The "well meaning" witch hunters have caused much

[Steve B]

The anonymity is the cause, not the reason, for many of the skepticism.

I would certainly judge the case differently if the authors were real persons that stepped forward. I'm sure many others would, too.

even if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we can already see that "anonymity" will be the "last stand" by those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water

anonymity now also seems to be the only attack on BB for his report so far

actually i remember reading a post here by Zach just yesterday where he said he met in person with BB and BB spoke with Kaufman about his report

oddly i can't find that post here anymore although i did search for it
i could be screwing up the search function though...

Squinting and Clicking Around Regards
Steve

While I haven't read throught this tread yet, my guess is that the post of Zach was deleted together with Sedat's post to Harry... I saw it too.

Sigh Regards
Steve

[Christopher Conkie]

The anonymity is the cause, not the reason, for many of the skepticism.

I would certainly judge the case differently if the authors were real persons that stepped forward. I'm sure many others would, too.

even if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we can already see that "anonymity" will be the "last stand" by those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water

anonymity now also seems to be the only attack on BB for his report so far

actually i remember reading a post here by Zach just yesterday where he said he met in person with BB and BB spoke with Kaufman about his report

oddly i can't find that post here anymore although i did search for it
i could be screwing up the search function though...

Squinting and Clicking Around Regards
Steve

While I haven't read throught this tread yet, my guess is that the post of Zach was deleted together with Sedat's post to Harry... I saw it too.

Sigh Regards
Steve

FWIW I have met him in person, he knows what he is talking about and should definitely be considered an expert. I haven't verified his claims (I don't even have R3), but he has discussed them with Larry Kaufman and I see no reason to doubt him. I'm pretty sure he's not the author of Ippolit either.

It was in the middle of yet another insulting tirade by Milos.

There's a surprise........

Chris

[bob]

The anonymity is the cause, not the reason, for many of the skepticism.

I would certainly judge the case differently if the authors were real persons that stepped forward. I'm sure many others would, too.

even if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we can already see that "anonymity" will be the "last stand" by those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water

anonymity now also seems to be the only attack on BB for his report so far

actually i remember reading a post here by Zach just yesterday where he said he met in person with BB and BB spoke with Kaufman about his report

oddly i can't find that post here anymore although i did search for it
i could be screwing up the search function though...

Squinting and Clicking Around Regards
Steve

While I haven't read throught this tread yet, my guess is that the post of Zach was deleted together with Sedat's post to Harry... I saw it too.

Sigh Regards
Steve

FWIW I have met him in person, he knows what he is talking about and should definitely be considered an expert. I haven't verified his claims (I don't even have R3), but he has discussed them with Larry Kaufman and I see no reason to doubt him. I'm pretty sure he's not the author of Ippolit either.

It was in the middle of yet another insulting tirade by Milos.

There's a surprise........

Chris

One _can_ either stop the abusing poster, or lock the thread, deleting still is and always should be an infrequently-used last resort. Important content is lost using the current moderation approach.

[Henrik Dinesen]

The anonymity is the cause, not the reason, for many of the skepticism.

I would certainly judge the case differently if the authors were real persons that stepped forward. I'm sure many others would, too.

even if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we can already see that "anonymity" will be the "last stand" by those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water

anonymity now also seems to be the only attack on BB for his report so far

actually i remember reading a post here by Zach just yesterday where he said he met in person with BB and BB spoke with Kaufman about his report

oddly i can't find that post here anymore although i did search for it
i could be screwing up the search function though...

Squinting and Clicking Around Regards
Steve

While I haven't read throught this tread yet, my guess is that the post of Zach was deleted together with Sedat's post to Harry... I saw it too.

Sigh Regards
Steve

FWIW I have met him in person, he knows what he is talking about and should definitely be considered an expert. I haven't verified his claims (I don't even have R3), but he has discussed them with Larry Kaufman and I see no reason to doubt him. I'm pretty sure he's not the author of Ippolit either.

