strelka 2.0

[rfadden]

Here is a quote from Dann:

The taking without permission of things from Rybka is something I do not like. The fact that the author was not immediately forthcoming about the origins of the material is something I do not like. But I also dislike your untrue assertions. To me, they are also reprehensible. If you accuse someone of wrongdoing, then the accusations should be correct. Your accusations are not correct.

It looks to me like Dann was having a lot of fun with Strelka and my guess is that he has plans for using Strelka for many fun and exciting purposes.

Your imagination has carried you away here. Otherwise I'd have to assume that it is you who wants to generate a flame war. Please stop the talking, present the proofs instead.

What turf is he talking about?? Dann simply said that his claim about Strelka being 100% same as Rybka 1.0 beta is wrong. I have never seen a flame war started by Dann, and since it is Rick who is new around here he should refrain from making such bold claims.

One point is this statement that I am new here (no, not true). Well I was on CCC just as it was created, and that was a long time ago. This system deletes accounts that have not been accessed for quite a while (maybe it's years)... so anyway I would come back, have to set up another account, then participate here, and then there would be another period of time where my account would expire, and I would then repeat. I have been back here and then back here, with many repeats.

I first started messing with Bob Hyatt's "Blitz IV" program in 1978, so I was around in the old days, man...

-----------

I said I have seen that Strelka is Reverse Engineering. Strelka 2.0 is not 100% exact match with Rybka 1.0 Beta but on the other hand vast amounts of code exactly lines up.

Yes I will start showing this matching code, and keep in mind that the examples could go on for months because the regions, areas of exact match are vast.

Thanks.

[Tony Thomas]

Rick, I think you are getting obsessed with matching code. Pretty much everyone with a brain agrees that there are many things common between Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka. For a fact, I never even tested Strelka knowing that I would be sort of wasting my time. Testing Strelka for me is like wearing yesterdays socks inside out, looks fresh but still got the stench. Since you are so old, I could say all kinds of stuff to you, because I can out run you if you chase after me with a gun.

[Dann Corbit]

It looks to me like Dann was having a lot of fun with Strelka and my guess is that he has plans for using Strelka for many fun and exciting purposes.

I haven't known anything about those plans, I simply came on and started writing about what I had seen.

So what really happened is that I accidentally stepped onto Dann's "Home Turf." Dann has some serious territory that he is now defending.

Since Dann is all angry that I accidentally am standing on his land, he is following some sort of primal instinct now to kick me off of his turf.

Hey Dann I'm not standing on your land. What is this turf that you claim?

Do you think I came here to get between you and your fun? Yes it is apparent that you have big plans for Strelka.

I am going to continue with my proof that Strelka includes a pure rip-off copy of the logic in Rybka. I will give out the proof.

In the mean time Dann you should stop trying to initiate a flame war.

Have you seen how these things turn out? These things never end, they just go on and on... Is this what you want?

The way to stop a flame war is to have all parties dampen their comments somewhat. Dampen down the rhetoric. Turn down the gain of this amplification.

Your imagination has carried you away here. Otherwise I'd have to assume that it is you who wants to generate a flame war. Please stop the talking, present the proofs instead.

What turf is he talking about?? Dann simply said that his claim about Strelka being 100% same as Rybka 1.0 beta is wrong. I have never seen a flame war started by Dann, and since it is Rick who is new around here he should refrain from making such bold claims.

Certainly there is some difference between strelka and rybka1.0 beta because they do not generate the same output and Rick also did not deny it.

The output of strelka1.8 was more similiar to rybka relative to the output of strelka2.0 but it also was not the same.

2.0 is clearly an improvement relative to 1.8 and unlike 1.8 the target with 2 was not to have output that is very close to rybka(except nodes per second) but to have better version than 1.8

Uri

I agree that the goal of Mr Usipov was to have something that plays very much like Rybka and he did surprisingly well at it.

Anyway, the cat is now out of the bag with the Strelka ideas:
1. Fruit ideas, but changed to bitboard, so it will scale well on modern CPUs
2. Material imbalance analysis from Rybka.

I think it was a mistake for Strelka also to copy the Rybka mistakes. I guess he did that on purpose but it makes more sense to me simply to fix them.

