Previous World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

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.
Milos
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Previous World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by Milos » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:33 pm

gerold wrote:He may wait awhile and sue some people for lost of business and win. :- }
Believing in Santa Claus doesn't make it more real...
There is more chance that Ippo ppl will sue Vas for libel and win, then Vas suing and winning for loss of business.

Dirt
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Irvine, CA, USA

Re: Pervious World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by Dirt » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:34 pm

bob wrote:
The process should be reversed, first we need to establish what is legal and what is not, then we need to decide how to punish the rule breakers and only then does it make sense to begin considering the individual engines. Otherwise we are having a trial and jury with no accepted laws to judge by.
For fruit it is easier. _nothing_ can be copied because of the GPL. Unless the copied/modified source is also released, which it was not.
Fruit is the same. There is nothing special about GPLv2. (GPLv3 might be, but I don't think in a way that would affect what you are looking at.) No substantial [1] part of the code can be copied without permission [2], but that is true of all copyrighted code. The GPL just gives permission if you release your source, but I don't see why you would care about that in deciding whether the code has been copied.

[1]Substantial as in whatever the law says is impermissible under copyright.

[2]Such permission could be outside of GPLv2.

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

Re: Previous World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by Roger Brown » Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:02 pm

SzG wrote:
Milos wrote:
Dear Moderators,

Could we make the above statement sticky so that Milos will not have to repeat it each time it disappears from the front page?


Hello Gabor,

Taken care of already.

I feel certain that Milos will tone it down henceforth.

Later.

bob
Posts: 20642
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Pervious World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by bob » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:00 pm

Darkmoon wrote:First off- Mr. Walkins is not "BB" who I believe to be Shaun Press. I stated on Hiarcs forum, 99.9 % of "BB's" posts on Rybka forum were from Australia. It is apparent that Mr. Walkins is responsible for the collating of the data and this panel still will need to produce the originate of the study for Q&A.

I also find it reprehensible that these hearing are being conducted out of public view.

And, I cannot wait to hear the sidebar blather that these panelist will produce now and during the hearings to justify their own egoism.


http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... n-bbs.html
You are simply wrong about BB+, but don't let a small fact get in the way of your postings...

bob
Posts: 20642
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Pervious World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by bob » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:04 pm

Uri Blass wrote:
bob wrote:
SuneF wrote:
mhull wrote: In programming, especially a chess program, adopting significantly large and critical blocks of very specific symbiotic logic and factored weights verbatim is only permissible in an acknowledged code fork. It certainly couldn't pass the smell test as an original work. And the distance between subsequent versions to the plagiarized starting point will hardly matter (to most people) if a programmer is shown to be so dishonest.
Ordinarily yes. What makes the Rybka situation special is that Vas couldn't have adopted "significantly large and critical blocks of very specific symbiotic logic and factored weights verbatim" as Rybka is bitboard and Fruit is mailbox. At least for the evaluation and move generation code it would have to be coded completely different - that is a fact.
NO it isn't "a fact". There are parts of my eval that are not "bitboard-centric". Low-level stuff is, but not all. Ditto for move generation. One can hide much with macros.

And then there is the issue of hashing, which would be the same in the eval whether you use bitboards or not (pawn hash, perhaps king safety as some use). And then we get to critical things like search, move ordering, pruning, reductions, extensions. He could have copied significant parts. And you are overlooking the issue that we now know that he copied parts of Crafty, which _is_ a bitboard program. Suddenly the changes to Fruit's eval don't appear to be so difficult since all the support code may well have been copied (we are quantifying this as I write.)



We also know that Rybka has new important material terms in the evaluation and the search seems original as well.
"seems" original? How would one conclude that. PVs, depth and node counts are intentionally misrepresented to hide search details. Every think to wonder "why"???

What they need to prove then, is either that some other parts of the engine contains large parts of copied code (for instance the hashing or protocol) or that large parts of the bitboard code is functionally equivalent to the mailbox code. The latter is a bit problematic however, as most engines are known to contain certain large parts of functionally equivalent codes, like for instance the SEE, Qsearch, Nullmove and so forth. No one would claim Fruit was a derivative of Crafty just because it had sections of nullmove code that was functionally equivalent to Crafty for instance.
More is coming.


