beram wrote:Dear M. Ansari, you haven't read or don't agree on BB+ report published by Zach Wegner ?M ANSARI wrote:The settings might have affected Rybka, but if you look at a bunch of Rybka 4 losses, you will find that many of them are due to not giving a drop in evaluation for blocked bishops or "bad" bishops. As for Ivanhoe and Houdini evaluating differently than Rybka ... they simply don't and evaluate almost identical to Rybka 3. Of course they have some changes and modifications, but essentially they are all based on Rybka 3 with some improvements and bug fixes. The biggest difference I can see is that they are thread based engines rather than process based.
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... =110#p1220
Respectable programmers as Ed Schroder and Chris Wittington have said that this report proves that Ippolit is not a Rybka clone
to quote BB:
..Ironically, it was M ANSARI who kept on saying (essentially) that when I dug deeper into it I would find more evidence of cloning...
I think you should go back to the Rybka forum and digg up some of the the posts I had with BB. At the time the question was if the Ippolit engines were original or not, and by original I mean that they started as code without ANY Rybka 3 RE. I had tested it with R3 and come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no way that the Ippolit engines were original and that the engine HAD to be based on R3 code. The Ippolit engines were weak in exactly the same positions as was Rybka 3 and would lose games to weaker engines in exactly the same way. Others (many posting in this very thread) were trying to convince the world that Ippolit had NOTHING to do with R3 and it was totally clean original work. I think what BB and Zach would emphatically tell you is that Ippolit is 100% for sure based on R3 code ... and if anything they put to rest ridiculous attempts to show that Ippolit had nothing to do with R3. As a matter of fact I think Zach mentioned that Ippolit gets its strength from R3 and BB clearly points out that Ippolit is RE R3. The relation that Ippolit is RE R3 is no longer in contention, but there is differing conclusions as to whether legal or ethical lines were crossed in the RE of R3. So if anything BB has shown that by digging deep into the issue, there is no doubt that the Ippolit source was derived from R3 ... now the issue is if it was legally or illegally derived ... for that to be cleared up I think Vas would have to bring out a lawsuit against the author or authors of Ippolit ... which would be difficult as they are anonymous (maybe for good reason).
So if your intention of using BB's quote was to disprove the fact that Ippolit engines were cloned or derived from R3 (which was my assertion) then you are completely wrong, as he clearly states that he thinks they were cloned from R3 ... it is just that he thinks that "cloning" or "RE" or "deriving" code ... where the code is not identical ... is IHHO fair game.
Now with regards to the continuous controversy about Rybka being a Fruit clone ... this again has gone endlessly and for some reason nobody seems to note that the issue was regarding Rybka 1.0beta which was a free engine and which Fabien himself considered re-written and clean (after looking at Strelka). I think BB himself mentioned that he would look at Zach's report and seemed to disagree with parts of it and have yet to hear him say that he thought Rybka 1.0 beta was a Fruit clone. But anyway that was Rybka 1.0 beta ... and here we still are talking as if Rybka 3 was a clone of Fruit. I have yet to see one single person say that Rybka 3 has anything to do with Fruit ... not one ... yet we have the continuous babble about ALL Rybka's being Fruit clones and thus Vas must be punished and thus cloning or stealing his work is fine and dandy ... viva la communist revolution!