It was in the middle of yet another insulting tirade by Milos.

There's a surprise........

Chris

One _can_ either stop the abusing poster, or lock the thread, deleting still is and always should be an infrequently-used last resort. Important content is lost using the current moderation approach.

Yes.

Chris is not a mod here (CCC) now, though (as far as I know).

But, I trust that thought of yours, however evident it may appear to be, could be used to alot larger extent in many forums.

[Christopher Conkie]

The anonymity is the cause, not the reason, for many of the skepticism.

I would certainly judge the case differently if the authors were real persons that stepped forward. I'm sure many others would, too.

even if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we can already see that "anonymity" will be the "last stand" by those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water

anonymity now also seems to be the only attack on BB for his report so far

actually i remember reading a post here by Zach just yesterday where he said he met in person with BB and BB spoke with Kaufman about his report

oddly i can't find that post here anymore although i did search for it
i could be screwing up the search function though...

Squinting and Clicking Around Regards
Steve

While I haven't read throught this tread yet, my guess is that the post of Zach was deleted together with Sedat's post to Harry... I saw it too.

Sigh Regards
Steve

FWIW I have met him in person, he knows what he is talking about and should definitely be considered an expert. I haven't verified his claims (I don't even have R3), but he has discussed them with Larry Kaufman and I see no reason to doubt him. I'm pretty sure he's not the author of Ippolit either.

It was in the middle of yet another insulting tirade by Milos.

There's a surprise........

Chris

One _can_ either stop the abusing poster, or lock the thread, deleting still is and always should be an infrequently-used last resort. Important content is lost using the current moderation approach.

I do that in CTF and H&S where I am moderator along with Peter and Sam. Unfortunately the CCC mods (well two of them) dont stop the tirades. The other who does (however you feel about the method of stopping) is on the other side of the world and cannot be around all the time. By the time he gets to see it, the tirade is already quite developed.

There are not nearly enough warnings then bans in the CCC. This is because of the polar opposite points of view of the group in here.

In CTF you can be sure what would happen. The people in there would not forgive us if we did n't.

Chris

[bob]

The anonymity is the cause, not the reason, for many of the skepticism.

I would certainly judge the case differently if the authors were real persons that stepped forward. I'm sure many others would, too.

even if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we can already see that "anonymity" will be the "last stand" by those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water

anonymity now also seems to be the only attack on BB for his report so far

actually i remember reading a post here by Zach just yesterday where he said he met in person with BB and BB spoke with Kaufman about his report

oddly i can't find that post here anymore although i did search for it
i could be screwing up the search function though...

Squinting and Clicking Around Regards
Steve

While I haven't read throught this tread yet, my guess is that the post of Zach was deleted together with Sedat's post to Harry... I saw it too.

Sigh Regards
Steve

FWIW I have met him in person, he knows what he is talking about and should definitely be considered an expert. I haven't verified his claims (I don't even have R3), but he has discussed them with Larry Kaufman and I see no reason to doubt him. I'm pretty sure he's not the author of Ippolit either.

It was in the middle of yet another insulting tirade by Milos.

There's a surprise........

Chris

One _can_ either stop the abusing poster, or lock the thread, deleting still is and always should be an infrequently-used last resort. Important content is lost using the current moderation approach.

I do that in CTF and H&S where I am moderator along with Peter and Sam. Unfortunately the CCC mods (well two of them) dont stop the tirades. The other who does (however you feel about the method of stopping) is on the other side of the world and cannot be around all the time. By the time he gets to see it, the tirade is already quite developed.

There are not nearly enough warnings then bans in the CCC. This is because of the polar opposite points of view of the group in here.

In CTF you can be sure what would happen. The people in there would not forgive us if we did n't.

