What's Vasik Rajlich doing today?

[supersharp77]

Sedat Canbaz wrote:
Rebel wrote:


So what goes on in the mind of the person Vasik Raijlich?

2. He is arrogant, if he states Ippolit=Rybka you just have to believe him, period, likewise in the R/F case;

3. In the end the programmers figured it out themselves, that Ippolit is a Rybka clone and maybe he relied on that in the R/F case;




Yes...after reading your interesting comments, one story came on my mind and decided to share with you)

I think it was around 2010, when Houdini is appeared on scene...
And on these days, I was wondering what will be Vas's reaction in case of if I will test Houdini...

And during our private mails,
I informed Vas that I am planning to test Houdini and his replay was:
- Sedat no problem, you can test any engine as you wish...

That shows how much Vas has a BIG heart....!!

Yes...we need more programmers as Vasik Rajlich !


Best,
Sedat

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyudmil Tsvetkov



Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 2409


Sorry, but this is bullshit, simple and straightforward bullshit.

Actually, the whole thread is kind of a full and complete BS.

It takes the attention from other, much more important threads.
If I were a mod, I would suspend it, plain and simple.

Mr. Railich made so much money when he actually did not deserve to do so.
That was his goal, to earn money, and not to develop the strongest engine.
When he did that, he retired.

The time of Vas Railich, when Rybka ruled, was really a bad period for computer chess: Rybka was the only top engine, so for these 5 years all programmers managed to do was one single engine, partly original at that.

If you compare that with the past 4 or 5 years, they were definitely much much more fertile and productive:

- you had 3 or 4 top engines, much stronger than Rybka, would you like to live without Stockfish, Komodo and Houdini? I would not.
- in that time also the SF framework appeared, also quite a big achievement
- others ideas were published that did not exist previously

So, if you would like my opinion: it would be a complete disgrace if we move even 1 centimeter more towards any kind of Vasik Railich resuscitation. I do not want to hear about Vas Railich and the period Rybka dominated at all. Hope this will never get back. And I am sure it will not.

The mods will excuse me, but if a couple of people discuss completely pointless stuff and no one reprimands them, and this is tolerated, so why should not I be a bit more agressive, especially if I really feel so?
Please note that I am posting a single message, and some people already posted tens of completely pointless messages.

I will not answer any messages in this thread here, as I do not read it and it makes no sense.

Hope this thread will disappear from sight very soon.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!......Strong words my friend.........is not free speech ok?

[Rebel]

Again. Read what he WROTE.

Yes, what he (Dalke) wrote was that you had done a lousy job.

It's actually shameful that you are shifting your opinion how to interprete rule #2 while we were in agreement in the past. Plenty times you have said that rule #2 is about copying in the end. Shall I post your examples?

From the David-Vas correspondence David makes it crystal clear:

Hi Vas,

"playing nearly all moves the same" is just one example of how a competing program might be discovered to be close derivatives of others. There are various other ways, as you know, including your own suggestion referred to in the report.

And you have not addressed "Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in the details of their submission form."

Kind regards,

David

What else can the term derivative mean if the origin isn't copying?

And since you couldn't proof copying the verdict basically comes down to the estimated (and disputed) volume of ideas Vas (supposedly) took from Fruit.

Don said - too much Fruit in Rybka.

Lefler - He took too much.

Please define "too much".

And that is what was wrong with the interpretation of rule #2, NEVER EVER was someone convicted for the use of "too many ideas", it was always about copying.

-------

Regarding the hashtable issue you raised, we have discussed it and disagreed because you willingly ignored the public discussions between Fabien and Vas in CCC during the years 2003 and 2004.

Secondly and most simple, the version(s) that played in ICGA tournaments used a total different hashtable approach, instead of 16 bytes per entry the versions that played had 8 byte entries, so total different data structure, total different code. Nothing like Fruit.

[Rebel]

Your PST point addresses an issue I have raised many times. One PST is just "interesting". MANY PSTs is damning. The latter shows that little original research was done to choose the values.

