Thoughts...

[K I Hyams]

My post is not a personal attack, just pointing out the truth for all to see.

I presume the reasons for joining the CCC are not personal and they should be explained in detail be the new member? I didn't see a similar article in the charter.

Or you take on yourself the role of the one who knows the general truth and you are here be the will of the almighty to show this (yours and in the same time universal) truth to everyone?

The truth has yet to be established in my opinion (and my opinion is no more or less valuable than anybody elses, no matter what you wish to infer).

Cheers,
Graham.

Your opinion is a lot less valuable than that of Professor Hyatt and Zach Wegner for obvious reasons and in those circumstances it is disrespectful to claim otherwise.

I dont want to sound disrespectful or impolite or impostering, Keith, but the above almost forced me to finally give you an explanation for what I also said on CTF.

It's a real calamity of your mind frame if you wrongly follow such a nonsense like

- if several parties join in a common opinion then this opinion is higher valued than the one of a singular person, they must be correct while the single must be wrong or

- if we have two different opinions, mostly opposing each other, from two different people, and one person is an expert in the field of the debate, then the opinion of the "higher" expert is always higher valued than the opinion of the lower rated expert or if even only layman; his opinion is more correct than the opinion of the lower person

both these concludings are false and without justification. The main reason for such a wrong thought process comes if a mal educated person assumes without any reason that in opinions it's only a question of expertise in a singular field. But this is wrong. An expert has advantages if we speak of plain knowledge. Here the probability is higher that the higher expert is better informed, has more experience, and therefore a better insight into the topic in question.

But just for opinions where you cant establish a judgement on knowledge, where other fields come into play, say like justice, an expert for computerchess is not automatically the one with a better opinion.

For me it's absolutely clear that in opinions where an overall experience in life is necessary Graham normally should "outplay" or "top" the 21 y. old Zach, a young student.

Above all that it's a real provokation for my own mind if I must see that an expert like Ryan who knows the history of the different Fruit versions and owns the code of version 2.3., isnt interesting enough to be contacted. And you are trying to justify it, because Ryan should know only something of Strelka. Keith, on what a base you are doing this? Is there a basis at all? What if the question of Strelka isnt important at all? If Ryan could testify something about Fruit and public domain?

Listen Rolf,
I am not Prof. Hyatt; I will not answer the same question from you more than once. You have asked specific questions and if you are more interested in the answers than the sound of your own voice, you had better stop shouting and start listening.

A few years ago in Germany there was a tv show "Schach der Grossmeister".
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schach_der ... %9Fmeister

Once a year two grandmaster chess players had a game in the background
and two others were commenting the game.
Helmut Pfleger (ELO 2477) and Vlastimil Hort (2725).
The dialogue typically went like this:

Pfleger: Ah, black now comes out with a bishop. What can white do now?
Hort: Knight c5 looks good to me.
Pfleger: Knight c5? That is strange. But what if we play this. (Shuffles around
pieces on the demo board and shows the end position.)
Hort: Hm, ok but I like my knight.
Pfleger: Let's go back and try this (Shuffles around other pieces, explaining
possible attacks and defences.)
Hort: You may be right, but a knight on c5 ...
Pfleger: (Now moving the knight to c5 and wondering what pieces to move.) Hm?
Oh, there is the real move. Let's see. Knight to c5. ...
Harald

#Hort glances at the board and the correct move jumps out at him.
#I glance at a set of equations and almost all of those that are wrong jump out at me. I am not perfect, occasionally I miss a couple that are wrong. However, if I see one that is wrong then it is always wrong because, as it is wrong, it gets a second look.
#Prof. Hyatt compares two scripts, he might miss the odd bit of copying. However, if he sees plagiarism, he will always be right because it gets a second look. Hyatt told you that and now I have told you that. It is a fact and that is one reason why he sees no need to call in Benitez, especially when Wegner has almost certainly checked his work and Hyatt has almost certainly checked Wegner's work

I am not Prof. Hyatt; I do not know whether there are other reasons why he is not interested in consulting Benitez. If I was in Hyatt’s position, I would not consult Benitez, I would consult somebody whose opinion I respected. The fact that Benitez is more familiar with Fruit code than Hyatt is with Fruit code is totally irrelevant to this particular situation. It can only mean that Hyatt will miss areas of overlap, it will not mean that he identifies them incorrectly.