Chris

The "easy way out" is always the "delete key". But each post represents effort by someone to express an opinion, make a point, or provide useful data. Deleting any useful posts is always to be avoided. In a threaded model, deleting leaves hanging posts, which is bad. So either stopping the poster by whatever means necessary, or locking the thread (which preserves old discussion but prevents anything new) is simply a worse alternative.

This is not a bunch of kids. Nobody needs to be watched over with a ruler. If they can't behave, then stop them from posting a while. But deleting threads just increases their agitation.

[Christopher Conkie]

The anonymity is the cause, not the reason, for many of the skepticism.

I would certainly judge the case differently if the authors were real persons that stepped forward. I'm sure many others would, too.

even if BB's report proves to be generally accepted by the programming community we can already see that "anonymity" will be the "last stand" by those convinced that Ippo is illegal come hell or high-water

anonymity now also seems to be the only attack on BB for his report so far

actually i remember reading a post here by Zach just yesterday where he said he met in person with BB and BB spoke with Kaufman about his report

oddly i can't find that post here anymore although i did search for it
i could be screwing up the search function though...

Squinting and Clicking Around Regards
Steve

While I haven't read throught this tread yet, my guess is that the post of Zach was deleted together with Sedat's post to Harry... I saw it too.

Sigh Regards
Steve

FWIW I have met him in person, he knows what he is talking about and should definitely be considered an expert. I haven't verified his claims (I don't even have R3), but he has discussed them with Larry Kaufman and I see no reason to doubt him. I'm pretty sure he's not the author of Ippolit either.

It was in the middle of yet another insulting tirade by Milos.

There's a surprise........

Chris

One _can_ either stop the abusing poster, or lock the thread, deleting still is and always should be an infrequently-used last resort. Important content is lost using the current moderation approach.

I do that in CTF and H&S where I am moderator along with Peter and Sam. Unfortunately the CCC mods (well two of them) dont stop the tirades. The other who does (however you feel about the method of stopping) is on the other side of the world and cannot be around all the time. By the time he gets to see it, the tirade is already quite developed.

There are not nearly enough warnings then bans in the CCC. This is because of the polar opposite points of view of the group in here.

In CTF you can be sure what would happen. The people in there would not forgive us if we did n't.

Chris

The "easy way out" is always the "delete key". But each post represents effort by someone to express an opinion, make a point, or provide useful data. Deleting any useful posts is always to be avoided. In a threaded model, deleting leaves hanging posts, which is bad. So either stopping the poster by whatever means necessary, or locking the thread (which preserves old discussion but prevents anything new) is simply a worse alternative.

This is not a bunch of kids. Nobody needs to be watched over with a ruler. If they can't behave, then stop them from posting a while. But deleting threads just increases their agitation.

I personally have no problem banning anyone, but it is not my remit to do so for misdemeanour's in CCC. I am sure that if Graham sees this he will take the hint (since he is the only CCC moderator left).

I'll let him know that the trigger finger should be moved off "delete" and on to "not active". It would solve alot of problems I agree. Let's hope those who do not behave (even though they are not kids) see this and know their future.

Chris

[Peter Berger]

Life ( and my parents) have taught me: whenever there are various explanations of things, the most simple one is most likely to be true.

I have tried reading this document not being a programmer ( lol, certainly a sick way to spend leasure time), and it even sounds impressive if you don't understand major parts .

1. Isn't it just common sense to conclude that at one point in time the Rybka and the Ippolit author(s) looked at the *very* same piece of *source code* and went from there in different directions?

2. If one were able to make *that* kind of meaningful changes to a strange decompiled source he didn't write for himself, he were a genius IMHO, and why would he not spend his time in a much more sensible way just (re?)-starting from scratch using his own wording and logic ?!

I write this as I think this is the *obvious* conclusion every non-programmer with some basic intelligence will reach, so if this is bullshit, maybe one you programmer guys might enlighten us ( no joke).

Peter

1.) What would that have been? Fruit code? Some unknown and unreleased very strong engine?

2.) The only answer I can think of is that he totally hates Vas.

