What's Vasik Rajlich doing today?

[michiguel]

Your PST point addresses an issue I have raised many times. One PST is just "interesting". MANY PSTs is damning. The latter shows that little original research was done to choose the values.

But that does not really answer the question. Which was:

If some public copyrighted code XXX reads

Code: Select all

int KingPST[5][5];

init_pst()
{
  int i, j;
  for&#40;i=1; i<5; i++) for&#40;j=1; j<5; j++) KingPST&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93; = &#40;i-2&#41;*&#40;i-2&#41; + &#40;j-2&#41;*&#40;j-2&#41;;
&#125;

and in my own program I would write

Code: Select all

int KingPST[25] = { // use same values as XXX
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  4, 1, 0, 1, 4,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
}

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

I do not believe so. IIRC, copyright infringement specifically excludes tables of numbers.

Note what you said in the past -

Bob - Sorry, but YOU are the idiot that says one can copy a table of numbers without violating copyright.

What changed your mind ?

Simple. I went back, when this discussion started, and carefully re-read existing copyright law, and case law examples. Copyright law specifically excludes a group of numbers, things like lists of primes, lists of Mersenne primes, trig tables, etc. Things that can be computed by any sort of formula or algorithm. Our believe was that vas did not just copy a set of tables, he copied the code that produced the tables and used that to produce them. Which would be a copyright violation. But without the actual "smoking gun" of the actual purloined code, we simply used it as one of many pieces of data showing that rule 2 had clearly been violated...

He did not copy numbers, which were _way_different_, he did not copy code (there was not any, just the numbers). There was just the hypothesis that his numbers were compatible with the same loop mechanics, using the same ramps -4, -2, -1, 0 as template or whatever that was. And ths was for 6 or 7 out of 11 tables (the others did not fit or were in a couple of cases just zeros). Stockfish (glaurung actually) may have copy fruit numbers much more likely than rybka. But this was used all of over the place as an incredibly incriminating evidence. Now... mehh. You admit there was no smoking code gun. Let's all shrug our shoulders. The fact is that at the time of the investigation nobody payed enough close attention (you even missed a match between a fruit table and Crafty) and things were taken at face value.

Oh, well... I am not going to go through this all over again...

Miguel
PS: Let's not even mention that this was reported for R1 (because it was Zach's analysis), but for R2 (which is the one that actually played in ICGA) the PSTs changed dramatically. That was not properly acknowledged in the report. It was only hand-waved.

[bob]

Your PST point addresses an issue I have raised many times. One PST is just "interesting". MANY PSTs is damning. The latter shows that little original research was done to choose the values.

But that does not really answer the question. Which was:

If some public copyrighted code XXX reads

Code: Select all

int KingPST[5][5];

init_pst()
{
  int i, j;
  for&#40;i=1; i<5; i++) for&#40;j=1; j<5; j++) KingPST&#91;i&#93;&#91;j&#93; = &#40;i-2&#41;*&#40;i-2&#41; + &#40;j-2&#41;*&#40;j-2&#41;;
&#125;

and in my own program I would write

Code: Select all

int KingPST[25] = { // use same values as XXX
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  4, 1, 0, 1, 4,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
}

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

I do not believe so. IIRC, copyright infringement specifically excludes tables of numbers.

Note what you said in the past -

Bob - Sorry, but YOU are the idiot that says one can copy a table of numbers without violating copyright.

What changed your mind ?

Simple. I went back, when this discussion started, and carefully re-read existing copyright law, and case law examples. Copyright law specifically excludes a group of numbers, things like lists of primes, lists of Mersenne primes, trig tables, etc. Things that can be computed by any sort of formula or algorithm. Our believe was that vas did not just copy a set of tables, he copied the code that produced the tables and used that to produce them. Which would be a copyright violation. But without the actual "smoking gun" of the actual purloined code, we simply used it as one of many pieces of data showing that rule 2 had clearly been violated...

He did not copy numbers, which were _way_different_, he did not copy code (there was not any, just the numbers). There was just the hypothesis that his numbers were compatible with the same loop mechanics, using the same ramps -4, -2, -1, 0 as template or whatever that was. And ths was for 6 or 7 out of 11 tables (the others did not fit or were in a couple of cases just zeros). Stockfish (glaurung actually) may have copy fruit numbers much more likely than rybka. But this was used all of over the place as an incredibly incriminating evidence. Now... mehh. You admit there was no smoking code gun. Let's all shrug our shoulders. The fact is that at the time of the investigation nobody payed enough close attention (you even missed a match between a fruit table and Crafty) and things were taken at face value.

