My two cents on Rybka's disqualification

[garybelton]

I guess that withing a few months you will see significant Elo increase in Fire.

No disrespect to Norman but I do not think that will be the case. I have seen no significant elo increase since Rybka 3 (notwithstanding Roberts Q and K safety tricks at fast tc). What we need is a) Vas to release a Rybka 5 with the improvements he has made over the last couple of years or 2) a new or existing programmer to come up with some new ideas to boost Elo. I really hope for Komodo but I have this awful feeling that they will max out at the Elo of the best engine. I am not sure why I have this feeling I hope I am wrong.

[Dann Corbit]

I guess that withing a few months you will see significant Elo increase in Fire.

No disrespect to Norman

My name is Dann

but I do not think that will be the case. I have seen no significant elo increase since Rybka 3 (notwithstanding Roberts Q and K safety tricks at fast tc). What we need is a) Vas to release a Rybka 5 with the improvements he has made over the last couple of years or 2) a new or existing programmer to come up with some new ideas to boost Elo. I really hope for Komodo but I have this awful feeling that they will max out at the Elo of the best engine. I am not sure why I have this feeling I hope I am wrong.

Chess software will march forward in strength like it has from the time that the first chess program was written and it will continue to march forwards.

The expansion of strength though programming is either exponential over time or superexponential, but for sure it is above polynomial growth rate.

So I would not sweat over the possibility that chess software won't advance. It will.

[garybelton]

My name is Dann

Hi Dann. I thought that Norman was the author of Fire, but if it is now you, then good luck! Apart from bug fixes, what new ideas do you have to substantially increase Fire's elo?

[Dann Corbit]

I think it is very likely that Vas has done something wrong. My big problem is with the process.

1. Vas was singled out. Where is the reverse engineering of Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior, etc.? Why has Vas been singled out for this scrutiny and the other commercial vendors have not?
2. The process to find similarity is someone's recent invention. Has it been tested on other similar systems (meaning a test of similarity between TSCP and Brutus is absurd, a test between Junior and Shredder and other high end programs that are binary only against high-end open source programs makes sense)
If the experiment is run without any controls, then what have we really shown?
To my way of thinking, it would also be a good idea to perform the following exercise:
A. Take a strong open source program and copy it.
B. Make a bunch of changes and form a binary.
C. Study the program and use the algorithms in a new program.
D. Compare the results of the tool for case B and C
I doubt if anybody wants to put the work in to do this, but it seems a good way to model the problem and test the results of analysis.
3. The prosecution was formed by asking "Hey, anybody who wants to throw stones at Vas, gather over here in the barn."
Imagine if a jury were formed in that manner.
4. Look into your own source code at the following:
A. PVS search
B. Null move reductions
C. LMR reductions
Now, do these look a whole lot like those found in some other programs? If so, why are you not prosecuting yourself? If it is OK, then where is the line to draw in the sand that says "This amount of similarity is OK, but this amount is cheating"?

The panel was open to all that had an interest prosecution and defence. Why team rybka stayed away is a question for them. vas was invited many times to take part, he refused. i am sure if you had applied to join you would have been accepted.

Fabien came back to this board as a result of his posts other programmers and him sent a letter to the ICGA asking them to investigate.

if there is evidence against other programs then make a case and I am sure they will be investigated.

I do hereby charge every single program which has ever entered the ICGA with possible copying.

Excellent now get some evidence together and submit it to the ICGA.

I suspect that many of the programs playing chess have used LMR, PVS and null move heuristic, and not invented by the authors of these programs. I suspect further that an analysis of these snippets will show extreme similarity from one program to the next.

They do not respond to posts on CCC. btw you still don't seem to get it. The panel was open to all to apply to join and was not the jury.

The panel was the prosecution and the ICGA was the judge.
The panel was almost entirely people in opposition or competition with Vas and they selected themselves.

I imagine that if the shoe was on the other foot you would not view such prosecution as justice.

Vas has been pronounced guilty to the entire planet. He may be guilty, but the stripping away of his fundamental rights and due process are offenses far worse than stealing a snippet of code.

Yes, stealing code is still bad. Yes, Vas might have stolen code.
The ends do not justify the means. They never have and they never will.

[Albert Silver]

I think that it's important to separate two things:

1) Person being guilty/not-guilty
2) Right for the fair trial

1) Going through the evidence, it looks very likely for me that Vasik Rajlich has copied fragments of code and load of contants from other programs and put them into Rybka. This violates GPL and rules of the ICGA.

2) However no matter how overwhelming the evidence looks like even mass-murderers deserve the right for fair trial (instead of direct hanging). Based on the documents I've seen, my opinion is that Vas didn't get an honest chance to defend himself. In Western trials there are three parties: prosecutor(s) (Party A), defendant(s) (Party B) and neutral judge(s) (Party C). For me it really looks like that in this cases same people have been prosecutors (A) and judges (C). I'm pretty sure that many people who have been writing/collecting so called "report" are far from neutral. In history the legal system where prosecutor = judge is known as inquisition. Who would one try to defend himself in front of such a system?

