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.

Just a side note, from where did you quote that above and who is 'Harald'?

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 07&t=30916

Anyhow my 'scientific' side note on the above text is that it is somehow
manipulated to wrongly imply something.

I make no claim that the example that Mr Lussen used is accurate. I merely used his quote to make the point that those who are experienced in a particular area often develop a very quick and accurate eye for detail. I suspect that Kasparov, amongst others, will have developed similar.

[K I Hyams]

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.

A bit of anbiguity crept in. I thought that your statement "Bob looked at source code of Fruit21 and reverse-engineered Rybka1 meant that you were saying that he did. You were in fact saying that he looked at code which someone else had reverse engineered.

[K I Hyams]

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...

I think this was posted by someone else, not Zach.

Posted by Zach on Rybka forum and quoted here, for the first time, by Graham Banks.

If you have access to the Rybka forum, you can see for yourself. Scroll down the page.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=13846

[Matthias Gemuh]

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.

A bit of anbiguity crept in. I thought that your statement "Bob looked at source code of Fruit21 and reverse-engineered Rybka1 meant that you were saying that he did. You were in fact saying that he looked at code which someone else had reverse engineered.

Yes, I was unfortunately ambiguous .
My "reverse-engineered" was meant as an adjective.
You understood "reverse-engineered" as a verb

Matthias.

[Matthias Gemuh]

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.

No, it was to find out whether code was used.

Matthias.

[Uri Blass]

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.

I disagree

It is possible to use Fruit code without making the engine that contains that code open source(in case that Fabien let you do it).

Ryan Benitez did exactly that and modified fruit2.2.1(that is also not free but based on free fruit2.1).

I think that the best solution is if Fabien
is going to say that he allows Vas to use Rybka1 beta and rybka1 derivative without making the code public.

This does not mean that Fabien claims that Rybka1 has fruit's code(the claim of Bob Hyatt and some other people) but only that even in case that it has fruit's code then it is still legal for Vas to continue to develop it.

I do not know if Fabien is going to say it but I saw no complain of Fabien against Rybka so it is possible that he is going to do it if people ask him to give his opinion.

If Fabien say it then I think that nobody will have a basis to complain against Vas even if it is proved that rybka has some fruit's code.

Uri

[Matthias Gemuh]

I think that the best solution is if Fabien
is going to say that he allows Vas to use Rybka1 beta and rybka1 derivative without making the code public.

Uri

That just makes it legal for Fruit code to be in Rybka.
The on-going debate is about something else : "Does Rybka1 contain Fruit21 code ?".

Matthias.

[Rolf]

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.

This text contains at least one remarkable fallacy or fault, take what you want. But let's listen NB this is pure science! Silence please.

[Eelco de Groot]

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.

I disagree

It is possible to use Fruit code without making the engine that contains that code open source(in case that Fabien let you do it).

Ryan Benitez did exactly that and modified fruit2.2.1(that is also not free but based on free fruit2.1).

I think that the best solution is if Fabien
is going to say that he allows Vas to use Rybka1 beta and rybka1 derivative without making the code public.

This does not mean that Fabien claims that Rybka1 has fruit's code(the claim of Bob Hyatt and some other people) but only that even in case that it has fruit's code then it is still legal for Vas to continue to develop it.

I do not know if Fabien is going to say it but I saw no complain of Fabien against Rybka so it is possible that he is going to do it if people ask him to give his opinion.

If Fabien say it then I think that nobody will have a basis to complain against Vas even if it is proved that rybka has some fruit's code.

Uri

Only Ryan Benitez can make changes to Fruit code without publishing them under GPL, because he retained that right, which he got from Fabien Letouzey as the original programmer ("artist" I rather wanted to say). Only Fabien could give him that right then, but he could not do that again.

Because Fabien himself is no longer the owner of the Fruit 2.1 code, he transferred it to the FSF, and the rights now belong with the Free Software Foundation. Fabien therefore cannot give Vas any rights to something he no longer owns. The FSF also maintains the GPL and is the legal body to contact any breach. Would it rule that there is a breach, I don't think it would just give Vas permission to just use literal Fruit code as if it was not issued under the GPL. That would totally defeat the purpose. I am sure that Vas was well aware of this even with Rybka 1.0 beta and is convinced he did not breach the GPL.

[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.

I disagree

It is possible to use Fruit code without making the engine that contains that code open source(in case that Fabien let you do it).

Ryan Benitez did exactly that and modified fruit2.2.1(that is also not free but based on free fruit2.1).

I think that the best solution is if Fabien
is going to say that he allows Vas to use Rybka1 beta and rybka1 derivative without making the code public.

This does not mean that Fabien claims that Rybka1 has fruit's code(the claim of Bob Hyatt and some other people) but only that even in case that it has fruit's code then it is still legal for Vas to continue to develop it.

I do not know if Fabien is going to say it but I saw no complain of Fabien against Rybka so it is possible that he is going to do it if people ask him to give his opinion.

If Fabien say it then I think that nobody will have a basis to complain against Vas even if it is proved that rybka has some fruit's code.

Uri

I suspect that you know more about the GPL than I do. My understanding is that if you restrict your use of GPL material to private use, you do not have to publish the code. However if you release something to the public you have to include source code with it. Ryan released Fruit to the public and therefore the code is also available to the public without his permission. Is that correct?