But that does not really answer the question. Which was:

If some public copyrighted code XXX reads

Code: Select all

int KingPST[5][5];

init_pst()
{
  int i, j;
  for(i=1; i<5; i++) for(j=1; j<5; j++) KingPST[i][j] = (i-2)*(i-2) + (j-2)*(j-2);
}

and in my own program I would write

Code: Select all

int KingPST[25] = { // use same values as XXX
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  4, 1, 0, 1, 4,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
}

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

I do not believe so. IIRC, copyright infringement specifically excludes tables of numbers.

Note what you said in the past -

Bob - Sorry, but YOU are the idiot that says one can copy a table of numbers without violating copyright.

What changed your mind ?

[Rebel]

If Rybka 1 have nothing to do with Fruit Vas had six years time to clear the situation.

Okay, this is going to be controversial, can be fun anyway, so let's have it

The right to silence is a fundamental right in court not to incriminate one self, or more subtle in his case not to talk (and explain) about his secrets that put him on top for quite some time. Silence doesn't mean (a sign of) guilt. In the end code decides if he is guilty or not.

Although I never met Vas in person due to my email contacts and his general behaviour in public I learned a bit about how he looks at things and he is not an every day person. Statements like: when I began with chess programming in 2003 I already knew I would go commercial I would dominate the rating lists. Think about that for a moment.

Take for instance the Sven-Vas correspondence about the origin of Ippolit, Sven asking specific questions that would proof Vas' claim Ippolit being Rybka in disguise. You see the same pattern as with the RF case, he doesn't answer Sven and remains vague and in the end you know nothing more than before. This while it was in his own interest to clear the case.

So what goes on in the mind of the person Vasik Raijlich?

Here are some options:

1. From a commercial perspective he doesn't want to give anyone information, not the tiniest bit;

2. He is arrogant, if he states Ippolit=Rybka you just have to believe him, period, likewise in the R/F case;

3. In the end the programmers figured it out themselves, that Ippolit is a Rybka clone and maybe he relied on that in the R/F case;

4. He doesn't trust anyone. Not even me, the latter I know for sure.

So place your bets

Would not be my choice, I would defend myself to death to such slander.

this is bogus. You have a right to avoid self-incrimination. You do NOT have a right to not disclose trade secrets. A judge can, and sometimes will, close the courtroom when such are being discussed. But there is no guaranteed right other than that you do not have to make self-incriminating statements, period.

And that's EXACTLY what Vas asked for, to protect his ideas from his competitors he wrote to David -

Hi David,

I prefer to plead my case with the final arbiter rather than with the accusers.

Re. the schedule - could we have the final hearings in October or November? I'd like to prepare properly, and my schedule is very full until the first week in October.

Best regards,

Vas

[bob]

BTW HGM, you might want to consult Bob on this issue.

About PST's -

Bob - No, there was no code copying. however, there was "Data Copying" which is exactly the same thing in the given context. Not allowable.

Correct. "not allowable in the context of ICGA tournament rule #2." Irrelevant to copyright.

[bob]

Does that mean you are prepared to finally admit that they are different?

Suggestive question.

From the Wiki -

A suggestive question is one that implies that a certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact. Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional.

Show me where I stated they are equal.

More to the point, are you finally prepared to admit that exact PST's are a copyright infringment?

Along that point, are YOU finally prepared, given your statement above, that according to YOUR definition of copyright, Vas violated copyright, which is even worse than violating ICGA rule2? You and Chris hung your hats on the issue that PSTs are just numbers. Tables of numbers. Tables that did NOT violate copyright. It would seem you have done another 180 degree flip-flop here???

[bob]

Your PST point addresses an issue I have raised many times. One PST is just "interesting". MANY PSTs is damning. The latter shows that little original research was done to choose the values.

But that does not really answer the question. Which was:

If some public copyrighted code XXX reads

Code: Select all

int KingPST[5][5];

init_pst()
{
  int i, j;
  for(i=1; i<5; i++) for(j=1; j<5; j++) KingPST[i][j] = (i-2)*(i-2) + (j-2)*(j-2);
}

and in my own program I would write

Code: Select all

int KingPST[25] = { // use same values as XXX
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  4, 1, 0, 1, 4,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
}

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

I do not believe so. IIRC, copyright infringement specifically excludes tables of numbers.

