A patzer's take on the matter (guaranteed to anger someone)

[bob]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

[tomgdrums]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

[tomgdrums]

You obviously didn't get my post. I was trying to point out that indeed the world is not full of polar opposites. I made it fairly clear that no one was indeed fully to blame. And yet you missed it and went straight after Vas and Vas only!! So maybe you are the one who can't see the grey areas?

And yes I understood GCP's point and I think all of his rationalizations were just that, rationalizations.

Sigh.

Re-read what I wrote please.

I did not go after Vas in any sense of the word.

I simply wrote that he could have killed this whole thing aeons ago.

Easily.

As the only real Rybka expert on the planet.

That is going after him?

Well yes, I guess I must have a yet undiagnosed problem. My inability to see grey areas may be one symptom of this.



Sorry I interrupted your soliloquy.

Later.

Ps. Getting your post and arguing points in it are not necessarily mutually exclusive things Tom.

I think it is funny that you told me that life is not made up of polar opposites just because it would be easier for ME to understand. And yet my little "soliloquy" was indeed showing that there is no exact right or wrong. And yet all you did was single out Vas as the problem. I can't take back what YOU said.

And you don't like when I say that you didn't get my post but you told me I didn't get GCP's point.

Once again I can't take back what YOU said.


And if you notice I did not give Vas a free pass. The whole thing has been ridiculous to watch.

Hello Tom,

I think I will simply read your posts and leave them alone.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you think that retractions of any sort are desired, required or requested.

I do not want to take back anything I said.

There seems to be an emotional undercurrent with which you are investing my posts. I really am not emotionally invested in this Rybka saga either way.

Read again. I am not singling out Vas as the problem. I am saying that this problem could have been dealt with decisively by him ages ago. I am saying in the absence of the only true Rybka expert on the planet speaking up in a decisive manner this thing has been given a life of its own.

No-one knows his engine the way he does.

Seems a simple point to me. Without any emotional by-product.

Yet from that you again assert that I am singling out Vas.

Let me see if I can be clear. Cloning and suspected cloning is not a new feature of computer chess. When TSCP and Crafty were cloned the authors of those engines stepped up and quickly supplied proof and the clone died in flames.

No lingering bad taste.

At the end of the day various posters can allege and theorise but Vas, as the accuser and the expert, could have dealt with this in a few posts.

Does that mean that Vas is somehow obliged or that he is to blame?

No.

Does that mean that he could help significantly?

Yes.

As for GCP's post read what I wrote again. Based on your posting I wondered if you understood where he was going. With that I attempted to illustrate it in my own apparently insufficient way.

I am neither asking you to agree or accept his view. I merely wanted to know if you understood it. It seems that you have your interpretation (rationalisations) which you will retain as is your right. As I have mine perspective.

Again you invest that with emotion (like). It really is not worth that much to me that I would get into liking or not.

The repetition of I cannot take back what you said is odd because I do not want you to do so and I am not taking back anything I said either. No need to tell me that you won't.

In getting or not getting your post I merely again wish to say that getting your point (which I do) is not hostile to or mutually exclusive to raising arguments on certain points of interest to me.

It seems as if you again think that I am investing that with some sort of emotion.

As for the Rybka/Ippo situation being ridiculous I agree 100% but I hesitate to explain in what way I understand the truth of that statement as I believe that would go nowhere fast but it is ridiculous and no, Vas is not the problem here either.

Soliloquy is correct when someone responds in a way which suggests that the other person has not spoken at all. I have taken the trouble to explain my intent but you insist on seeing all sorts of things that I do not intend.

I seem to be offending with some ease which is definitely not my intent at all.

I therefore withdraw from the field while protesting my innocence for any perceived negative emotions which you may be picking up.

Later.

You are very funny.

[bob]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

I don't need to "stick to my guns." Since I have actually _studied_ the information presented, discussed it with others that are technically qualified to analyze the data, I _know_ what I see. I know that the most recent changes have improved the elo by about +30. Yes, one could argue that the changes were bad and a particularly low probability event happened and way overstated the results. Except that I reran the tests several times. Yes, it is _possible_ that 4 consecutive tests produced +10 sigma results and caused a bad change to look good. But a little probability analysis suggests that while I _could_ be wrong, it is down in the .00000001 probability range. Ditto for code copied from Fruit. We can argue/quibble over how much was copied, but not over the fact that code _was_ copied. And once pregnant, completely pregnant. The baby's on the way and no handwaving is going to hide the ultimate result.

