Where is the evidence to be found?

[John]

"Do you want me to also dig up direct quotes where you say how improbable it is that Vas created an original program capable of evolving so fast? "

I too recall, in the early days of Rybka, a thread of posts (by whom I don't recall) stating that it was "very unlikely" that Rybka could have progressed so far, so fast, by honest means.

Yet Rybka has gone on to achieve precisely what the experts believed was "very unlikely" ... it has surpassed all other chess codes by a large margin.

I thought at the time that the accusatory posts were unfair, small-minded, pointless, and bad for chess, and I think so now too.

[Guetti]

What is the problem with evaluate?
Most bitboard engines have also an normal board array. And piece lists could be generated in the eval from bitboards. With these two things, one could probably insert the fruit evaluation almost as it is. (I'm not an expert in fruits data structures, so correct me if I'm wrong).

This doesn't mean that I believe Vas actually did that. I think he had his own ideas for the eval. Just to say the possibility can not be ruled out in advance.
I leave that to the experts to analyse.

The question is if it is against the GPL to insert fruit's evaluation almost as it is in bitboard.

I had discussion about it in email with Fabien Letouzey in 21.8.2005

Fabien gave no objection to the following idea that was in my email

"I thought also about the possibility of using the same algorithm as
fruit with the different data structure that I have for the board so I
cannot use simply copy and paste so I can compare speed of fruit's
data structure with the speed of my data structure but I am not sure
if it is ok to do it."

I understood from Fabien Letouzey that it is not against the GPL because
he gave no objection(he only said that there may be a problem with tournament organisers but from his point of view
I am free to use fruit's ideas as long as I do not use copy and paste.

practically I have different evaluation than fruit and I did not implement the idea that I thought about(I only took few ideas but even in this case I decided to go for different evaluation with these ideas).

I also did not like to drop my evaluation and adding fruit's evaluation as is with no corrections did not fit other parts of my evaluation.

Uri

Just to understand, you are talking about a specific part (algorithm) of the evaluation, not the whole evaluation?
If you got the permission from Fabien to use this part and adapt it to your data structures, then there is nothing speaking against it. He was the writer of that algorithm, so he can give the permission to you to use it.
(In a metaphorical way) As he wrote the original, he could (virtually) write it again without GPL licence and give it to you to use.
This is different to just exploiting parts of a GPLed chess engine in my opinion.

[Rolf]

We're talking of chess engines, so we're not interested in the UCI part of the program,

It is nearly impossible to compare an open source code with an executeable, so it is a good way to compare the engineoutput in general to see if there is a work based on another engine.

It's not up to you to decide what kind of profes are enough, everyone should draw his own conclusion.

Fabien is not interested, so I am not interested too. I just show the similaries.

Many people are not interested in this issue, they got a monster engine and everything is fine. Of course Rybka is a great piece of work, very different to Fruit in many areas.

The only question is, did Vas take some help at start with his great new ideas in chessprogramming, if so, it was not within the GPL and illegal. And it don't matter if now every single line in Rybka is different to Fruit, or only the UCI I/O was taken from Fruit.

ANd we have two independent analysis, one based on decompiling, one based on the output, that it is at least possible.

Why do you show so clearly that you cant make a case? You dont even have ideas for a clear and relevant hypothesis. If he took some help it was illegal. You have no cse and claim that if you had it were a case. You know know how such a nonsense is called in science? This is why I am strongly arguing against Bob. He's a scientist and does not forbid such nonsense because he needs everyone in the campaign so badly. No matter with what sort of nonsense. Hail to Al, Grah, Uri, George, Fern and ChrisW plus some others, who keep the logical alive. - Bob, please dont continue such a nonsense. You could stop it with one syllable. Where are the proxy ordering guys? Step forward. Enrique help this forum.

[mclane]

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 00&t=23275

[geots]

I remember the thread you have partially posted and I wonder why you ended with _this_ reply of Dieter Buerssner. After a respons of Bob there was another reply frion Dieter containing amongst some other text this:

"
I did not say or imply, that you said, that Ruffian is some sort of clone. Just
that at least your point 2 is invalid.

Sorry again, for my mistone
"

Because the reply was representative. Bob didn't actually say Ruffian was a clone, he merely states that is the most probable case. The same could be said about Rybka, but if he didn't really have an opinion in the matter, he wouldn't say a thing. We already know that he believes that if anyone disassembles and takes from Rybka, that Vas will have deserved it. It is his belief that because he answered some questions by Vas in CCC, Vas owes it to reveal his trade secrets. Note that I haven't seen this requirement from ANY OTHER PROGRAMMER. Just Vas.

The fact that Dieter apologizes doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he wrote, merely that he doesn't wish to create bad blood with Bob, which is fine, but changes nothing.

In any case, as a side-argument, if you consider that since Rybka 1.0 first came out, stronger than every program on the market, it has improved by no less than 300 Elo (!!) in 2.5 years, something that no one has come close to in pure software, it seems increasingly probable that Vas did in fact do it on his own. Still, let's not divert attention from this with logic (heaven forbid).

