Fabien's open letter to the community

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

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Albert Silver
Posts: 2747
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Albert Silver » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:07 am

Laskos wrote:
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
Paid? Paid for what?
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

User avatar
slobo
Posts: 2331
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:36 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by slobo » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:16 am

Graham Banks wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
of Rybka. We had to take your suppression and censorship of other programs you deemed a threat to Rybka for using so called stolen code and ideas.

Now Rybka has a direct accusation from the author of Fruit that Vas used code from Fruit in Rybka. Where is your indignation of Rybka. We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.

I want to know...

When will all version of Rybka be removed from your CCRL Rating List. Since you have stated that no program that is not original will be rated on CCRL Mr. Hypocrite.

I guess this only applies to programs you deem a threat to Rybka.
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.
Don´t be so patheticly dogmatic. You are free to test what you want.
Remember:
1. you are a free man.
2. Rybka has its merits.
3. you like chess engines testing.

Compute these input, please.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 8042
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:17 am

Albert Silver wrote:
Paid? Paid for what?
I think you acknowledged that you are paid by Chessbase. This whole affair seems to reduce to that, Gabor is choosing randomly to test only some engines because he is confused. You also randomly have some opinions.

Kai

Albert Silver
Posts: 2747
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Albert Silver » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:23 am

Laskos wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
Paid? Paid for what?
I think you acknowledged that you are paid by Chessbase. This whole affair seems to reduce to that, Gabor is choosing randomly to test only some engines because he is confused. You also randomly have some opinions.

Kai
First of all, I don't see what Chessbase has to do with any of this, and I have no idea why you bring them up all of a sudden. What is it they are supposed to be paying me to do? Also, could you show me this acknowledgement as I am terribly curious to read it.

As to my opinions, they are never random.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

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 2:37 am

Sune,

Your point of view really seems to be based on the assumption that the rating list will no longer be able to refuse to test some engines. You're thinking in "all" or "nothing" terms, instead of adopting a nuanced approach.

Again, I invite you to consider how rating lists like IPON have solved a problem that you think has no solution...

Robert

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 8042
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:39 am

Albert Silver wrote:
Laskos wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
Paid? Paid for what?
I think you acknowledged that you are paid by Chessbase. This whole affair seems to reduce to that, Gabor is choosing randomly to test only some engines because he is confused. You also randomly have some opinions.

Kai
First of all, I don't see what Chessbase has to do with any of this, and I have no idea why you bring them up all of a sudden.
Gets funny again :lol:
Maybe you, in your non-random (I perceive now) mind, never wondered if Fabien could eventually sue Chessbase for selling and heavily promoting a clone.
What is it they are supposed to be paying me to do? Also, could you show me this acknowledgement as I am terribly curious to read it.
You acknowledged more than by not denying, when I was astonished at hearing this news. I am too lazy to bring up the thread, but you acknowledged in the post which followed.
As to my opinions, they are never random.
Sorry, I was misled by Gabor. Graham's and Gabor's opinions and test choises are random? :lol:

Kai

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 2:56 am

Steve B wrote:
Speaking of view totals
this thread here in the CCC has 26929 views as i write
the same exact thread was posted in another forum at about the same time and it has a paltry 931 views as i write
now that's nearly a 30:1 ratio

this of course has nothing to do with the topic of the thread but i thought a bit of healthy chest pounding and struting ones stuff was in order

The Major leagues Regards
Steve


Hello Steve,

:-) :-)

Later.

Adam Hair
Posts: 3185
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Adam Hair » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:08 am

Laskos wrote:
Uri Blass wrote: The information that I can provide is that
Strelka1.8 is designed to be as similiar as possible to rybka1 beta.
There are positions when they have the same fail high and fail low and when I analyze blocked positions I get almost the same data(evaluation may be different by 0.01 pawns or something like that but they have the same fail high and fail low when the only difference is that free source strelka needs to get depth that is bigger by 2 plies).

strelka1.8 and Rybka1 beta even share the same bug that no program that I know has(not a bug that fruit has).

Uri
Using Don's similarity test, Strelka 1.8 is closer to Rybka 1.0 than the statistical noise, therefore Strelka 1.8 is an exact clone of Rybka 1.0 within error margins.

Image

In the graph, the distance to the common ancestor denotes the degree of relatedness.

Also, Rybka 1.0 seems more related to Fruit 2.1 than Ippo family and Houdini are to Rybka 3.

