Robbolito 0.09 New Edition VS Rybka 3

[bob]

In the end however Rybka was lucky to equalize the match....

... and if you had gone to 100 games, perhaps Rybka would be leading by 5 points!...
Please learn a bit of statistics:
on 50 games (assuming about 50% draws), standard deviation error is 2.5, or 5%
so a 55-45 outcome for Rybka could occur here anytime!

You are missing the big picture. Rybka is using 4 cores and robbo* is using 1 core.

No

He is missing nothing.
It is not rybka's fault that robbo does not know to use 4 cores.

It is also known that rybka on 1 core is weaker than robbo on 1 core at least in blitz so I am not impressed by the results and it is even not clear to me that the new robbo is better than the old robbo.

Uri

THis is one of the funniest arguments I have _ever_ read here. Generally, the opposite is claimed. That single-cpu vs single-cpu is the only way to test, and the WCCC / CCT events ought to use uniform hardware.

It seems that that is the way to run events, except when one wants to show that Rybka is better than Robo*??? So we use multiple CPUs for Rybka, only one for Robo, and claim Rybka is therefore better, but in the WCCC events, the argument is that the programs on big hardware are _not_ better. Do I have that right?

What is one going to argue once someone modifies Robo to use a parallel search by simply copying the code from Crafty, as an example???

[Albert Silver]

What is one going to argue once someone modifies Robo to use a parallel search by simply copying the code from Crafty, as an example???

That it is illegal.

[bob]

Ok, now I can comment on your text. It's really easy to see where you failed this time.

Nobody here ever said that Prof Bob isnt respected. Well respected. But as a matter of fact also Bob has his blackouts. He is a human being.

Here in your case Bob cannot be taken for serious because he stated it all in detail like always what happened. He didnt research it himself. No time, no incentive. Then people showed him examples. And all he said was "yes, this looks like". But that isnt why we need professors and researchers. If it were just that easy. Bob made a typical mistake for a beancounter. He forgot about the "whole" the complete picture. Because what he saw fitted into his expectations.

I do not know what you are talking about here. I _did_ compare Strelka source to Fruit. And I _did_ compare lots of Rybka 1 code to Fruit. I have _not_ compared Rybka 3 to anything as I do not care, and do not consider that to be my responsibility. Vas made the claim about cloning. That is his claim to back up with evidence, not mine.

There is cold, hard evidence that Fruit code is in Rybka 1. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Whether that code is also in Rybka 2 and 3 is not something I have studied. Probabllity is _very_ high since no one rewrites an engine from scratch 3 times in 3 years. But that's a different issue.

As I said Bob's dilemma is that he is always wanted as decisive trademark jury, but if he didnt research at all, how could he judge at all?

What do you mean "didn't research"? Look at the original threads here. I gave a ton of comments about identical code between rybka 1 binary and fruit source.

So, is Bob highly respected. YES.

But is Bob always correct without the least failure? no, because he's just a human like you and me.

Does the respect for him decrease? Nope.

Look, he called me monkey, idiot and what else, but I still love him. And I were sad if he now suddenly would get shattered by his own nature. We all have that old crocodile brain part at times.

Reread my posts. I did _not_ call you a "monkey". I clearly said that you apparently had a room full of monkeys with access to your computer, and they were typing gibberish daily. Big difference.

[bob]

How do you account for the views of other respected programmers such as Gian-Carlo Pascutto, Don Dailey, Andres Valverdes (plus other programmers who now include Eric Mullins) when they say that they believe it to be a Rybka clone also?
And why would other forums including the Hiarcs forum ban links?
We can't live in cloud-cuckoo land in CCC forever. Links should be banned.
I challenge other programmers who believe Robbo to be a clone to step forward and say so.

Please remain on topic. We were talking about Larry's claim here.

I still answer your questions.

1. I don't think 'believing' is an evidence even if the 'believer' is a respected programmer.

2. The ban is not an evidence. It is a verdict.

The trouble is that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of who says what regarding the issue.
However, some people are more credible than others, and the more that stand up on the issue, the harder it will be to ignore them.

Not true at all. Witness the Rybka 1 - fruit code copying discussion. No amount of actual evidence was enough, much less who stepped forward to make the claim.

