Dayffd wrote:Just out of curiosity and without intending to add to any dissension, Milos have you ever written a chess playing program? From scratch?..........
Yes I have, but unfortunately you can't have it. It's never been released, it's private. Sorry...............
So by the definition of others (you too?), you've made no contribution to computer chess because you've not freely shared your engine or its code.
No he did. He is giving light to us that we live in the dark and admire Rybka.
We should not admire Rybka but only Robbolito/Ippolit/Iggorit/Idefix or whatever, since these are the programs of the future et al.
His contribution is huge since his constant tries had convinced me and now i hate Rybka and Vasik too as i know they are responsible for a big part of the global warming and that i don't have snow in my yard to make a snowman. Shame on Vas and Rybka.
Vas can destroy the world! But, he can't even scratch Talkchess. That is why he has sent his faithful minion, Milos, to do it for him. Vas is smart, he knows that nothing Milos says can possibly stick to the Teflon god of chess at this place.
Such an underhanded trick by Vas and nobody even had a clue!
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Graham Banks wrote:So by the definition of others (you too?), you've made no contribution to computer chess because you've not freely shared your engine or its code.
With respect to my engine that is totally correct.
George Tsavdaris wrote: To take Fruit's 2.1 code make it bitboards, add some things and have Rybka 1.0 beta. Why it's not possible? Because i have these 2 programs and i see how they play.
Rybka 1.0 seems to play in a different style. It's more clever more aware. It plays different type of moves. Different type of Chess. This can't be because of a conversion to bitboards right? Or can it be?
It's so typical for ppl who don't understand basics of chess programming to assume that programs playing in a different "style" must be different.
That's just a ridiculous misconception. Problem is you are completely unaware of how easy is to trick you. All you have to do is change couple of evaluation coefficients and voila you're thinking it must be a different thing by watching its "style" of play.
Bitboards do not change the style, they just speed up things, sufficiently to gain elo.
"Style" was intentionally changed similarly as everything else visible outside of the box was obscured just to trick ppl like you. However, it's impossible to trick ppl who know how to disassemble...
It's also impossible to convince believers coz they would not recognize any proofs, code snippets or similar, just because they can recognize "style"...
I think that there is a very big difference between fruit and rybka(strelka is very similiar to rybka beta in terms of style) and I am not convinced that strelka started as fruit(the programmer learned many things from fruit code but it is clearly possible that he did not start from the full fruit code and at most had some small part of fruit that is not a working chess program and continued from it.
Personally I started from some code of tscp but not from some working program and continued to develop movei and
if strelka is based on fruit you can say by the same logic that movei is based on tscp inspite of the fact that most of the code is not from tscp and movei always had an original move generator so it is not a case when I started from tscp and changed it(I started from some names of variables and names of functions and structures that part of them from tscp and part of them are original and wrote function based on them).
The accusations about rybka-fruit is one of the reasons that caused me to stop develop movei some years ago because I do not like the possibility to read later accusations that my code that is mainly original is based on a different code and I believe that the code of many programmers is not 100% original but it seems that people simply became jealous on rybka because rybka was number 1 and I believe that you could discover similiarity to fruit if you do reverse engineering for many other programs that are weaker than rybka(the fact that the commercial did not make big improvement before fruit and suddenly started to make bigger improvement after fruit suggest it).
Graham Banks wrote:So by the definition of others (you too?), you've made no contribution to computer chess because you've not freely shared your engine or its code.
Btw. Graham, one question I've been wondering. Would you change opinion if somebody offered you an engine based on Ippo that is 100 elo stronger than Rybka 4. And I mean real 100 elo???
Graham Banks wrote:So by the definition of others (you too?), you've made no contribution to computer chess because you've not freely shared your engine or its code.
Btw. Graham, one question I've been wondering. Would you change opinion if somebody offered you an engine based on Ippo that is 100 elo stronger than Rybka 4. And I mean real 100 elo???