Oh, well... I am not going to go through this all over again...

Miguel
PS: Let's not even mention that this was reported for R1 (because it was Zach's analysis), but for R2 (which is the one that actually played in ICGA) the PSTs changed dramatically. That was not properly acknowledged in the report. It was only hand-waved.

This was not "used all over the place as a smoking gun." It was simply the FIRST evidence that Zach discovered when he and Theron initially started to look at this stuff. He presented the evidence in the order it was discovered. No single piece was ever considered "a smoking gun" until Richard Vida exposed the rybka hashing as a dead knockoff of Fruits, including an ugly bug and inexplicable similarities to code in Fruit that simply has no justification for (storing THREE depth values, for example?)

There was not one "smoking gun" in my opinion, just a bunch of pop-guns laying around that together added up to something that was not acceptable.

I agree, going over it all again is a pointless waste of time, nothing new has been seen (other than Vida's stuff last year or whenever over on the Rybka Forum)...

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Miguel,

you aren't the Glaurung and Fruit programmer but I am sure you are looking in Detail in the sources from both programs.

I hope I can asked you.
Two questions to my main topic (playing styles):

Fruit:
King safty problems, stronger in endgames.
Glaurung, very strong in openings without king safty problems with many pieces on the board and clearly weaker in endgame compare to Fruit (without any knowledge).

Both sources are very clear sources after all I know from many other programmers.

Question 1:
What can be the reason that Glaurung is very strong in king attacks with many pieces on the board, means which programming part from the sources could be important for such a style?

Question 2:
It's possible to create a program, strong in king attacks, good king safty with many pieces on the board, without special chess knowledge about it. If so, which programming part from the sources do that. More or less one question.

I wrote a lot to playing styles and often I am thinking it have nothing todo with special knowledge about kings safty or king attacks with many pieces on the board. Maybe it's much more easy with easy programming as I am thinking.

Again, hope I can asked you!
This year I will learn c++ and I will study much of the sources. Tord gave good tips which sources are interesting for study in the interview I made with him.

Hope you have time for my two questions!

Best
Frank

[hgm]

Does that mean you are prepared to finally admit that they are different?

Suggestive question.

...

Show me where I stated they are equal.

Uh? Show me where you stated they were different! Unless I overlooked that, you so far have not done that. So the 'finally' in my question is quite justified, because you had ample opportunity. The only thing that is suggestive here is that you again fail to take an explicit stance, and in start start blowing smoke with irrelevant Wiki quotes and counter questions...

More to the point, are you finally prepared to admit that exact PST's are a copyright infringment?

Why should I, especially since you can see that Bob and Milos support my explicitly phrased opinion that they are not, the latter of course in his usual charming style. I can add that the 'expert' you quoted also very clearly voiced my point of view in this. So it seems you are 'alone in the Universe' with this misconception that anyone would ever 'admit' this falsehood.

I do not believe so. IIRC, copyright infringement specifically excludes tables of numbers.

..., but it would be really surprising if you thought that any number or group of numbers could be copyrighted...

• 1. Functional similarity by itself does not show copyright infringement.

Btw, you might claim that you never suggested you thought copyright infringement and rule #2 violation is the same, but that this is an outright ly can be seen from this quote:

Then let's see what he said keeping in mind on the one thing we agree on that ICGA rule #2 (since day one) is about copyright infringement and not about using ideas.

(emphasis mine).

It is significant though that you ask something here that I have already explicitly stated not to be true. Not only does this make you look exceedingly stupid, but it also suggest that you consider my question after which you modelled this also about something that you do not consider true.

The fact that everyone will notice is that you incessantly fail to unambiguously state whether you believe copyright infringement to be the same as ICGA rule #2 violation or not. You just dance around it by smug remarks that people first have to show you claimed the opposite somewhere, that the question is suggestive, etc. Well, writing "show me where I wrote they were the same" is not the same as writing "I believe them to be different". You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of some readers that way, but most will see right through it as an evasive con-artist tactic...

[Rebel]

Does that mean you are prepared to finally admit that they are different?

Suggestive question.

...

Show me where I stated they are equal.

