Is Belka a Rybka?

[Uri Blass]

Osipov fixed rybka beta's underpromotion bug so it is not correct that Osipov created nothing new.

I think that a programmer needs to be very intelligent to do what Osipov did regardless of the question if what he did is legal or illegal.

Uri

[Rolf]

Osipov fixed rybka beta's underpromotion bug so it is not correct that Osipov created nothing new.

I think that a programmer needs to be very intelligent to do what Osipov did regardless of the question if what he did is legal or illegal.

Uri

Wasnt it Vas who said that he would leave certain things open for later improvements because he felt thast these had not the same importance for the final performance? How made this repairing the Strelka engine better than Rybka, Uri? But nevertheless I stand corrected by your info but I hope I am excused because I have ZERO programming knowledge. I really cant evaluate how intelligent someone must be to perform this or that. Uri, would you say that Osipov did all that for other reasons than blaming Vas?? If Osipov never wanted to participate in tournaments?? Why should one do such things, please tell us your opinion. Thanks.

[Dann Corbit]

In my view, Osipov was telling the truth about how Strelka - and therefore Rybka 1.0 - was made. For me, it is legal (he rewrote the code) but not moral. If we agree that cloning is the use of original code, it is not a clone. If we think that the output is relevant, then, it is one. [But... the output (the evaluation, precisly) of Fritz 11 and Rybka 2.3.2 is very similar. Nobody is debating about this. (Sorry, Andrej Sidorov just did it.)]

Clone or not, his disassembling of Rybka 1.0 beta is against my conception of honesty.

It is always the scenario of an evil Russian and a good American. But here, we have something that is not black or white, but rather gray. Why has V. R. refused to inspect the code of Strelka?

I guess that:
1. He does not care if someone borrowed ideas from Rybka 1.0.
2. He does not want to waste his time.

Why has Osipov offered that code if he wasn't certain he is innocent?

It is clear to me that he does feel that he is innocent.
It is not totally clear to me that he is or is not innocent. Fabien has not yet sounded out what he thinks about the use of Fruit ideas.
Vasik has sounded out (according to my understanding) that he does not care about Strelka. So that portion is a dead issue. When Fabian makes a clear statement about the use of Fruit ideas, then the book will be closed if he says that the use is fine. If he does not like it, then probably there will be further debate.

There are many questions to think about.

This is a forum, a debate club. There is no reason not to speak about whatever that interests us. And, to complete my previous post: I am not insinuating. I am telling things openly.

Kind regards!

bs

[Dann Corbit]

If Strelka/Belka is clone Rybka 1.0 and Strelka/Belka have(based) on fruit's ideas(not code) then Rybka 1.0 also based on fruit's ideas(not 30 points from Fruit source). Very strong argument from Korshunov. Bravo Fabien!!!

The piece square table of knights and bishops of strelka is based on the same idea as fruit but with different weights.

I am going to investigate the other parts of the piece square table of strelka later.

I wonder if other programs before fruit had bonus for bishops in the long diagnol in their piece square table or if it is an original idea of fabien.

I never tried it and I was interested in the mobility parts of fruit and not in the piece square table of fruit so only after this discussion I know that fruit has bonus for bishop in the long diagnol.

Note also that the bonus for bishop in one of the long diagnol is only for the opening stage.

I have 2 different piece square tables for the king in the endgame but I do not have 2 different piece square tables for most pieces because I did not think that there is a big difference between values of pieces like bishop between opening and endgame.

Uri

I had an idea which I published in CCC a long time ago, where you give the chessmen a bonus of exactly how many squares they would attack if placed on a bare chessboard. So (for instance) a bishop at A1 gets 7 and a bishop at E5 gets 13

[Uri Blass]

If Strelka/Belka is clone Rybka 1.0 and Strelka/Belka have(based) on fruit's ideas(not code) then Rybka 1.0 also based on fruit's ideas(not 30 points from Fruit source). Very strong argument from Korshunov. Bravo Fabien!!!

The piece square table of knights and bishops of strelka is based on the same idea as fruit but with different weights.

I am going to investigate the other parts of the piece square table of strelka later.

I wonder if other programs before fruit had bonus for bishops in the long diagnol in their piece square table or if it is an original idea of fabien.

I never tried it and I was interested in the mobility parts of fruit and not in the piece square table of fruit so only after this discussion I know that fruit has bonus for bishop in the long diagnol.

Note also that the bonus for bishop in one of the long diagnol is only for the opening stage.

I have 2 different piece square tables for the king in the endgame but I do not have 2 different piece square tables for most pieces because I did not think that there is a big difference between values of pieces like bishop between opening and endgame.

