CB: Feedback on the ICGA/Rybka disqualification scandal

[AdminX]

"It's a long read, but many of the letters we received in reaction to the defence of the Rybka program by Dr Søren Riis are quite passionate and well thought out in their content. We start with the summary of a long rebuttal of the Riis paper that was sent to us by the ICGA and circulated on the Internet – with links to the full version and ancillary documents. Take a deep breath."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7836

[MM]

Jeremy Bernstein
'' It should be noted that Søren is a moderator on the Rybka Forum and is not an objective bystander. It should also be noted that ChessBase is a Rybka distributor and not an impartial source of news in this case.''

[mclane]

all marketing.

chessbase tries to improve its own virtual relality...



btw who is the guy on the left who is beaten by somebody else at the head ??




here you can see matthias wuellenweber destroying all his illegal rybka-copies installed on several HDDs in the chessbase -central in hamburg.

It must be destroyed,

he says.

Its all illegal. we cannot allow this software to be found on our
HDDs!

Matthias is known for his accurate legal behaviour.

so he calls this a job for the boss, he cannot deligate such an important
job.

[AdminX]

I felt most comments posted were pro Vas/Rybka which I expected. However there were a few that were not and these were some of my favorites.

Jans F., Somerville, MA
"This article makes a couple of interesting points. Vas Rajlich took code from Fruit, improved it, and that's good. The developers of Ippolit took code from Rybka, improved it, and that's bad. So, the point is made that when your friend does something, it's good, and when your enemy does the same thing, it's bad. In fact, let's write a long, complicated explanation about how it's not the same thing at all. The other interesting point is that the availability of free open source programs has advanced computer chess rapidly. Closed-source, paid programs have advanced computer chess more slowly. The point here is that profit motivation impedes progress. It also gets in the way of intellectual honesty by causing personal preference bias, which is obvious to the reader, but perhaps invisible to the author."

Andrei Olsen, Norway
"Unless it was intended, there is just no way any programmer (not even a beginner) would ever write "if(movetime >= 0.)" or "if(movetime >= 0.0)", it just doesn't happen by accident. And it couldn't be a typo either, the "." (dot) is located at a completely different place on the keyboard (be it a US, Czech, Polish, Dvorak, etc. layout)."

John Hornibrook, Sydney, Australia
"I very much enjoy the chessbase news site, but I feel I must comment about the horridly one-sided articles on the ICGA decision regarding Rybka. Yes, of course you are entitled to post a piece from someone on the Rybka side, but the articles do not address a majority of the evidence presented against Rybka and misrepresent some of the claims. This seems intentionally misleading for readers not in programming circles, and chessbase should weigh some responsibility against its financial interests. The section on Bob Hyatt in the final piece is, of course, unnecessary. However abrasive his manner, he is certainly generous with his time and assistance to the computer chess community."

Rick Fadden, Barre, Vermont, USA
"In looking inside the Rybka 1.0 beta binary I found that Vas Rajlich was lying about how deep Rybka was searching, how many nodes it searched, and the Nodes per second reporting. In the code I point out that Vas includes a lot of code to "obfuscate" and to hide the fact that Rybka was a "fast, deep searcher", not a "slow searcher with max chess knowledge.""

Chris Kantack
"I think the "gross miscarriage" here is that ChessBase is only printing one side of the story. Why don't we see the rebuttals from David Levy and Tom Watkins. I'm disappointed that you show extreme bias here. My opinion of ChessBase has greatly diminished."

[JuLieN]

I felt most comments posted were pro Vas/Rybka which I expected. However there were a few that were not and these were some of my favorites.

Jans F., Somerville, MA
"This article makes a couple of interesting points. Vas Rajlich took code from Fruit, improved it, and that's good. The developers of Ippolit took code from Rybka, improved it, and that's bad. So, the point is made that when your friend does something, it's good, and when your enemy does the same thing, it's bad. In fact, let's write a long, complicated explanation about how it's not the same thing at all. The other interesting point is that the availability of free open source programs has advanced computer chess rapidly. Closed-source, paid programs have advanced computer chess more slowly. The point here is that profit motivation impedes progress. It also gets in the way of intellectual honesty by causing personal preference bias, which is obvious to the reader, but perhaps invisible to the author."

Andrei Olsen, Norway
"Unless it was intended, there is just no way any programmer (not even a beginner) would ever write "if(movetime >= 0.)" or "if(movetime >= 0.0)", it just doesn't happen by accident. And it couldn't be a typo either, the "." (dot) is located at a completely different place on the keyboard (be it a US, Czech, Polish, Dvorak, etc. layout)."

