps a bit more. 4 to 40 is 10x, or 3+ doublings. No way the cluster gets an optimal speedup.

As I said, _way_ more hype than fact.

They could show some 4 core and 40 core comparisons. But all we get is "the cluster is for playing chess, not running tests..." That says a lot, because if the numbers were impressive, they would be shown...

Going from 4 shared memory nodes, to 40 cluster nodes, I would be quite happy to see a +50 Elo gain. that is worth something. And possibly reachable.

based on my memory the claim was that +200 relative to Rybka4 came partly from software improvement and not from hardware improvement so +200 is possible.

The claim is simply that cluster Rybka 40 cpu is 200 elo better than Rybka4 4 cpu when part of the difference between Cluster Rybka 40 cpu and Rybka4 4 cpu is not the hardware.

The +200 Elo is a big fat lie....another one pulled out of Vasik's big bag of carefully prepared fat lies....
Dr.D

[Terry McCracken]

Is it just me... or does anyone else get the impression that the "Carol Rodanu" personality is like the Rolf personality except on "steroids"?

Maybe a better analogy is: Rolf is to Dr. Jekyll As Carol Rodanu is to Mr. Hyde.

"No Offense" to either one... just seems both strangely similar...

It's Chris Whittington.

You could be further from the truth, but not a hell of a lot

It's not Rolf. Only Twitty would announce himself in this fashion and attack Bob. Twitty has a style, try as he may, can't hide it.

No doubt he has a 100 baboons at his disposal.

[bob]

I do wonder why you want to hide behind the anonymizer? Most "men" can stand up for what they believe, not hide behind a proxy that provides bogus IP addresses. Of course, not _all_ of us are men, eh???

To be fair, it took BB or BB+ a while to become a real man and there are several other members here who are not real men either by your definition.

BB was known to some quite soon. Not me. But Zach, for instance. So we knew he was a real person.

[bob]

They respond to a complaint from "Jury Osipov" of Tunguska!

No, they responded to a complaint signed by 16 well-known chess engine authors. If one turns out to be Osipov, so what?
You act like this revelation would be earth-shattering. In reality it would be like a cotton ball dropping to the floor for all the impact it will have...

We shall sees.

There is a big international press who is already interested. Which makes better storey headline:
"Creative Genius found to have been influenced by a predecessor's work"
(like Shakespeare, Mozart, Picasso and thousand other artists)
or
"Complainant of Fraud is himself Biggest Fraudster, and Stupids got Fooled"?

I guarantees you which one makes Der Spiegel.

No one has "gotten fooled" here. Regardless of your difficult to read rantings, the fact _still_ exists that Rybka versions examined so far have a significant amount of code copied directly from Crafty, Fruit, or both. That's simply a statement of fact, and it doesn't matter who or what exposed it..

You want me to materialise the Great Jury Osipov for you?

Here, read carefully this today thread - http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38444 and you discover "Jury Osipov" arrive just couple hours after I summons it.

You want "Jury Osipov" to dance cha-cha?

That also I can arrange for. On request, polite.

You are CompChess Grandfather so to you I make no warning, you are safe from any consequences except people will say you made mistake (and you will deny, all like usual, see Calculus example above, also incorrect omission of "+C" from integration answer).

I am "safe" because I have stated nothing but observed fact. No made-up data, etc. Just fact. BTW, didn't Osipov tell everyone _exactly_ what he had done with regard to reverse-engineering? That's a far cry from stealing someone else's source and then saying "I wrote all of this code." There is a _huge_ difference, and given the choice, I'd take Osipov every time as some one to listen to.

But to fules who jump into Confederacy (of (relative) Dunces) and then into Letter-Signing Car which be driven either by Baboon or by "Jury Osipov" (Fake and non-existant), in effect CAR is DRIVERLESS and will crash.

For respect to Mr Levy, who has valuable time only, and particular his one colleague who has family history with cloneing, restraint should be shown.

It can be very much laughter against the Co-Signatories who signed next to "Jury Osipov", King of Cloners, whole lifetime will not live down.

Gens una sumus!

Again, Osipov was clear about the origin of his work. Vas has been far from truthful about his. There's no way to declare some sort of equivalence between the two.

[bob]

Not is it is not so convenient and you now don't bother with his opinion at all...