One thing that Prof. Hyatt and I have in common is that neither of us has any interest in dragging the name of Rajlich through the gutter. Hyatt’s interest in this matter is academic and my interest is there because I consider that the attitude of both you and Graham Banks is disrespectful to Hyatt. If I was in Prof. Hyatt’s position, I would have lost patience with the pair of you ages ago.

[Graham Banks]

I consider that the attitude of both you and Graham Banks is disrespectful to Hyatt. If I was in Prof. Hyatt’s position, I would have lost patience with the pair of you ages ago.

If Bob feels that way, I'd be disappointed. My intention has not been to show disrespect.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised by your comments.

[Rolf]

I consider that the attitude of both you and Graham Banks is disrespectful to Hyatt. If I was in Prof. Hyatt’s position, I would have lost patience with the pair of you ages ago.

If Bob feels that way, I'd be disappointed. My intention has not been to show disrespect.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised by your comments.

The same here. Ok, Keith is right, I am no-name, a lay, but I'm not stupid, I saw what was written. To deny that there was gutter, would be against the truth. I agree with everyone who would claim that Bob has scientifical interest. But still in this forum Vas didnt get the respect he had deserved. IMHO.

I understand what Keith means all too well. His maths example is convincing but as psychologist I have no problem in discovering the aspect that might have been left out. And it's also fact that you (one) might miss such a detail _because_ you (one) are/is such a great expert. I can only foresee that the truth will come out and I still vote for Vas. But this doesnt mean that Bob has lost the visual skills Keith has claimed. I personally have no doubt that Bob has a correct vision what code is concerned. But now all should know what I mean.

[Matthias Gemuh]

I consider that the attitude of both you and Graham Banks is disrespectful to Hyatt. If I was in Prof. Hyatt’s position, I would have lost patience with the pair of you ages ago.

If Bob feels that way, I'd be disappointed. My intention has not been to show disrespect.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised by your comments.

Hi Graham,

here is where you surprised me:
Bob looked at source code of Fruit21 and reverse-engineered Rybka1 and saw undeniable plagiarism and said it clearly.
The big surprise is that even then, you still expect Bob to listen to Bernitez before drawing conclusions as to whether Rybka1 has Fruit21 code or not.
Whatever Bernitez may say cannot change the facts that are clearly visible at source code level.
Bob would be really stupid if he would allow Bernitez opinion to influence visible facts.

Regards,
Matthias.

[K I Hyams]

I consider that the attitude of both you and Graham Banks is disrespectful to Hyatt. If I was in Prof. Hyatt’s position, I would have lost patience with the pair of you ages ago.

If Bob feels that way, I'd be disappointed. My intention has not been to show disrespect.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised by your comments.

If a layman wants to challenge expert evidence that has been peer reviewed on the grounds of competence, it is his responsibility to offer conflicting evidence that he considers to be of equal weight. You know that as well as I do. As you have not done that, one can only assume that you have other reasons to reject the expert, peer reviewed, abundant, highly specific, multi-facetted evidence that has been published by Zach and with which Prof Hyatt is happy to associate himself. I wonder what those other reasons are, whatever they are they carry with them serious implications of one sort or another.

It is possible that a lack of objectivity may be one of your character traits. Look at the post below, instead of focussing on the validity of the evidence presented, you chose to voice disapproval of Zach’s judgment. Perhaps it is your judgment that is faulty. The defamatory emoticon that you gratuitously stuck on the end was certainly evidence of poor judgment on your behalf. It is also extremely disrespectful.

“Vas posted the following in the Rybka forum:

Once again: Rybka is 100% original at the source code level, not counting public-domain snippets like population cnt, etc.

