Fwd: Open letter to the CSVN

[marcelk]

Ant by Tom Vijlbrief and Hans is for sure also a clone of Crafty.

If so, ANT must have been derived from an obscure mailbox version of Crafty then...

</sarcasm>

[Frank Quisinsky]

Bob,

I think in the time experts discussed about clones, 100 sources can be checked.

For the moment only the sources from the Open Letters programmers should be checked and I am sure a group of experts can organiced by ICGA. Again ... if a persons sayed A they have to say B too.

No reasons for further discussions / excuses because the situation is more as clean.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hello Roger,

I go a bit deeper in the discussion about clones. This isn't nonsense Roger, this is the reality so many programmers will not read.

You can not start the chain of causation on a position you like.

The questions:
What is a clone isn't clear.
So long this questions isn't clear each open letter about it is "Nonsense".

If we support such things we lost more and more from our ineresting hobby and in perhaps 5 years 20 new groups like to create his own computer chess war.

Roger, thinking a bit deeper. We standing on the beginning in questions of clones and not in the end. Discussion will be harder and harder and if we like this hobby we should try to work on a good solution.

That is an order for us!

I spend many time and money in computer chess, produced around 40 million page views on chess pages. I am sure you know that I try to hold the flag and all this without a war nobody need.

Have a nice evening!

Best
Frank

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Gerold,

Pepito, Phalanx and many others free sources are in past available. Not Fruit and Crafty only.

Of course we are speaking from great programmers with Fabian and Bob. Today programs are available which are playing 300-400 ELO stronger as Fruit and Crafty. A new aera and much of new developed ideas, for sure in many cases with the basics of Fruit, Crafty and others.

You have to pick up so many other important things. Means this topic goes in many different dicretions. A very complicated exam, many suppositions are to checked. Yes or No, black or white ... not possible.

Strong freeware is available.
Commercial programmers lost perhaps possible customers. Commercial computer chess and free computer chess, both are important.

My main point for all this dicussion and messages are the tourney in Leiden. Over so many years a fantastic organization, believe me ... a perfect computer chess tourney.

We should give this topic "clones" not so many attentions. We should try to work on the good things we have and should try to work hand in hand on good solutions.

This second open letter was completely couterproductive!

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Bob,

read again what you wrote.
Yes, it seems I read for some reason Ruffian.

I have to say sorry!

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Roger,

1. For some other reason I don't like Rybka.
My main point is fairness, forthrightness.

2. I kown what others wrote to Rybka 1 and Fruit and read different of this messages.

On the other site are the proof that Rybka is many years on place 1. Perhaps the most important ideas comes from Larry Kaufmann, I don't know but no other programmer can beat over years Rybka.

I think the programmers of Rybka or Houdini have the knowledge to make a program very strong, find own ideas others can't see directly.

Furthermore, I think the reaction from ICGA against Vas is absolutely correct.

But all this isn't a reason to bring other things we have in danger (Dutch open). We should find out an official way to live with programs like Rybka and Houdini ... means in 10 years we have 20 or more of such engines.

If programmers give her own sources for free and other don't like that is this not a problem Leiden have to search a solution.

Furthermore, I am sure that many other programmers used good know ideas for his own developments.

So far "Clone" is totaly indefinite.

With my easy bad english words:
Yellow card! Rybka is over many years better as all others. We can't give him a red card because we must sort his programming knowledge in the complete situation. A programming knowlege no other have so many years, but all others are thinking that ... burning witches!

Best
Frank

[bhlangonijr]

I'm willing to debate any point they choose. However, debate is not possible when dealing with two people as dishonest as they are.

An example from the Rybka forum. Ed stated categorically that I could not reverse engineer anything, in spite of programming in assembly language for 43+ years now, in spite of having written more than one compiler from scratch. And in spite of helping debug some of the gcc long long code when I started to use that compiler for Crafty in 1994. He picked out a piece of code from Zach's report and asked me to "identify the offset into the rybka binary where this code is found." Not only did I do that, I broke the assembly language code down, after locating it, and matched it up line for line with the C code given in Zach's report. Ed then claimed the test was no good, that I had cheated because the code had 4 if-tests and I just looked for 4 test instructions and "hoped it matched." Even though I had matched the asm line for line with the C to SHOW that it matched, EXACTLY.

