Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Hi Frank,Frank Quisinsky wrote: Bison ... some people gave me the information that the most are Fruit sources. Yesterday I search more information about it but don't find them. Furthermore, different crashes with Bison 9.11 x64 and automacially Shredder tournaments via network. I tested Bison 9.11 x64 in the morning last day
Milos, for me is really important to have different engines in my list.
Christopher Conkie told me that Gull was okay to test and I trust his word on it.Frank Quisinsky wrote:Hi Graham,
do you have problems with Bison 9.11 x64 under Shredder Classic GUI?
GullChess ... yes I donwload the engine.
I don't add the engine because to many updates so far. So I wait a little bit with testing
Furthermore, don't have any information about GullChess, no readme file.
SWCR rules:
No programs with unclear origin!!
Best
Frank
BugChess 1.6.4 is interesting but I have problems with Shredder GUI and WB2uci adapter too. Try it out yesterday.
10-4
benstoker wrote:You know what a lot of constitutional lawyers say about 'hate speech' in response to those wanting laws passed to prohibit 'hate speech'? They say the remedy to hate speech is more speech. In other words, more debate, more dialogue. more discussion. You defeat bigots with ideas and reason.
What this board should do is PROMOTE discussion of the ip* controversy in every possible way it can, because getting to the bottom of this thing would do a great service to the computer chess community. Post links to the code or code sections or whatever, and debate, debate, debate, more speech. Because that's the only way to resolve this. The short-sighted, unthinking shutting down of discussion simply serves no one. In order for Vas' supporters to be vindicated, they simply must engage.
bob wrote:Graham said he was _told_ to remove the ip* links. The post from Steve shows this to be completely false, that the "legality determination" was left to the moderators. Graham clearly said "That is not for me to decide, I'll leave that to the experts."
So, what expert has said that ip* and friends are illegal? What did he "leave to the experts" (I assume he expected at least one to support his uninformed decision to not allow links?)??
Talk about contradiction and self-incrimination...
I believe the general feeling is that the ip* case is _very_ unclear. It is _extremely_ clear that it is not a pure copy of Rybka 3, bb's post certainly proves that beyond any reasonable doubt. What, if anything, was copied is unclear. For all we know at the present, the ip* program contains much of fruit. That would explain similarities to the Rybka series (for obvious reasons).
With no evidence supporting "clone" and some interesting information showing "differences" there is more than "reasonable doubt" here. In fact, a preponderance of the evidence also supports the legality of ip* since there is no evidence to the contrary at all, yet.
bob wrote:benstoker wrote:Didn't Vas recently correspond with someone saying 20% of fruit was in rybka? Recent post ... too lazy to search it ...
Don't remember seeing that, but doesn't mean it didn't happen.
bob wrote:Actually, search has nothing to do with bitboards. Just look at search.c in Crafty. Evaluate() is clearly a different animal, however. But there are large chunks of a chess engine that are independent of the board representation, yet they are important to playing chess. Move ordering/selection, search itself, hashing, extension/reduction stuff, and even some parts of eval that don't care about piece placement (material balance/imbalance, etc.)Dann Corbit wrote:Because the souce code for Rybka 1 is not availble, the only thing that is available is Zach's reverse engineering job.bob wrote:I am saying, unequivocally, that code from fruit was copied and used in Rybka 1. Whether or not this code remains in current versions is unknown, but highly probable. ip* is unknown. I have not personally compared it to fruit, but that might be an interesting comparison. Although I am not sure it would be convincing since if you copy from the original, or a copy of the original, you could end up with the same thing and it would be pretty tough to decide whether the thing is a copy of the original or the copy.Ryan Benitez wrote:Please be clear. Are you making any GPL violation claims against either engine? Ideas used from Fruit are not a violation unless code is taken outside of the GPL. I am sure the team of people that worked on Fruit 2.1 are proud to have impacted other engines in a positive way.
Since Rybka 1 is bitboard and not array based like Fruit, it is literally impossible to simply cut and paste things like eval and search.
See above. Much more can be cut/pasted than you suspect.The only things (therefore) which can be cut and paste operations are simple and trivial utility routines. Whether this has happend or not is again open to debate.
Based on 40+ years of trying to prevent student plagiarism on homework assignments. One doesn't find an identical block of code here, an identical block of code there, in a program of any significant size (>20 lines of code). I could take the assignments from my X86 programming course, where programs 2, 3 and 4 are on the range of 30-50 lines each, and let you take assignment 2 from 20 students and compare them. You'd see what I mean. Very different approaches to produce the same result. Duplicate code just does not happen by accident.
Here is what is literally and undeniably clear:
Vas carefully studied Fruit and then either copied code or wrote his own version. If he copied then he committed a crime. If he wrote his own version then he may have done somthing that chess programmers do not like but which would nonetheless be legal.
I think it is strange to say you know which of the two possibilities actually occurred.
Last quote from him I saw said, explicitly, "there are zero lines of fruit code in Rybka 1." Hard to mis-interpret the meaning of the word "zero" in that context. It can't mean "just a few".
And (let us suppose) that a few utility routines were copied and used directly. Since he did give credit to Fruit in his beta documentation, would this usage be within the category of "fair use"? Again, I do not think it is possible to say.
First, using ideas has never been an issue. What is an issue is the simple term "plagiarism" which is copying something someone else wrote verbatim. Whether you copy a paragraph of a book, a chapter, or the whole thing, it is _still_ plagiarism. I've never asked for the ICGA, CCT or ACCA to not allow Rybka to participate. Seems to be somewhat like closing the barn door after the horse has left.
It seems possible to me that your dislike of the action (CLEARLY he has used Fruit ideas) may be coloring your notion that you can plainly see the path he has taken to get there.
Second, there is no "notion" to color in this situation. This is a case of pregnant or not pregnant, and there are only two possible answers. And for this case, "no" is not an answer based on evidence already presented. Therefore...
Robert Flesher wrote:bob wrote:Don't remember seeing that, but doesn't mean it didn't happen.benstoker wrote:Didn't Vas recently correspond with someone saying 20% of fruit was in rybka? Recent post ... too lazy to search it ...
As if Zach just posted random stuff that he hadn't researched at all....(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.
Depends on how you interpret "direct influence".alpha123 wrote:As if Zach just posted random stuff that he hadn't researched at all....(5) It seems to be guesswork. I'd estimate that 40% of the points are wrong, 40% are standard chess/computer chess concepts, and 20% are direct Fruit influence on Rybka.
Peter
I would suggest that you visit www.psychic.edu and request a full refund on your degree in psychic mind-reading. It is not working. Apparently you know how much time I spend on what, and can read my mind to know what I would or would not reveal. In reality, as the saying goes, you don't know squat.Wayne Lowrance wrote:Bob if you spent half the time you have given to the fruit-rybka thing on the Ip thing and rybka you may just have a different conclusion, although I doubt you would share it in this case here.