Peter

I can think of many more answers. And to answer Michael Sherwin: yes, it's the same kind of logic basically - and I accept the blame. I know no personally satisfying answer.

But does anyone really believe that someone looks at some decompiled code he barely understands and then decides to change Hashing in the following way ( assuming this is a more or less correct report)?

"Rybka’s main hash entries are 64 bits. IPPOLIT’s are 128. Rybka uses 7 bits
for depth, 3 bits for age, 12 bits for a move, 10 bits for a score, 4 bits for
flags, and 28 bits of Zobrist value. IPPOLIT follows something more akin to
Fruit, with 8-bit boundaries. The eviction criterion with ageing is different:
Rybka counts age to 8 (by multiples of 128 I think), while IPPOLIT counts
to 256 (by ones). The formula for combining depth with age is also not the
same. IPPOLIT has the pedantic idea of changing the age of a zeroed entry
(when an exact entry displaces bounds). The specific Zobrist values for piecesquare
combos are generated by IPPOLIT on start-up (using some randomised
function), while they are simply read from a table in Rybka."

I can believe many things , but this is is a bit too much.

Peter

[michiguel]

Life ( and my parents) have taught me: whenever there are various explanations of things, the most simple one is most likely to be true.

I have tried reading this document not being a programmer ( lol, certainly a sick way to spend leasure time), and it even sounds impressive if you don't understand major parts .

1. Isn't it just common sense to conclude that at one point in time the Rybka and the Ippolit author(s) looked at the *very* same piece of *source code* and went from there in different directions?

2. If one were able to make *that* kind of meaningful changes to a strange decompiled source he didn't write for himself, he were a genius IMHO, and why would he not spend his time in a much more sensible way just (re?)-starting from scratch using his own wording and logic ?!

I write this as I think this is the *obvious* conclusion every non-programmer with some basic intelligence will reach, so if this is bullshit, maybe one you programmer guys might enlighten us ( no joke).

Peter

1.) What would that have been? Fruit code? Some unknown and unreleased very strong engine?

2.) The only answer I can think of is that he totally hates Vas.

Peter

I can think of many more answers. And to answer Michael Sherwin: yes, it's the same kind of logic basically - and I accept the blame. I know no personally satisfying answer.

But does anyone really believe that someone looks at some decompiled code he barely understands and then decides to change Hashing in the following way ( assuming this is a more or less correct report)?

"Rybka’s main hash entries are 64 bits. IPPOLIT’s are 128. Rybka uses 7 bits
for depth, 3 bits for age, 12 bits for a move, 10 bits for a score, 4 bits for
flags, and 28 bits of Zobrist value. IPPOLIT follows something more akin to
Fruit, with 8-bit boundaries. The eviction criterion with ageing is different:
Rybka counts age to 8 (by multiples of 128 I think), while IPPOLIT counts
to 256 (by ones). The formula for combining depth with age is also not the
same. IPPOLIT has the pedantic idea of changing the age of a zeroed entry
(when an exact entry displaces bounds). The specific Zobrist values for piecesquare
combos are generated by IPPOLIT on start-up (using some randomised
function), while they are simply read from a table in Rybka."

I can believe many things , but this is is a bit too much.

Peter

In general, you can "clone" a fraction of a program if parts are designed in a compatible way, for instance, two bitboard programs.
The core of the strength relies in search and evaluation, mainly. It is certainly not critical to have a different flavor of hashtables.
So, if someone figures how search and eval works in a different engine, it is not ridiculous to think that you can plug those key parts into an engine you have. It takes effort, but it is doable. If this procedure is followed, you will find similarities and clear differences. An engine designed this way is not a clone or a derivative, it is a chimera.
For instance, Don Dailey was describing some experiments he did exchanging parts with SF to find certain issues in his programs. If one of these experiments is released, that would be a chimera.

Miguel

[Sven]

There's a surprise........

What exactly did you mean by that?

Just curious,
Sven