BTW should "Opening Novelties" remain the property of the discovery and
not allowed to be used without consent? Or should the users be tagged
as a cloner or a copier of novelties?
have fun.[/quote]
That's an interesting question, isn't it? [/quote]
Yes indeed if we take into consideration all the time and efforts from mostly highly experienced players which may take many years to attain and to discover after seemingly endless attempts over long time periods to improve or keep alive a particular opening line worth only a one time exposure to make it public knowledge.
Why then should mathematician be rewarded more for their assemblies?
kurt wrote:Well, this “ thing “ deserves a better definition to describe what it really means to me.
As a casual observer of this site interested in the evolution of chess theory and thus keeping an eye on the progress of chess engine developments to outplay humans at GM level.
It really amazes me to see mathematician like Larker’s double pawn theory attempting to solve chess.
My observation of computer chess bring to mind Botwinik the chess expert of practical application with basic computer knowledge and then Hyatt the computer language genius who was successful in combining science with art forging out a product reaching the GM level playing strength. With the now ever faster computer speed and growing chess knowledge base it looks inevitable that chess will be solved maybe not in my life time but soon after.
My point is to create an awareness that computer chess is evolving in a very fast pace which is a product of all the various components of contributions via chess engines designs and chess knowledge accumulation available to all parties of interests.
Why attempt to stop progress of evolution of a product which rightfully belongs to all contributors regardless of the degree or incremental values of their input in the final product capable of solving chess.
Therefore let’s assign a proper definition to this” thing” which I compare to the “big bang” stage of evolution.
My sincere appreciation to all contributors keeping computer chess an interesting and fascinating lifelong pastime for me.
My only comment is with respect to "Pioneer" (Botvinnik's program). It was a fraud, pure and simple, and could not play a game of chess, nor even solve many of the test positions that were claimed to be solved. Berliner debunked this quite carefully in the JICCA a few years back.
we should give him some credit for trying - he was quite successful
with his prodigy Kasparov. IMO he was a very good position assessor
and theoretician and thus should be considered a valuable contributor
for advancing chess knowledge.
Shoot, I give him a lot of credit for ideas. I had the opportunity to sit and talk with him for an hour + at the 1983 new york WCCC event we won. I have a Russian ceremonial drinking horn (a small horn of some sort, hollowed out on the large end, decorated with various artwork and inlay, which would hold just enough liquid to give you a good taste of whatever it is.
The program and hyperbole surrounding it was the result, I believe, of the typical Russian bureaucracy that requires spectacular results to continue to receive funding and help on such a project. Berliner was quite an interesting person to chat with, after his life's experiences with the WCC (human) as well as the various people he had played / met.
adieguez wrote:and what am I doing in a clonning thread..
Actually Vas already said: that he looked in Fruit source and took many things. That words alone are at least as strong or stronger than the similarities shown here. So no dishonesty in the first place. Also as the code was probably written from scratch... (partly because it is written in bitboards) you cannot say there is anything illegal. So the data in this comparison may be of some interest but not to acuse Vas of doing anything illegal.
Anyway now I know, that rybka 2 plays Nh6 a bit too easily not because of some deep concept but maybe because it's eval is simply not that good. Also if I read well there we see it doesn't penalize doubled pawns in the openning? so it simply doesn't see them, there is no corner cases or whatever. It's a tactical monster.
Converting a chess engine from 0x88 or whatever array board representation to bitboards is not a complete rewrite. Big parts of the eval will change. As will the move generator and make/unmake move functions. Search stays the same. Move parsing stays the same. Book stays the same. The list goes on and on. If you argue that there is nothing left of Fruit after rewriting to use bitboards, you are badly mistaken. Your interpretation of the GPL is also a bit off the mark. If any code was kept, this is a clear violation. And we absolutely know some was kept because of program structure, piece/square table values, etc.
I don't consider it a big deal now. The cat's out of the bag, everyone can form their own opinion as to how they feel about what happened. Discussing it is not going to change anything, although it might help make it clearer to beginners that this is _not_ the way to start. But other than that, nothing worthwhile will come from the discussions. This is a gigantic mess now. It would be quite hard to legally challenge the IPPOLIT folks if reverse-engineering were proven, because reverse-engineering an open-source GPL program is not illegal, and any program _derived_ from a GPL program is itself GPL. What a can of worms. There is really nothing that can be done about IPPOLIT, other than to discourage others from repeating the process. I'm sure that will stop it, of course.
adieguez wrote:and what am I doing in a clonning thread..