In the final analysis, I think we see what we already knew. Fruit was a big revolution in computer chess. Material imbalance is important -- more important than most people thought. Well designed code can be compact and efficient.

To Rick Fadden:
I think we got off on the wrong foot. You are probably a good programmer and all of that, but I think you are way overboard on your charges.

I have no plans whatsoever for the Strelka code except to understand it. My chief interest in computer chess is to see what makes the engines go and also to see what I can do to improve them. If I do improve them, or get what I think is a good idea (quite often I am wrong) I send my idea back to the original authors.

I will absolutely never write a commercial chess engine. That would definitely take *all* the fun out of chess programming for me. I am already paid handsomely as a programmer and I think that chess programmers are probably among the most underpaid programmers in the world. I guess that all (or nearly all) serious chess programmers are doing it for the fun. *If* I ever do release a chess engine it will definitely be open source and contain many of my own ideas. The ideas I have used from other engines will be used in a legal way and clearly documented. I have nothing to gain from one chess engine compared to another, and I learn things from every chess engine source code that I read (including TSCP).

The one problem that I have with Rick's statements is that they contain exaggeration. That is normally fine, but not when you are accusing someone of something. In that context it is simply wrong to do it.

IMO-YMMV

[Dann Corbit]

It looks to me like Dann was having a lot of fun with Strelka and my guess is that he has plans for using Strelka for many fun and exciting purposes.

I haven't known anything about those plans, I simply came on and started writing about what I had seen.

So what really happened is that I accidentally stepped onto Dann's "Home Turf." Dann has some serious territory that he is now defending.

Since Dann is all angry that I accidentally am standing on his land, he is following some sort of primal instinct now to kick me off of his turf.

Hey Dann I'm not standing on your land. What is this turf that you claim?

Do you think I came here to get between you and your fun? Yes it is apparent that you have big plans for Strelka.

I am going to continue with my proof that Strelka includes a pure rip-off copy of the logic in Rybka. I will give out the proof.

In the mean time Dann you should stop trying to initiate a flame war.

Have you seen how these things turn out? These things never end, they just go on and on... Is this what you want?

The way to stop a flame war is to have all parties dampen their comments somewhat. Dampen down the rhetoric. Turn down the gain of this amplification.

Your imagination has carried you away here. Otherwise I'd have to assume that it is you who wants to generate a flame war. Please stop the talking, present the proofs instead.

What turf is he talking about?? Dann simply said that his claim about Strelka being 100% same as Rybka 1.0 beta is wrong. I have never seen a flame war started by Dann, and since it is Rick who is new around here he should refrain from making such bold claims.

Certainly there is some difference between strelka and rybka1.0 beta because they do not generate the same output and Rick also did not deny it.

The output of strelka1.8 was more similiar to rybka relative to the output of strelka2.0 but it also was not the same.

2.0 is clearly an improvement relative to 1.8 and unlike 1.8 the target with 2 was not to have output that is very close to rybka(except nodes per second) but to have better version than 1.8

Uri

I agree that the goal of Mr Usipov was to have something that plays very much like Rybka and he did surprisingly well at it.

Anyway, the cat is now out of the bag with the Strelka ideas:
1. Fruit ideas, but changed to bitboard, so it will scale well on modern CPUs
2. Material imbalance analysis from Rybka.

I think it was a mistake for Strelka also to copy the Rybka mistakes. I guess he did that on purpose but it makes more sense to me simply to fix them.

In the final analysis, I think we see what we already knew. Fruit was a big revolution in computer chess. Material imbalance is important -- more important than most people thought. Well designed code can be compact and efficient.

To Rick Fadden:
I think we got off on the wrong foot. You are probably a good programmer and all of that, but I think you are way overboard on your charges.

I have no plans whatsoever for the Strelka code except to understand it. My chief interest in computer chess is to see what makes the engines go and also to see what I can do to improve them. If I do improve them, or get what I think is a good idea (quite often I am wrong) I send my idea back to the original authors.

I will absolutely never write a commercial chess engine. That would definitely take *all* the fun out of chess programming for me. I am already paid handsomely as a programmer and I think that chess programmers are probably among the most underpaid programmers in the world. I guess that all (or nearly all) serious chess programmers are doing it for the fun. *If* I ever do release a chess engine it will definitely be open source and contain many of my own ideas. The ideas I have used from other engines will be used in a legal way and clearly documented. I have nothing to gain from one chess engine compared to another, and I learn things from every chess engine source code that I read (including TSCP).