Albert

Extremely, very extremely well-said, Albert


Best,

[bob]

Why don't you give them some time to produce the results of their research, instead of flaming the results before they are produced?

Well, considering they have started threads, and produced hundreds of posts on the matter, it seems strange to me to be asked to now wait for the results to be produced. What were the claims based on? The number of letters in the name?

Furthermore, the evidence presented will have to show that it is what helps Fruit play as well as it does, and this is also what helps Rybka play as well as it does. Otherwise, the evidence really wouldn't be any better than identical UCI protocols.

Albert

What _is_ the intent here. To deflect attention elsewhere once more? The evidence does _not_ have to show that is what helps fruit do anything. It only has to show that fruit was copied. Where are you trying to go with this? The goal of the two original investigators here was to simply answer the question "was rybka derived from fruit?" why is it necessary to have a continually shifting target and why do others get to dictate what Zach and Christophe were trying to answer?

Quite simply, copying _any part_ of a GPL program is not permissable. _any part_. Not just "key parts".

I'm not deflecting attention from anything.

The initial accusations stemmed from Rybka's astonishing evolution, thus foul play had to be behind it. You and others have accused other programs of this in the past, and gotten egg in the face for it.

A precise challenge. Please show _one_ single example where I have accused someone that was wrong. Just one example will be enough to make your above statement true. I claim your statement is a flat falsehood. The only programs _I_ have accused of being a clone were proven by me by comparing directly to the source of my program. Le Petite. Voyager. Bionic Impakt, and some others I am sure I have forgotten.

So feel free to show exactly where I "got egg in my face." Or perhaps it will be you that are wearing the egg instead.

I assume you have some proof since you now address me specifically. Go for it.

Subject: Re: Ruffian is here - Make your move Bob Hyatt!

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:19:51 09/23/02

Ruffian could be any of the following, in decreasing order of probability:

1. A copy of a freeware engine with some changes or additions.

2. A copy of a commercial engine, aided by a hex editor to change strings
to disguise what has happened.

3. A copy of a commercial engine, modified, after someone found access to
the un-released source code somehow.

4. A program written by a current commercial (or amateur) author and released
anonymously, for reasons I wouldn't try to guess.

5. A completely new program, developed by a completely new author, sight-
unseen by anybody until very recently.

It _could_ be any of those. I don't have an opinion yet, except that the
above list is written in decreasing probability order.

No "impossible" entry on the above list. But the bottom item is _very_ low
probability, IMHO of course...

Of course, you may argue that you didn't actually accuse it, but your comments clearly say that the least likely possibility is that Ruffian was an original program.

How about the original context? _I_ didn't make any claim ruffian was anything. That was a response to other posts that you omitted. And it does clearly say "it might be any one of the following".

From the same thread:

Subject: Re: Ruffian is here - Make your move Bob Hyatt!

Author: Dieter Buerssner

Date: 15:58:33 09/23/02

To Robert Hyatt - I cannot see anything concrete in your argument. What do you mean be "that talked one or the other"? Who is one? Who is another?

Is it so difficult to say just once: "ok, I was wrong here"? Really seems to be the case. Our very first discussion here on CCC was about random numbers. I seriousily believe, that I know a lot more about this, than you. But it was no problem for you, to teach me some lectures about pseudo random number generators (I believe most of it was just wrong) Still, you allways try to have the last word (with very doubious arguments, IMHO). You seem to have more time for such discussions than me. So, sooner or later, after all your diversifications, I must give up.

(...)

After all this, can I take your comments seriously anymore?

Eventually, Ruffian was freed of all this innuendo and exonerated of the charges. Do you want me to also dig up direct quotes where you say how improbable it is that Vas created an original program capable of evolving so fast?

Albert

P.S. The blue text isn't colored text, but hyperlinks to the source.

Post whatever you want. I asked for an example where I explicitly claimed that a program was a clone, except for those where I claimed and proved they were clones of Crafty. And, for the record, I did not initiate any of those claims either. I was simply asked to check to see what I thought, by the "clone police" that are interested in that sort of stuff.

Also, what part of "improbable" don't you understand? "improbable" != "impossible" in any context. Vincent was the one that originally raised that red flag, and a later discussion followed. So what?

My only argument in _this_ thread is that duplicate blocks of code are _highly_ unlikely to come from any source other than copying. And that is all I have said. Repeatedly.

[bob]

I remember the thread you have partially posted and I wonder why you ended with _this_ reply of Dieter Buerssner. After a respons of Bob there was another reply frion Dieter containing amongst some other text this:

"
I did not say or imply, that you said, that Ruffian is some sort of clone. Just
that at least your point 2 is invalid.

Sorry again, for my mistone
"

The intention is to mislead, to make a point and divert attention from the actual ongoing discussion...