OK, you watch someone kill somebody, with your own two eyes you see the entire act. Do you consider him innocent until he is found guilty in court? I do not. I _know_ what I saw. Same with the fruit/rybka issue. I _know_ what I saw.

It's not just a question of looking and seeing. IMO.

Go for it if you are so sure about it. I am the last who could contradict you because I am a technical layman.

But I know what I saw, namely the titles Vas got after making his program always stronger and stronger. Surely not through always finding new tricks in the old Fruit on Chrismas Eve. That is the reason why all the other programmers dont support the group of 4 or 5. 295 are just watching what is going on and possibly are shocked like me because it doesnt make sense to insinuate that Vas simply copied. Because from where came the material for all the titles???

It doesnt make sense in my eyes. I still beleive in Vasik, that's for sure. It's just not fair how his character has been torn through the mud. NB not every wrong that is done on this planet was intention to betray others. The history of the past five years should have told you a better story than what you are now so much focussed on.

There are two ways to do things. Nobody is not doubting the programming skills of Vas. But you can write your own program, or you can copy another and save 1-2-3 years of effort, and start your own effort on top of the program you copied. You might get to the same point, skill-wise. But not time-wise. And not effort-wise.

So just because Rybka became #1, one can't use that to justify copying the code of others, any more than an author could copy the plot from one book, the setting from another, the characters from a third, and form that into a best seller..

Say take the Matt Reilly book "Ice Station", change the location to South America, change the main character to willie makeit, and you would have a book that would sell. And be a knock-off at the same time.

BTW, what have we learned in the past 5 years? Certainly not one thing from Vas. He could have cleared this up and everyone could have moved on. But silence keeps it going. In this case, it was Fabien that started the discussion for the N+1th time.

Bob, thanks for your never tiring eloquence, but I must correct a delusion in computerchesscode once and for all. Your comparison with literature is a lame duck. The animal wont fly anymore.

1) you have no plot at all - chess is always the same outcome and since Vas is a good chessplayer he quickly understood the usual tone

2) everything in CC is technical setting. It's all thought and done. Also here no surprise. For all it cant be stolen or copied, because it's always the same. Proof: go and get a Shredder or Junior and then tell me about copying. But you dont want to do this because it would destroy your holy argument against Vas.

Here's a deal for you. I will likely retire in 2 years. At that point, offer me $100,000 to disassemble any two commercial engines of your choice and compare them to an open source program of your choice. I'll take the job and do it. That is a year's effort, for a year's pay. That is a pretty good estimate of the time it would require.

Who, in their right mind, would want do that for free? Invest a year of time for something that won't help the person at all? I work on Crafty because I enjoy it. I do other things because I am paid for doing them (teaching classes, research, committees, advising students, etc). I hunt, fish, fly model airplanes, play the guitar, build things, etc. all for free, because I enjoy doing them. I don't enjoy taking a microscope to a program to disassemble it and try to track asm back to C. I know how, certainly. But it is a lot of work. It isn't fun. It pays nothing. So what is the incentive? If there was a legitimate question raised about them someone would likely take the time, myself included. But with no red flags waving, one could spend the time and discover absolutely nothing.

I'd rather spend that year working on Crafty. Or doing things I get paid for, or things I enjoy doing.

It really is that simple, and there is no dark motive lurking in the background.

3) Yes, you might have characters too but they are also interchangable. Nothing new under the sun. Look, a language has emotions that it can express, but your code must play vchess and not cause you weep some tears.

Programming is a _creative_ task. Not a mechanical one. Ditto for writing a novel, a screenplay, a poem, a song. Designing a building. Or a rocket to go to the moon. Things can be stolen or copied. In any of those. There is a great book "The eagle has landed" which is not about Apollo 11, but is instead about some Data General engineers that openly broke into the DEC plant in Massachusetts and openly went thru the design/hardware of the Vax 11/780 while they were designing the Data General MV series of machines. Copying happens. It saves a ton of time, which when selling things that evolve quickly is a major concern.

4) Now the most difficult part for me as a tech lay. Yes, I think I can imagine what code means. It's a permanent linkage of ordering stuff and here comes something of an ideal effectness into play because what could cause speed and depth that will end in chesswise more correct and deep moves and taken, the chess positions allow something and are not drawish then minimalism beats ranting.

5) Vas cannot have done just copying because that wouldnt have made his code win, he won because he's the better programmer in exploiting the little possibilities where programmers could differ. Everything else is the same and copied more or less.