Actually Vas already said: that he looked in Fruit source and took many things. That words alone are at least as strong or stronger than the similarities shown here. So no dishonesty in the first place. Also as the code was probably written from scratch... (partly because it is written in bitboards) you cannot say there is anything illegal. So the data in this comparison may be of some interest but not to acuse Vas of doing anything illegal.
Anyway now I know, that rybka 2 plays Nh6 a bit too easily not because of some deep concept but maybe because it's eval is simply not that good. Also if I read well there we see it doesn't penalize doubled pawns in the openning? so it simply doesn't see them, there is no corner cases or whatever. It's a tactical monster.
Converting a chess engine from 0x88 or whatever array board representation to bitboards is not a complete rewrite. Big parts of the eval will change. As will the move generator and make/unmake move functions. Search stays the same. Move parsing stays the same. Book stays the same. The list goes on and on. If you argue that there is nothing left of Fruit after rewriting to use bitboards, you are badly mistaken. Your interpretation of the GPL is also a bit off the mark. If any code was kept, this is a clear violation. And we absolutely know some was kept because of program structure, piece/square table values, etc.
I don't consider it a big deal now. The cat's out of the bag, everyone can form their own opinion as to how they feel about what happened. Discussing it is not going to change anything, although it might help make it clearer to beginners that this is _not_ the way to start. But other than that, nothing worthwhile will come from the discussions. This is a gigantic mess now. It would be quite hard to legally challenge the IPPOLIT folks if reverse-engineering were proven, because reverse-engineering an open-source GPL program is not illegal, and any program _derived_ from a GPL program is itself GPL. What a can of worms. There is really nothing that can be done about IPPOLIT, other than to discourage others from repeating the process. I'm sure that will stop it, of course.
The source code is out there and my personal opinion is that it will boost the progress in the computer chess world....note that I don't imply here the moral aspect of the issue,just a dry point of view....
From all I've managed to read,it has also a lot of fresh ideas from which other programers can benifit....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Dann Corbit wrote:First some history and my opinions pasted to it:
The chess engine Rybka came onto the scene with version 1.0 and it was a stunning world beater.
Sometime later, some enterprising souls did some reverse engineering of Rybka and came to the conclusion that it had striking similarities to fruit.
Here are some links to the analysis:
{analysis links removed}
The inescapable conclusion is that Rybka 1.0 is heavily influenced by Fruit.
wow that's interesting stuff. I don't know if I remember well, but I think before "Rybka 1.0", Vas had already a weaker version right? so he later changed the evaluation then maybe? why would one semicopy an evaluation? including things that may look caprichous, I don't think that's even something that's going to give you too much elo and feels kind of cheap. Was changing the eval an elo-boost? is that Fruit eval specially strong at all?? and would an international master prefer to base heavily its eval in another eval instead of try to write it by himself?
Actually I don't want to "acuse" no one of nothing. I wrote just with my first impression. Taking that aside, I repeat it is a bit strange, coming from an international master one would expect an eval much more complex than an average one. But it's ok. I remember also a webpage where the author did a theory about rybka strength and talk about the better calculation of the potential of the pieces or something like that, pure ilusion?.
Rybka was a lot stronger than Fruit, right off the bat.
Rybka is a bitboard engine so the architecture is different than fruit which does not use bitboards.
Rybka uses the idea of material imbalance in the evaluation as pioneered by Larry Kaufman.
We must not have the same understanding of architecture because many of the architecture differences between Rybka and Fruit seem irrelevant to the use of bitboards to me. Also I can't help but be be annoyed by the myth floating around that board rep changes require a large architecture change or even a rewite of the engine. Converting Fruit to being a bitboard engine is a minor change that is just a few hours of work.
Dann Corbit wrote:First some history and my opinions pasted to it:
The chess engine Rybka came onto the scene with version 1.0 and it was a stunning world beater.
Sometime later, some enterprising souls did some reverse engineering of Rybka and came to the conclusion that it had striking similarities to fruit.
Here are some links to the analysis:
{analysis links removed}
The inescapable conclusion is that Rybka 1.0 is heavily influenced by Fruit.
wow that's interesting stuff. I don't know if I remember well, but I think before "Rybka 1.0", Vas had already a weaker version right? so he later changed the evaluation then maybe? why would one semicopy an evaluation? including things that may look caprichous, I don't think that's even something that's going to give you too much elo and feels kind of cheap. Was changing the eval an elo-boost? is that Fruit eval specially strong at all?? and would an international master prefer to base heavily its eval in another eval instead of try to write it by himself?