That's why I asked about why the "context" was missing...

[Terry McCracken]

We're talking of chess engines, so we're not interested in the UCI part of the program,

It is nearly impossible to compare an open source code with an executeable, so it is a good way to compare the engineoutput in general to see if there is a work based on another engine.

It's not up to you to decide what kind of profes are enough, everyone should draw his own conclusion.

Fabien is not interested, so I am not interested too. I just show the similaries.

Many people are not interested in this issue, they got a monster engine and everything is fine. Of course Rybka is a great piece of work, very different to Fruit in many areas.

The only question is, did Vas take some help at start with his great new ideas in chessprogramming, if so, it was not within the GPL and illegal. And it don't matter if now every single line in Rybka is different to Fruit, or only the UCI I/O was taken from Fruit.

ANd we have two independent analysis, one based on decompiling, one based on the output, that it is at least possible.

Why do you show so clearly that you cant make a case? You dont even have ideas for a clear and relevant hypothesis. If he took some help it was illegal. You have no cse and claim that if you had it were a case. You know know how such a nonsense is called in science? This is why I am strongly arguing against Bob. He's a scientist and does not forbid such nonsense because he needs everyone in the campaign so badly. No matter with what sort of nonsense. Hail to Al, Grah, Uri, George, Fern and ChrisW plus some others, who keep the logical alive. - Bob, please dont continue such a nonsense. You could stop it with one syllable. Where are the proxy ordering guys? Step forward. Enrique help this forum.

Your dung does stink Rolf....

[bob]

I remember the thread you have partially posted and I wonder why you ended with _this_ reply of Dieter Buerssner. After a respons of Bob there was another reply frion Dieter containing amongst some other text this:

"
I did not say or imply, that you said, that Ruffian is some sort of clone. Just
that at least your point 2 is invalid.

Sorry again, for my mistone
"

Because the reply was representative. Bob didn't actually say Ruffian was a clone, he merely states that is the most probable case. The same could be said about Rybka, but if he didn't really have an opinion in the matter, he wouldn't say a thing. We already know that he believes that if anyone disassembles and takes from Rybka, that Vas will have deserved it. It is his belief that because he answered some questions by Vas in CCC, Vas owes it to reveal his trade secrets. Note that I haven't seen this requirement from ANY OTHER PROGRAMMER. Just Vas.

The fact that Dieter apologizes doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he wrote, merely that he doesn't wish to create bad blood with Bob, which is fine, but changes nothing.

In any case, as a side-argument, if you consider that since Rybka 1.0 first came out, stronger than every program on the market, it has improved by no less than 300 Elo (!!) in 2.5 years, something that no one has come close to in pure software, it seems increasingly probable that Vas did in fact do it on his own. Still, let's not divert attention from this with logic (heaven forbid).

Albert

Here is my advice. Say _whatever_ you want. But before you presume to put words in _my_ mouth, it is past time to shut up. Again, my interest here is to point out that a _ton_ of past experience suggests that if there is much duplicated code, then the two codes were not simultaneously typed by two different rooms full of monkeys. It is not a _chance_ happening. Whether or not there is a valid explanation for how this happened is one thing, and I have no idea about that. But I do know that "two different people writing different chess programs can produce duplicate chunks of code" is pure garbage. And I have said so repeatedly, because that seems to be the only way some can find to excuse what has apparently been discovered.

If you want to somehow redefine that into my claiming that Rybka is a clone, imagine whatever you want to. But it isn't what I wrote, nor what I meant. The _evidence_ so far suggests that something is not as it should be. Evidence that I had nothing to do with discovering or evaluating. It might turn out to be nothing. But the "chance" theory has no chance of playing any role.

I believe that I have given Vas credit for creating something remarkable, regardless of its origins. If it is an original creation, or a copy of Fruit that has been modified, it is still a remarkable chess player. The point of this often-hijacked thread, however, is "did it violate the GPL?" That remains to be answered, but any impartial person would certainly have to admit that there is smoke, even if no fire is yet visible.

Unless they bury their heads in the sand and shout "can't be, can't be..." over and over to cover up all the other conversations going on.

This will surely be resolved before long, then we will all know. Some will be disappointed. Some will be surprised. Who will be what remains to be seen.

[mclane]

In any case, as a side-argument, if you consider that since Rybka 1.0 first came out, stronger than every program on the market, it has improved by no less than 300 Elo (!!) in 2.5 years, something that no one has come close to in pure software, it seems increasingly probable that Vas did in fact do it on his own. Still, let's not divert attention from this with logic (heaven forbid).

Albert

if you steal a car and repair it, so it drives 300 instead of 100, its still a stolen car. isn't it ?

now the police comes and asks you: are you the owner of the car.
and you say: yes. i am.

the police asks: show me the invoice where you bought it, and you say:
i did not buy it. i repaired it.
its now faster than ever.

what do you think the police will do ?

congratulate you ?