Uri

I had an idea which I published in CCC a long time ago, where you give the chessmen a bonus of exactly how many squares they would attack if placed on a bare chessboard. So (for instance) a bishop at A1 gets 7 and a bishop at E5 gets 13

It does not explain a special bonus for the long diagnols

It can explain having the same score in piece square table between the long diagnols and the following
bishop_psq[b2]=bishop_psq[c2]=bishop_psq[d2]=...bishop_psq[g2]

This equality is not in fruit

Uri

[Uri Blass]

Osipov fixed rybka beta's underpromotion bug so it is not correct that Osipov created nothing new.

I think that a programmer needs to be very intelligent to do what Osipov did regardless of the question if what he did is legal or illegal.

Uri

Wasnt it Vas who said that he would leave certain things open for later improvements because he felt thast these had not the same importance for the final performance? How made this repairing the Strelka engine better than Rybka, Uri? But nevertheless I stand corrected by your info but I hope I am excused because I have ZERO programming knowledge. I really cant evaluate how intelligent someone must be to perform this or that. Uri, would you say that Osipov did all that for other reasons than blaming Vas?? If Osipov never wanted to participate in tournaments?? Why should one do such things, please tell us your opinion. Thanks.

I think that his reason was to prove that rybka is based on fruit's ideas
and to prove that Rybka gives wrong information about things like nodes per second.

Uri

[Rolf]

Osipov fixed rybka beta's underpromotion bug so it is not correct that Osipov created nothing new.

I think that a programmer needs to be very intelligent to do what Osipov did regardless of the question if what he did is legal or illegal.

Uri

Wasnt it Vas who said that he would leave certain things open for later improvements because he felt thast these had not the same importance for the final performance? How made this repairing the Strelka engine better than Rybka, Uri? But nevertheless I stand corrected by your info but I hope I am excused because I have ZERO programming knowledge. I really cant evaluate how intelligent someone must be to perform this or that. Uri, would you say that Osipov did all that for other reasons than blaming Vas?? If Osipov never wanted to participate in tournaments?? Why should one do such things, please tell us your opinion. Thanks.

I think that his reason was to prove that rybka is based on fruit's ideas
and to prove that Rybka gives wrong information about things like nodes per second.

Uri

Sounds good but is the first forbidden or denied? And could you please for me and others explain how far others give true informations? I see no wrong as such, surtout no wrong that then would justify to create a whole new engine like Strelka. Again, an engine weaker than the original. Where is the beef, Uri? Again, Rybka is way stronger than Fruit. So what do you want to say with your thoughts?

[Dann Corbit]

If Strelka/Belka is clone Rybka 1.0 and Strelka/Belka have(based) on fruit's ideas(not code) then Rybka 1.0 also based on fruit's ideas(not 30 points from Fruit source). Very strong argument from Korshunov. Bravo Fabien!!!

The piece square table of knights and bishops of strelka is based on the same idea as fruit but with different weights.

I am going to investigate the other parts of the piece square table of strelka later.

I wonder if other programs before fruit had bonus for bishops in the long diagnol in their piece square table or if it is an original idea of fabien.

I never tried it and I was interested in the mobility parts of fruit and not in the piece square table of fruit so only after this discussion I know that fruit has bonus for bishop in the long diagnol.

Note also that the bonus for bishop in one of the long diagnol is only for the opening stage.

I have 2 different piece square tables for the king in the endgame but I do not have 2 different piece square tables for most pieces because I did not think that there is a big difference between values of pieces like bishop between opening and endgame.

Uri

I had an idea which I published in CCC a long time ago, where you give the chessmen a bonus of exactly how many squares they would attack if placed on a bare chessboard. So (for instance) a bishop at A1 gets 7 and a bishop at E5 gets 13

It does not explain a special bonus for the long diagnols

It can explain having the same score in piece square table between the long diagnols and the following
bishop_psq[b2]=bishop_psq[c2]=bishop_psq[d2]=...bishop_psq[g2]

This equality is not in fruit

Uri

I guess that he had to add a bonus for long diagonals to avoid a small penalty for fianchetto of bishops.

[GenoM]

I think that his reason was to prove that rybka is based on fruit's ideas
and to prove that Rybka gives wrong information about things like nodes per second.

Uri

Now I am really curious. Does this mean that Rybka is illegal (either by using GPL source or by disassembling code? Does this mean that Rajlich tried to conceal illegal content?

I don't know what was V.Rajlich trying to hide but iT's interresting that CCRL doesn't have any data about ponder-hit matches corelation between Rybka 1.0 and Fruit 2.1.
Or I can't find it? May be Graham or Kirr would like to say something about it?

Regards,
Geno

[matejst]

Vaclav Rajlich is trying to hide something else: not that he has done anything illegal (!?), but what he has done at all. It is a question of money. He has now a comfortable advantage and don't want to let it slip. He has already introduced some new standards in the computer chess business: a forum, where he can contact with his customers. It is just a question of professionalism and business policy. In this light we should understand his reactions.

Kind regards!

BS