P.S. For example this sarcastic sentence from the report shows how far from the neutrality report really is: "Opinions on the criteria for what constitutes improper cloning or copying vary. We think using Rajlich’s own definition is good, which he wrote during the Strelka cloning postings:". Come on guys, let's hang the man with his own rope!!!

P.P.S. I don't have any kind of personal relationship to Vasik Rajlich and my attitude towards him is very close to neutral.

+1

Not to mention flaws such as leaking information to the public while the panel was gathering information, misrepresentation of who was submitting the report.. etc. (looked like the panel and its members, but not everybody approved it) The language of the report is completely biased. Who wrote it? How many voted to approve it? who signed it? this is not clear, but anyone who registered is listed even if they did not participate (A. Silver, for instance).

One thing is to be guilty, and another is to be demonized.

As I said before, I cannot care less about VR, but procedures of this kind are extremely important.

Miguel

Actually, I will be writing to Levy to demand my name be retracted, as it implies a level of participation and consent that never existed. When I registered in the Wiki, to my mind it was much like any forum, and that was the extent of it. At no moment was I signing up to be a part of any panel.

[gerold]

I think that it's important to separate two things:

1) Person being guilty/not-guilty
2) Right for the fair trial

1) Going through the evidence, it looks very likely for me that Vasik Rajlich has copied fragments of code and load of contants from other programs and put them into Rybka. This violates GPL and rules of the ICGA.

2) However no matter how overwhelming the evidence looks like even mass-murderers deserve the right for fair trial (instead of direct hanging). Based on the documents I've seen, my opinion is that Vas didn't get an honest chance to defend himself. In Western trials there are three parties: prosecutor(s) (Party A), defendant(s) (Party B) and neutral judge(s) (Party C). For me it really looks like that in this cases same people have been prosecutors (A) and judges (C). I'm pretty sure that many people who have been writing/collecting so called "report" are far from neutral. In history the legal system where prosecutor = judge is known as inquisition. Who would one try to defend himself in front of such a system?

P.S. For example this sarcastic sentence from the report shows how far from the neutrality report really is: "Opinions on the criteria for what constitutes improper cloning or copying vary. We think using Rajlich’s own definition is good, which he wrote during the Strelka cloning postings:". Come on guys, let's hang the man with his own rope!!!

P.P.S. I don't have any kind of personal relationship to Vasik Rajlich and my attitude towards him is very close to neutral.

+1

Not to mention flaws such as leaking information to the public while the panel was gathering information, misrepresentation of who was submitting the report.. etc. (looked like the panel and its members, but not everybody approved it) The language of the report is completely biased. Who wrote it? How many voted to approve it? who signed it? this is not clear, but anyone who registered is listed even if they did not participate (A. Silver, for instance).

One thing is to be guilty, and another is to be demonized.

As I said before, I cannot care less about VR, but procedures of this kind are extremely important.

Miguel

Actually, I will be writing to Levy to demand my name be retracted, as it implies a level of participation and consent that never existed. When I registered in the Wiki, to my mind it was much like any forum, and that was the extent of it. At no moment was I signing up to be a part of any panel.

I was on the wiki but just went there a couple of times early on. Not been there for a long time.

[Dann Corbit]

My name is Dann

Hi Dann. I thought that Norman was the author of Fire, but if it is now you, then good luck! Apart from bug fixes, what new ideas do you have to substantially increase Fire's elo?

Fire is Norman's project.

I have shown Norman some ways to improve fire.

The most important early steps are the removal of bugs.

I have identified about 500 problem areas, provided diagnostics that prove some of them are real problems, and explained to Norman the value of making some corrections.

It does not matter if Norman succeeds in making fire stronger or not, I view that as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

What matters is that he learns new things, has fun, and provides something of benefit to the chess community.

One way or another, someone will make a stronger chess engine in the near future. After that another one will spring up stronger than that one and another and another.

It does not really matter if fire is one of these or not.

[garybelton]

All this is good to hear Dann. When you say:

It does not matter if Norman succeeds in making fire stronger or not, I view that as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

What you really mean is:

It does not matter (TO ME DANN CORBITT) if Norman succeeds in making fire stronger or not, I view that as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

In actual fact it matters to me a lot, we have very different views. You are not an Elo junkie, I am. I have this insane belief that a chess elo junkie is seeking chess truth.

[garybelton]

Actually, I will be writing to Levy to demand my name be retracted, as it implies a level of participation and consent that never existed.

I did wonder. +100.

[Dann Corbit]

All this is good to hear Dann. When you say:

It does not matter if Norman succeeds in making fire stronger or not, I view that as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

What you really mean is:

It does not matter (TO ME DANN CORBITT) if Norman succeeds in making fire stronger or not, I view that as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

In actual fact it matters to me a lot, we have very different views. You are not an Elo junkie, I am. I have this insane belief that a chess elo junkie is seeking chess truth.

Why should you care if a program named Fire rises in Elo or a program named Snow does it?
To the Elo junkie who only cares about strength, the strength will come.
The strength increases exponentially due to hardware.
The strength increases exponentially due to software.
Five years from now, chess programs will be ludicrously stronger than they are now.
Five years after than, they will again make another ludicrously huge advance.
And that advance will march ever forward whether it is Norman producing some of it or not.