Fabien's open letter to the community

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 7886
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:27 am

Graham Banks wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
Houdini wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:This thread is supposed to be about the Rybka/Fruit issue, not about CCRL or myself.
Your reply would have been valid if the CCRL or yourself hadn't taken such an outspoken position in the debate.

As you probably know very well, the Rybka forum defines a "clone" as an engine that doesn't appear on "the professional rating lists like CEGT or CCRL". This shows how the CCRL and CEGT have been instrumental in skewing this whole issue in the favor of one (commercially motivated) point of view.

Robert
He is right Graham!! The Rybka team opened up this can of worms by calling foul. And yet it seems they were just as foul. And CCRL went with them. So CCRL is part of this discussion.
Hi Tom,

as I mentioned previously, I'm going to wait and see how this all plays out. Once bitten, twice shy.
I've always maintained that some sort of legal action is the only way that we'll get finality over this issue, so hopefully it will happen.
As things stand, it's sad to see how the computer chess community is so divided and at each others throats.

Cheers,
Graham.
Hahahaha, Graham is shy now. Therefore nothing changes. Do you imagine these guys? Really curious, are they paid like Albert Silver?

Kai

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 30537
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks » Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:29 am

Laskos wrote:Hahahaha, Graham is shy now. Therefore nothing changes. Do you imagine these guys? Really curious, are they paid like Albert Silver?

Kai
I wish! :P :lol:
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

SuneF
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:19 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by SuneF » Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:40 am

tomgdrums wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
Matthias Gemuh wrote: Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.
I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion! :P
He has a point Graham! If the first version of Rybka IS bogus then they should all be eliminated from your list. OR you do have to add AT LEAST Houdini.

You can't have it both ways!
Please follow that line of thought through.
If he adds Houdini he would also have to add Fire and Ivanhoe and whatnot. Do you seriously want to go down that road? What will happen next week when there are 10 new "original" super strong engines for them to test? Oh goodie. :)

This is not all black and white unfortunately, the line must be drawn somewhere. If Rybka is a bitboard version of Fruit written from scratch I don't think it can be called a clone or derivative.

One might even imagine that Fruit was converted to bitboard primarily to bypass clone detection and yet at the same time keep its strength.
If so this would be very deceitful indeed but where is the line between copying ideas and copying code.. It has to be drawn somewhere, and if the code is rewritten it makes some sense to draw the line there, obviously YMMV. (Now I'm sure you're hard at work on a mailbox Ippolit..;)

Also let's keep some perspective here. Copying of ideas is taking place all the time. OpenSource engines have made it possible for any idiot to do it, but there are also other engines on the list, old engines whos authors are so skilled in assembly that they can read the tricks and ideas in closed engines as well.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Dann Corbit » Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:49 am

SuneF wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
Matthias Gemuh wrote: Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.
I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion! :P
He has a point Graham! If the first version of Rybka IS bogus then they should all be eliminated from your list. OR you do have to add AT LEAST Houdini.

You can't have it both ways!
Please follow that line of thought through.
If he adds Houdini he would also have to add Fire and Ivanhoe and whatnot. Do you seriously want to go down that road? What will happen next week when there are 10 new "original" super strong engines for them to test? Oh goodie. :)

This is not all black and white unfortunately, the line must be drawn somewhere. If Rybka is a bitboard version of Fruit written from scratch I don't think it can be called a clone or derivative.

One might even imagine that Fruit was converted to bitboard primarily to bypass clone detection and yet at the same time keep its strength.
If so this would be very deceitful indeed but where is the line between copying ideas and copying code.. It has to be drawn somewhere, and if the code is rewritten it makes some sense to draw the line there, obviously YMMV. (Now I'm sure you're hard at work on a mailbox Ippolit..;)

Also let's keep some perspective here. Copying of ideas is taking place all the time. OpenSource engines have made it possible for any idiot to do it, but there are also other engines on the list, old engines whos authors are so skilled in assembly that they can read the tricks and ideas in closed engines as well.
This is a very insightful commentary.

Here is the problem that I see: There are several roads that lead to the same endpoint. One road is criminal. One road is not criminal but dishonest. One road is entirely honorable. We are somehow left guessing which road was taken (albeit with a few clues, but primarily based upon the endpoint) and making the wrong choice besmirches the driver.

I have no idea what the proper choice is here.

Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:22 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Roger Brown » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:06 am

Dann Corbit wrote:
SuneF wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
Matthias Gemuh wrote: Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.
I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion! :P
He has a point Graham! If the first version of Rybka IS bogus then they should all be eliminated from your list. OR you do have to add AT LEAST Houdini.

You can't have it both ways!
Please follow that line of thought through.
If he adds Houdini he would also have to add Fire and Ivanhoe and whatnot. Do you seriously want to go down that road? What will happen next week when there are 10 new "original" super strong engines for them to test? Oh goodie. :)

This is not all black and white unfortunately, the line must be drawn somewhere. If Rybka is a bitboard version of Fruit written from scratch I don't think it can be called a clone or derivative.

One might even imagine that Fruit was converted to bitboard primarily to bypass clone detection and yet at the same time keep its strength.
If so this would be very deceitful indeed but where is the line between copying ideas and copying code.. It has to be drawn somewhere, and if the code is rewritten it makes some sense to draw the line there, obviously YMMV. (Now I'm sure you're hard at work on a mailbox Ippolit..;)

Also let's keep some perspective here. Copying of ideas is taking place all the time. OpenSource engines have made it possible for any idiot to do it, but there are also other engines on the list, old engines whos authors are so skilled in assembly that they can read the tricks and ideas in closed engines as well.
This is a very insightful commentary.

Here is the problem that I see: There are several roads that lead to the same endpoint. One road is criminal. One road is not criminal but dishonest. One road is entirely honorable. We are somehow left guessing which road was taken (albeit with a few clues, but primarily based upon the endpoint) and making the wrong choice besmirches the driver.

I have no idea what the proper choice is here.


Hello Dann,

This is my problem with the commentary and your comments on it. There is reference to a line being drawn but it seems that the line curves around Rybka and excludes "the accused engines".

Decisions were made then. Why is there this distinct impression of sudden mental helplessness now?

I am not saying what a person is to do with their life - as no-one can tell me what to do with mine - but this bout of indecisiveness and hand wringing is amusing at best.

I am of course not referring to you.....Curiouser and curiouser....

Later.

User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Houdini » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:14 am

SuneF wrote:Please follow that line of thought through.
If he adds Houdini he would also have to add Fire and Ivanhoe and whatnot. Do you seriously want to go down that road? What will happen next week when there are 10 new "original" super strong engines for them to test? Oh goodie. :)
Your presentation of the problem simply demonstrates that you're not really looking for a solution. The problem is not black/white, there are shades of gray possible. Including Houdini or other engines doesn't mean that the rating list will suddenly be swamped by a multitude of unknown and anonymous engines.

Some rating lists have actually managed to solve this issue in an intelligent way, see for example Ingo's IPON list, and more recently Frank's SWCR and Sedat's SCCT. Note also the approach of Martin for the TCEC tournaments.
Solutions are surprisingly easy to find when you actually start looking for them...

Robert

Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:22 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Roger Brown » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:23 am

Graham Banks wrote:
Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

However, there are always two sides to every story and it's incredibly annoying and frustrating that Vas does not say more on this issue.
Perhaps FSF action would be a great way to end this debate once and for all.

Meanwhile, I do think that the issue should be discussed without resorting to spreading false information or making personal attacks.

I've seen members post that the most recent Loop was a Toga ripoff and that the most recent Naum was a Rybka ripoff, so who knows where all this madness will end?
Trouble is that Rybka seems to the only target.



Hello Graham,

When did you or anyone ever demand of Vas that burden of proof when he stated that Engine X was a clone? In fact you refer to Vas' inexplicable silences numerous times, doing so even in the portion quoted above.

Undeniable? Legal sense?

The lack of decisiveness on this side of the argument is instructive.

Test or do not test, I could care less, but the principles on which you and others claim to act on seem curiously flexible under stress.

:-)

I agree about the personal attacks and I have spoken to them.

No way is this thread going to be allowed to disappear into some void - too much fun already!

Later.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 7886
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:39 am

Roger Brown wrote:



Hello Graham,

When did you or anyone ever demand of Vas that burden of proof when he stated that Engine X was a clone? In fact you refer to Vas' inexplicable silences numerous times, doing so even in the portion quoted above.

Undeniable? Legal sense?

The lack of decisiveness on this side of the argument is instructive.

Test or do not test, I could care less, but the principles on which you and others claim to act on seem curiously flexible under stress.

:-)

I agree about the personal attacks and I have spoken to them.

No way is this thread going to be allowed to disappear into some void - too much fun already!