John Hornibrook, Sydney, Australia
"I very much enjoy the chessbase news site, but I feel I must comment about the horridly one-sided articles on the ICGA decision regarding Rybka. Yes, of course you are entitled to post a piece from someone on the Rybka side, but the articles do not address a majority of the evidence presented against Rybka and misrepresent some of the claims. This seems intentionally misleading for readers not in programming circles, and chessbase should weigh some responsibility against its financial interests. The section on Bob Hyatt in the final piece is, of course, unnecessary. However abrasive his manner, he is certainly generous with his time and assistance to the computer chess community."

Rick Fadden, Barre, Vermont, USA
"In looking inside the Rybka 1.0 beta binary I found that Vas Rajlich was lying about how deep Rybka was searching, how many nodes it searched, and the Nodes per second reporting. In the code I point out that Vas includes a lot of code to "obfuscate" and to hide the fact that Rybka was a "fast, deep searcher", not a "slow searcher with max chess knowledge.""

Chris Kantack
"I think the "gross miscarriage" here is that ChessBase is only printing one side of the story. Why don't we see the rebuttals from David Levy and Tom Watkins. I'm disappointed that you show extreme bias here. My opinion of ChessBase has greatly diminished."

But I found the best candidate for the award of the (unwillingly) funniest comment! ^^

Hanys, New Zealand
It is heartwarming to see a chess player, a mathematician and a computer scientist in one person stand in defence of one man. Vasik Rajlich already has a place in history of chess, Dr. Søren Riis deserves one too.

[JuLieN]

Also, this comment is especially interesting:

Rick Fadden, Barre, Vermont, USA

In the News article "A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess (part three), Soren Riis mentions my name and he gives a summary of my contribution. What he wrote is wrong, and this causes a problem.

Correction: The subject of my posts was "Strelka is a reverse engineered Rybka." I was demonstrating that Strelka source code exactly matched disassembled Rybka 1.0 beta. My posts could be interpreted as a defense of Vas Rajlick, because my focus was that someone else had copied from him, with Strelka matching what is in the Rybka binary. So many years later this author interprets my Stelka related comparison as making a false claim related to copying Fruit. Re-read my posts. If I mention the Fruit claims, it is just as a side comment. On that whole Fruit subject I was a spectator not an instigator.

Something else that should be reported though: in looking inside the Rybka 1.0 beta binary I found that Vas Rajlich was lying about how deep Rybka was searching, how many nodes it searched, and the Nodes per second reporting. In the code I point out that Vas includes a lot of code to "obfuscate" and to hide the fact that Rybka was a "fast, deep searcher", not a "slow searcher with max chess knowledge."

So I gave all kinds of supporting evidence that Vas obfuscated within his node reporting logic. I showed for example that when you enter a depth of search limit, Vas changes the input number to keep the limit consistent with his internal logic. (I could describe this in more detail.) So here's what I did to further prove this point: I created a binary patch of Rybka 1.0 beta to remove the math and instructions that hide the actual reported depth of search, and I posted this patch in the forum. With the patch applied to Rybka 1.0 beta the chess engine plays as before, and search proceeds exactly as before, *but* the program then properly displays it's actual search depth, nodes encountered, and nodes per second. (Frankly it's really neat seeing what Rybka is actually doing versus the false impression that Vas intends us to see.) Others used this patch to then watch Rybka play while reporting it's actual depth of search, and *they* noted that once you see the true search things look visibly very much like Fruit's reported search.

Keep in mind there was an initial legitimate question that I posed to Vas in the Rybka forum "Why did you obfuscate search reporting?" Vas reported in his own forum that he likes to think of nodes differently than other people, but everyone reading this weak excuse pretty well figured there was another reason why his code deliberately obfuscates it's search. People noted that Rybka search looked like Fruit search once the obfuscation was removed. Further investigation into possible coping of Fruit, pursued by other people, not me... may have been driven by this exposed blatant obfuscation.

My role was to send out information that I found during my effort to demonstrate that Strelka was a reverse engineered Rybka binary. The search depth obfuscation code that I found in that process bothered me, and I wanted to tell people what was in the code. In the Rybka forum I asked Vas to remove this obfuscation from future versions of Rybka, and Vas replied that he would likely keep this in Rybka. I see that even the latest versions of Rybka still include this search depth and nodes per second obfuscation.

Notice I didn't post anything after giving out my patch. I had written to Robert Hyatt (I've interacted with Bob since the 70's) explaining about this obfuscation built into Rybka, but I did not pursue the topic further. I never participated in an effort to prove that Rybka copied from Fruit.

Ed, if you read this, (plus Vas dodging all the questions in Rybka forum this week), doesn't it shake your conviction (that appears so illogical to me and others...) ?

[Rebel]

Also, this comment is especially interesting:

Rick Fadden, Barre, Vermont, USA

In the News article "A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess (part three), Soren Riis mentions my name and he gives a summary of my contribution. What he wrote is wrong, and this causes a problem.

