First experience with Igorrit

[El Gringo]

Hi All,

Until now, i was avoiding any contact with Ippolit, robbolito, iggorit and Ivanhoe's, due to the cloning issue...

But i could not resist any longer....

So i played a little match between Rybka 3 x64 2 CPU and Igorrit 0.086v9 x64 2CPU :

Code: Select all

Igorrit_0086v9_x64 - Rybka 3 x64 2CPU : 18,0/30 8-2-20 (======11=10===1==1=0=11====1==)  60%   +70

Hardware : E5200 @3.7Ghz, 40moves/10 minutes, Arena GUI + Arena mainbook 10 moves.
+70 Elo ! Never saw a clone engine that is so much stronger than the original ?!?

Best
Johan

[BubbaTough]

Never saw a clone engine that is so much stronger than the original ?!?

Best
Johan

Really? I don't follow that stuff much, but I thought some of the Toga's were quite a lot stronger than the original fruit source. Maybe we are having a semantic difference here between clone and derived work.

-Sam

[beram]

Dear Johan, I agree on that. It is a very sensational development. After two years of hardly any ELO-progress by chessoftware programming. Perhaps those guys are standing on the shoulders of their predecessors, but the main point is that they have succeeded in pushing the limits further for sure.
Btw do you or others have any clue in who the real persons behind this project are ? I am just curious

[wolfv]

Dear Johan,


my "old" team-mate in computer chess and our two-time trophy bearer in Leiden . It's only every now and then that I take a peek at CCC and after seeing your message it was I who couldn't resist to say hi and wish you all the best in 2010

With regard to your results I should say that I have about the same margin in my testing the new Igorrit and Rybka --- at game in 10 min Igor is leading by a hefty margin, yo-yoying between +45 and +65... which is an excellent result. I play matches on my i5-750 box and it seems almost obvious after about 350 games that Rybka's finally been dethroned as the margin is at an almost steady + 60 in favour of Igorrit.

Naturally, many issues are unclear here. Someone mentioned that it was possible for a cloner to make a superior successor, e.g. Toga (supposedly a clone?) was better than Fruit, but I would like to ask if this applied to Rybka ver. 1, too -- (rising from a mere 2100 elo and one-more-uci-engine obscurity to 3000 elo in a matter of weeks after the publication of the Fruit sources). How did it come to be so much better than Fruit, but the answer for many here is at hand, they say that it's been shown rather clearly that Rybka ver. 1 had substantial parts (not only snippets, as often said) of Letouzey's program.

It is apparently a very complex story of double standards --- still, one person could eventually resolve the matter of who "stole" code from whom (Vasik Rajlich). What is needed is evidence that points to parts of code in Ippo that were stolen from Rybka. However, the waters are much too murky at the moment and Vasik's keeping them that way... doing nothing to help us all get to the truth.

From my past dabbling in chess programming I am rather convinced that Igo/Ippo/Robbo, etc. are not merly clones but vastly improved versions of some other programs. Not necessarily only Rybka...


If the vindication of Rybka ver. 1 was based on its phenomenal playing strength and the oft quoted proverbial scientific leaps achieved by standing on the shoulders of the giants preceding us, then lets give Ippo the benefit of the doubt too, using the same cliche. Unless (and until) proof of theft is offered, of course.

I said all this so as to try to convince both myself and you to feel relaxed about using the program and testing it freely as its status is "innocent until proven otherwise". If it turns out that there is clear evidence that Ippo is a clone -- then we should chuck it away and go back to Stockfish or Doch or Shredder or Fritz, or Ruffian, for that matter .


Good to see you here again, I was really glad when I ran across your post. Best wishes to the family and happy testing.

Your team-mate and chess friend,


Djordje

[BubbaTough]

Someone mentioned that it was possible for a cloner to make a superior successor, e.g. Toga (supposedly a clone?) was better than Fruit
Djordje

This is not a matter of debate. Toga extended fruit, with permission of the author, and everyone was perfectly fine with his. A quick look at CCRL 40/4 shows:

Toga II 1.4.3JD beta19a 2935 +-15
Fruit 2.2.1 2850 +-18

Though I think Toga was extended from Fruit 2.1, I didn't see 2.1 on the rating list. Its a reasonable guess it was not (much) stronger than 2.2.1. So Toga II seems pretty strong compared to Fruit. I had thought the difference was even more for some reason.

I don't want to get into the whole Rybka 1 thing (as you say, there are a lot of complicated issues) but a couple things are clear.

1. It is quite possible for a derivative work to be much stronger than the original.
2. No one minds people working on derivative work, as long as its with permission of the author (though there are sometimes issues with entering them in tournaments).

-Sam

[wolfv]

"Though I think Toga was extended from Fruit 2.1, I didn't see 2.1 on the rating list. Its a reasonable guess it was not (much) stronger than 2.2.1...."

