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.
Ant_Gugdin
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:13 pm

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

Post by Ant_Gugdin » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:33 am

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.

Ant_Gugdin
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:13 pm

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

Post by Ant_Gugdin » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:41 am

bob wrote:I would suggest you hang on to your hat, and keep your seatbelt securely fastened. There is more to this story than has been revealed to date. It will be exposed on the ICGA WIKI however. And it really does paint an ugly picture that I did not expect.
!

What else is there? Vas guilty of witchcraft? Satanism? :)

Has Vas given any indication that he will participate in the proceedings? It could end up as a string of unanswered allegations.

User avatar
geots
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:42 pm

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

Post by geots » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:41 am

Laskos wrote:
geots wrote: All I see is programmers whose programs I have tested are either merely crap, or at best second-rate, trying to get together and basically saying "we cant beat him, so lets get rid of him." And their names dont impress me. Before Rybka was on the scene, I payed one commercial programmer around 50 bucks for his next version that he promised was way stronger than the previous one. And it turned out to be 8 elo stronger. I guess you think Im stupid enough to believe that came as a shock to him. And I see him right in the middle of all this slimy mess. 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. And dont even try to sell me the idea that all these programmers wont affect the outcome. I aint buying.
An opinionated basement tester. Give me the LOS of +53 =96 -32 result, I guess you have it in your tables. This seems to become a forum of opinionated, impertinent ignorants.

Kai

One-Last-Time for you. If you consider me a basement tester, then you have to have assumed that that is all CCRL is. And you are not ready to make that leap publicly here, I feel quite sure.

And-One-Last time on this. Please pay attention and think this over. All these programmers, or whoever will determine the outcome of the charges against Rybka- they already know they will win and get what they want. The deck is stacked. You see, any time someone is accused of anything, his guilt must be proven. It is not up to the accused to prove or show anything. But if he doesnt give them his codes to Rybka 3 and 4, and maybe Rybka 2, which they already know he isnt going to do, and no sane man would- they are going to ban him from any tournaments. The old "if you have nothing to hide- why not give us your codes to study." And that is pure horseshit- because getting their hands on his codes is what they are really after anyway. And if they were given the codes to study, would it surprise you 6 months or a year down the road that Shredder and other commercial programs made staggering 100 and 200 elo gains. How many of them do I trust and respect> None.
I can be the only person who has ever posted on CCC who believes this- it makes no difference to me. I will sleep well tonight.

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 2:34 am

Ant_Gugdin wrote:
bob wrote:I would suggest you hang on to your hat, and keep your seatbelt securely fastened. There is more to this story than has been revealed to date. It will be exposed on the ICGA WIKI however. And it really does paint an ugly picture that I did not expect.
!

What else is there? Vas guilty of witchcraft? Satanism? :)
It would seem that plagiarism and GPL violations are enough for right now.


Has Vas given any indication that he will participate in the proceedings? It could end up as a string of unanswered allegations.
I do not know. All I can say for certain is that David sent him a letter inviting him to participate in the investigation. Whether he will join or not is unknown. To date he has said absolutely nothing other than "I did not copy code." Perhaps we will get more this time, or perhaps just more of the same silence.

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 2:50 am

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.

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 2:59 am

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
It is a clear line, however. I looked at what Fabien called "history pruning." I implemented it in Crafty. And tried several dozen different implementations of the "history counters". And made a bunch of 'em available publicly. And eventually discovered that history counters simply suck when used to make reduction decisions. I then modified fruit to get rid of the history counters and found it played just a tad better because it was faster. And I reported all of that. But not once did I "cut 'n paste". And anyone can look at the first version that used history pruning (maybe 20.0? not sure. comments in main.c would point that out) to verify that there was no cut and paste, because both sources are readily available.

Here, we are talking purely about copying chunks of code. Verbatim. See my comments in another thread about code copied from Crafty 19.0 (or earlier, we are not exactly sure of anything other than that version or earlier). Code which in one case had a silly typo. And the matching code in Rybka had the _same_ typo. Or code dealing with Edwards TBs that had no business in Crafty, and should have been removed in version 16.0 when I removed edwards support and added Eugene's support. Yet that invalid code was in version 19.0 iterate.c and it is in the pre-fruit version of Rybka. That is not copying ideas. That is copying code and not paying attention to what is being copied.

And, it is clearly wrong.

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 3:00 am

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.

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 3:08 am

geots wrote:
geots wrote:
bob wrote:
geots wrote:
Steve B wrote:And Sign The OPEN letter to the ICGA President

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4038

excluding the Engine Author under examination .. we have all but one World Champion engine author since 1992 signing the letter
it should be remembered that these men were fierce competitors for many years ..so seeing them all agree to the notion that Rybka is an unauthorized Fruit derivative is quite astonishing and remarkable

Of course many other highly respected and talented Engine authors also signed the letter..some of whom might have been World Champions themselves if not losing to the engine in question or deciding not to even compete entirely in the ICGA World Championships given the participation of the allegedly illegally derived engine

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue

i think this is unprecedented in the history of competitive sport Regards
Steve


Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue


I cant believe you state this in passing, because I cant believe you dont see anything wrong with him being on this panel. He has stated he knows Vas is guilty, and even if he is found innocent he is guilty. And you dont call this lynch mob mentality. How would you like to be the one Bob is making a decision about? This whole deal is about as slimy as computer chess can get.
I have clearly said that based on what I have seen with my own eyes, there is no doubt copying has occurred. It is _possible_ that Vas might somehow explain the identical parts of the code satisfactorily. I can't imagine what that might be, but it is possible.