Kai
Hello Kai,

I have not been able to duplicate your data concerning Rybka 1.0 and
Strelka 1.8. Could you give more details about the Rybka 1.0.exe
that you are using? I have two "Rybka 1.0 Beta"'s :
Rybka 1.0 Beta 32bit ( 2.39 MB)
Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 ( 98.0 KB )

Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 and Strelka 2.0 B produce almost identical results,
and, since it came from Chris Conkie's site, I have been assuming that
it is Strelka 2.0 B ( although the .exe is 98 KB and Strelka 2.0 B is
180 KB ).

Code: Select all

------ Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0) ------
 91.66  Strelka 2.0 B (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 86.21  Belka 1.8.20 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 71.75  Strelka 1.8 UCI (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 68.35  Rybka 1.1 32-bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 67.71  Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 66.31  Rybka 1.2f 32-bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 66.07  Rybka 2.2n2 mp (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 65.14  Rybka 2.3.2a (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 64.17  Naum 4.2 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 63.06  Thinker_5.4c_Inert_uci (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 62.83  Thinker_5.4d_Inert_uci (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 58.80  Strelka R-3-E (Rybka-3-Eval) (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 57.10  Loop 2007 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 55.34  Rybka _4 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 55.24  Twisted Logic 20090922 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 55.22  Rybka 3 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 54.93  Fruit 05/11/03 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 54.32  DamirsRybkaKiller77_w32 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 54.19  IPPOLIT 0.080a (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 53.99  Tankist 1.2 32-bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 53.92  Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
Rybka 1.0 Beta 32bit results:

Code: Select all

------ Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0) ------
 73.66  Strelka 1.8 UCI (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 68.58  Strelka 2.0 B (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 68.12  Belka 1.8.20 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 67.71  Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 66.46  Rybka 1.1 32-bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 64.38  Rybka 1.2f 32-bit (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 63.63  Rybka 2.2n2 mp (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 60.67  Rybka 2.3.2a (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 60.31  Naum 4.2 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 58.12  Thinker_5.4c_Inert_uci (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 57.71  Thinker_5.4d_Inert_uci (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 56.34  Strelka R-3-E (Rybka-3-Eval) (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 55.81  Loop 2007 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 53.64  Fruit 05/11/03 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 53.59  Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
Also, what metric are you using for the distance matrix that is used to
produce the dendrogram?

One more question. Are you using sim03.exe or similar.exe?

Thank you,

Adam

Albert Silver
Posts: 2747
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Albert Silver » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:35 am

Laskos wrote:
Albert Silver wrote: First of all, I don't see what Chessbase has to do with any of this, and I have no idea why you bring them up all of a sudden.
Maybe you, in your non-random (I perceive now) mind, never wondered if Fabien could eventually sue Chessbase for selling and heavily promoting a clone.
And this has what to do with me??
What is it they are supposed to be paying me to do? Also, could you show me this acknowledgment as I am terribly curious to read it.
You acknowledged more than by not denying, when I was astonished at hearing this news. I am too lazy to bring up the thread, but you acknowledged in the post which followed.
I recall a thread in which you said this and I called you delusional. Is that the one?
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 8042
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:48 am

Hi Adam,

I cannot answer everything right now, it's quite late here.

I used Rybka 1.0 Beta 32bit (2.39MB), at 100 ms. I used Strelka 1.8, in fact all engines at 100 ms. Got a result similar to yours among those two, around 74% similarity. I see nothing wrong with your results. I used a variety of many unrelated or wekaly related engines, therefore this 74% was very high. I am astonished to see Strelka 2.0 B having 92% similarity with Rybka 1.0 Beta 2, it is _extremely_ high. Try tu run a renamed Rybka 1.0 Beta 2, to see the noise of this engine. You got me curious to test those too.