Correction: The subject of my posts was "Strelka is a reverse engineered Rybka." I was demonstrating that Strelka source code exactly matched disassembled Rybka 1.0 beta. My posts could be interpreted as a defense of Vas Rajlick, because my focus was that someone else had copied from him, with Strelka matching what is in the Rybka binary. So many years later this author interprets my Stelka related comparison as making a false claim related to copying Fruit. Re-read my posts. If I mention the Fruit claims, it is just as a side comment. On that whole Fruit subject I was a spectator not an instigator.

Something else that should be reported though: in looking inside the Rybka 1.0 beta binary I found that Vas Rajlich was lying about how deep Rybka was searching, how many nodes it searched, and the Nodes per second reporting. In the code I point out that Vas includes a lot of code to "obfuscate" and to hide the fact that Rybka was a "fast, deep searcher", not a "slow searcher with max chess knowledge."

So I gave all kinds of supporting evidence that Vas obfuscated within his node reporting logic. I showed for example that when you enter a depth of search limit, Vas changes the input number to keep the limit consistent with his internal logic. (I could describe this in more detail.) So here's what I did to further prove this point: I created a binary patch of Rybka 1.0 beta to remove the math and instructions that hide the actual reported depth of search, and I posted this patch in the forum. With the patch applied to Rybka 1.0 beta the chess engine plays as before, and search proceeds exactly as before, *but* the program then properly displays it's actual search depth, nodes encountered, and nodes per second. (Frankly it's really neat seeing what Rybka is actually doing versus the false impression that Vas intends us to see.) Others used this patch to then watch Rybka play while reporting it's actual depth of search, and *they* noted that once you see the true search things look visibly very much like Fruit's reported search.

Keep in mind there was an initial legitimate question that I posed to Vas in the Rybka forum "Why did you obfuscate search reporting?" Vas reported in his own forum that he likes to think of nodes differently than other people, but everyone reading this weak excuse pretty well figured there was another reason why his code deliberately obfuscates it's search. People noted that Rybka search looked like Fruit search once the obfuscation was removed. Further investigation into possible coping of Fruit, pursued by other people, not me... may have been driven by this exposed blatant obfuscation.

My role was to send out information that I found during my effort to demonstrate that Strelka was a reverse engineered Rybka binary. The search depth obfuscation code that I found in that process bothered me, and I wanted to tell people what was in the code. In the Rybka forum I asked Vas to remove this obfuscation from future versions of Rybka, and Vas replied that he would likely keep this in Rybka. I see that even the latest versions of Rybka still include this search depth and nodes per second obfuscation.

Notice I didn't post anything after giving out my patch. I had written to Robert Hyatt (I've interacted with Bob since the 70's) explaining about this obfuscation built into Rybka, but I did not pursue the topic further. I never participated in an effort to prove that Rybka copied from Fruit.

Ed, if you read this, (plus Vas dodging all the questions in Rybka forum this week), doesn't it shake your conviction (that appears so illogical to me and others...) ?

Really now Julien

You don't want to be in the head of a commercial, it's a scary place

Obfuscating depth's, nodes, main-lines, among them is common practise. Also not displaying the main lines of the first ply, or first few plies. All to protect one's secrets (livelihood). Like Rick don't be too disappointed with our kind

[JuLieN]

Obfuscating depth's, nodes, main-lines, among them is common practise. Also not displaying the main lines of the first ply, or first few plies. All to protect one's secrets (livelihood).

The question you have to ask yourself is what was the protected secret, Ed. Remember Occam's razor... I'll quote Rick again:

Rick Fadden, Barre, Vermont, USA
(...) People noted that Rybka search looked like Fruit search once the obfuscation was removed.

Now I've always assumed that talented chess programmers would be very logical persons, so your personal crusade is a total mystery to me, Ed.

Of course, I am perfectly aware that I can be wrong, and I often ask myself "am I being logical? Is what I believe based on facts or is it second handed and based on other people's convictions?" and so on, but still my current conviction is that Rybka 1 was derived from Fruit. The main reasons for my belief are:
- the technical evidences. They are pretty overwhelming.
- Vas eluding all difficult questions and refusing to answer them (even pretending to have lost any code prior to R3... Come one!!!)
- the mass hysteria on Rybka forum. If I ever would be inclined to investigate a bit deeper and get the other side of the story, Vas' supporters would drive me away, so absolutely lunatic they look like. (But maybe Talkchess look that way to them too?)
- the ChessBase's article made me lose my last doubts regarding Rybka, so awfully written it was (both style and content).

With time passing, my conviction gets stronger.