The one problem that I have with Rick's statements is that they contain exaggeration. That is normally fine, but not when you are accusing someone of something. In that context it is simply wrong to do it.

IMO-YMMV

I have to add a caveat to my statement about commercial engines.
I did help someone write a chess engine that got sold for profit.
But when he asked me about it, I refused any money from it.
So in a sense I did write a commercial engine, but it was not commercial *for me*.

[Graham Banks]

To Rick Fadden:
I think we got off on the wrong foot. You are probably a good programmer and all of that, but I think you are way overboard on your charges.

Yes - Rick owes you an apology. The thread remains unmoderated for now.

[geots]

It looks to me like Dann was having a lot of fun with Strelka and my guess is that he has plans for using Strelka for many fun and exciting purposes.

I haven't known anything about those plans, I simply came on and started writing about what I had seen.

So what really happened is that I accidentally stepped onto Dann's "Home Turf." Dann has some serious territory that he is now defending.

Since Dann is all angry that I accidentally am standing on his land, he is following some sort of primal instinct now to kick me off of his turf.

Hey Dann I'm not standing on your land. What is this turf that you claim?

Do you think I came here to get between you and your fun? Yes it is apparent that you have big plans for Strelka.

I am going to continue with my proof that Strelka includes a pure rip-off copy of the logic in Rybka. I will give out the proof.

In the mean time Dann you should stop trying to initiate a flame war.

Have you seen how these things turn out? These things never end, they just go on and on... Is this what you want?

The way to stop a flame war is to have all parties dampen their comments somewhat. Dampen down the rhetoric. Turn down the gain of this amplification.

Your imagination has carried you away here. Otherwise I'd have to assume that it is you who wants to generate a flame war. Please stop the talking, present the proofs instead.

AMEN to that, Gabor. Well said.

[Uri Blass]

It looks to me like Dann was having a lot of fun with Strelka and my guess is that he has plans for using Strelka for many fun and exciting purposes.

I haven't known anything about those plans, I simply came on and started writing about what I had seen.

So what really happened is that I accidentally stepped onto Dann's "Home Turf." Dann has some serious territory that he is now defending.

Since Dann is all angry that I accidentally am standing on his land, he is following some sort of primal instinct now to kick me off of his turf.

Hey Dann I'm not standing on your land. What is this turf that you claim?

Do you think I came here to get between you and your fun? Yes it is apparent that you have big plans for Strelka.

I am going to continue with my proof that Strelka includes a pure rip-off copy of the logic in Rybka. I will give out the proof.

In the mean time Dann you should stop trying to initiate a flame war.

Have you seen how these things turn out? These things never end, they just go on and on... Is this what you want?

The way to stop a flame war is to have all parties dampen their comments somewhat. Dampen down the rhetoric. Turn down the gain of this amplification.

Your imagination has carried you away here. Otherwise I'd have to assume that it is you who wants to generate a flame war. Please stop the talking, present the proofs instead.

What turf is he talking about?? Dann simply said that his claim about Strelka being 100% same as Rybka 1.0 beta is wrong. I have never seen a flame war started by Dann, and since it is Rick who is new around here he should refrain from making such bold claims.

Certainly there is some difference between strelka and rybka1.0 beta because they do not generate the same output and Rick also did not deny it.

The output of strelka1.8 was more similiar to rybka relative to the output of strelka2.0 but it also was not the same.

2.0 is clearly an improvement relative to 1.8 and unlike 1.8 the target with 2 was not to have output that is very close to rybka(except nodes per second) but to have better version than 1.8

Uri

I agree that the goal of Mr Usipov was to have something that plays very much like Rybka and he did surprisingly well at it.

Anyway, the cat is now out of the bag with the Strelka ideas:
1. Fruit ideas, but changed to bitboard, so it will scale well on modern CPUs
2. Material imbalance analysis from Rybka.

I think it was a mistake for Strelka also to copy the Rybka mistakes. I guess he did that on purpose but it makes more sense to me simply to fix them.

