wolfv wrote: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
