Raubfisch

[Guenther]

yawn...it is since long proven that it is illegally derived from SF, no code needed, there are other tools.

Proven by what? Suppositions are worthless in a trial.

1. it was proven several times with extracted ascii/symbols from various binaries
2. you seem not to be able to read the thread nor the readme itself, which comes with the crappy raubfisch?

what do think is the meaning of the quotes (from this thread!) below?

Re: Raubfisch

Post by Guenther » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:57 pm

corres wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:24 pm

Raubfish is a derivative of Stockfish and this is admitted by its authors too.

...ridiculously admitted (meanwhile), because they illegally still don't release the source code,
which is of course easy, since the fake authors are fake people too...

So you think the so called non-existing fake authors with fake names even lie in their own readme?
(of course Torpedo has the same level of existence as the 'authors', but that's not relevant anymore,
because they happily confess to use SF directly since a while, which is easy for anonymous clowns)

Code: Select all

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Raubfisch is an engine derived from Stockfish and Torpedo 1.1 XJR (private engine by Frank Karl Werner and Max Fehler).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my last response to someone who just created an account for trolling...

This thread belongs to 'Engine Origins' BTW and I suggest to move it there.

[kramnik]

Uh yes, I have forgotten about that sentence. Then you are right. I don't understand all this hatred towards the authors anyway... and no, I didn't create this account for "trolling" at all, I've made it since Google Analytics reported that a good part of my website visits were from this forum, so I was curious.

I don't plan to remove Raubfisch for the moment... we'll see how things will develop in the future.

[corres]

The tricky part to understand about it being illegal is that they are breaking the law. I don't know why it is tricky but it seems to be hard to comprehend.
That's all you need to understand.
The engine is a GPL engine.
The license for the use of this engine says that you must share the code changes you make.
They authors did not do that.
...

You are right.
But if somebody injure the rights of the authors of a program only the authors have right to act against the harm of right. Any others allow to mark the harm of right and only the court of justice have right to decide about it.
From the beginning Stockfish is an open source program and the GPL gives defense against commercial using only. If developers of Stockfish would act against non-commercial using of Stockfish source it would be opposite to the idea of the open source movement.
So formally the authors of Raubfish injured the law but in reality they are incorrect only when they do not give to public the source of Raubfish. With this they injure the idea of open source movement because meanwhile they use the results of the developers of Stockfish they keep secret their results from them and any others.

[Stephen Ham]

Dear gents,

Please allow me to address you individually.

Guenther: Thanks for your contributions to this thread. I agree with you regarding Raubfisch's GPL violation, especially when the mysterious "author(s)" of Raubfisch admit that it's derived from Stockfish. So, the violation is clear. But, while a GPL violation exists, I don't know if the violation is criminal. After all, Raubfisch is also free (non-commercial) and nobody has been harmed by their failure to release their engine's code.

Raubfisch's mysterious "author(s)" don't help their cause by using joke names for "themselves" and their engine version (i.e. ME-262). This lack of credibility long caused me to avoid even testing it.

Guenther, you want this thread removed to the Engine Origins site. I respectfully disagree. I'm the originator of this thread and am posting only as an interested observer to inform that Raubfisch seems at least as strong as Stockfisch. It might even be superior, if my perceptions of its move selection and evaluations function are correct. So, I'm not advocating for this GPL violator other than to merely report performance.

Massimiliano:, It's a shock that you only now admit that Raubfisch's "author(s)" clearly state that Raubfisch is derived from Stockfisch. After all, this statement is cited on your website! You now have a moral decision to make about retaining links to Raubfisch on your site without at least publicly distancing yourself from the GPL violation. If you have communications with Raubfisch's "author(s)", then it would be mutually beneficial to inform them of their GPL violation and ask them to correct matters. Also, tell them their joke names only lower their already dubious credibility.

Dann: It's always great hearing from you since you add value with every post. I agree that a 100-game match is too short from which to draw definitive conclusions. But, given the relatively long Time Control in this match, I'd like to have my computer back soon. So, a 1000+ game match is just too long for me. Nonetheless, after 136 games, Raubfisch has increased its lead over Stockfish by 12 victories to 9. Does this mean that Raubfisch is tactically superior (this match's opening book was designed to test tactical skill) to Stockfish? No. In fact, in a previous 110 game match with earlier engine iterations and a shorter Time Control and related opening book, Stockfish had a 2:1 superiority - 12 victories versus 6 defeats. But it does suggest that the latest Raubfisch is of equivalent tactical strength with a longer Time Control, given a performance over that many games. I'll stop the match sometime tomorrow after 150+ games have been completed and report the result here.