That is what I call "dishonesty". It wasn't about whether I could really interpret assembly language or not. It was just to cast aspersions on me, on the panel, on the process, and on the evidence. That's all he is good for, it seems...

a "lie-machine". He accused me of copying ip/robolito code. I challenged him to prove this since my source is open. Zero. Zilch. Ran and hid. As always. Same here. Zero. Zilch.

The fact Ed was trying to challenge your skills instead of spending his efforts to refute the _real_ evidence just show how illintentioned he was. It seems to me like an agenda against the panel members or some interest in Rybka's selling....
Admittedly, I was one of those who were defending Vas until I read the evidence. Unfortunately, as Don well said for some people it is okay to make concessions to integrity and fairness if the chess program is on the top (Holdini is following Rybka steps)...

Regards,

[bob]

Bob,

I think in the time experts discussed about clones, 100 sources can be checked.

For the moment only the sources from the Open Letters programmers should be checked and I am sure a group of experts can organiced by ICGA. Again ... if a persons sayed A they have to say B too.

No reasons for further discussions / excuses because the situation is more as clean.

Best
Frank

Just comparing 20 programs against each other is 20 x 19 x 50K = 19M individual line-to-line compares. who is going to do that? If you do one line per second, takes 200 man-days with a man-day = 24 hours. 8 hours per day turns that into 2 man years.

This is just not going to happen. There is no money to pay anyone. Nobody is going to volunteer that kind of time. It is completely impractical. Nice idea to dream about, but then the reality of the task slams home and you realize "impossible." Particularly when you try to compare one line per second, which is impossibly fast.

[bob]

I'm willing to debate any point they choose. However, debate is not possible when dealing with two people as dishonest as they are.

An example from the Rybka forum. Ed stated categorically that I could not reverse engineer anything, in spite of programming in assembly language for 43+ years now, in spite of having written more than one compiler from scratch. And in spite of helping debug some of the gcc long long code when I started to use that compiler for Crafty in 1994. He picked out a piece of code from Zach's report and asked me to "identify the offset into the rybka binary where this code is found." Not only did I do that, I broke the assembly language code down, after locating it, and matched it up line for line with the C code given in Zach's report. Ed then claimed the test was no good, that I had cheated because the code had 4 if-tests and I just looked for 4 test instructions and "hoped it matched." Even though I had matched the asm line for line with the C to SHOW that it matched, EXACTLY.

That is what I call "dishonesty". It wasn't about whether I could really interpret assembly language or not. It was just to cast aspersions on me, on the panel, on the process, and on the evidence. That's all he is good for, it seems...

a "lie-machine". He accused me of copying ip/robolito code. I challenged him to prove this since my source is open. Zero. Zilch. Ran and hid. As always. Same here. Zero. Zilch.

The fact Ed was trying to challenge your skills instead of spending his efforts to refute the _real_ evidence just show how illintentioned he was. It seems to me like an agenda against the panel members or some interest in Rybka's selling....
Admittedly, I was one of those who were defending Vas until I read the evidence. Unfortunately, as Don well said for some people it is okay to make concessions to integrity and fairness if the chess program is on the top (Holdini is following Rybka steps)...

Regards,

I realized that. Sometimes you have to humor someone and hope they will see their error. Not here, however.

[Rebel]

An example from the Rybka forum. Ed stated categorically that I could not reverse engineer anything, in spite of programming in assembly language for 43+ years now, in spite of having written more than one compiler from scratch. And in spite of helping debug some of the gcc long long code when I started to use that compiler for Crafty in 1994. He picked out a piece of code from Zach's report and asked me to "identify the offset into the rybka binary where this code is found." Not only did I do that, I broke the assembly language code down, after locating it, and matched it up line for line with the C code given in Zach's report. Ed then claimed the test was no good, that I had cheated because the code had 4 if-tests and I just looked for 4 test instructions and "hoped it matched." Even though I had matched the asm line for line with the C to SHOW that it matched, EXACTLY.

Since when is semantics proof for code ?

You were asked to identify the backward pawn evaluation in the Rybka 1 executable, you found semantics and ASSUMED the code was about the evaluation of backward pawns. That code could mean anything.

My standards are a bit higher than yours.

Assembler is a language like English, French, Dutch are languages. An average human knows about 10,000 words. Assembler is about a few: mov, add, sub, comp, test, jumps mainly. Semantics with such a limited vocabulary is expected everywhere.

Furthermore Fruit and Rybka are talking a different language Mailbox vs Bitboard which makes the use of semantics laughable. Just look left vs right in Zach's document regarding backward pawns, it's totally different.

What you need to proof is "copied code", not sematics.