Albert Silver wrote:If you think you found something, is there any particular reason you do not ask Vas himself or post in his forum, as invited? It would seem to be eminently more logical to simply ask the man himself, than ask 200 people who did NOT write Rybka, or ask someone to forward your questions, no? Registration at the Rybka forums is as painless as here.
CW said he sent it a couple days ago, but no response as of yet. And for the record, I am registered at the Rybka forum, and I (in addition to several other people) have voiced some concerns. No response, except one "Rybka is 100% original".
Yes, I sent it and yes he has responded.
He says he is going to wait for some sort of formal statement as it seems this is in the works. Maybe, he says, at the end they'll just retract everything and apologise.
I'm also going to take my cue from that and stop arguing with your side for the time being. You all posted far too early, accusations without evidence and now everybody has to wait for you to get your act together. Meanwhile there are those on your side who still accuse and spread malicious nonsense, leaving even participation in Beijing under question and threat.
When your material in in proper, professional, readable and complete form the discussion can usefully continue, but with this hiatus, down to your side's lack of preparation and homework and general sloppiness, discussion is basically futile.
I am talking about engines having the same style as Rybka.
Has anyone here seen Rybka play in the same way as Fruit?, or have the similar style? I haven't.
Rybka plays most different kind of chess than most of other engines out there.
Albert Silver wrote:The worst part, IMHO, is that none of what has been shown is remotely related to Rybka's playing ability. I am unqualified to comment on the code itself, but what has been made clear, is that all that is being discussed is code about how the engine sends moves to the interface, and how it gets them back.
No, it's not clear. In fact the main concern I have in the UCI code that was posted is the time control code, which is most definitely related to playing strength.
I have posted elsewhere about similarities in the board representation, the root search function, and the hash table structure. All of these are directly related to playing strength.
The uci code is not about time control but only about target time and maximal time
The maximal time is different(see line 184 of http://pagesperso-orange.fr/ct_chess/Fr ... rt_go.html) and the target time is not the only factor that decides about time managament.
I do not think that good time management is a relative advantage of Rybka1.0 beta so claiming that rybka is strong thanks to copying time managament from fruit is nonsense.
I believe that there are no similiarities in the board representation because rybka is a bitboard program unlike fruit.
Similiarity in the hash table structure and root search functions can clearly be result of learning ideas.
After you learn ideas of using hash tables there are not many ways to express them.
Note that rybka has wrong mate scores unlike fruit so it is clear that
there is a difference in the hash code.
Damir wrote:Instead of all this fuss with Rybka beiing a Fruit clone, or having violated the
GPL of free source, ''how come nobody checks on Fritz 11 or Naum 3 for that
matter''.,
Since both of these 2 programs havecopied Rybka's style of play, why not
decompile them and see what is inside?
I am sure you will find plenty of interesting stuff there.
You say Naum and Fritz have code of Rybka inside? Can you give any hints? I am sure people will be interested and look on it.
Graham Banks wrote:Because they have tunnel vision. They're only interested in discrediting Rybka it would seem.
Fritz 11 is based on Fritz 10, Fritz 10 on Fritz 9 and so on. Same for Naum. Be sure some people check this.
Rybka 1.0 Beta is not based on Rybka 1.6.1. It's a rewrite -> A new engines. And it has similaries that Fritz, Naum and all others do not have... Thats why some people take a closer look...
Damir wrote:Instead of all this fuss with Rybka beiing a Fruit clone, or having violated the
GPL of free source, ''how come nobody checks on Fritz 11 or Naum 3 for that
matter''.,
Since both of these 2 programs havecopied Rybka's style of play, why not
decompile them and see what is inside?
I am sure you will find plenty of interesting stuff there.
You say Naum and Fritz have code of Rybka inside? Can you give any hints? I am sure people will be interested and look on it.
This is utter Nonsense. The stronger chess programs play, the more similar their "playing style" will look like. You can't copy a "playing style".
Uri Blass wrote:I do not think that good time management is a relative advantage of Rybka1.0 beta so claiming that rybka is strong thanks to copying time managament from fruit is nonsense.
I DIDN'T claim that. In fact that would be a pretty silly claim to make, as logically any relative advantage Rybka has is going to come from DIFFERENCES from Fruit. All I said is that it is related to its playing strength...
chrisw wrote:Yes, I sent it and yes he has responded.
He says he is going to wait for some sort of formal statement as it seems this is in the works. Maybe, he says, at the end they'll just retract everything and apologise.
Are you serious? So any questions we give to Vas can just be ignored if he thinks it's not "complete"?
And of course, you will be right there to support that.
Graham Banks wrote:Because they have tunnel vision. They're only interested in discrediting Rybka it would seem.
Fritz 11 is based on Fritz 10, Fritz 10 on Fritz 9 and so on. Same for Naum. Be sure some people check this.
Rybka 1.0 Beta is not based on Rybka 1.6.1. It's a rewrite -> A new engines. And it has similaries that Fritz, Naum and all others do not have... Thats why some people take a closer look...
No evidence that Fritz11 is based on Fritz10
It may be a rewrite.