All the best,
-Steve-

[Dann Corbit]

Re:
"But, while a GPL violation exists, I don't know if the violation is criminal. After all, Raubfisch is also free and nobody has been harmed by their failure to release their engine's code."

Consider the thousands of hours the various members of the Stockfish team have put into engineering this marvel.
Yes, it is volunteer effort, but the value of the effort is not diminished by the fact that they donated the time.

Consider 10,000 hours of effort at $100.00 per hour (for top-notch computer engineering, that's cheap).
That would be a million dollars.

So that is what I think the fine should be. (Probably a lot more, but that's a minimum starting point).

[Stephen Ham]

Dear gents,

Here's the match update: After 162 games, Raubfisch leads Stockfish by +4, 13 victories to 9. That's only 14% of all games being decisive, which seems very odd given the ultra-sharp opening book.

I'll let the match run a bit longer as I need to do my taxes now.

All the best,
-Steve-

[Stephen Ham]

Dear gents,

I stopped the match after 200 games. The result was a 15 victory to 12 loss result in favor of Raubfisch X40 over Stockfish 3/31/19.

Strictly on the basis of performance, this engine should be noticed. Statistically, this result could have been obtained by playing Stockfish against itself. After all, Raubfisch's mysterious "author(s)" admits it's derived from Stockfish.

Nonetheless, Raubfisch apparently has more code. I also perceive that it has a more accurate and stable evaluation function and slightly different move selection. But search speed and depth are virtually identical for both.

However, I remain VERY surprised that only 14% of the games were decisive, especially when the opening book was ultra-sharp and largely terminated after 10 moves or less. After all, I wanted the engines to solve their tactical situations as early as possible.

I can make all games available to interested parties.

Sincerely,
-Steve-

[supersharp77]

Dear gents,

I stopped the match after 200 games. The result was a 15 victory to 12 loss result in favor of Raubfisch X40 over Stockfish 3/31/19.

Strictly on the basis of performance, this engine should be noticed. Statistically, this result could have been obtained by playing Stockfish against itself. After all, Raubfisch's mysterious "author(s)" admits it's derived from Stockfish.

Nonetheless, Raubfisch apparently has more code. I also perceive that it has a more accurate and stable evaluation function and slightly different move selection. But search speed and depth are virtually identical for both.

However, I remain VERY surprised that only 14% of the games were decisive, especially when the opening book was ultra-sharp and largely terminated after 10 moves or less. After all, I wanted the engines to solve their tactical situations as early as possible.

I can make all games available to interested parties.

Sincerely,
-Steve-

When You say 'Sharp' what openings mostly came up? D4 Or E4? Najdorf or KID? French...If it was a "tactics test" maybe "Cherry Picking" the positions/variations might be best...for overall ability perhaps a slower opening system might be better..especially with a 200 game match...AR

[Stephen Ham]

Hello AR,

I've learned from previous engine tests that my openings extended too deeply - they solved much of the tactics for the engines before reaching the middlegame. Instead, I wanted to reach sharp and unbalanced positions as quickly as possible to force the engines to solve matters on their own. This was meant to be a test of tactical superiority. So, I created a shallow opening book with the following opening lines:

1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 Qb3 e5 4 cxd5 exd4 5 Nf3 Be4 6 Nxd4 Bxd5 7 Qg3
5... Bc5 6 Nxd4 Bxd4 7 Qa4+ Nc6 8 dxc6 b5 9 Qb3 Ne7 10 e3 Bf6 11 Bxb5
2 Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 dxe4 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 7 g4 Be4 8 Ne4 Nxe4 9 Qf3 Qh4+ 10 Kd1
1... Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 Nf3 Bc5 5 e3 Nc6 6 b3 0-0 7 Bb2 Re8
1... b6 2 c4 Bb7 3 Nc3 e6 4 e4 Bb4 5 Bd3 f5

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7
3 Bc4 Qh4+ 4 Kf1 d6 5 d4 Nf6 6 Nf3 Qh6 7 Nc3
2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 Bc4 cxb2 6 Bxb2 Bb4+ 7 Nc3 Nf6 8 Qc2 d6 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 e5 Ng4 11 Ncxe5 12 Ng5 g6 13 Nce4 Bf5 14 Qb3 Qe8 15 f3

I've since modified my book to add 8 Be2 to the Budapest Gambit (line 4) as I was shocked to see that both engines invariably played 8 h3?!, wasting a tempo to force Black to do what he's going to do anyway...recapture the pawn. I subsequently forced Stockfisch to calculate to see if it ever selects 8 Be2 on its own. It required 42 minutes on my old quad before selecting 8 Be2 and then staying with it for several hours. But this is a move that most humans would play automatically. Even 8 Bd3 is superior to 8 h3. Somehow the chess engines failed to see that instead of losing a tempo, they should develop and castle.