My matrix is here

Code: Select all

  Key:

  1) Critter0.90 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1)
  2) DRybka3 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
  3) DRybka4 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
  4) DShredder10 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
  5) DShredder12 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
  6) Fruit 2.1 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
  7) Glaurung 2 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
  8) Houdini15aa (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
  9) Houdini15bb (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 10) IvanHoe_B49jA (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 11) Komodo13 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1)
 12) Naum42 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 13) Robbo009a (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 14) Ruffian (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 15) Rybka 1,0 beta (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 16) Spark (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 17) Stockfish2.0ja (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 18) Strelka18 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)
 19) Tiger2007 (time: 100 ms  scale: 1.0)

         1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    10    11    12
13    14    15    16    17    18    19
  1.  ----- 53.40 51.68 44.93 46.21 49.32 47.72 50.57 51.43 55.29 48.64 51.82 56
.40 44.93 49.34 46.86 51.32 48.48 42.87
  2.  53.40 ----- 58.25 45.75 48.43 52.05 48.05 53.57 53.88 57.87 51.53 56.55 59
.65 46.56 52.51 48.36 51.37 52.99 44.80
  3.  51.68 58.25 ----- 44.48 47.35 50.51 46.66 53.16 53.65 55.06 49.90 54.53 56
.07 46.22 52.23 47.86 50.30 52.04 44.89
  4.  44.93 45.75 44.48 ----- 51.93 45.93 44.87 41.60 40.85 43.53 44.40 44.66 44
.60 46.02 44.61 43.80 44.40 44.40 42.18
  5.  46.21 48.43 47.35 51.93 ----- 46.73 43.23 44.46 44.87 46.70 45.84 46.73 47
.78 46.37 45.45 46.18 45.68 46.02 44.68
  6.  49.32 52.05 50.51 45.93 46.73 ----- 53.68 44.82 45.36 48.92 48.64 54.96 49
.77 48.05 56.41 47.73 50.45 56.23 43.02
  7.  47.72 48.05 46.66 44.87 43.23 53.68 ----- 41.21 41.67 45.05 45.08 49.75 45
.92 46.98 50.00 44.74 49.85 50.02 41.71
  8.  50.57 53.57 53.16 41.60 44.46 44.82 41.21 ----- 70.37 58.22 46.15 48.47 58
.64 42.36 44.95 45.99 50.11 44.80 43.86
  9.  51.43 53.88 53.65 40.85 44.87 45.36 41.67 70.37 ----- 58.40 46.38 48.41 59
.21 42.73 45.90 46.35 50.06 44.94 43.74
 10.  55.29 57.87 55.06 43.53 46.70 48.92 45.05 58.22 58.40 ----- 49.67 52.44 66
.90 44.53 49.53 48.35 50.42 48.66 44.08
 11.  48.64 51.53 49.90 44.40 45.84 48.64 45.08 46.15 46.38 49.67 ----- 49.21 49
.84 43.93 48.00 46.77 46.95 47.66 42.18
 12.  51.82 56.55 54.53 44.66 46.73 54.96 49.75 48.47 48.41 52.44 49.21 ----- 54
.15 45.82 60.25 47.71 50.70 59.14 44.28
 13.  56.40 59.65 56.07 44.60 47.78 49.77 45.92 58.64 59.21 66.90 49.84 54.15 --
--- 45.21 50.97 48.34 51.32 50.64 44.74
 14.  44.93 46.56 46.22 46.02 46.37 48.05 46.98 42.36 42.73 44.53 43.93 45.82 45
.21 ----- 45.42 43.48 45.10 45.59 44.08
 15.  49.34 52.51 52.23 44.61 45.45 56.41 50.00 44.95 45.90 49.53 48.00 60.25 50
.97 45.42 ----- 46.36 48.65 73.65 41.95
 16.  46.86 48.36 47.86 43.80 46.18 47.73 44.74 45.99 46.35 48.35 46.77 47.71 48
.34 43.48 46.36 ----- 48.43 46.86 43.35
 17.  51.32 51.37 50.30 44.40 45.68 50.45 49.85 50.11 50.06 50.42 46.95 50.70 51
.32 45.10 48.65 48.43 ----- 48.20 44.04
 18.  48.48 52.99 52.04 44.40 46.02 56.23 50.02 44.80 44.94 48.66 47.66 59.14 50
.64 45.59 73.65 46.86 48.20 ----- 41.94
 19.  42.87 44.80 44.89 42.18 44.68 43.02 41.71 43.86 43.74 44.08 42.18 44.28 44
.74 44.08 41.95 43.35 44.04 41.94 -----


I am using the latest sim03.exe, it takes longer, but the previous one was noisy and unreliable (too few positions, many of them bad).

For hierarchical cluster analysis I chose the Complete Linkage algorythm: update s_pq by min(s_pr, s_qr) if S is a similarity matrix and s_ij is the similarity measure between cluster i and cluster j. Then perform that itteratively. For measure I have to dig deeper, I did that in SPSS, no clear idea.

Ok, hope that helps.

Kai

Post Reply