What annoys me most about this whole issue is that we do not have objective means and rules to specify what is legal to copy and what is not. It's always a judgement call in every single case. This makes the whole process too ad hoc and un-scientific IMHO.
At the basic level, nothing can be copied. We have at least agreed previously that everyone can use egtb.cpp if they get Eugene's permission. Ditto for my rotated bitboard move generation (and now Pradu's magic move generation code). Hopefully as this progresses, we can finally formalize a statement about this specific issue. I still like my idea of it is ok to copy F(x) where we have a relationship Y = F(X) where for each unique value of X, there is one and only one unique value Y that the function can return. Move generators. SEE. SAN input/output. Not evaluation, or search, or move ordering, or hashing, or any of a number of other things. Whether everyone will agree to that or not is unknown, but it offers a pretty precise definition that any decent programmer can understand and follow.

The process should be reversed, first we need to establish what is legal and what is not, then we need to decide how to punish the rule breakers and only then does it make sense to begin considering the individual engines. Otherwise we are having a trial and jury with no accepted laws to judge by.
For fruit it is easier. _nothing_ can be copied because of the GPL. Unless the copied/modified source is also released, which it was not.
I do not think that move generator is something that you have only one input one output because the move generator clearly has effect on move ordering.

Do you generate queen move first or rook move first or maybe dependent on the position?

You can replace the order of moves after you generate them but it takes time and if 2 moves have equal score for move ordering they are going to be searched at the order you generated them so move generator clearly effect move ordering.
That's a good point. And I suppose one could argue that if you copy the Slate/Atkin approach and generate just one move at a time, the move generator is really responsible for move ordering. So back this down one level. The code to generate moves for a single piece. In bitboards, this is a batch operation using the perfect hashing magic move generator approach. There is no ordering of any kind there. Once you start to extract the moves from the bitboard "set" of attacked squares, there are alternatives.

So for move generation, we might refine that a bit to address your point.

In the case of Crafty, it is simply N, B, R, Q, K, P, mainly because most pawn moves are bad (any pawn push hurts your own pawn structure) and I'd rather have 'em last. But the order I generate 'em is _not_ the order I search 'em...

bob
Posts: 20642
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Pervious World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by bob » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:07 pm

Uri Blass wrote:
Tom Barrister wrote:
jdart wrote:
mhull wrote: No matter how much it morphed from version 1, it still stands upon the shoulders of Fruit 2.1. Without the Fruit fundamentals it would not be where it is.
And that is probably true of most strong engines now. I think few have not borrowed some algorithm or trick from Fruit. But only one is being accused of cloning.

--Jon
There's a difference between borrowing an idea (a "trick" as you say), and using the verbatim engine as a starting point, as it's been alleged that Mr. Rajlich has done. The question for engines as a whole is: where is the line drawn, e.g. what constitutes a violation?
The claim is not that Rajlich used the full fruit engine as a starting point but that part of the code of Rybka is copied from fruit.
It seems quite likely that the entire fruit code was copied, and then modified. One doesn't come up with the same program structure independently..


I do not express opinion about that claim but it is impossible to prove that Rybka used fruit as a starting point when it is clear that most of the code is clearly different(move generator for example is clearly different than fruit and many other parts of the code are also different because they are dependent on the structure of the move generator).

I express no opinion if significant part is the same but even in this case this significant part is not most of the code.

bob
Posts: 20642
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Pervious World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by bob » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:08 pm

Uri Blass wrote:
bob wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
Tom Barrister wrote:
jdart wrote:
mhull wrote: No matter how much it morphed from version 1, it still stands upon the shoulders of Fruit 2.1. Without the Fruit fundamentals it would not be where it is.
And that is probably true of most strong engines now. I think few have not borrowed some algorithm or trick from Fruit. But only one is being accused of cloning.

--Jon
There's a difference between borrowing an idea (a "trick" as you say), and using the verbatim engine as a starting point, as it's been alleged that Mr. Rajlich has done. The question for engines as a whole is: where is the line drawn, e.g. what constitutes a violation?
The claim is not that Rajlich used the full fruit engine as a starting point but that part of the code of Rybka is copied from fruit.

I do not express opinion about that claim but it is impossible to prove that Rybka used fruit as a starting point when it is clear that most of the code is clearly different(move generator for example is clearly different than fruit and many other parts of the code are also different because they are dependent on the structure of the move generator).

I express no opinion if significant part is the same but even in this case this significant part is not most of the code.
What if the move generator comes from Crafty? We already have some evidence of other parts of Crafty being directly copied in the pre-fruit versions. It might be worse than you think.
I believe that Rybka was not free in the pre-fruit versions.
How did you get the source of Rybka before fruit.