Some of the above lines variously favor White or Black. But since both engines alternate colors with each opening line, then matters were fair.

Both engines often claimed large advantages, frequently winning advantages, only to have the game draw. Some of the overstated evaluations were no doubt a result of Contempt. At times, both engines simultaneously claimed the advantage for itself. Clearly both engines need improved evaluation functions.

Stockfish's valuations fluctuated wildly while Raubfisch's were more stable, and somewhat more accurate.

I'm auditing the games now to see what the engines found...and didn't find. This will take several days. So far, it seems a mixture of brilliance and stupidity (e.g. 8 h3?!). Also, I had to extend the Goring Gambit line because the engines kept playing 9 0-0? and White kept losing (this was learned in a previous test). But after 9 0-0-0 (again, the "human" move) they both favored Black at the end of the line...only to change their evaluations a few moves later.

Given all the draws, I now wonder if the above wild lines actually lead to equality.

Sincerely,
-Steve-

[supersharp77]

Hello AR,

I've learned from previous engine tests that my openings extended too deeply - they solved much of the tactics for the engines before reaching the middlegame. Instead, I wanted to reach sharp and unbalanced positions as quickly as possible to force the engines to solve matters on their own. This was meant to be a test of tactical superiority. So, I created a shallow opening book with the following opening lines:

1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 Qb3 e5 4 cxd5 exd4 5 Nf3 Be4 6 Nxd4 Bxd5 7 Qg3
5... Bc5 6 Nxd4 Bxd4 7 Qa4+ Nc6 8 dxc6 b5 9 Qb3 Ne7 10 e3 Bf6 11 Bxb5
2 Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 dxe4 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 7 g4 Be4 8 Ne4 Nxe4 9 Qf3 Qh4+ 10 Kd1
1... Nf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 Ng4 4 Nf3 Bc5 5 e3 Nc6 6 b3 0-0 7 Bb2 Re8
1... b6 2 c4 Bb7 3 Nc3 e6 4 e4 Bb4 5 Bd3 f5

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7
3 Bc4 Qh4+ 4 Kf1 d6 5 d4 Nf6 6 Nf3 Qh6 7 Nc3
2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 Bc4 cxb2 6 Bxb2 Bb4+ 7 Nc3 Nf6 8 Qc2 d6 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 e5 Ng4 11 Ncxe5 12 Ng5 g6 13 Nce4 Bf5 14 Qb3 Qe8 15 f3

I've since modified my book to add 8 Be2 to the Budapest Gambit (line 4) as I was shocked to see that both engines invariably played 8 h3?!, wasting a tempo to force Black to do what he's going to do anyway...recapture the pawn. I subsequently forced Stockfisch to calculate to see if it ever selects 8 Be2 on its own. It required 42 minutes on my old quad before selecting 8 Be2 and then staying with it for several hours. But this is a move that most humans would play automatically. Even 8 Bd3 is superior to 8 h3. Somehow the chess engines failed to see that instead of losing a tempo, they should develop and castle.

Some of the above lines variously favor White or Black. But since both engines alternate colors with each opening line, then matters were fair.

Both engines often claimed large advantages, frequently winning advantages, only to have the game draw. Some of the overstated evaluations were no doubt a result of Contempt. At times, both engines simultaneously claimed the advantage for itself. Clearly both engines need improved evaluation functions.

Stockfish's valuations fluctuated wildly while Raubfisch's were more stable, and somewhat more accurate.

I'm auditing the games now to see what the engines found...and didn't find. This will take several days. So far, it seems a mixture of brilliance and stupidity (e.g. 8 h3?!). Also, I had to extend the Goring Gambit line because the engines kept playing 9 0-0? and White kept losing (this was learned in a previous test). But after 9 0-0-0 (again, the "human" move) they both favored Black at the end of the line...only to change their evaluations a few moves later.

Given all the draws, I now wonder if the above wild lines actually lead to equality.

Sincerely,
-Steve-

Well.....when I say "Sharp" I mean "Extra Sharp" 'Supercomplications' ..."Crazy" You probably should look as some Slav "sac" lines...KID sharp lines....not necessarily Kings Gambit or Bishops Gambit...Complex Ruy Lopez or The E4-E5 Bc4-Bc5 Piano Lines...The Najdorf Sicilian..Dragon...Pelikan..Sharp Nimzo or Queens Indian Lines or The Dutch Defense...hard to play draw lines in those...Not Impossible..but quite hard...not too deep in the lines...computers tend to go their own way in the openings...