In the final analysis, I think we see what we already knew. Fruit was a big revolution in computer chess. Material imbalance is important -- more important than most people thought. Well designed code can be compact and efficient.

To Rick Fadden:
I think we got off on the wrong foot. You are probably a good programmer and all of that, but I think you are way overboard on your charges.

I have no plans whatsoever for the Strelka code except to understand it. My chief interest in computer chess is to see what makes the engines go and also to see what I can do to improve them. If I do improve them, or get what I think is a good idea (quite often I am wrong) I send my idea back to the original authors.

I will absolutely never write a commercial chess engine. That would definitely take *all* the fun out of chess programming for me. I am already paid handsomely as a programmer and I think that chess programmers are probably among the most underpaid programmers in the world. I guess that all (or nearly all) serious chess programmers are doing it for the fun. *If* I ever do release a chess engine it will definitely be open source and contain many of my own ideas. The ideas I have used from other engines will be used in a legal way and clearly documented. I have nothing to gain from one chess engine compared to another, and I learn things from every chess engine source code that I read (including TSCP).

The one problem that I have with Rick's statements is that they contain exaggeration. That is normally fine, but not when you are accusing someone of something. In that context it is simply wrong to do it.

IMO-YMMV

1)I doubt if material imbalance in strelka are really productive in the way that they are implemented and one of the things that I plan to try is to delete them and change the value of the pieces and see if strelka performs worse.

2)I doubt if strelka contains fruit's idea thats are not in rybka and
I guess that fruit simply helped osipov to reverse engineer rybka.

3)I doubt if Osipov could avoid copying the mistakes of rybka
and it is possible that he simply did not understand part of what he copied.

4)I am not sure if Rick's statements contain exaggeration.
I understood that
he expects to change strelka to give the same output as rybka and I guess that we are going to know better later.

If Rick can do small changes to the source of strelka and get the same output as rybka then it is going to prove that he is right.

Uri

[Dann Corbit]

To Rick Fadden:
I think we got off on the wrong foot. You are probably a good programmer and all of that, but I think you are way overboard on your charges.

Yes - Rick owes you an apology. The thread remains unmoderated for now.

I do not need any apology.

[geots]

Here is a quote from Dann:

The taking without permission of things from Rybka is something I do not like. The fact that the author was not immediately forthcoming about the origins of the material is something I do not like. But I also dislike your untrue assertions. To me, they are also reprehensible. If you accuse someone of wrongdoing, then the accusations should be correct. Your accusations are not correct.

It looks to me like Dann was having a lot of fun with Strelka and my guess is that he has plans for using Strelka for many fun and exciting purposes.

Your imagination has carried you away here. Otherwise I'd have to assume that it is you who wants to generate a flame war. Please stop the talking, present the proofs instead.

What turf is he talking about?? Dann simply said that his claim about Strelka being 100% same as Rybka 1.0 beta is wrong. I have never seen a flame war started by Dann, and since it is Rick who is new around here he should refrain from making such bold claims.

One point is this statement that I am new here (no, not true). Well I was on CCC just as it was created, and that was a long time ago. This system deletes accounts that have not been accessed for quite a while (maybe it's years)... so anyway I would come back, have to set up another account, then participate here, and then there would be another period of time where my account would expire, and I would then repeat. I have been back here and then back here, with many repeats.

I first started messing with Bob Hyatt's "Blitz IV" program in 1978, so I was around in the old days, man...

-----------

I said I have seen that Strelka is Reverse Engineering. Strelka 2.0 is not 100% exact match with Rybka 1.0 Beta but on the other hand vast amounts of code exactly lines up.

Yes I will start showing this matching code, and keep in mind that the examples could go on for months because the regions, areas of exact match are vast.

Thanks.

If Rick keeps up this boring SOS i will be forced to start testing Strelka again just out of spite if nothing else.

[Dann Corbit]

It looks to me like Dann was having a lot of fun with Strelka and my guess is that he has plans for using Strelka for many fun and exciting purposes.

I haven't known anything about those plans, I simply came on and started writing about what I had seen.

So what really happened is that I accidentally stepped onto Dann's "Home Turf." Dann has some serious territory that he is now defending.

Since Dann is all angry that I accidentally am standing on his land, he is following some sort of primal instinct now to kick me off of his turf.

