M ANSARI wrote:I don't know what I am talking about? Maybe you don't know what you are talking about. I don't give a rats ass what you consider what evaluation is, but for me evaluation is STATIC EVALUATION of a position. It has been a while since I tested Fruit or Rybka 1.0, but I can assure you that the evaluations of both programs are completely different. Now if for you evaluation means the SEARCH + EVALUATION SKELETAL CODE + OBFUSCATED RYBKA OUTPUT , then that is your problem. As for me being quiet you little moron, that will be in your dreams. As for respect, ... jeeezz where the hell do you come from. Respect for what and by whom??? Is that why you are here ... respect?? If you want respect, then maybe you can do something original instead of copying and pasting. Now be a good boy and go back to your cloner site where you get the "respect" you deserve.
Writing in anger doesn't make you look less stupid, you can bet on that .
Your writing just confirms how ignorant really are some ppl that test engines (even for years) about the way engines work...
Yes ignorance is bliss. Aren't you the one that was trying to tell me that humans cannot understand what was going on when I was trying to show you that Rybka 3 and one of the Ippolit clones had the same bishop pair weakness? And you are trying to point out ignorance . I can show you quite a few other positions where a human can see where an engine is weak. But most probably you are better off just looking at code and leave the chess stuff to others. Now be a good boy and go back to your clone site where you get the "respect" that you seem to be craving.
M ANSARI wrote:Yes ignorance is bliss. Aren't you the one that was trying to tell me that humans cannot understand what was going on when I was trying to show you that Rybka 3 and one of the Ippolit clones had the same bishop pair weakness?
Man, if you are talking about blind bishop knowledge I can point you out to the eval asm sub in Rybka 3 binary where you can see that the knowledge is missing and to exact code line in Ippolit.c where it is implemented, but I guess there is no point since you would not understand it anyway.
I guess that there is also no point to explain you that you cannot measure just the STATIC EVALUATION by blackbox methods (looking at the output). You need a debugger and a fair asm knowledge...
M ANSARI wrote:Yes ignorance is bliss. Aren't you the one that was trying to tell me that humans cannot understand what was going on when I was trying to show you that Rybka 3 and one of the Ippolit clones had the same bishop pair weakness?
Man, if you are talking about blind bishop knowledge I can point you out to the eval asm sub in Rybka 3 binary where you can see that the knowledge is missing and to exact code line in Ippolit.c where it is implemented, but I guess there is no point since you would not understand it anyway.
I guess that there is also no point to explain you that you cannot measure just the STATIC EVALUATION by blackbox methods (looking at the output). You need a debugger and a fair asm knowledge...
Ignorance IS bliss! Man I am not talking about blind bishop knowledge, man I am talking about bishop pair weakness ... or do you not know the difference? Maybe you can find it and fix it in Ippolit since it is something that was fixed to good effect in Rybka 4. Most likely in your case it is better to wait until someone disassembles Rybka 4 ... that way you can just copy and paste it
M ANSARI wrote:Yes ignorance is bliss. Aren't you the one that was trying to tell me that humans cannot understand what was going on when I was trying to show you that Rybka 3 and one of the Ippolit clones had the same bishop pair weakness?
Man, if you are talking about blind bishop knowledge I can point you out to the eval asm sub in Rybka 3 binary where you can see that the knowledge is missing and to exact code line in Ippolit.c where it is implemented, but I guess there is no point since you would not understand it anyway.
I guess that there is also no point to explain you that you cannot measure just the STATIC EVALUATION by blackbox methods (looking at the output). You need a debugger and a fair asm knowledge...
Ignorance IS bliss! Man I am not talking about blind bishop knowledge, man I am talking about bishop pair weakness ... or do you not know the difference? Maybe you can find it and fix it in Ippolit since it is something that was fixed to good effect in Rybka 4. Most likely in your case it is better to wait until someone disassembles Rybka 4 ... that way you can just copy and paste it
M ANSARI wrote:Ignorance IS bliss! Man I am not talking about blind bishop knowledge, man I am talking about bishop pair weakness ... or do you not know the difference? Maybe you can find it and fix it in Ippolit since it is something that was fixed to good effect in Rybka 4. Most likely in your case it is better to wait until someone disassembles Rybka 4 ... that way you can just copy and paste it
Lets see :
The resident ignoramus of the CCC posts this
M ANSARI wrote:Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:42 am Post subject: Re: Evidence for/against Robbo & Co being a Rybka clone
The bishop bug that is in Rybka 3 is not a good point of argument. The code was in Rybka and clearly was left out either by mistake or choice. If you look at Rybka 2.2n it obviously has the code for the wrong bishop, so someone could probably look at previously cloned versions of Rybka and pick up the code from there.
So I set-up this position
[D]7k/8/8/7P/7P/3B3P/8/7K w - - 3
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.
I think it is important for them to define the term derivative.
It is very clear that Rybka 1.0 uses Fruit ideas (I do not know how much is known about current Rybka versions). Does the use of these ideas make it (Rybka 1.0) a clone?
Consider that all chess programs use Alpha-Beta from John McCarthy's 1956 proposal. So under a loose definition, all programs are clones. So what *exactly* is a clone?
I completely agree with you.
Using ideas is not cloning.
It is curious how this Fruit-Rybka topic got so much attention and no one could prove anything serious so far.
The funny thing is that most people attacking Vas are only doing that because they believe in others "experts" statements. They don't have a clue about the "thing" itself, they just like pointing fingers. Poor sheep following the shepherd.
Best to all,
Have you _actually_ looked at any of the technical information that has been shown, or are you simply another brand of sheep following a different (and not so ethical) shepherd???
.
. I can show you quite a few other positions where a human can see where an engine is weak. But most probably you are better off just looking at code and leave the chess stuff to others. Now be a good boy and go back to your clone site where you get the "respect" that you seem to be craving.