Zach responded with:

Perhaps you could explain to me, then, why:

Rybka's piece square tables are generated from the same code as Fruit's (same KnightRank, etc. constants, but different KnightRankOpening weights)
Rybka's pawn evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights again, candidate pawns and backward pawns have a very slightly different formulation)
Rybka's passed pawn evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (same bonuses using the quad array {0...,26,77,154,256}, only difference is weights and free_passer split into 3 separate bonuses and based on rank)
Rybka's piece evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights only)
Rybka's king shelter evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights again, king square generalized to C1, E1, or G1 to store in the pawn table, and a slightly different formula for shelter_file()/storm_file())
Rybka's king safety evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights for KingAttackWeight, KingAttackUnit)
Rybka's "pattern" evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's (different weights, TrappedBishop is not halved for A6/H6).

I have confirmed all of this from reverse engineering Rybka 1, though anyone can see for themselves by looking at Strelka. Rybka's entire evaluation is basically an optimized and tuned bitboard translation of Fruit's, with Fruit's material evaluation replaced by the infamous lookup table. EVERY single evaluation term in Rybka 1, except for the material imbalance table, appears in Fruit. If everyone wants to consider that "original", then computer chess is really dead.

And this is only the evaluation. There are many more similarities...

With so much talent and expertise, I really wish that Zach would focus on making his engine ZCT a real killer.(':P')

[K I Hyams]

I consider that the attitude of both you and Graham Banks is disrespectful to Hyatt. If I was in Prof. Hyatt’s position, I would have lost patience with the pair of you ages ago.

If Bob feels that way, I'd be disappointed. My intention has not been to show disrespect.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised by your comments.

Hi Graham,

here is where you surprised me:
Bob looked at source code of Fruit21 and reverse-engineered Rybka1 and saw undeniable plagiarism and said it clearly.
The big surprise is that even then, you still expect Bob to listen to Bernitez before drawing conclusions as to whether Rybka1 has Fruit21 code or not.
Whatever Bernitez may say cannot change the facts that are clearly visible at source code level.
Bob would be really stupid if he would allow Bernitez opinion to influence visible facts.

Regards,
Matthias.

I don't think that Bob did reverse engineer Rybka 1. I think that his opinion may have been based on Strelka, which Vas informed him was effectively Rybka 1.

Bob has already confirmed the point that you made in your second paragraph, namely that what he saw in Rybka 1/Strelka was absolutely unmistakably Fruit code. That is the reason that he gave for not contacting Mr Benitez.

[Marek Soszynski]

I had thought that the point of contacting Mr Benitez wasn't over whether his code had been used but whether he objected to its use.

[Guenther]

My post is not a personal attack, just pointing out the truth for all to see.

I presume the reasons for joining the CCC are not personal and they should be explained in detail be the new member? I didn't see a similar article in the charter.

Or you take on yourself the role of the one who knows the general truth and you are here be the will of the almighty to show this (yours and in the same time universal) truth to everyone?

The truth has yet to be established in my opinion (and my opinion is no more or less valuable than anybody elses, no matter what you wish to infer).

Cheers,
Graham.

Your opinion is a lot less valuable than that of Professor Hyatt and Zach Wegner for obvious reasons and in those circumstances it is disrespectful to claim otherwise.

I dont want to sound disrespectful or impolite or impostering, Keith, but the above almost forced me to finally give you an explanation for what I also said on CTF.

It's a real calamity of your mind frame if you wrongly follow such a nonsense like

- if several parties join in a common opinion then this opinion is higher valued than the one of a singular person, they must be correct while the single must be wrong or

- if we have two different opinions, mostly opposing each other, from two different people, and one person is an expert in the field of the debate, then the opinion of the "higher" expert is always higher valued than the opinion of the lower rated expert or if even only layman; his opinion is more correct than the opinion of the lower person

both these concludings are false and without justification. The main reason for such a wrong thought process comes if a mal educated person assumes without any reason that in opinions it's only a question of expertise in a singular field. But this is wrong. An expert has advantages if we speak of plain knowledge. Here the probability is higher that the higher expert is better informed, has more experience, and therefore a better insight into the topic in question.