Hi Milos,
that would make me a hypocrite if I did that.
It's not the strength of the engine that matters to me, but my belief that Ippo came directly from closed source Rybka. I don't believe that such behaviour should be encouraged by giving validation to the Ippo based engines. I would not only lose a lot of trust with many engine authors who've been working hard on their more original engines over a long period of time, but I'd feel very immoral.
Others can and will believe what they want to, but this is my stance. I can respect that others think differently, but I don't like the hate campaign against Vas that's been allowed to occur here.
Graham Banks wrote:So by the definition of others (you too?), you've made no contribution to computer chess because you've not freely shared your engine or its code.
Btw. Graham, one question I've been wondering. Would you change opinion if somebody offered you an engine based on Ippo that is 100 elo stronger than Rybka 4. And I mean real 100 elo???
Hi Milos,
that would make me a hypocrite if I did that.
It's not the strength of the engine that matters to me, but my belief that Ippo came directly from closed source Rybka. I don't believe that such behaviour should be encouraged by giving validation to the Ippo based engines. I would not only lose a lot of trust with many engine authors who've been working hard on their more original engines over a long period of time, but I'd feel very immoral.
Others can and will believe what they want to, but this is my stance. I can respect that others think differently, but I don't like the hate campaign against Vas that's been allowed to occur here.
Cheers,
Graham.
I know it's impossible to convince a believer but they say " If you can't convince them confuse them" so here we go....
never let your sence of morals and beliefs get in your way for searching
proof, because i think your deceptive mislead by the Rybka clan, you can
willingly believe what you wish but that is just blind belief.
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.
De Vos W wrote:
I know it's impossible to convince a believer but they say " If you can't convince them confuse them" so here we go....
never let your sence of morals and beliefs get in your way for searching
proof, because i think your deceptive mislead by the Rybka clan, you can
willingly believe what you wish but that is just blind belief.
It is not impossible to convince a "believer". For instance, I very much enjoyed reading BB's work comparing Rybka with Ippo and also Zach's work comparing Fruit with Rybka. I could even learn something new. Although up to this point it was not enough to convince me that neither Rybka 1.0 is a "simple" Fruit clone or Ippolit is not derived from Rybka reverse engineering. I think likely Vas could have used Fruit skeleton (UCI handler, some evaluation parts, etc) to get started with Rybka. But even if it is true that would not be - for me - a motivation to start a campaign against he. I would let it to Fruit's author.
Think about this: You are not going to convince any civilized or reasonable person about your beliefs trashing this forum with personal insults and such a displeasing behaviour. The best you can get by this is to convince people about your own character.
De Vos W wrote:
Think about this: You are not going to convince any civilized or reasonable person about your beliefs trashing this forum with personal insults and such a displeasing behaviour. The best you can get by this is to convince people about your own character.
You're not going to convince anybody here or anywhere else of anything that they don't want to believe. People have a remarkable tendency to rationalize everything in their environment to suit their beliefs.
This production is being brought to you by Rybka: "The engine made from scratch.™"
Tom Barrister wrote:You're not going to convince anybody here or anywhere else of anything that they don't want to believe. People have a remarkable tendency to rationalize everything in their environment to suit their beliefs.
Graham Banks wrote:that would make me a hypocrite if I did that.
It's not the strength of the engine that matters to me, but my belief that Ippo came directly from closed source Rybka. I don't believe that such behaviour should be encouraged by giving validation to the Ippo based engines. I would not only lose a lot of trust with many engine authors who've been working hard on their more original engines over a long period of time, but I'd feel very immoral.
Others can and will believe what they want to, but this is my stance. I can respect that others think differently, but I don't like the hate campaign against Vas that's been allowed to occur here.
Ok, thanks for the answer. It's principled and I respect that, even though there are many ppl that share your belief about Ippo derivatives not many share you attitude towards what I've asked.