You miss the point completely, whether that is intentional or not I can't tell. But the idea is about time. If you do things yourself, it takes a lot of time to catch the front-runners. I did this and it took me 11-12 years (I tied for first at the 1982 ACM event and won the 1983 ACM/WMCC event, where my program played its first move in 1968 and started competing in 1976). Time. If you can short-cut the development cycle, you deliver a product quicker. You reap the financial benefits quicker, and therefore over a longer period of time.

So this is about time, and money. And saving some of the former to make more of the latter. Wouldn't surprise me if Vas were able to write a world-champion program completely from scratch. But it would have taken far longer. Or one can cut a few ethical corners and get there quicker.

But I dont want to keep you away from court trials. Let Fabien learn his lessons. And you coach him. I know that you cant win such a case.

What makes you so omniscient that you can say that with certainty? A trial by jury is anything but a certainty. Juries are human.

Still I would prefer to applaud you and your teamsters because I want to know who the real hypocrits are in the story. It's so funny. You are talking about copying as if that were easier than writing from scratch.

It is. You copy a few years worth of effort and expend a few minutes of effort. You just saved several years of writing, debugging, testing, tuning, and such.

But layman Rolf says, it must be much more difficult. Proof: why not many walked on that same highway and became Champions? Houdini wont make it because on a single machine for two programs we have no hardware problemsolving. But in all his tournaments Vas had the best combination of software and hardware. Therefore it's boring what Martin does. Look, if I would fill you up with tons of whisky, I would be the better teacher of us in computerchess! It's a bad example but you get the drift. gringrin

I think the assumption about hardware is way too speculative. There are good systems out there. Cray makes one. As does Sun. And others. The cluster Rybka is using is a toy compared to some real shared-memory hardware platforms that are around. But they are expensive. However, I proved, years ago, that one could gain access to a machine that sold for way over $30 million, and use it to play chess. So the cluster superiority is not guaranteed. It is not even convincing me it is that much stronger than a good 16 core box anyway... way more hype than substance, IMHO.

I am pretty sure the cluster is not hype. I have looked at some games and it is incredibly strong. Of course you could probably argue that the use of the hardware is not optimal, and so many cores could be put to better use by using a different cluster setup ... but at the moment the cluster is definitely much stronger than a 16 core box. Some time back Lukas from the Rybka forum posted that he tested a 40 core cluster against a 4 core box and I think he mentioned an over 200 ELO advantage. I am not sure if that was against identical Rybka executables, but if it was, then that is pretty impressive ... especially since the test games were done at fast time controls where I would think the latencies of the cluster would be at a disadvantage.

I do not believe the +200 Elo at all. Why? 200 Elo represents at least 3 doublings of speed, perhaps a bit more. 4 to 40 is 10x, or 3+ doublings. No way the cluster gets an optimal speedup.

As I said, _way_ more hype than fact.

They could show some 4 core and 40 core comparisons. But all we get is "the cluster is for playing chess, not running tests..." That says a lot, because if the numbers were impressive, they would be shown...

Going from 4 shared memory nodes, to 40 cluster nodes, I would be quite happy to see a +50 Elo gain. that is worth something. And possibly reachable.

based on my memory the claim was that +200 relative to Rybka4 came partly from software improvement and not from hardware improvement so +200 is possible.

The claim is simply that cluster Rybka 40 cpu is 200 elo better than Rybka4 4 cpu when part of the difference between Cluster Rybka 40 cpu and Rybka4 4 cpu is not the hardware.

If you believe that, I have this really good deal on a bridge in New York City. It is available for a very low price. It has over 200,000 cars passing over it each day. It's an investment of a lifetime and will provide you financial wealth beyond your wildest dreams. Send me a check for just $10,000 USD and it is yours...

[IQ]

Hi Bob,

i am amazed at your output of posts here and on the rybka forum. I somewhat admire your patience, especially with people like Rolf. Your students must be blessed - I _never_ have seen anybody taking that much time and effort to answer even the most absurd drivel. I kind of wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to put all this time and effort into getting the "Rybka/Fruit/Crafty" report finished, especially as many people look forward to the analysis of Rybka 3/4. The sooner this report is done and open to everybody the sooner this whole mess will get toward a resolution. Sometimes i think there must be at least 4-5 Bobs taking turns at replying to these posts.

regards,
Roberto

Not is it is not so convenient and you now don't bother with his opinion at all...