But just for opinions where you cant establish a judgement on knowledge, where other fields come into play, say like justice, an expert for computerchess is not automatically the one with a better opinion.

For me it's absolutely clear that in opinions where an overall experience in life is necessary Graham normally should "outplay" or "top" the 21 y. old Zach, a young student.

Above all that it's a real provokation for my own mind if I must see that an expert like Ryan who knows the history of the different Fruit versions and owns the code of version 2.3., isnt interesting enough to be contacted. And you are trying to justify it, because Ryan should know only something of Strelka. Keith, on what a base you are doing this? Is there a basis at all? What if the question of Strelka isnt important at all? If Ryan could testify something about Fruit and public domain?

Listen Rolf,
I am not Prof. Hyatt; I will not answer the same question from you more than once. You have asked specific questions and if you are more interested in the answers than the sound of your own voice, you had better stop shouting and start listening.

A few years ago in Germany there was a tv show "Schach der Grossmeister".
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schach_der ... %9Fmeister

Once a year two grandmaster chess players had a game in the background
and two others were commenting the game.
Helmut Pfleger (ELO 2477) and Vlastimil Hort (2725).
The dialogue typically went like this:

Pfleger: Ah, black now comes out with a bishop. What can white do now?
Hort: Knight c5 looks good to me.
Pfleger: Knight c5? That is strange. But what if we play this. (Shuffles around
pieces on the demo board and shows the end position.)
Hort: Hm, ok but I like my knight.
Pfleger: Let's go back and try this (Shuffles around other pieces, explaining
possible attacks and defences.)
Hort: You may be right, but a knight on c5 ...
Pfleger: (Now moving the knight to c5 and wondering what pieces to move.) Hm?
Oh, there is the real move. Let's see. Knight to c5. ...
:-) Harald

#Hort glances at the board and the correct move jumps out at him.
#I glance at a set of equations and almost all of those that are wrong jump out at me. I am not perfect, occasionally I miss a couple that are wrong. However, if I see one that is wrong then it is always wrong because, as it is wrong, it gets a second look.

Just a side note, from where did you quote that above and who is 'Harald'?
I couldn't find any post in the whole thread containing that quote?
Anyhow my 'scientific' side note on the above text is that it is somehow
manipulated to wrongly imply something.
First of all the given elo of Hort is only his maximum virtual elo before elo
even was really calculated, when the elo of Hort seems to be the lowest
he ever had, but even in my huge database he never had such a low elo.
Actually, even if one believes in any value of those virtual dubious
historical elo ratings, Hort and Pfleger _never_ had such a difference
in strength as the above quote wrongly shows.
Practically always during those TV shows Pfleger was slightly above
2500 and Hort slightly below 2600.

Guenther

[K I Hyams]

I had thought that the point of contacting Mr Benitez wasn't over whether his code had been used but whether he objected to its use.

The Fruit code was written by Fabien Letouzey, not Ryan Benitez. Ryan Benitez simply modified it. As Fabien's code was published under a GPL licence it is freely available for other people to use but, if they choose to do so, they must also make their code freely available. As Benitez used Fruit code, his permission is not required. If Vas used Fruit code he is supposed to make the engine that contains that code open source.

[Matthias Gemuh]

Hi Graham,

here is where you surprised me:
Bob looked at source code of Fruit21 and reverse-engineered Rybka1 and saw undeniable plagiarism and said it clearly.
The big surprise is that even then, you still expect Bob to listen to Bernitez before drawing conclusions as to whether Rybka1 has Fruit21 code or not.
Whatever Bernitez may say cannot change the facts that are clearly visible at source code level.
Bob would be really stupid if he would allow Bernitez opinion to influence visible facts.

Regards,
Matthias.

I don't think that Bob did reverse engineer Rybka 1. I think that his opinion may have been based on Strelka, which Vas informed him was effectively Rybka 1.

I did not say Bob did the reverse engineering.

Matthias.