Later.
Roger, exactly. I am a bit astonished to the point of laughing at these arguments. One argues that Strelka 1.8 is not at all Rybka 1.0 beta, another has to see a legal case and an undeniable proof.

Then... what's the matter with Houdini?

Ok, all I hope is that it stays free of charge. Regarding the "arguments", I was taught at a very young age to stay away from irrational, potentially damaging people.

Kai

SuneF
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:19 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by SuneF » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:55 am

Houdini wrote: Your presentation of the problem simply demonstrates that you're not really looking for a solution. The problem is not black/white, there are shades of gray possible. Including Houdini or other engines doesn't mean that the rating list will suddenly be swamped by a multitude of unknown and anonymous engines.

Some rating lists have actually managed to solve this issue in an intelligent way, see for example Ingo's IPON list, and more recently Frank's SWCR and Sedat's SCCT. Note also the approach of Martin for the TCEC tournaments.
Solutions are surprisingly easy to find when you actually start looking for them...

Robert
I think we have to agree to disagree on this.

First up is the dishonesty. Cloners/derivers seldomly admit they are working off another engines code base. They usually postulate that they have writte it themselves and wants full credit/money or whatever. They also don't adhere to the GPL which I believe means their engine is more or less illegal.

Another thing is the testing time which is valuable. I think it is simply a waste of time to test so many nearly identical versions of the same program.

Third is the chaos. Suppose everyone released their own Ippolit engine tomorrow. There is nothing preventing that. Some may have made improvements, some not.

The right way to do it, if you really want to make a very strong engine, is to join forces like they have on the StockFish team. This way the engine is keept to a single branch on the engine tree and everyone gets the credit/money they rightfully deserve.
If you indeed are a lone wolf and can't work in a team then at least be honest about the origins, and let it up to people to decide if they want to include derivatives in their tournaments. This is what happened to Toga and that worked out just fine as I recall.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Dann Corbit » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:01 am

Roger Brown wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
SuneF wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
Matthias Gemuh wrote: Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.
I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion! :P
He has a point Graham! If the first version of Rybka IS bogus then they should all be eliminated from your list. OR you do have to add AT LEAST Houdini.

You can't have it both ways!
Please follow that line of thought through.
If he adds Houdini he would also have to add Fire and Ivanhoe and whatnot. Do you seriously want to go down that road? What will happen next week when there are 10 new "original" super strong engines for them to test? Oh goodie. :)

This is not all black and white unfortunately, the line must be drawn somewhere. If Rybka is a bitboard version of Fruit written from scratch I don't think it can be called a clone or derivative.

One might even imagine that Fruit was converted to bitboard primarily to bypass clone detection and yet at the same time keep its strength.
If so this would be very deceitful indeed but where is the line between copying ideas and copying code.. It has to be drawn somewhere, and if the code is rewritten it makes some sense to draw the line there, obviously YMMV. (Now I'm sure you're hard at work on a mailbox Ippolit..;)

Also let's keep some perspective here. Copying of ideas is taking place all the time. OpenSource engines have made it possible for any idiot to do it, but there are also other engines on the list, old engines whos authors are so skilled in assembly that they can read the tricks and ideas in closed engines as well.
This is a very insightful commentary.

Here is the problem that I see: There are several roads that lead to the same endpoint. One road is criminal. One road is not criminal but dishonest. One road is entirely honorable. We are somehow left guessing which road was taken (albeit with a few clues, but primarily based upon the endpoint) and making the wrong choice besmirches the driver.

I have no idea what the proper choice is here.


Hello Dann,

This is my problem with the commentary and your comments on it. There is reference to a line being drawn but it seems that the line curves around Rybka and excludes "the accused engines".

Decisions were made then. Why is there this distinct impression of sudden mental helplessness now?

I am not saying what a person is to do with their life - as no-one can tell me what to do with mine - but this bout of indecisiveness and hand wringing is amusing at best.

I am of course not referring to you.....Curiouser and curiouser....

Later.
As far as clones go, I do not know for sure about the legality or non-legality of Rybka, Ivanhoe, Houdini, or any other strong, recent chess engines. I suspect that most of them will have at least one foot on the grey and so it would be hard to decide anyway.

As for "Why the sudden hand-wringing?" ... I think it was brought about by Fabian's inquiry. Since he is surely the most injured party {if the guesses about cloning are correct} I think that it is quite logical to re-address the matter at this time.

Post Reply