Note what you said in the past -

Bob - Sorry, but YOU are the idiot that says one can copy a table of numbers without violating copyright.

What changed your mind ?

Simple. I went back, when this discussion started, and carefully re-read existing copyright law, and case law examples. Copyright law specifically excludes a group of numbers, things like lists of primes, lists of Mersenne primes, trig tables, etc. Things that can be computed by any sort of formula or algorithm. Our believe was that vas did not just copy a set of tables, he copied the code that produced the tables and used that to produce them. Which would be a copyright violation. But without the actual "smoking gun" of the actual purloined code, we simply used it as one of many pieces of data showing that rule 2 had clearly been violated...

[bob]

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

Are you serious?
Copyright infringement on trivial peace of code (formula) for writing some numbers?
Or copyright infringement on certain numbers?
Bob has no clue about copyright, never had, so no one takes him seriously when he blabbers about copyright, but it would be really surprising if you thought that any number or group of numbers could be copyrighted...
Even though there were some idiots trying to copyright some primes, but they were as successful as in finding the formula for primes .

The only one clueless here would be you. Why don't you crawl back into that hole and stay there this time???

[bob]

If Rybka 1 have nothing to do with Fruit Vas had six years time to clear the situation.

Okay, this is going to be controversial, can be fun anyway, so let's have it

The right to silence is a fundamental right in court not to incriminate one self, or more subtle in his case not to talk (and explain) about his secrets that put him on top for quite some time. Silence doesn't mean (a sign of) guilt. In the end code decides if he is guilty or not.

Although I never met Vas in person due to my email contacts and his general behaviour in public I learned a bit about how he looks at things and he is not an every day person. Statements like: when I began with chess programming in 2003 I already knew I would go commercial I would dominate the rating lists. Think about that for a moment.

Take for instance the Sven-Vas correspondence about the origin of Ippolit, Sven asking specific questions that would proof Vas' claim Ippolit being Rybka in disguise. You see the same pattern as with the RF case, he doesn't answer Sven and remains vague and in the end you know nothing more than before. This while it was in his own interest to clear the case.

So what goes on in the mind of the person Vasik Raijlich?

Here are some options:

1. From a commercial perspective he doesn't want to give anyone information, not the tiniest bit;

2. He is arrogant, if he states Ippolit=Rybka you just have to believe him, period, likewise in the R/F case;

3. In the end the programmers figured it out themselves, that Ippolit is a Rybka clone and maybe he relied on that in the R/F case;

4. He doesn't trust anyone. Not even me, the latter I know for sure.

So place your bets

Would not be my choice, I would defend myself to death to such slander.

this is bogus. You have a right to avoid self-incrimination. You do NOT have a right to not disclose trade secrets. A judge can, and sometimes will, close the courtroom when such are being discussed. But there is no guaranteed right other than that you do not have to make self-incriminating statements, period.

And that's EXACTLY what Vas asked for, to protect his ideas from his competitors he wrote to David -

Hi David,

I prefer to plead my case with the final arbiter rather than with the accusers.

Re. the schedule - could we have the final hearings in October or November? I'd like to prepare properly, and my schedule is very full until the first week in October.

Best regards,

Vas

Trials generally take days or weeks. Very rarely does one go for a month or longer. There's a reason. Things should be settled as quickly as possible, in order to stifle/limit speculation. 9 months is not exactly a reasonable response, keeping with the "judge" metaphor here. In general, the plaintiff makes there case by presenting their evidence. The defendant then presents his side of the evidence. Immediately, not 9 months later...

[bob]

Somebody here must know him or Iweta! I am curious..

I would be willing to bet that he is somewhere wishing that people would stop bringing this subject up over and over and let it die the death it so richly deserves.

Something tells me that is not going to happen, however.