Did somebody who test rybka at that time send you the program?
I don't have any versions. But they are available, apparently.

bob
Posts: 20642
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Pervious World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by bob » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:09 pm

mar wrote:
bob wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
Tom Barrister wrote:
jdart wrote:
mhull wrote: No matter how much it morphed from version 1, it still stands upon the shoulders of Fruit 2.1. Without the Fruit fundamentals it would not be where it is.
And that is probably true of most strong engines now. I think few have not borrowed some algorithm or trick from Fruit. But only one is being accused of cloning.

--Jon
There's a difference between borrowing an idea (a "trick" as you say), and using the verbatim engine as a starting point, as it's been alleged that Mr. Rajlich has done. The question for engines as a whole is: where is the line drawn, e.g. what constitutes a violation?
The claim is not that Rajlich used the full fruit engine as a starting point but that part of the code of Rybka is copied from fruit.

I do not express opinion about that claim but it is impossible to prove that Rybka used fruit as a starting point when it is clear that most of the code is clearly different(move generator for example is clearly different than fruit and many other parts of the code are also different because they are dependent on the structure of the move generator).

I express no opinion if significant part is the same but even in this case this significant part is not most of the code.
What if the move generator comes from Crafty? We already have some evidence of other parts of Crafty being directly copied in the pre-fruit versions. It might be worse than you think.
If Rybka's (1B or later) movegenerator (and perhaps more) comes from Crafty then why is it not mentioned in the evidence? That would perhaps change a lot of people's opinion.
Considering R1B-Fruit, how much elo is root move ordering, similar PST and perhaps part of time management? I expected much more similarities in search (but see none of that in the evidence), that's where Rybka's strength must have come from IMHO. This corresponds to what Vas said in a 2005 interview, i.e. that he took things from Fruit worth approx. 20 elo. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry, I'm only expressing my worthless opinion. Thanks.
This just recently came to light. It is under investigation now. No one had thought to make that comparison, previously, although I suppose in hindsight it is an obvious idea...

This takes time to analyze. The story will unfold as it unfolds, not any faster...

bob
Posts: 20642
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Previous World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by bob » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:14 pm

Darkmoon wrote:
bob wrote:
Ant_Gugdin wrote:
geots wrote:You have said that even if found innocent, he is still guilty in your eyes. I will go you one better. If he is found guilty- he is still innocent in my eyes. Only the victim of being railroaded by a bunch of second place finishers.
What is the basis for your certainty that Vas is innocent? I imagine that Bob would say he is certain of guilt because he has reviewed the evidence and drawn conclusions from it. Have you?

That said, I think there are legitimate objections to Bob's role given that he has already expressed strong views on the subject.
Again, for the record, I am neither judge or jury. Just someone (one of three) that makes sure that every bit of evidence is brought into public view, and that Vas can, if he chooses, address each and every piece of evidence, point by point. And then those presenting the evidence can respond. And repeat until nothing new comes up. We don't need impartiality. We need fairness. Anyone that believes I am not fair in such undertakings is simply sadly mistaken. I am not going to hide evidence, or disallow Vas (or others) to respond to each piece of evidence presented. It _will_ be fair. I don't believe you could find any impartial people now since the evidence has been under discussion for a couple of years.

As a human, I am quite capable of looking at something critically, and the concluding "Bob, you made a mistake there." When that is justified. But remember, here, I was run over by a red volkswagon. I got the license plate. A dozen people caught this on video. We have clear facial photographs. We have fingerprints from the steel bar that the driver used to bang on me as he ran over me. We have a hundred eye witnesses. We found the volkswagon at the person's house. Car is titled to him. His fingerprints inside. People saw him arrive home at a time consistent with leaving the accident scene and driving directly home. My blood on the front bumper. My fingerprints on the hood where I braced with my hands as I was hit. Etc. So I _know_ exactly what happened. No subjective guesswork. Just a clear and compelling trail from accident to person driving. That's what we have here. Clear and compelling evidence. And now we have evidence that before he copied Fruit, he copied a version of Crafty between version 16.0 and 19.0. We will quantify this more accurately. There is a lot that will be seen that has not been common knowledge yet. I am certain that a rational person, after looking at what we have already seen, much less what else will be shown, will be unable to conclude anything but "something stinks here. Badly..."