[michiguel]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

I don't need to "stick to my guns." Since I have actually _studied_ the information presented, discussed it with others that are technically qualified to analyze the data, I _know_ what I see. I know that the most recent changes have improved the elo by about +30. Yes, one could argue that the changes were bad and a particularly low probability event happened and way overstated the results. Except that I reran the tests several times. Yes, it is _possible_ that 4 consecutive tests produced +10 sigma results and caused a bad change to look good. But a little probability analysis suggests that while I _could_ be wrong, it is down in the .00000001 probability range. Ditto for code copied from Fruit. We can argue/quibble over how much was copied, but not over the fact that code _was_ copied. And once pregnant, completely pregnant. The baby's on the way and no handwaving is going to hide the ultimate result.

You keep saying things over and over again like they were facts, but they are not...

1) Data presented about the UCI parser was controversial at best, and many programmers disagreed.

2) Zach analyzed the evaluation (not you, not many, just Zach). And presented here. Just when we started to discuss it, just like I predicted it, Robbohooligans hijacked the thread and no firm conclusion was taken. I agree that there were things to take a serious look at, but NEVER there was a consensus that CODE was copied. The discussion did not even start.

Miguel

[bob]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

I don't need to "stick to my guns." Since I have actually _studied_ the information presented, discussed it with others that are technically qualified to analyze the data, I _know_ what I see. I know that the most recent changes have improved the elo by about +30. Yes, one could argue that the changes were bad and a particularly low probability event happened and way overstated the results. Except that I reran the tests several times. Yes, it is _possible_ that 4 consecutive tests produced +10 sigma results and caused a bad change to look good. But a little probability analysis suggests that while I _could_ be wrong, it is down in the .00000001 probability range. Ditto for code copied from Fruit. We can argue/quibble over how much was copied, but not over the fact that code _was_ copied. And once pregnant, completely pregnant. The baby's on the way and no handwaving is going to hide the ultimate result.

You keep saying things over and over again like they were facts, but they are not...

1) Data presented about the UCI parser was controversial at best, and many programmers disagreed.

2) Zach analyzed the evaluation (not you, not many, just Zach). And presented here. Just when we started to discuss it, just like I predicted it, Robbohooligans hijacked the thread and no firm conclusion was taken. I agree that there were things to take a serious look at, but NEVER there was a consensus that CODE was copied. The discussion did not even start.

Miguel

So the comparisons in the code dealing with longjmp() and all of that stuff was irrelevant. The evaluation code (BTW we discussed quite a bit of this offline before Zach published it, so there were private discussions you were not aware of). There was most definitely code copied. Two different programmers will not write code that similar by chance, just doesn't happen.

[Dann Corbit]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

I don't need to "stick to my guns." Since I have actually _studied_ the information presented, discussed it with others that are technically qualified to analyze the data, I _know_ what I see. I know that the most recent changes have improved the elo by about +30. Yes, one could argue that the changes were bad and a particularly low probability event happened and way overstated the results. Except that I reran the tests several times. Yes, it is _possible_ that 4 consecutive tests produced +10 sigma results and caused a bad change to look good. But a little probability analysis suggests that while I _could_ be wrong, it is down in the .00000001 probability range. Ditto for code copied from Fruit. We can argue/quibble over how much was copied, but not over the fact that code _was_ copied. And once pregnant, completely pregnant. The baby's on the way and no handwaving is going to hide the ultimate result.

You keep saying things over and over again like they were facts, but they are not...

1) Data presented about the UCI parser was controversial at best, and many programmers disagreed.

2) Zach analyzed the evaluation (not you, not many, just Zach). And presented here. Just when we started to discuss it, just like I predicted it, Robbohooligans hijacked the thread and no firm conclusion was taken. I agree that there were things to take a serious look at, but NEVER there was a consensus that CODE was copied. The discussion did not even start.

Miguel

So the comparisons in the code dealing with longjmp() and all of that stuff was irrelevant. The evaluation code (BTW we discussed quite a bit of this offline before Zach published it, so there were private discussions you were not aware of). There was most definitely code copied. Two different programmers will not write code that similar by chance, just doesn't happen.

If he had studied the code and then wrote his own version then he will have done nothing wrong.

I do not think that it is detectable which took place (copied or studied). We know for sure that there had to be a rewrite because fruit is not a bitboard engine and Rybka is a bitboard engine. So how did he get there? By copy or by study?

He can write a routine that does *exactly* the same thing and there is literally nothing at all wrong with it. That is what algorithms not being copyright protected means. If you study Wirth's code from the ACM and then write your own sort routine using his outline, how different do you imagine that the compiled code will be from someone else doing the same thing?

Now, I do not know that wrong doing has not taken place. But I definitely do not believe that it has been proven.