Actually I don't want to "acuse" no one of nothing. I wrote just with my first impression. Taking that aside, I repeat it is a bit strange, coming from an international master one would expect an eval much more complex than an average one. But it's ok. I remember also a webpage where the author did a theory about rybka strength and talk about the better calculation of the potential of the pieces or something like that, pure ilusion?.
Rybka was a lot stronger than Fruit, right off the bat.
Rybka is a bitboard engine so the architecture is different than fruit which does not use bitboards.
Rybka uses the idea of material imbalance in the evaluation as pioneered by Larry Kaufman.
We must not have the same understanding of architecture because many of the architecture differences between Rybka and Fruit seem irrelevant to the use of bitboards to me. Also I can't help but be be annoyed by the myth floating around that board rep changes require a large architecture change or even a rewite of the engine. Converting Fruit to being a bitboard engine is a minor change that is just a few hours of work.
I totally disagree that it is only a few hours of work to convert fruit to bitboard engine because only generating move generator that is based on bitboards with no bugs(part of the work) is clearly more than a few hours of work.
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
The source code is out there and my personal opinion is that it will boost the progress in the computer chess world....note that I don't imply here the moral aspect of the issue,just a dry point of view....
From all I've managed to read,it has also a lot of fresh ideas from which other programers can benifit....
Dr.D
It may certainly increase the level of clones
I would use only what it is said at the forum. I let others to the "job" of analyzing it Actually, not as you have said, I have not read mentioned anything really cool yet.
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
The source code is out there and my personal opinion is that it will boost the progress in the computer chess world....note that I don't imply here the moral aspect of the issue,just a dry point of view....
From all I've managed to read,it has also a lot of fresh ideas from which other programers can benifit....
Dr.D
It may certainly increase the level of clones
I would use only what it is said at the forum. I let others to the "job" of analyzing it Actually, not as you have said, I have not read mentioned anything really cool yet.
Actually sometimes little things are good too. For example. Reductions in ippolit are agresve, and it forwards prunes in the last 7 plies where for example I do in 5, crafty in 4 etc. So, one is motivated to try doing more forward orunning, and if it doesn't work, instead of giving up soon, insist because you know it can work. It is about the same in other areas. Let say, most of us save only one move at the hashtable (wildcat saves two. The fact that only one is normal makes you not insist very much trying with 2 (I didn't insist very much). If it were the case 2 is normal then you would insist and insist. You go faster because all this things.
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
The source code is out there and my personal opinion is that it will boost the progress in the computer chess world....note that I don't imply here the moral aspect of the issue,just a dry point of view....
From all I've managed to read,it has also a lot of fresh ideas from which other programers can benifit....
Dr.D
It may certainly increase the level of clones
I would use only what it is said at the forum. I let others to the "job" of analyzing it Actually, not as you have said, I have not read mentioned anything really cool yet.
Actually sometimes little things are good too. For example. Reductions in ippolit are agresve, and it forwards prunes in the last 7 plies where for example I do in 5, crafty in 4 etc. So, one is motivated to try doing more forward orunning, and if it doesn't work, instead of giving up soon, insist because you know it can work. It is about the same in other areas. Let say, most of us save only one move at the hashtable (wildcat saves two. The fact that only one is normal makes you not insist very much trying with 2 (I didn't insist very much). If it were the case 2 is normal then you would insist and insist. You go faster because all this things.
Beware of copying without verifying. I have verified my last-4-plies pruning code _extensively_. I tried 5 and up and it hurt in every test I contrived. I've not given up, but just because an idea shows up in program X does not guarantee it will work well in program Y. In fact, it does not guarantee it works well in X. I'd bet most every program, IPPOLIT included, has things in it that are detrimental rather than helpful.
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
The source code is out there and my personal opinion is that it will boost the progress in the computer chess world....note that I don't imply here the moral aspect of the issue,just a dry point of view....
From all I've managed to read,it has also a lot of fresh ideas from which other programers can benifit....
Dr.D
It may certainly increase the level of clones
I would use only what it is said at the forum. I let others to the "job" of analyzing it Actually, not as you have said, I have not read mentioned anything really cool yet.
Actually sometimes little things are good too. For example. Reductions in ippolit are agresve, and it forwards prunes in the last 7 plies where for example I do in 5, crafty in 4 etc. So, one is motivated to try doing more forward orunning, and if it doesn't work, instead of giving up soon, insist because you know it can work. It is about the same in other areas. Let say, most of us save only one move at the hashtable (wildcat saves two. The fact that only one is normal makes you not insist very much trying with 2 (I didn't insist very much). If it were the case 2 is normal then you would insist and insist. You go faster because all this things.
So you did found somehting fresh and interesting after all
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
[/quote]
