Vas speaks

[Graham Banks]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1138

“Hi David,

I’m not really sure what to say. The Rybka source code is original. I used lots of ideas from Fruit, as I have mentioned many times. Both Fruit and Rybka also use all sorts of common computer chess ideas.

Aside from that, this document is horribly bogus. All that “Rybka code” isn’t Rybka code, it’s just someone’s imagination.

Best regards,
Vas”

And when I (David Levy) asked for clarification as to whether this response meant that the Rybka 1 source code was original, Vasik replied:

“all of the Rybka versions are original, in the sense that I always wrote the source code myself (with the standard exceptions like various low-level snippets, magic numbers, etc).”

[Graham Banks]

Here is the full article:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/attack-of-the-clones/

I didn't realise at first that the Vas quote was from 2008, but it's certainly not something that I've seen posted publicly before. Also, it is still surely relevant?
Sorry if anybody feels misled by the title of the thread..

Cheers,
Graham.

[Jouni]

Conserning this Rybka/Fruit debate I repeat former finnish prime minister
when commenting some Wikileaks "revelations": SO WHAT!

Jouni

[Damir]

Here is the full article:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/attack-of-the-clones/

I didn't realise at first that the Vas quote was from 2008, but it's certainly not something that I've seen posted publicly before. Also, it is still surely relevant?
Sorry if anybody feels misled by the title of the thread..

Cheers,
Graham.

Why post something here which was posted 2 years ago on other forum, and is of no significant relevance ? The current Rybka/Fruit debate going on right now is of more importance.

[Graham Banks]

Why post something here which was posted 2 years ago on other forum, and is of no significant relevance ? The current Rybka/Fruit debate going on right now is of more importance.

Hi Damir,

I've not seen this message from Vas posted anywhere previously. That was the reason that I posted it.
Also, the Chessvibes article is well worth a read regardless.
Did you read the final part?

How to investigate such allegations and deal with cloning?
The ICGA intends to set up a forum for investigating prima facia claims of cloning in the world of computer strategy games. Claims that are proven to the satisfaction of the ICGA will result in sanctions being imposed by the ICGA on the offending persons, who will be named and shamed on the Internet.

Setting up such a forum for chess will require the support of leading members of the computer chess fraternity. We will need people willing to examine and compare source codes and to write reports on what they discover. The ICGA does not have a source of funds to pay for any such work, so anyone helping us will be a volunteer. Our current thinking is to make this chess forum open only to those who have already participated with their own chess program in an ICGA event. Anyone who comes into this category will be most welcome as a founder member of the group.

The first thing we need is someone willing to set up and operate a bulletin board where members of the forum can “meet” and exchange views. Will someone volunteer to do this to help the ICGA on its way to stamping out these insidious practices?

Cheers,
Graham.

[Rolf]

Here is the full article:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/attack-of-the-clones/

I didn't realise at first that the Vas quote was from 2008, but it's certainly not something that I've seen posted publicly before. Also, it is still surely relevant?
Sorry if anybody feels misled by the title of the thread..

Cheers,
Graham.

Wrong. The qote comes a couple of days (!) before Levy wrote the actual article printed in chessvibes.

Another point. It's always propagated that Vas doesnt talk. Here this is proven as pure phantasy. The relevent authorities get direct answers.

As to Zach Wegners profiler experiments Vas comments

"Aside from that, this document is horribly bogus. All that “Rybka code” isn’t Rybka code, it’s just someone’s imagination."

Which is in the line with what I commented on Bob's "call" for code examples from Vas himself. IM Levy has now proposed a forum of the decisive organisation, where all cloning issues should be discussed among former and actual tournament participants, means programmers. This is the main idea. There Vas will talk, but not in private courts in unfriendly or biased or also anonymous (BB!) environment.

For sure Bob will have a seat there too. It takes time, the right people and a distinguished environment.

The cloning allegations against Rybka IMO will be clarified completely and to the satisfaction of spectators in all chess fora.

[Graham Banks]

I didn't realise at first that the Vas quote was from 2008.

Wrong. The qote comes a couple of days (!) before Levy wrote the actual article printed in chessvibes.

Yes, you're quite correct. No wonder I couldn't recall having seen it before.

Furthermore, when I contacted Vasik a few days before writing this article, inviting him to comment on Zach Wegner’s analysis, he responded as follows:

[Sylwy]

......................................................................................., he responded as follows:

HAVE A NICE WEEKEND !

S

[Graham Banks]

......................................................................................., he responded as follows:

HAVE A NICE WEEKEND !

S

Same to you Ruxy!

[K I Hyams]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1138

“Hi David,

I’m not really sure what to say. The Rybka

Aside from that, this document is horribly bogus. All that “Rybka code” isn’t Rybka code, it’s just someone’s imagination.

