Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Rolf]

The infrastructure is what is written first in a chess program. You do not write the search and the evaluation first, because without the infrastructure there is no way you can test them. You would be coding for days without being able to test anything. That is not how chess programs are developped. The infrastructure is developped first and then the search and evaluation are written and can then be matured progressively.

This is especially true if you consider where Rybka was less than two years before the 1.0 release: http://www.vrichey.de/cct6/index_table.htm

You don't start with a regular program, improve its search and evaluation to be world class, and then replace all of the infrastructure with Fruit.

That's correct, YOU are unable to do that. But who are YOU? Even if you were Anthony Cozzie, you were not as successful as the terrific and ingenious remarkable Vasik Rajlich, no chance, Zach! Sorry so much. <cough&smile>

[Rolf]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.

That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.

NOT - if Vas doesnt talk to Bob, who claims USA justice!

[Tony Thomas]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.

That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.

According to you the once who provide evidence is attacking Vas. I see it more as a drilling..

[Uri Blass]

The correct term is "semantically equivalent". That is a common term in discussing student assignments and plagiarism/copying. The probability of even 800 syntactically identical lines is vanishingly small, however 800 lines semantically identical is almost as small. About as likely as two authors writing two different mystery novels, and the storylines are identical, with only the character names and locations being different. It just doesn't happen. And when a couple of chapters are identical, and word-for-word, the probability of "simultaneous invention" is zero.

I think that things are dependent on the task.

If you have a bitboard program that one bitboard dictate many of the other bitboards so one bitboard that is identical may cause many other lines to be identical.

I do not talk about the case of strelka and fruit here (I did not learn all the similiarities) but talk about the general case.

Uri

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

I defend the justice.
The probability of
800 lines semantically identical is not something constant but depending on the task that you do.

If you write a code to calculate many simple mathematical functions you can expect easily 800 lines that are semantically identical.

One function may be to calculate if a number is prime or not prime when you can have also many different easy tasks in chess program and
I cannot say speicific number of lines that more than it means that one is derivative of the other.

I also do not think that copying a single line can break the gpl(like people suggest) and I think that some conndition like it is against justice so the condition should be illegal in the first place.

Uri

[Rolf]

The correct term is "semantically equivalent". That is a common term in discussing student assignments and plagiarism/copying. The probability of even 800 syntactically identical lines is vanishingly small, however 800 lines semantically identical is almost as small. About as likely as two authors writing two different mystery novels, and the storylines are identical, with only the character names and locations being different. It just doesn't happen. And when a couple of chapters are identical, and word-for-word, the probability of "simultaneous invention" is zero.

I think that things are dependent on the task.

If you have a bitboard program that one bitboard dictate many of the other bitboards so one bitboard that is identical may cause many other lines to be identical.

I do not talk about the case of strelka and fruit here (I did not learn all the similiarities) but talk about the general case.

Uri

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

I defend the justice.
The probability of
800 lines semantically identical is not something constant but depending on the task that you do.

If you write a code to calculate many simple mathematical functions you can expect easily 800 lines that are semantically identical.

One function may be to calculate if a number is prime or not prime when you can have also many different easy tasks in chess program and
I cannot say speicific number of lines that more than it means that one is derivative of the other.

I also do not think that copying a single line can break the gpl(like people suggest) and I think that some conndition like it is against justice so the condition should be illegal in the first place.

Uri

Uri, I can add something else. If you show 800 similarities without exactly showing the environment and its natures you have no sound argument at all. This is all pretty much made up through chosen data snips. That's unsound out of principle.

[Uri Blass]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Sorry, should have been Rybka or Movei

Tony

If I wanted to defend Movei I could say nothing in the first place because movei was not under direct attack.

I simply things that what you do is unfair and Rybka may be more original than part of the commercial programs.

I think that by justice Rybka should not be considered as derivative inspite of the similiarity when toga is clearly a derivative.

If we talk about the law I think that it is unclear otherwise you can make the court to do something against Vas.

Uri

[chrisw]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.

That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.

Graham,

How do you propose moderation deals with this different to the way it is doing?

You were noderator last time, please inform us which posts you would have deleted out of this thread .......

[trojanfoe]

I defend the justice.
The probability of
800 lines semantically identical is not something constant but depending on the task that you do.

If you write a code to calculate many simple mathematical functions you can expect easily 800 lines that are semantically identical.

One function may be to calculate if a number is prime or not prime when you can have also many different easy tasks in chess program and
I cannot say speicific number of lines that more than it means that one is derivative of the other.

That's not true, as Bob has repeatedly said. The chance that 800 lines of code will be the same from 2 different programmers, even when given the same assignment at the same time, is very very small.

I also do not think that copying a single line can break the gpl(like people suggest) and I think that some conndition like it is against justice so the condition should be illegal in the first place.

Well that is one of the term of the GPL. A programmer is pretty much free to draw any terms she likes when releasing her program and/or source code. If a programmer wishes to use her source code to create another program, and doesn't like those terms, then she shouldn't use her source code. Easy.

If you think the GPL is unjust then you shouldn't use GPL'd code - no one if forcing you.

Cheers,
Andy

[trojanfoe]

Uri, I can add something else. If you show 800 similarities without exactly showing the environment and its natures you have no sound argument at all. This is all pretty much made up through chosen data snips. That's unsound out of principle.

At last! You post something which is on topic!

You are suggesting that the evidence has been presented out of context? That doesn't really hold water as the 'nature' of the code is defined by it's functionality. For example code snippets have been posted which are obviously to do with UCI option parsing; this function could only be used as part of the initialisation of the UCI protocol between the engine and GUI and wouldn't have any value being called elsewhere within the program.

There is nothing unsound about how the evidence has been presented.

Cheers,
Andy

[Graham Banks]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.

That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.

Graham,

How do you propose moderation deals with this different to the way it is doing?

You were noderator last time, please inform us which posts you would have deleted out of this thread .......

Boy - that's the million dollar question!
The problem with CCC is that there's this thing called the charter which unfortunately severely inhibits this sort of discussion.

I would have thought that questioning the legality of an engine falls under the guise of a legally questionable post.

Also, by questioning the legality of an engine in such a manner, one is attacking the honesty and integrity of the engine author, so you're on the fringe with regards to the charter that prohibits personal or libellous attacks.

Unfortunately, if you enforce the charter, such discussions would therefore not be allowed. I'm not saying whether that's a good or bad thing, but that's the fact of the matter.

Hope that explains the predicament that faces the moderators in such situations.

The reason I didn't stand again was so that I no longer had to make such decisions, so I have to leave that to the current team.
Be warned though that you'll cop abuse no matter what you do, although I know that you're already aware of this.

Cheers, Graham.

PS - I think that your post on clones at the top of the page makes the position of the moderators clear.