Uh? Show me where you stated they were different! Unless I overlooked that,

It's worse than that. You haven't even tried to pay attention what I was saying and you immediately jumped into patronizing remarks flowing from your usual charming self.

Of course copyright infringement is different than rule #2 certainly from it's the historic origin (perspective). To keep the PST's as an example, if 12*64 = 768 cells contain the EXACT SAME information than copyright is without mercy while with rule #2 it's up to the generosity of the judge(s) to forgive provided they not find more of such cases. So in this specific case rule #2 is softer than copyright infringement.

[Sedat Canbaz]

So what goes on in the mind of the person Vasik Raijlich?

2. He is arrogant, if he states Ippolit=Rybka you just have to believe him, period, likewise in the R/F case;

3. In the end the programmers figured it out themselves, that Ippolit is a Rybka clone and maybe he relied on that in the R/F case;

Yes...after reading your interesting comments, one story came on my mind and decided to share with you)

I think it was around 2010, when Houdini is appeared on scene...
And on these days, I was wondering what will be Vas's reaction in case of if I will test Houdini...

And during our private mails,
I informed Vas that I am planning to test Houdini and his replay was:
- Sedat no problem, you can test any engine as you wish...

That shows how much Vas has a BIG heart....!!

Yes...we need more programmers as Vasik Rajlich !


Best,
Sedat

Sorry, but this is bullshit, simple and straightforward bullshit.

Actually, the whole thread is kind of a full and complete BS.

It takes the attention from other, much more important threads.
If I were a mod, I would suspend it, plain and simple.

Mr. Railich made so much money when he actually did not deserve to do so.
That was his goal, to earn money, and not to develop the strongest engine.
When he did that, he retired.

The time of Vas Railich, when Rybka ruled, was really a bad period for computer chess: Rybka was the only top engine, so for these 5 years all programmers managed to do was one single engine, partly original at that.

If you compare that with the past 4 or 5 years, they were definitely much much more fertile and productive:

- you had 3 or 4 top engines, much stronger than Rybka, would you like to live without Stockfish, Komodo and Houdini? I would not.
- in that time also the SF framework appeared, also quite a big achievement
- others ideas were published that did not exist previously

So, if you would like my opinion: it would be a complete disgrace if we move even 1 centimeter more towards any kind of Vasik Railich resuscitation. I do not want to hear about Vas Railich and the period Rybka dominated at all. Hope this will never get back. And I am sure it will not.

The mods will excuse me, but if a couple of people discuss completely pointless stuff and no one reprimands them, and this is tolerated, so why should not I be a bit more agressive, especially if I really feel so?
Please note that I am posting a single message, and some people already posted tens of completely pointless messages.

I will not answer any messages in this thread here, as I do not read it and it makes no sense.

Hope this thread will disappear from sight very soon.

Hello Lyudmil,

Sorry for the late answer yesterday I was too busy

First of all,
Why are so nervous and aggressive ? why do you use foul language ?
Take it easy my friend...don't worry, be happy...)!

Chess is our hobby !
And I still think that our hobby should be a 'bridge' for a good friendship !

And if you don't like Vas or Ed, or Me or this thread,
Simply I suggest you to ignore this thread...usually intelligent people prefer this way...

Btw, I think you are from Bulgaria, right? and I was born in Bulgaria too
That's why I think we should be even more close chess friends together...

About Rybka issue,
As far as I know you was out of CompterChess during Rybka days, so I don't care much your opinions

Take a pencil and write in paper,
Without Rybka and Fruit:
- Stockfish, Komodo, Houdini... would not be so strong as nowadays !

So that's why,
Don't be ungrateful...and don't forget to say 'thanks' to both genius programmers !
Of course if you have a BIG heart !)


And last,
I am in the side of Justice...I am in the side of Lovers...
In other words: I am not in the side of Haters !)


Best Wishes,
Sedat

[hgm]

It's worse than that. You haven't even tried to pay attention what I was saying and you immediately jumped into patronizing remarks flowing from your usual charming self.

Of course copyright infringement is different than rule #2 certainly from it's the historic origin (perspective).

Well, that at least is progress, (and it wasn't so difficult, was it)? This seems a bit hard to reconcile with your earlier statement, though, so I can see little justification for your sulking:

ICGA rule #2 (since day one) is about copyright infringement

To keep the PST's as an example, if 12*64 = 768 cells contain the EXACT SAME information than copyright is without mercy ...