Best regards,
Vas”

And when I (David Levy) asked for clarification as to whether this response meant that the Rybka 1 source code was original, Vasik replied:

“all of the Rybka versions are original, in the sense that I always wrote the source code myself (with the standard exceptions like various low-level snippets, magic numbers, etc).”

You appear to be selective in your reading. Either way, you are certainly selective in your quoting. You refer to comments by David Levy. For some reason you overlooked the piece below, even though it was referred to in the "OpenChess" post that you quoted

Cloning Chess Engines
By David Levy

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/attack-of-the-clones/

............................................................So Rybka’s first outstanding tournament success would seem to have been in December 2005, six months after the date of the release of the open source version of Fruit 2.1. One can understand from this coincidence of timing how many computer chess experts might have been led to think that Rybka’s development owed a considerable dept to the Fruit source code.
But as I have mentioned, at first the Rybka-Fruit case was mere rumour. More recently, however, these rumours have become firm allegations, made by expert chess programmers and supported by evidence which appears on the surface to be rather compelling, both in its nature and in its volume. At this point in time I do not intend to make any definitive statement of my own on these allegations, but will allow the reader to form their own opinion after reading the following.
First, here is a posting by Zach Wegner, who currently develops (with the full permission of Anthony Cozzie, the original Zappa programmer) an upgraded version of Zappa, the World Computer Chess Champion in 2005. Wegner participated in the 2010 World Computer Chess Championship with their program which is called Rondo.
Evaluation
Rybka’s evaluation has been the subject of much speculation ever since its appearance. Various theories have been put forth about the inner workings of the evaluation, but with the publication of Strelka, it was shown just how wrong everyone was. It is perhaps ironic that Rybka’s evaluation is its most similar part to Fruit; it contains, in my opinion, the most damning evidence of all.
General Differences
Simply put, Rybka’s evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit’s. There are a few important changes though, that should be kept in mind when viewing this analysis.
Most obviously, the translation to Rybka’s bitboard data structures. In some instances, such as in the pawn evaluation, the bitboard version will behave slightly differently than the original. But the high-level functionality is always equivalent in these cases; the changes are brought about because of a more natural representation in bitboards, or for a slight speed gain. In other cases the code has been reorganized a bit; this should be seen more as an optimization than as a real change, since the end result is the same.
All of the endgame and draw recognition logic in Fruit has been replaced by a large material table in Rybka. This serves mostly the same purpose as the material hash table in Fruit, since it has an evaluation and a flags field.
All of the weights have been tuned. Due to the unnatural values of Rybka’s evaluation parameters, they were mostly likely tuned in some automated fashion. However, there are a few places where the origin of the values in Fruit is still apparent: piece square tables, passed pawn scores, and the flags in the material table.
Evaluation Detail
In this section, which we skip here for being slightly too technical, the author goes into more depth about the details of each aspect of the evaluations and their similarities and differences. You can read it in the PDF version of this article.

The link to the pdf article referred to in the last sentence is:
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/Clon ... th2011.pdf

On the subject of pdf articles, perhaps you didn’t read the one referenced in the same thread that you quoted from OpenChess and referenced, again, below.
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1138

So, you may be selective in both your reading and your quoting. Your (in)actions may lead to people believing that you are selective in your answering as well. Perhaps you would like to quash that possibility by dealing with the issues below.

I always thought that a court either convicted someone or cleared them of guilt.

What do you care? An accusation is good enough for you, unless the accusation is against Rybka. Can you explain this discrepancy?

or this question

Just posted in the Hiarcs forum, so I guess it's okay to copy here.

Scaramanga that played in the last Leiden tournament and got a very good result has been proved to be a clone:

I am Mark Lefler, author of the chess program Now. I have examined the source code forwarded me via Don Dailey. The source code is from Now. I shared this source code with someone who said he was named "Chinmay" a year ago. He had offered to run the program for me in a tournament and had some faster hardware than me. He also had a better compiler so I let him compile the program to improve the speed, and he helped test it since he had a quad and I did not. Since I regularly email myself copies of the source code, it is very simple to check my hotmail account to verify the code is the same.

Harvey has accurately describe my past communications with this Chimnay scoundrel. I appreciate Harvey's work on detecting these thieves.

Graham, don't you think we should wait for a civil court verdict here? Isn't that your new standard?

or by addressing this point

Quite a few people here and in other forums who either call themselves Christians or have biblical quotes in their signatures certainly don't behave like Christians.

Like those with double-standards, who treat Vas' word as sacrosanct, needing no proof or evidence whatsoever, and Fabien's word as requiring a court verdict to verify.