My responsibility here is going to be to let the "prosecution" show the existing evidence everyone has seen, plus some other very significant evidence hardly anyone has seen, and then let Vas respond, if he chooses to. He can take the evidence point by point and explain why he believes it does not represent a problem of plagiarism or GPL violation. Then the "prosecution" will get to respond to his comments. And we will repeat this until nothing new is being shown. At that point, we will write a report giving the evidence and counter-evidence and send this to the ICGA. What they might do with it is unknown. It could involve stripping titles won with improper code, it could involve a "bad boy, don't do it again", or it could result in nothing at all.

We are not the jury. The three of us are a 3-judge panel to make sure that the discussions stay on topic, no flame wars, no personal conflicts. Just show the evidence and address it as needed until nothing more can be added...

There's no lynching. But I will bet you that once you see _everything_ you will change your opinion about what has happened. At least if you are willing to look at the evidence for yourself. There is a lot to be told here. Including a few shocks along the way...

This whole mess is packed with programmers who have a vested interest in getting Rybka off the scene. As I have said more than once- the most all this can do is keep Vas and Rybka out of tournaments. And that is what they are after. It wont stop him from selling the program. A court of "real law", and not second-place whiners, will have to do that. And who will be paying the legal costs then. I have a mental picture of you writing the biggest check.

All I see is programmers whose programs I have tested are either merely crap, or at best second-rate, trying to get together and basically saying "we cant beat him, so lets get rid of him." And their names dont impress me. Before Rybka was on the scene, I payed one commercial programmer around 50 bucks for his next version that he promised was way stronger than the previous one. And it turned out to be 8 elo stronger. I guess you think Im stupid enough to believe that came as a shock to him. And I see him right in the middle of all this slimy mess. 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. And dont even try to sell me the idea that all these programmers wont affect the outcome. I aint buying.
You can buy what you want, or not. By the time this is finished, either there will be overwhelming evidence supporting the copying claim (the stack of evidence is growing daily, btw) or perhaps some miracle causes it to all suddenly become OK. I read that on the butt of a flying pig, but thought I might toss it in.

If you choose to ignore clear misconduct, that's certainly your right. Defence attorneys spend a lot of time defending clients that are guilty as hell, as well as clients that are innocent (I hate this damned spell checker, in the US this is "defense" not "defence" Damned Europeans and their colour and crap... :) )

There's nothing wrong with having undying faith in someone. However, it is misplaced in this case. There will be plenty of evidence offered to support the copying claim. Perhaps Vas will offer a defense (I am NOT changing that spelling again) or at least a justification (everybody does it, why not me) etc...

Or he could just say "OK, did it. Here's the source." The GPL issue goes away, and things will settle down. But speaking for myself, if he releases the source code, you can check every future version of Crafty you want. You won't find any copied code. There's no personal enjoyment in copying something someone else did. Some of us still believe in basic ethics and morality. And we enjoy this hobby a lot more than those that don't.

Terry McCracken
Posts: 15844
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

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

Post by Terry McCracken » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:09 am

geots wrote:
Laskos wrote:
geots wrote: All I see is programmers whose programs I have tested are either merely crap, or at best second-rate, trying to get together and basically saying "we cant beat him, so lets get rid of him." And their names dont impress me. Before Rybka was on the scene, I payed one commercial programmer around 50 bucks for his next version that he promised was way stronger than the previous one. And it turned out to be 8 elo stronger. I guess you think Im stupid enough to believe that came as a shock to him. And I see him right in the middle of all this slimy mess. 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. And dont even try to sell me the idea that all these programmers wont affect the outcome. I aint buying.
An opinionated basement tester. Give me the LOS of +53 =96 -32 result, I guess you have it in your tables. This seems to become a forum of opinionated, impertinent ignorants.

Kai

One-Last-Time for you. If you consider me a basement tester, then you have to have assumed that that is all CCRL is. And you are not ready to make that leap publicly here, I feel quite sure.

And-One-Last time on this. Please pay attention and think this over. All these programmers, or whoever will determine the outcome of the charges against Rybka- they already know they will win and get what they want. The deck is stacked. You see, any time someone is accused of anything, his guilt must be proven. It is not up to the accused to prove or show anything. But if he doesnt give them his codes to Rybka 3 and 4, and maybe Rybka 2, which they already know he isnt going to do, and no sane man would- they are going to ban him from any tournaments. The old "if you have nothing to hide- why not give us your codes to study." And that is pure horseshit- because getting their hands on his codes is what they are really after anyway. And if they were given the codes to study, would it surprise you 6 months or a year down the road that Shredder and other commercial programs made staggering 100 and 200 elo gains. How many of them do I trust and respect> None.
I can be the only person who has ever posted on CCC who believes this- it makes no difference to me. I will sleep well tonight.
George you should stay out of what you have no understanding of. You're not to be listened to as one, you lack the knowledge and the history and two, you show deep contempt for good people you know nothing about whatsoever let alone their motives. What you write is libel. Sleep Well...
Terry McCracken

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 3:20 am

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.

Post Reply