Well, three people so far have pointed out that this is not true at all, and you are totally alone in this. So it seems clear that this is just a misconception of yours. You don't understand the scope of copyright, you don't understand what it means by "similarity".

while with rule #2 it's up to the generosity of the judge(s) to forgive provided they not find more of such cases. So in this specific case rule #2 is softer than copyright infringement.

This seems again totally wrong, even ignoring the fact that using the same numbers was not a copyright violation at all, and did not need any generosity of the judge, but would be outright dismissed. Because it is always up to the generosity of the 'judge'. The judge has to decide whether the degree of similarity is a violation of copyright, or 'fair use'.

But it is interesting that you admit 'non-overlap' of rule #2 and copyrights, albeit so far only (and IMO erroneously) in the sense that rule #2 would allow things copyrights don't. Do you also think there are cases that violate rule #2, but are allowed w.r.t. copyright? IOW, do you claim that rule #2 violations are a sub-set of copyright infringements?

Bob's example of illegally including copyrighted code without violating rule #2 (magic bitboard move generation or EGT probing) was actually valid. But only by virtue of the fact that rule #2 explicitly exempts those parts of an engine from the originality requirement. (Which I have always considered strange, BTW.)

[Sedat Canbaz]

Hello dear Frank,

Do you know where Vas made a BIG mistake ??
He worked very very hard...to add 500 Elo...is not as as it looks
I am still wondering: how is that possible over world strongest engine (Fruit) to add so extra many Elo points...

Yes.... Rybka's author made another BIG mistake:
Vas did not allow his engine to beatable in 6 years...I think it is 'too much' long period !)

BTW,
If the current thread was about opening books, for me will be much easier to prove you )
But it is not...so let's forget everything and let's concentrate as you said about girls, football, cars, movies...

Because we already talked a lot about these issues...
And as you see, our discussions are leading to nowhere...

Right now I am too busy...

See you later and please stay tuned )!



Best,
Sedat

This is a good point, Sedat. I know it happened to me once upon a time - after a while people will gang up on you to take you down, if they resent your success. It's the "let's vote him off the island" syndrome. A very nasty side to human nature.

Regards,
CL

Hello Carl,

Yes...what a pity that there are such people...

I remember too,
When Perfect books were unbeatable during 2007-2009 years
How many people were against Me....
There were guys who claimed that I am a Cloner...
That's why I say:
You can't be on Top by the work of others !
Because I know very well how much I worked on those days to be on Top
My all 5 tournament computers worked for creating new opening strong ideas that never played before...

And those clever guys tried everything to damage my prestige...
But finely what happened, what is changed..nothing... ?)

Even SCCT Book Tournaments become much more popular...
More than 1000 opening books participated in SCCT so far...



Best,
Sedat

[Rebel]

Does that mean you are prepared to finally admit that they are different?

Suggestive question.

From the Wiki -

A suggestive question is one that implies that a certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact. Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional.

Show me where I stated they are equal.

More to the point, are you finally prepared to admit that exact PST's are a copyright infringment?

Along that point, are YOU finally prepared, given your statement above, that according to YOUR definition of copyright, Vas violated copyright, which is even worse than violating ICGA rule2? You and Chris hung your hats on the issue that PSTs are just numbers. Tables of numbers. Tables that did NOT violate copyright. It would seem you have done another 180 degree flip-flop here???

Not at all.

Rybka PST and Fruit PST greatly differ.

That you and others made it an issue is wrong for various reasons. First of all it's based on the ASSUMPTION Vas used a modified version of the Fruit PST initializing code to create them. That's indemonstrable. Furthermore and secondly, Miguel gave you some PST lessons up to the point he found a "substantial similarity" between a Crafy and Fruit PST how absurd that line of thinking was.

And that's basically the whole case in a nutshell, assumptions build on assumptions from an already closed mind leading to a guilty verdict.

Your focus should have been on portions of clear and undeniable copied code. As the CC communinity has done in the past with an 100% consensus among the programmers.

[Sedat Canbaz]

Just I'd like to add to my previous posting (15 minutes past)):
Vasik Rajlich left ComputerChess when he was on Top, as unbeatable !

Yes... Ippolit is appeared on scene (10-20 Elo stronger than Rybka), but with which ideas...??)