So, I'm puzzled that you could still stick to your conviction. I consider yourself as being honest, and I really think that you genuinely consider Vas as being not guilty. Still, it seems to me that you are driven by passion more than logics (please don't take this as condescendence: I'm younger than you and I respect my elder a lot, especially when they've achieved as impressively as you did, plus I'm 100% sure I'll never be half as talented as you are with coding). The question is: why?

To answer it, I go in myself and remember why I felt sympathy for Vas (that was before witnessing him dodging the questions this week), despite how overwhelming the ICGA report looked like. And I find out that the main reasons come from my feeling of what justice is (add to this that I am a jurist).

I remember I found the ICGA "court" to be very amateurish. Especially because you don't let someone be judged by its competitors.

Is it also why you started to dislike the whole thing and turn to Vas ?

But remember that it's not because someone didn't get the best trial that he's not guilty. Also, the ICGA is a sport authority, and despite they should have let a professional jurist lead the debates, their findings must only be seen as a sport authority's findings, susceptible of confirmation by a court. That's why I hope the FSF will go to court to decide this once and for all: this war must end.

Until then, do you think you could take the time to write a detailed post explaining logically and without passion why you believe Vas is innocent? I (and many others), really need to understand why you think so, because until now we really don't.

[AdminX]

Obfuscating depth's, nodes, main-lines, among them is common practise. Also not displaying the main lines of the first ply, or first few plies. All to protect one's secrets (livelihood).

The question you have to ask yourself is what was the protected secret, Ed. Remember Occam's razor... I'll quote Rick again:

Rick Fadden, Barre, Vermont, USA
(...) People noted that Rybka search looked like Fruit search once the obfuscation was removed.

Now I've always assumed that talented chess programmers would be very logical persons, so your personal crusade is a total mystery to me, Ed.

Of course, I am perfectly aware that I can be wrong, and I often ask myself "am I being logical? Is what I believe based on facts or is it second handed and based on other people's convictions?" and so on, but still my current conviction is that Rybka 1 was derived from Fruit. The main reasons for my belief are:
- the technical evidences. They are pretty overwhelming.
- Vas eluding all difficult questions and refusing to answer them (even pretending to have lost any code prior to R3... Come one!!!)
- the mass hysteria on Rybka forum. If I ever would be inclined to investigate a bit deeper and get the other side of the story, Vas' supporters would drive me away, so absolutely lunatic they look like. (But maybe Talkchess look that way to them too?)
- the ChessBase's article made me lose my last doubts regarding Rybka, so awfully written it was (both style and content).

With time passing, my conviction gets stronger.

So, I'm puzzled that you could still stick to your conviction. I consider yourself as being honest, and I really think that you genuinely consider Vas as being not guilty. Still, it seems to me that you are driven by passion more than logics (please don't take this as condescendence: I'm younger than you and I respect my elder a lot, especially when they've achieved as impressively as you did, plus I'm 100% sure I'll never be half as talented as you are with coding). The question is: why?

To answer it, I go in myself and remember why I felt sympathy for Vas (that was before witnessing him dodging the questions this week), despite how overwhelming the ICGA report looked like. And I find out that the main reasons come from my feeling of what justice is (add to this that I am a jurist).

I remember I found the ICGA "court" to be very amateurish. Especially because you don't let someone be judged by its competitors.

Is it also why you started to dislike the whole thing and turn to Vas ?

But remember that it's not because someone didn't get the best trial that he's not guilty. Also, the ICGA is a sport authority, and despite they should have let a professional jurist lead the debates, their findings must only be seen as a sport authority's findings, susceptible of confirmation by a court. That's why I hope the FSF will go to court to decide this once and for all: this war must end.

Until then, do you think you could take the time to write a detailed post explaining logically and without passion why you believe Vas is innocent? I (and many others), really need to understand why you think so, because until now we really don't.

+1

[K I Hyams]

You don't want to be in the head of a commercial, it's a scary place

Some of the issues with Rajlich’s behaviour that come to my mind as I type this are listed below. I am sure that the list is not complete. When people see the nature of your support for Rajlich, in the light of that list, do you not understand why a number of people wonder whether the inside of your head is a "scary place"?

# Dodging pertinent questions on Rybka site.
# Refusal to release (even to a secure source) obsolete code that would clear his name if untainted.
# Repeated claims that he has “lost” evidence that incriminates him/clears his name.
# An apparent withdrawal of the repeated claim that he has lost evidence that incriminates him/clears his name, when presented with a document that challenges that claim.
# Apparent inability and absolute refusal to address issues relating to copying Crafty.
# Obfuscating output which, if corrected, shows a Fruit like search.
# Refusal to answer questions posed by ICGA.
# Unsubstantiated claims that Ippolit is a Rybka 3 clone.
# Claims that the Fruit clone Strelka contains so much code that is also in Rybka that he was considering claiming ownership of Strelka.