[bob]

we are the only forum on the net with elected mods
we are not appointed by the owners

True, but the charter allows you to do something against legally questionable posts.
If you respect what Larry has to say (amongst others), then at present the mods are allowing links to the clone of a commercial engine. That is surely legally questionable.

It is only legally questionable when legitimate proof of the clone claim is provided. That would _not_ be hard to do. If it _is_ a clone, how would it reveal any Rybka secrets since Robo* apparently has them inside already. So exactly what justification can be given for Vas _not_ providing some clear-cut examples of identical code? I can't think of a single valid explanation, unless Robo is not really a clone.

[Rolf]

It is only legally questionable when legitimate proof of the clone claim is provided. That would _not_ be hard to do. If it _is_ a clone, how would it reveal any Rybka secrets since Robo* apparently has them inside already. So exactly what justification can be given for Vas _not_ providing some clear-cut examples of identical code? I can't think of a single valid explanation, unless Robo is not really a clone.

There is a difference because how else for you it had any importance that Vas claimed Strelka? Only then you began your argument although the Osipov figure had said the same before and after the claim from Vas. I am not alawyer but perhaps for you the difference is that without the claim you would do something which you shouldnt do but with the claim you can exploit it. Sorry it's more a question from my side, not at all a critic or anything like this against you. But you must know the difference. Please explain it.

[Alexander Schmidt]

How about this if you're not prepared to believe people like Vas, Larry, Don, Gian-Carlo and others. If you respect Christopher Conkie as a good clone detector (as most seem to do), go and talk to him.

All of the mentioned guys just _think_ it's a Rybka clone, noone showed a single similary. Just because there is no one.

The people repeated what VR said.

Chris even said somewhere he thinks I am right, as long as there is no evidence, Robbo should be treated like it is no clone.

[Michael Sherwin]

I believe in a crime.

At last we come to the truth of the matter. Credo in unum Deum. Who can argue against blind faith?

Jeremy

What a crap. But trusting someone who never lied to me is the best I can do as a human being. But you prefer hidden anons. Let's stop it. We cannot come closer on this. In fact the short quote is like a lie. But if you hate Vas it's normal that you hate me too. And I'm proud of. Viel Feind viel Ehr.

You take this all very personally, Rolf, and it's not meant that way. In fact, your accusation of "hate" is so off the mark that it merits a special mention. You are diverting the argument from a matter of facts and events into some emotional world that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I certainly don't hate Vas (I've never even had the presumable pleasure of talking to him), but I don't harbor any particular good will for him, either (nor bad will, just to make that clear).

He's a software designer and a businessman and has to work for my loyalty or good will as a customer, just like everyone else I buy software from. I happen to disagree with the politics of how his business has handled the Ippolit threat, and would rather take my chess euros to a different business, given what is currently known about the current state of affairs.

Anyway, we are clearly at loggerheads, so I'll let you get on with your life. But let me repeat what I wrote a few weeks ago: stop telling us what to do. You've made your choices, and explained your reasoning behind them. That's great, I happen to disagree. And let's be honest. You're not supporting Vas -- you're supporting your own biases and prejudices (which is natural, of course), and there's no reason to expect that I (or anyone else) should do so, as well.

Jeremy

Don'r bother Jeremy,in a couple of months there will be major changes in the computer chess world and the consequences of these changes will wipe out bugs like Rolf for good....
Dr.D

Then I suggest that this new engine be named, Windshield!

[Graham Banks]

How about this if you're not prepared to believe people like Vas, Larry, Don, Gian-Carlo and others. If you respect Christopher Conkie as a good clone detector (as most seem to do), go and talk to him.

All of the mentioned guys just _think_ it's a Rybka clone, noone showed a single similary. Just because there is no one.

The people repeated what VR said.

Chris even said somewhere he thinks I am right, as long as there is no evidence, Robbo should be treated like it is no clone.

Fair enough. As I keep repeating, people will believe what they want to believe, no matter who says what.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Fair enough. As I keep repeating, people will believe what they want to believe, no matter who says what.

I do not believe what I want, but what I see.

I would be happy if I could believe VR.

But he did not answer one of my questions.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... 204064;hl=

And there are questions which he could answer without harming himself...