Do you really want me to somehow believe that the person that ran over me is innocent, with all the evidence we had? Yet I could still run a perfectly fair trial if called on to do so, giving him every opportunity to address each point of evidence and discredit it if possible.
But you have influence over those who will make juridical decisions - and you are on a panel that has yet to even convene. I think you couldn't help yourself- and, now you're trying to talk your way out of an extremely pejorative situation where you have obviously compromised yourself and the panel.
"Yet to convene"?? We are actively investigating _now_. Do you think that those that are supplying the data are biased? Of course. Do we exclude them? no. Our function is to provide whatever evidence we can offer, let Vas reply, and do this until each side has said all they want to say. Then it goes to the ICGA for a decision and/or action.

If you are unhappy with me being involved, you can certainly complain to David. I didn't ask to join. I accepted because we need people to clear this up as it has been going on for way too long now. I'm not going to prevent Vas from responding to anything produced as evidence. I'm not going to prevent the producers from responding in turn. Then the ICGA can make a decision having both sides of the story.

User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9635
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: Previous World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb » Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:25 pm

bob wrote:
Darkmoon wrote:
bob wrote:
Ant_Gugdin wrote:
geots wrote:You have said that even if found innocent, he is still guilty in your eyes. I will go you one better. If he is found guilty- he is still innocent in my eyes. Only the victim of being railroaded by a bunch of second place finishers.
What is the basis for your certainty that Vas is innocent? I imagine that Bob would say he is certain of guilt because he has reviewed the evidence and drawn conclusions from it. Have you?

That said, I think there are legitimate objections to Bob's role given that he has already expressed strong views on the subject.
Again, for the record, I am neither judge or jury. Just someone (one of three) that makes sure that every bit of evidence is brought into public view, and that Vas can, if he chooses, address each and every piece of evidence, point by point. And then those presenting the evidence can respond. And repeat until nothing new comes up. We don't need impartiality. We need fairness. Anyone that believes I am not fair in such undertakings is simply sadly mistaken. I am not going to hide evidence, or disallow Vas (or others) to respond to each piece of evidence presented. It _will_ be fair. I don't believe you could find any impartial people now since the evidence has been under discussion for a couple of years.

As a human, I am quite capable of looking at something critically, and the concluding "Bob, you made a mistake there." When that is justified. But remember, here, I was run over by a red volkswagon. I got the license plate. A dozen people caught this on video. We have clear facial photographs. We have fingerprints from the steel bar that the driver used to bang on me as he ran over me. We have a hundred eye witnesses. We found the volkswagon at the person's house. Car is titled to him. His fingerprints inside. People saw him arrive home at a time consistent with leaving the accident scene and driving directly home. My blood on the front bumper. My fingerprints on the hood where I braced with my hands as I was hit. Etc. So I _know_ exactly what happened. No subjective guesswork. Just a clear and compelling trail from accident to person driving. That's what we have here. Clear and compelling evidence. And now we have evidence that before he copied Fruit, he copied a version of Crafty between version 16.0 and 19.0. We will quantify this more accurately. There is a lot that will be seen that has not been common knowledge yet. I am certain that a rational person, after looking at what we have already seen, much less what else will be shown, will be unable to conclude anything but "something stinks here. Badly..."

Do you really want me to somehow believe that the person that ran over me is innocent, with all the evidence we had? Yet I could still run a perfectly fair trial if called on to do so, giving him every opportunity to address each point of evidence and discredit it if possible.
But you have influence over those who will make juridical decisions - and you are on a panel that has yet to even convene. I think you couldn't help yourself- and, now you're trying to talk your way out of an extremely pejorative situation where you have obviously compromised yourself and the panel.
"Yet to convene"?? We are actively investigating _now_. Do you think that those that are supplying the data are biased? Of course. Do we exclude them? no. Our function is to provide whatever evidence we can offer, let Vas reply, and do this until each side has said all they want to say. Then it goes to the ICGA for a decision and/or action.

If you are unhappy with me being involved, you can certainly complain to David. I didn't ask to join. I accepted because we need people to clear this up as it has been going on for way too long now. I'm not going to prevent Vas from responding to anything produced as evidence. I'm not going to prevent the producers from responding in turn. Then the ICGA can make a decision having both sides of the story.
It's about time Vasik to get his butt kicked....
I hope him all the worst regards :evil: ,
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….

Post Reply