Rybka Coding Posts

[Bill Rogers]

I thought Vas simply stated that he "look at Fruit" and that he did not hint, suggest or even admit that he found it interesting and that he might have copied even one idea from that program.
I don't program in "C" as of yet but I have examined with my limited ability dozens of programs written in that language and some very intensely, ie., Crafty but don't ever expect to copy any of their logic.
I did download Bruce's home page explaining all the diferent type of searches, including alpha/beta, etc. As most of this stuff is public knowledge I don't feel that it was wrong to try to use it in my program.
Bill

[bigo]

Hi
Surely the moderators should have moved all the Rybka coding posts to the 'Programming & Technical Discussions' forum?
I've tried to follow the discussion but it's a little too technical at times with chunks of code being printed and the ins and outs of imaginary law suits being shouted about.
Yes I think it's time for all this to be moved to the other forum.
Bryan

Agreed.

personally i am a bit lost as to where this all stands at this point
are we waiting for Vas to answer any questions?
are we waiting for more questions to be formulated?
or has the whole thing just fizzled out ?

Stumped Regards



I thought you left or have a missed a Post of yours announcing your return? Good to see you back!
Steve

[Steve B]

Thanks Steve for the warm welcome

have been posting on a regular basis again for about a month now

Best Regards
Steve

[bob]

I thought Vas simply stated that he "look at Fruit" and that he did not hint, suggest or even admit that he found it interesting and that he might have copied even one idea from that program.
I don't program in "C" as of yet but I have examined with my limited ability dozens of programs written in that language and some very intensely, ie., Crafty but don't ever expect to copy any of their logic.
I did download Bruce's home page explaining all the diferent type of searches, including alpha/beta, etc. As most of this stuff is public knowledge I don't feel that it was wrong to try to use it in my program.
Bill

And neither do I. The reason I released crafty's source was for exactly that purpose. It is one thing to read about implementing a hash table, it is quite another to actually integrate it into the search so that it does something useful. Had I had such a program 30 years ago it would have saved _much_ experimentation, thinking, and false starts.

[BubbaTough]

I can speak for myself only. I decided to stop testing Strelka because it had been proven by this very society to be a reverse engineered Rybka 1.0b (and even claimed by Vasik Rajlich to be his own engine) and I saw no reason to test 'the same' engine twice, only under a different name.

And, I have to admit, I felt some pressure which led to stop testing it when CCRL was severely criticized (in fact, rudely attacked) for 'supporting' clones.

Now it seems you are criticizing us for doing the opposite.
_________________
Gabor

I think people who donate all that time and effort to do testing can do what they want. You should be dictating your standards for what is necessary to qualify for testing, not the other way around. I would think many other engine writers would agree.

p.s. thank you for sending me the tolearn file from testing. I am back working on my program, and have put the files you sent me to good use .

-Sam

[tiger]

Why have you decided to stop testing it when it was clearly one of the best performing program out there?

I can understand that you stop testing a very weak program by lack of resources, but stopping tests on one of the strongest program is going to influence a good number of ranks and ratings around. So why did you decide to stop testing it?

// Christophe

I can speak for myself only. I decided to stop testing Strelka because it had been proven by this very society to be a reverse engineered Rybka 1.0b (and even claimed by Vasik Rajlich to be his own engine) and I saw no reason to test 'the same' engine twice, only under a different name.

And, I have to admit, I felt some pressure which led to stop testing it when CCRL was severely criticized (in fact, rudely attacked) for 'supporting' clones.

Now it seems you are criticizing us for doing the opposite.

I am not criticizing you for stopping tests on Strelka.

On the other hand don't you think it would be good to have established rules in order to avoid any criticism next time it happens?



// Christophe

[ozziejoe]

Chris is the voice of reason here. And I strongly agree. The case should have been prepared before the accusations made. Now, the accussars are forced to move heaven and earth to justify their initial assault.

They still may find the truth (for or against rybka), even if their motives are to bring Rybka down.

[ozziejoe]

I suppose the testors can use extra criteria, other than decompiling, to judge whether an engine is likely to be a clone. E.g., identical output, at every depth level.

Rybka has been extremely original right from the begining, in terms of its chess playing. I mean, it is nothing like any other engine.


The newest rybka is positionally brilliant. Play it at bishop or knight odds. If it does not find a tactic to equalize, it will slowly squeeze the life out of your position, till you have no moves left.

This is why it does not occur to chess players to say rybka is a clone, because its *play* is so different from, say, chess tiger. However, it still may have copyed code (that is nontrivial). I am open to this.

[Tony Thomas]

Rybka has been extremely original right from the begining, in terms of its chess playing. I mean, it is nothing like any other engine. .

Yes, it was original, rigged node count and all..Sorry, I tried to stay away from this discussion as much as possible. Since I am another one of those non-experts who will create nothing more than noise, I do not like to comment on things I have no idea about..I just couldnt resist. I do have a proposal though, all of us should let the programmers do the decompiling and the evidence collecting and stay away as much as we can, so that the conclusion is easier to find once they post it. Look at me, I am the self-proclaimed postwhore of CCC, and I have only posted around 20 times in the whole last week.

[tiger]

I suppose the testors can use extra criteria, other than decompiling, to judge whether an engine is likely to be a clone. E.g., identical output, at every depth level.

Rybka has been extremely original right from the begining, in terms of its chess playing. I mean, it is nothing like any other engine.


The newest rybka is positionally brilliant. Play it at bishop or knight odds. If it does not find a tactic to equalize, it will slowly squeeze the life out of your position, till you have no moves left.

This is why it does not occur to chess players to say rybka is a clone, because its *play* is so different from, say, chess tiger. However, it still may have copyed code (that is nontrivial). I am open to this.

For using the word "clone" you must have skipped almost all of the discussion.



// Christophe