I am sure that you must've meant that that Fruit 2.1 was definitely not so much *weaker* than 2.2.1, because, if my memory serves me well, it was the pre-commercial version with very simple evaluation and without tb support, whereas 2.2.1 was commercial for a time.

As for derivative work (within the GPL licence and with permission) producing superior results quite often, I agree, of course. I think that I did not emphasize the bit I wanted while formulating my post, thus did not come across the way I planned.

One detail that I'd like to add at this point: the programs that I find really attractive and very strong are Naum by Aleks Naumov, Glaurung (Stockfish) by Tord Romstad, and, lately, Doch by Don Dailey. I find Naum and Doch doubly attractive as they offer native Linux support that I find a must , these three are very creative programs that took so much effort to write, kudos to the authors. If Ippo and comp. turn out to be without moral blemish, I will continue testing and using them --- they are an attraction now and I fully understand one's wish to test and use them for analysis.

[BubbaTough]

"Though I think Toga was extended from Fruit 2.1, I didn't see 2.1 on the rating list. Its a reasonable guess it was not (much) stronger than 2.2.1...."

I am sure that you must've meant that that Fruit 2.1 was definitely not so much *weaker* than 2.2.1, because, if my memory serves me well, it was the pre-commercial version with very simple evaluation and without tb support, whereas 2.2.1 was commercial for a time.

As for derivative work (within the GPL licence and with permission) producing superior results quite often, I agree, of course. I think that I did not emphasize the bit I wanted while formulating my post, thus did not come across the way I planned.

One detail that I'd like to add at this point: the programs that I find really attractive and very strong are Naum by Aleks Naumov, Glaurung (Stockfish) by Tord Romstad, and, lately, Doch by Don Dailey. I find Naum and Doch doubly attractive as they offer native Linux support that I find a must , these three are very creative programs that took so much effort to write, kudos to the authors. If Ippo and comp. turn out to be without moral blemish, I will continue testing and using them --- they are an attraction now and I fully understand one's wish to test and use them for analysis.

I haven't played with Naum much because it isn't free, but I must agree Doch and Glaurung/Stockfish are wonderful! I end up looking at a lot of games from them now that they are in my testbed .

-Sam

[Albert Silver]

Someone mentioned that it was possible for a cloner to make a superior successor, e.g. Toga (supposedly a clone?) was better than Fruit
Djordje

This is not a matter of debate. Toga extended fruit, with permission of the author, and everyone was perfectly fine with his. A quick look at CCRL 40/4 shows:

Toga II 1.4.3JD beta19a 2935 +-15
Fruit 2.2.1 2850 +-18

Though I think Toga was extended from Fruit 2.1, I didn't see 2.1 on the rating list. Its a reasonable guess it was not (much) weaker than 2.2.1.

Fruit 2.1 was about 60 Elo weaker than Fruit 2.2.1

[BubbaTough]

Someone mentioned that it was possible for a cloner to make a superior successor, e.g. Toga (supposedly a clone?) was better than Fruit
Djordje

This is not a matter of debate. Toga extended fruit, with permission of the author, and everyone was perfectly fine with his. A quick look at CCRL 40/4 shows:

Toga II 1.4.3JD beta19a 2935 +-15
Fruit 2.2.1 2850 +-18

Though I think Toga was extended from Fruit 2.1, I didn't see 2.1 on the rating list. Its a reasonable guess it was not (much) weaker than 2.2.1.

Fruit 2.1 was about 60 Elo weaker than Fruit 2.2.1

OK, that makes sense. I thought the difference between Fruit 2.1 and Toga was larger than I was showing here .

-Sam

[Uri Blass]

Someone mentioned that it was possible for a cloner to make a superior successor, e.g. Toga (supposedly a clone?) was better than Fruit
Djordje

This is not a matter of debate. Toga extended fruit, with permission of the author, and everyone was perfectly fine with his. A quick look at CCRL 40/4 shows:

Toga II 1.4.3JD beta19a 2935 +-15
Fruit 2.2.1 2850 +-18

Though I think Toga was extended from Fruit 2.1, I didn't see 2.1 on the rating list. Its a reasonable guess it was not (much) stronger than 2.2.1. So Toga II seems pretty strong compared to Fruit. I had thought the difference was even more for some reason.

I don't want to get into the whole Rybka 1 thing (as you say, there are a lot of complicated issues) but a couple things are clear.

1. It is quite possible for a derivative work to be much stronger than the original.
2. No one minds people working on derivative work, as long as its with permission of the author (though there are sometimes issues with entering them in tournaments).

-Sam

CCRL 40/40 clearly have both toga and fruit2.1

Grapefruit 1.0 32-bit 2936 +12 −12 52.7% −17.3 48.2% 2233
Toga II 1.4.1SE 2933 +11 −11 50.2% +1.0 43.5% 2551
Fruit 2.1 2797 +25 −24 51.2% −11.5 37.7% 547

CCRL 40/4 was generated only later so they did not test fruit2.1 inspite of testing 126 programs from the toga family