OK, you watch someone kill somebody, with your own two eyes you see the entire act. Do you consider him innocent until he is found guilty in court? I do not. I _know_ what I saw. Same with the fruit/rybka issue. I _know_ what I saw.

It's not just a question of looking and seeing. IMO.

Go for it if you are so sure about it. I am the last who could contradict you because I am a technical layman.

But I know what I saw, namely the titles Vas got after making his program always stronger and stronger. Surely not through always finding new tricks in the old Fruit on Chrismas Eve. That is the reason why all the other programmers dont support the group of 4 or 5. 295 are just watching what is going on and possibly are shocked like me because it doesnt make sense to insinuate that Vas simply copied. Because from where came the material for all the titles???

It doesnt make sense in my eyes. I still beleive in Vasik, that's for sure. It's just not fair how his character has been torn through the mud. NB not every wrong that is done on this planet was intention to betray others. The history of the past five years should have told you a better story than what you are now so much focussed on.

There are two ways to do things. Nobody is not doubting the programming skills of Vas. But you can write your own program, or you can copy another and save 1-2-3 years of effort, and start your own effort on top of the program you copied. You might get to the same point, skill-wise. But not time-wise. And not effort-wise.

So just because Rybka became #1, one can't use that to justify copying the code of others, any more than an author could copy the plot from one book, the setting from another, the characters from a third, and form that into a best seller..

Say take the Matt Reilly book "Ice Station", change the location to South America, change the main character to willie makeit, and you would have a book that would sell. And be a knock-off at the same time.

BTW, what have we learned in the past 5 years? Certainly not one thing from Vas. He could have cleared this up and everyone could have moved on. But silence keeps it going. In this case, it was Fabien that started the discussion for the N+1th time.

Bob, thanks for your never tiring eloquence, but I must correct a delusion in computerchesscode once and for all. Your comparison with literature is a lame duck. The animal wont fly anymore.

1) you have no plot at all - chess is always the same outcome and since Vas is a good chessplayer he quickly understood the usual tone

2) everything in CC is technical setting. It's all thought and done. Also here no surprise. For all it cant be stolen or copied, because it's always the same. Proof: go and get a Shredder or Junior and then tell me about copying. But you dont want to do this because it would destroy your holy argument against Vas.

Here's a deal for you. I will likely retire in 2 years. At that point, offer me $100,000 to disassemble any two commercial engines of your choice and compare them to an open source program of your choice. I'll take the job and do it. That is a year's effort, for a year's pay. That is a pretty good estimate of the time it would require.

Who, in their right mind, would want do that for free? Invest a year of time for something that won't help the person at all? I work on Crafty because I enjoy it. I do other things because I am paid for doing them (teaching classes, research, committees, advising students, etc). I hunt, fish, fly model airplanes, play the guitar, build things, etc. all for free, because I enjoy doing them. I don't enjoy taking a microscope to a program to disassemble it and try to track asm back to C. I know how, certainly. But it is a lot of work. It isn't fun. It pays nothing. So what is the incentive? If there was a legitimate question raised about them someone would likely take the time, myself included. But with no red flags waving, one could spend the time and discover absolutely nothing.

I'd rather spend that year working on Crafty. Or doing things I get paid for, or things I enjoy doing.

It really is that simple, and there is no dark motive lurking in the background.

3) Yes, you might have characters too but they are also interchangable. Nothing new under the sun. Look, a language has emotions that it can express, but your code must play vchess and not cause you weep some tears.

Programming is a _creative_ task. Not a mechanical one. Ditto for writing a novel, a screenplay, a poem, a song. Designing a building. Or a rocket to go to the moon. Things can be stolen or copied. In any of those. There is a great book "The eagle has landed" which is not about Apollo 11, but is instead about some Data General engineers that openly broke into the DEC plant in Massachusetts and openly went thru the design/hardware of the Vax 11/780 while they were designing the Data General MV series of machines. Copying happens. It saves a ton of time, which when selling things that evolve quickly is a major concern.

4) Now the most difficult part for me as a tech lay. Yes, I think I can imagine what code means. It's a permanent linkage of ordering stuff and here comes something of an ideal effectness into play because what could cause speed and depth that will end in chesswise more correct and deep moves and taken, the chess positions allow something and are not drawish then minimalism beats ranting.

