Whether Rybka 4 Should Be Allowed To Play At the WCCC?

Sean Evans · Post by **Sean Evans** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 pm

Hello group,

As Rybka 4 is suspected to be a derivative of the chess program Fruit should it be allowed to play at the WCCC?? As only original works are allowed to play at the WCCC.

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/t ... php?id=209

Cordially,

Sean

M ANSARI · Post by **M ANSARI** » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:26 pm

Where do you get that information? Most of the talk of Rybka having anything to do with Fruit was regarding Rybka 1 beta. Since Rybka 3 has been disassembled and its guts are out for everyone to see, I have not heard that it has anything to do with Fruit. I would guess Rybka 4 is even more of a change. If you are posting this to try to get rally support for one of the recent Rybka 3 clones to get treated as an original engine ... good luck with that.

alpha123 · Post by **alpha123** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:40 am

M ANSARI wrote:Where do you get that information? Most of the talk of Rybka having anything to do with Fruit was regarding Rybka 1 beta. Since Rybka 3 has been disassembled and its guts are out for everyone to see, I have not heard that it has anything to do with Fruit. I would guess Rybka 4 is even more of a change. If you are posting this to try to get rally support for one of the recent Rybka 3 clones to get treated as an original engine ... good luck with that.

If it was in Rybka 1, why wouldn't it be in later Rybkas? Vas certainly rewrote the eval and most likely most/all of the search, but other things (move ordering, UCI parser) are likely unchanged.

Interesting how that argument is extremely applicable to the Ippo issue. Even if (big if) Ippolit contained Rybka code in the beginning, it is all gone by now. So by your standards, IvanHoe, Houdini, Fire, etc are completely legal.

Peter

Hood · Post by **Hood** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 3:22 pm

M ANSARI wrote:Where do you get that information? Most of the talk of Rybka having anything to do with Fruit was regarding Rybka 1 beta. Since Rybka 3 has been disassembled and its guts are out for everyone to see, I have not heard that it has anything to do with Fruit. I would guess Rybka 4 is even more of a change. If you are posting this to try to get rally support for one of the recent Rybka 3 clones to get treated as an original engine ... good luck with that.

Has Rybka proven that it is original programm ?

Not. The same as Ippos

.

Not only Rybka will have that problem, look at the White list on OPEN.

KT · Post by KT » Mon Jun 28, 2010 6:17 pm

notyetagm · Post by **notyetagm** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:35 pm

alpha123 wrote:
M ANSARI wrote:Where do you get that information? Most of the talk of Rybka having anything to do with Fruit was regarding Rybka 1 beta. Since Rybka 3 has been disassembled and its guts are out for everyone to see, I have not heard that it has anything to do with Fruit. I would guess Rybka 4 is even more of a change. If you are posting this to try to get rally support for one of the recent Rybka 3 clones to get treated as an original engine ... good luck with that.
If it was in Rybka 1, why wouldn't it be in later Rybkas? Vas certainly rewrote the eval and most likely most/all of the search, but other things (move ordering, UCI parser) are likely unchanged.

Interesting how that argument is extremely applicable to the Ippo issue. Even if (big if) Ippolit contained Rybka code in the beginning, it is all gone by now. So by your standards, IvanHoe, Houdini, Fire, etc are completely legal.

Peter

Don't you just love it when the Rybka supporters get all outraged when you point out that, basically,

Code: Select all

Fruit + bitboards + speed optimization = Rybka 1

?

notyetagm · Post by **notyetagm** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:39 pm

M ANSARI wrote:Where do you get that information? Most of the talk of Rybka having anything to do with Fruit was regarding Rybka 1 beta. Since Rybka 3 has been disassembled and its guts are out for everyone to see, I have not heard that it has anything to do with Fruit. I would guess Rybka 4 is even more of a change. If you are posting this to try to get rally support for one of the recent Rybka 3 clones to get treated as an original engine ... good luck with that.

Search for the paper published several months ago on this board. The author presented overwhelming evidence that

Code: Select all

Fruit + bitboards + speed optimimzations = Rybka 1.

Which means that Rybka should not be eligible for the WCCC since it is provably a derivative of Fruit.

alpha123 · Post by **alpha123** » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:54 pm

I did not vote, because I believe that Rybka is derived from Fruit, but I think it should be allowed in the WCCC. (I'm sympathetic for Vas, for whatever reason.) Fabien didn't seem to care about the Fruit/Rybka thing, but the FSF now owns the Fruit 2.1 copyright, so I guess it's their decision. (I know what that will be.... *preparing for anti-Rybka campaign.....*

)

Peter

Sean Evans · Post by **Sean Evans** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:48 am

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/f ... s-2010.pdf

18th WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT RULES

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in the details of their submission form. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

Shaun · Post by **Shaun** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:56 am

I still have not seen any evidence that R1 was derived from Fruit...

The link most people seem to make is...

R1 -> Strelka (Vas claimed Strelka was a clone) -> Strelka contained Fruit code -> R1 contains Fruit code...

However my understanding from the likes of DC was that Strelka was a Fruit shell, with some other engine bits plus code from a decompiled Rybka 1. When Vas claimed Strelka was a clone of R1 he did not mean Strelka was an exact copy, which it is not.

Fabien, the author of Fruit saw no issue with Rybka, his view was that some ideas had been taken... and nothing wrong with that.

Also this R1 = a bitboard Fruit rubbish - if it was that simple Rybka would have been caught by all the other Fuit -> bitboard conversions...

Shaun

P.S. Perhaps I have missed* something but I really believe that Rybka was/is less fruity than the now, sadly, common belief.

* any real fact seem swamped but the number of obvious flawed assumptions and miss quotes, recently I even saw a post claiming Vas had admitted that R1 was 20% Fruit code, any attempt to correct the miss quote was burried in other posts.

Please note these are my personal views and I am not speaking on behalf or CCRL.