Hey Dann I'm not standing on your land. What is this turf that you claim?

Do you think I came here to get between you and your fun? Yes it is apparent that you have big plans for Strelka.

I am going to continue with my proof that Strelka includes a pure rip-off copy of the logic in Rybka. I will give out the proof.

In the mean time Dann you should stop trying to initiate a flame war.

Have you seen how these things turn out? These things never end, they just go on and on... Is this what you want?

The way to stop a flame war is to have all parties dampen their comments somewhat. Dampen down the rhetoric. Turn down the gain of this amplification.

Your imagination has carried you away here. Otherwise I'd have to assume that it is you who wants to generate a flame war. Please stop the talking, present the proofs instead.

What turf is he talking about?? Dann simply said that his claim about Strelka being 100% same as Rybka 1.0 beta is wrong. I have never seen a flame war started by Dann, and since it is Rick who is new around here he should refrain from making such bold claims.

Certainly there is some difference between strelka and rybka1.0 beta because they do not generate the same output and Rick also did not deny it.

The output of strelka1.8 was more similiar to rybka relative to the output of strelka2.0 but it also was not the same.

2.0 is clearly an improvement relative to 1.8 and unlike 1.8 the target with 2 was not to have output that is very close to rybka(except nodes per second) but to have better version than 1.8

Uri

I agree that the goal of Mr Usipov was to have something that plays very much like Rybka and he did surprisingly well at it.

Anyway, the cat is now out of the bag with the Strelka ideas:
1. Fruit ideas, but changed to bitboard, so it will scale well on modern CPUs
2. Material imbalance analysis from Rybka.

I think it was a mistake for Strelka also to copy the Rybka mistakes. I guess he did that on purpose but it makes more sense to me simply to fix them.

In the final analysis, I think we see what we already knew. Fruit was a big revolution in computer chess. Material imbalance is important -- more important than most people thought. Well designed code can be compact and efficient.

To Rick Fadden:
I think we got off on the wrong foot. You are probably a good programmer and all of that, but I think you are way overboard on your charges.

I have no plans whatsoever for the Strelka code except to understand it. My chief interest in computer chess is to see what makes the engines go and also to see what I can do to improve them. If I do improve them, or get what I think is a good idea (quite often I am wrong) I send my idea back to the original authors.

I will absolutely never write a commercial chess engine. That would definitely take *all* the fun out of chess programming for me. I am already paid handsomely as a programmer and I think that chess programmers are probably among the most underpaid programmers in the world. I guess that all (or nearly all) serious chess programmers are doing it for the fun. *If* I ever do release a chess engine it will definitely be open source and contain many of my own ideas. The ideas I have used from other engines will be used in a legal way and clearly documented. I have nothing to gain from one chess engine compared to another, and I learn things from every chess engine source code that I read (including TSCP).

The one problem that I have with Rick's statements is that they contain exaggeration. That is normally fine, but not when you are accusing someone of something. In that context it is simply wrong to do it.

IMO-YMMV

1)I doubt if material imbalance in strelka are really productive in the way that they are implemented and one of the things that I plan to try is to delete them and change the value of the pieces and see if strelka performs worse.

2)I doubt if strelka contains fruit's idea thats are not in rybka and
I guess that fruit simply helped osipov to reverse engineer rybka.

3)I doubt if Osipov could avoid copying the mistakes of rybka
and it is possible that he simply did not understand part of what he copied.

4)I am not sure if Rick's statements contain exaggeration.
I understood that
he expects to change strelka to give the same output as rybka and I guess that we are going to know better later.

If Rick can do small changes to the source of strelka and get the same output as rybka then it is going to prove that he is right.

Uri

I only object to this:
"If Rick can do small changes to the source of strelka and get the same output as rybka then it is going to prove that he is right."

That is not a proof that he is right. It is a proof that he has constructed the same output as Rybka. And it is only a proof if tested with every possible input. I guess that it is not possible to test every input. If, eventually, he got a 100% binary duplicate with small changes it would be better evidence, but then why were the changes needed? The only think I think that can be proven is what we already know. So why bother trying to prove it?

Of course, I am speaking of a formal proof. If he could accomplish his goal it would be evidence that he was largely correct. But that is not proof.