[bob]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

I don't need to "stick to my guns." Since I have actually _studied_ the information presented, discussed it with others that are technically qualified to analyze the data, I _know_ what I see. I know that the most recent changes have improved the elo by about +30. Yes, one could argue that the changes were bad and a particularly low probability event happened and way overstated the results. Except that I reran the tests several times. Yes, it is _possible_ that 4 consecutive tests produced +10 sigma results and caused a bad change to look good. But a little probability analysis suggests that while I _could_ be wrong, it is down in the .00000001 probability range. Ditto for code copied from Fruit. We can argue/quibble over how much was copied, but not over the fact that code _was_ copied. And once pregnant, completely pregnant. The baby's on the way and no handwaving is going to hide the ultimate result.

You keep saying things over and over again like they were facts, but they are not...

1) Data presented about the UCI parser was controversial at best, and many programmers disagreed.

2) Zach analyzed the evaluation (not you, not many, just Zach). And presented here. Just when we started to discuss it, just like I predicted it, Robbohooligans hijacked the thread and no firm conclusion was taken. I agree that there were things to take a serious look at, but NEVER there was a consensus that CODE was copied. The discussion did not even start.

Miguel

So the comparisons in the code dealing with longjmp() and all of that stuff was irrelevant. The evaluation code (BTW we discussed quite a bit of this offline before Zach published it, so there were private discussions you were not aware of). There was most definitely code copied. Two different programmers will not write code that similar by chance, just doesn't happen.

If he had studied the code and then wrote his own version then he will have done nothing wrong.

I'll say this one more time. I have been looking at student assignments for over 40 years now. And one does _not_ look at program A, and then write program B so that it is done exactly the same way. I don't even see this with 100-200 line programs, much less 10,000 lines and up. It just doesn't happen.

I do not think that it is detectable which took place (copied or studied). We know for sure that there had to be a rewrite because fruit is not a bitboard engine and Rybka is a bitboard engine. So how did he get there? By copy or by study?

You read an interesting work of fiction. Then you decide to write one on your own based on what you just read. Do you reproduce the same work exactly? Do you produce identical chapters, or even paragraphs, word for word? Of course not. Unless you copy. That goes equally for programming. I could start from scratch rewriting crafty, with no access to the old code, and the new version would be vastly different. And I doubt anyone has studied my source any better than I have. Yet it would not be reproduced anywhere near exactly.

He can write a routine that does *exactly* the same thing and there is literally nothing at all wrong with it. That is what algorithms not being copyright protected means. If you study Wirth's code from the ACM and then write your own sort routine using his outline, how different do you imagine that the compiled code will be from someone else doing the same thing?

Now, I do not know that wrong doing has not taken place. But I definitely do not believe that it has been proven.

The term "semantically equivalent" does not mean "it does exactly the same thing." It means "it does exactly the same thing, in exactly the same way." One won't study a program, and then produce a semantically equivalent program. Not even at simple procedural levels. I just wrote a new Swap() function because I needed one that worked after a move had been made, when my original worked by playing the indicated move as the first move in the capture sequence. They looked extremely different. And Swap() is not a big function.

[Dann Corbit]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

I don't need to "stick to my guns." Since I have actually _studied_ the information presented, discussed it with others that are technically qualified to analyze the data, I _know_ what I see. I know that the most recent changes have improved the elo by about +30. Yes, one could argue that the changes were bad and a particularly low probability event happened and way overstated the results. Except that I reran the tests several times. Yes, it is _possible_ that 4 consecutive tests produced +10 sigma results and caused a bad change to look good. But a little probability analysis suggests that while I _could_ be wrong, it is down in the .00000001 probability range. Ditto for code copied from Fruit. We can argue/quibble over how much was copied, but not over the fact that code _was_ copied. And once pregnant, completely pregnant. The baby's on the way and no handwaving is going to hide the ultimate result.

You keep saying things over and over again like they were facts, but they are not...

1) Data presented about the UCI parser was controversial at best, and many programmers disagreed.

2) Zach analyzed the evaluation (not you, not many, just Zach). And presented here. Just when we started to discuss it, just like I predicted it, Robbohooligans hijacked the thread and no firm conclusion was taken. I agree that there were things to take a serious look at, but NEVER there was a consensus that CODE was copied. The discussion did not even start.

Miguel

So the comparisons in the code dealing with longjmp() and all of that stuff was irrelevant. The evaluation code (BTW we discussed quite a bit of this offline before Zach published it, so there were private discussions you were not aware of). There was most definitely code copied. Two different programmers will not write code that similar by chance, just doesn't happen.