5) Vas cannot have done just copying because that wouldnt have made his code win, he won because he's the better programmer in exploiting the little possibilities where programmers could differ. Everything else is the same and copied more or less.

You miss the point completely, whether that is intentional or not I can't tell. But the idea is about time. If you do things yourself, it takes a lot of time to catch the front-runners. I did this and it took me 11-12 years (I tied for first at the 1982 ACM event and won the 1983 ACM/WMCC event, where my program played its first move in 1968 and started competing in 1976). Time. If you can short-cut the development cycle, you deliver a product quicker. You reap the financial benefits quicker, and therefore over a longer period of time.

So this is about time, and money. And saving some of the former to make more of the latter. Wouldn't surprise me if Vas were able to write a world-champion program completely from scratch. But it would have taken far longer. Or one can cut a few ethical corners and get there quicker.

But I dont want to keep you away from court trials. Let Fabien learn his lessons. And you coach him. I know that you cant win such a case.

What makes you so omniscient that you can say that with certainty? A trial by jury is anything but a certainty. Juries are human.

Still I would prefer to applaud you and your teamsters because I want to know who the real hypocrits are in the story. It's so funny. You are talking about copying as if that were easier than writing from scratch.

It is. You copy a few years worth of effort and expend a few minutes of effort. You just saved several years of writing, debugging, testing, tuning, and such.

But layman Rolf says, it must be much more difficult. Proof: why not many walked on that same highway and became Champions? Houdini wont make it because on a single machine for two programs we have no hardware problemsolving. But in all his tournaments Vas had the best combination of software and hardware. Therefore it's boring what Martin does. Look, if I would fill you up with tons of whisky, I would be the better teacher of us in computerchess! It's a bad example but you get the drift. gringrin

I think the assumption about hardware is way too speculative. There are good systems out there. Cray makes one. As does Sun. And others. The cluster Rybka is using is a toy compared to some real shared-memory hardware platforms that are around. But they are expensive. However, I proved, years ago, that one could gain access to a machine that sold for way over $30 million, and use it to play chess. So the cluster superiority is not guaranteed. It is not even convincing me it is that much stronger than a good 16 core box anyway... way more hype than substance, IMHO.

I am pretty sure the cluster is not hype. I have looked at some games and it is incredibly strong. Of course you could probably argue that the use of the hardware is not optimal, and so many cores could be put to better use by using a different cluster setup ... but at the moment the cluster is definitely much stronger than a 16 core box. Some time back Lukas from the Rybka forum posted that he tested a 40 core cluster against a 4 core box and I think he mentioned an over 200 ELO advantage. I am not sure if that was against identical Rybka executables, but if it was, then that is pretty impressive ... especially since the test games were done at fast time controls where I would think the latencies of the cluster would be at a disadvantage.

I do not believe the +200 Elo at all. Why? 200 Elo represents at least 3 doublings of speed, perhaps a bit more. 4 to 40 is 10x, or 3+ doublings. No way the cluster gets an optimal speedup.

As I said, _way_ more hype than fact.

They could show some 4 core and 40 core comparisons. But all we get is "the cluster is for playing chess, not running tests..." That says a lot, because if the numbers were impressive, they would be shown...

Going from 4 shared memory nodes, to 40 cluster nodes, I would be quite happy to see a +50 Elo gain. that is worth something. And possibly reachable.

based on my memory the claim was that +200 relative to Rybka4 came partly from software improvement and not from hardware improvement so +200 is possible.

The claim is simply that cluster Rybka 40 cpu is 200 elo better than Rybka4 4 cpu when part of the difference between Cluster Rybka 40 cpu and Rybka4 4 cpu is not the hardware.

If you believe that, I have this really good deal on a bridge in New York City. It is available for a very low price. It has over 200,000 cars passing over it each day. It's an investment of a lifetime and will provide you financial wealth beyond your wildest dreams. Send me a check for just $10,000 USD and it is yours...

[MooImAFish]

I dont know if it was just me noticing but the Mumbo Jumbo that is coming from this person sounds strangely a lot like the guys who write on the IPPOLIT Website and remain anonymous. Just my two cents.....

[Christopher Conkie]

I dont know if it was just me noticing but the Mumbo Jumbo that is coming from this person sounds strangely a lot like the guys who write on the IPPOLIT Website and remain anonymous. Just my two cents.....

Anyone we know? Go on. Have a stab at it.

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/Comrades