K I Hyams wrote:M ANSARI wrote:Sean Evans wrote:https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html
Rybka's evaluation has been the subject of much speculation ever since its appearance. Various theories have been put forth about the inner workings of the evaluation, but with the publication of Strelka, it was shown just how wrong everyone was. It is perhaps ironic that Rybka's evaluation is its most similar part to Fruit; it contains, in my opinion, the most damning evidence of all.
Whoever wrote that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Fruit and Rybka evaluations are worlds apart. I am talking from a chess evaluation tuning point of view as I have no clue how the inner workings coding wise. But the output of Fruit evaluation when compared to Rybka evaluation is so different, as to make any comparison "chess wise" completely ridiculous. The main reason why Rybka gained so much ELO over all other programs is because it has a totally different static evaluation (especially in unbalanced positions) over any other program.I wonder whether you looked at the code that accompanies the text within that document before you made such a derogatory statement. If you didn’t, I recommend that you do so now.M ANSARI wrote: https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html
Whoever wrote that has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.In that case, perhaps a bit more humility and open-mindedness is called for. Someone has done a lot of work preparing that document.M ANSARI wrote: I am talking from a chess evaluation tuning point of view as I have no clue how the inner workings coding wise.
The degree of arrogance, hubris and intellectual dishonesty displayed by some of the more experienced member of CCC is depressing. Sadly, you are not the only culprit, another one of our “esteemed” members not so long ago passed judgment that Zach’s work was insignificant because it only referred to the UCI parser. It turned out that he hadn’t even bothered to look at Zach’s work.
There is no arrogance or intellectual dishonesty, just my opinion based on EVALUATIONS of Fruit and Rybka 1.0. I remember at the time looking at many different positions and being quite surprised at some of the evaluations of Rybka. Chesswise Rybka's evaluation is world's apart from Fruit. The Rybka 1.0 beta was extremely strong but it also had glaring weaknesses and elementary code missing. I remember then thinking that if this thing was polished up it would really take chess engines by storm, and that is exactly what happened. Note that I am not talking about code such as the UCI parser (which I think is open source by the way) where some are claiming it is copied. I wouldn't know if it is copied if both source codes were in front of me. I will never even try to enter that type of debate as I do not have the technical background to even dare make an opinion. But here it is talk about chess EVALUATION, and by that it means the output by the engine of what it thinks of a position ... and here I feel confident enough to say that Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1.0 beta have extremely different evaluations, and I think most everyone who has tested both engines would agree.
Anyway even amongst the most experienced chess engine coders, there is absolutely no consensus that Rybka 1.0 beta violated Fruit's GPL. CW disagrees with a lot of what Zach says and even the Rebel author seems to doubt some of the points mentioned as proof that Rybka violated GPL. Even Hyatt who seems to follow in Zach's camp seems to think that if Vas had mentioned that he got some ideas from Fruit he should say so and all would be good. Of course you can argue that Vas DID more than give credit to Fruit author as well as many others in his release notes. But the point is this is all about Rybka 1.0 beta ... man this is EONS ago. Rybka 2.2 and Rybka 2.3.2a and then Rybka 3 and now Rybka 4 is here. I don't understand why nobody seems to be willing to admit that Vas has made tremendous advances in how to make a chess engine strong. Even when R3 was disassembled and its guts spilled out for all to see, nobody wants to give any credit to stuff that he created. I really can't figure it out, every day thousands are using his programs and thousands more are using engines that have gained strength from his work (without his consent) and yet some keep trying to make it seem like Vas had nothing to do with it. Even some of the most experienced guys here, who I am absolutely positive knew that Ippolit came from disassembled R3 code, would argue tooth and nail that it had nothing to do with R3 and it was an original work. Human nature is a very strange thing indeed!
In every lie, there is always some truth. 