If he had studied the code and then wrote his own version then he will have done nothing wrong.

I'll say this one more time. I have been looking at student assignments for over 40 years now. And one does _not_ look at program A, and then write program B so that it is done exactly the same way. I don't even see this with 100-200 line programs, much less 10,000 lines and up. It just doesn't happen.

I do not think that it is detectable which took place (copied or studied). We know for sure that there had to be a rewrite because fruit is not a bitboard engine and Rybka is a bitboard engine. So how did he get there? By copy or by study?

You read an interesting work of fiction. Then you decide to write one on your own based on what you just read. Do you reproduce the same work exactly? Do you produce identical chapters, or even paragraphs, word for word? Of course not. Unless you copy. That goes equally for programming. I could start from scratch rewriting crafty, with no access to the old code, and the new version would be vastly different. And I doubt anyone has studied my source any better than I have. Yet it would not be reproduced anywhere near exactly.

The total number of lines of code disassembled was very small.
You are making judgements based upon a sample of less than 1% of the program. And somehow you are sure that the program is a near exact copy.

He can write a routine that does *exactly* the same thing and there is literally nothing at all wrong with it. That is what algorithms not being copyright protected means. If you study Wirth's code from the ACM and then write your own sort routine using his outline, how different do you imagine that the compiled code will be from someone else doing the same thing?

Now, I do not know that wrong doing has not taken place. But I definitely do not believe that it has been proven.

The term "semantically equivalent" does not mean "it does exactly the same thing." It means "it does exactly the same thing, in exactly the same way." One won't study a program, and then produce a semantically equivalent program. Not even at simple procedural levels. I just wrote a new Swap() function because I needed one that worked after a move had been made, when my original worked by playing the indicated move as the first move in the capture sequence. They looked extremely different. And Swap() is not a big function.

They do the exact same thing in exactly the same way do they?
Amazing since fruit is not even a bitboard program.

[tomgdrums]

Zach set up a web site with this data presented. I don't recall what it is, most likely someone else will pop up with the URL... Or google might take you to it.

Fabien did not come here and post that Rybka was a clone. yet you are happy to denounce R1 as a Fruit clone. Vas did not come here and denounce Robo etc.. as Rybka Clones but you will not accept them as clones unless he does.

This is a very valid point!

It is a totally irrelevant point. In one case, a bystander noticed a murder and reported it. Did it not happen? In the second case, someone simply said "a murder has happened." But no body. No blood. No nothing. Did it happen? Who should do the legwork to prove that it happened?

So I went and looked at the thread by Zach and read some of the differing opinions. Much like the case with the Ippos and Rybka 3 there might be something with Fruit and Rybka 1, however it seems that agreement was not reached in that thread. The validity of the "proof" seems to waver based on who is posting.

SO based on that, your whole no body no blood thing could stand for Rybka/Fruit as well. Of course you will call it proof because you are angry.

Sorry, but you are not reading what was actually posted, and then presented on Zach's web site. The evidence was convincing for anyone that has written large programs. Duplication of code, structures, design, just doesn't happen by random chance. No, not everyone agrees with the results. And there are also those that believe one can be "a little pregnant" as well. But copying any part of a program is called "plagiarism" if you don't have consent. It is still an illegal copy if you do get consent and cite the author.

BTW, the "validity" of the proof does _not_ vary based on who is posting, it varies based on who is _reading_. There's a subtle difference. Some simply refuse to believe that Rybka 1 contains actual fruit source, even with the proof that was offered. They also are certain that the IP* family are clones with no proof of any kind offered. Quite consistent, right?

The only inconsistency that I see is your inability to entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. It seems there is still debate on the Fruit/Rybka thing (as seen in other threads).

I am not saying that you are wrong, it just seems to me that the possibility exists that you are wrong. But your need to stick to your guns clouds your thinking process.

I don't need to "stick to my guns." Since I have actually _studied_ the information presented, discussed it with others that are technically qualified to analyze the data, I _know_ what I see. I know that the most recent changes have improved the elo by about +30. Yes, one could argue that the changes were bad and a particularly low probability event happened and way overstated the results. Except that I reran the tests several times. Yes, it is _possible_ that 4 consecutive tests produced +10 sigma results and caused a bad change to look good. But a little probability analysis suggests that while I _could_ be wrong, it is down in the .00000001 probability range. Ditto for code copied from Fruit. We can argue/quibble over how much was copied, but not over the fact that code _was_ copied. And once pregnant, completely pregnant. The baby's on the way and no handwaving is going to hide the ultimate result.

And yet it seems there some others who are also technically minded don't agree with you. What if you are wrong?