Hyatt appears to call for ban of Rybka in Beijing

[bob]

Bob,

If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?

If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???

Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?

Chris

I don't even know what that means...

Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.

Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.

Enrique

Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.

However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...

Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?

Chris

It means quite simply, as per your comment

Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...

Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3

The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.

I do not write ambiguously. The current effort is looking at rybka 1. If that produces completely convincing evidence of copying, then rybka 2 has to be looked at next. I believe, based on 40 years of writing these things, that there is a _high_ probability that version 2 re-uses lots of code from version 1 of any piece of complex software. That is hardly a "giant leap". If R2 is based on R1, and R3 is based on R2, then all three have a huge problem with respect to entering ICGA events based on the rules currently in place.

Well, in that case since you've not yet made your case against R1, that's still being worked on - the anti-anti side will want some time to check what you've done and have the opportunity to refute it - Beijing is very close - so R2 being looked at "next" won't happen fast enough for start of Beijing, let alone R3 ...... so .....

Will you make a statement that the participation of Rybka 3 or whatever version they call it now at Beijing is not under any sort of threat as far as you are concerned?

What does Beijing have to do with anything? You won't find mention of that in _any_ post I have made. So that is yet another strawman argument someone else is responsible for. I'm not going to Beijing. I don't know who is and who is not going, and really don't care. That tournament has become much less important, IMHO, than the various CCT-type events we host with 4-5 times the number of participants. So I have not given any arbitrary time frame where this has to be resolve, neither did Zach, Christophe, or others looking at the issue.

I could not care less who/what participates in Beijing, that is a subject for the ICGA and the participating authors to deal with.

You brought Beijing into all of this with your comment:

Bob wrote:
As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...

Given your statement above, put together with statement in same thread:

The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO.

That would appear to be a call for Rybka to be banned from Beijing (the next tournament).

Will you make a clear statement that is not your intention to give that impression and that you consider Rybka entry in Beijing is not and should not be under any threat?

How about we do the following: From here on, lets argue about what I _write_. Not about what you think I write. Particularly when you take something from two different posts and juxtapose them together.

I have not yet said "Rybka is a copy of Fruit." I have said that the evidence presented so far is compelling. There has been no rebuttal to any of it, except by people disconnected from Rybka that just produce tons of static to try to drown out the communication. So neither have I called for any sort of ban, or any other penalty _yet_. So there has been absolutely no implication with reference to Beijing on my part, neither has the word "Beijing" been used by me in any post until these past two.

We're talking exactly about what you wrote. And wrote all together in one post (not two as you falsely suggest).

Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.

However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...

That's one post. Not two. Not juxtaposed.

Case against R1 pretty convincing ... looks bad -> my policy ... banned for life.

So, no clear statement from you to lift the weight off the Rybka entry to Beijing.

Readers will draw their own conclusions.

Right. And since no post of mine has ever _mentioned_ Beijing in any of these threads, I think most will reach the _correct_ conclusion, not some nonsensical dream you had. And once again you still want to cut out context. I'm not going round and round the mulberry bush here. If you want to distort, feel free. I will clarify and then you can say whatever you want.

1. The evidence looks pretty convincing to me, so far. More evidence will make it more convincing. At some point the "other side" has to respond of the evidence will mount until it is overwhelming. I have not declared anywhere that this is over yet. I'm reading just as you are, except that I am using an open mind and some significant experience in the process, and the evidence certainly suggests that something is amiss. Whether there is a sane and reasonable explanation for this has yet to be determined.

2. As for Beijing, I could care less. I am not going. I doubt all the comparisons will be done by then, even if I did care. So there is no connection as of yet. If evidence proves copying, it will certainly have implications for future competitions.

[Graham Banks]

I am shocked at the degree of disrespect that is frequently shown to him by members of this community. If I were him, I would have given-up on forums such as this long ago. I think it is a testament to his character that Dr. Hyatt continues to share his thoughts with us despite the discourteous behavior he has to endure.

I have no idea if Dr. Hyatt’s opinions on this matter or correct or not. However, I think this community should show him a significant degree of deference in regard to the ideas and theories he has pertaining to this debate. I think that a person with his credentials should be afforded a high degree of respect. I’m disappointed so few users here feel the same.

I would hope that most computer chess enthusiasts do respect Bob's tremendous ongoing contribution to computer chess. I most certainly do. There is nobody more helpful in answering questions about programming in this forum.

The problem here Michael is that if you stick your head too far out when discussing a controversial issue, some are bound to try and chop it off. Just human nature.

[bob]

Up until this point, I have not participated in any of these clone debate threads because I am not a programmer and I do not think there is any substantive material I could add to the discussion.

I feel compelled put this in the record before this message board implodes: Dr. Hyatt is one of the pioneers in computer chess programming with over forty years of experience in his field. He has a doctorate in computer science and, based on the posts I have seen him make on various newsgroups over the years, I get the feeling that he is probably smarter than 99.9% of the rest of us. I am sure that his teaching, research, and personal interests consume a large amount of his time. Despite that, he actively participates in this group with lucid and informative posts and he responds promptly to emails from complete strangers asking him questions about computer chess.

Given these observations, I am shocked at the degree of disrespect that is frequently shown to him by members of this community. If I were him, I would have given-up on forums such as this long ago. I think it is a testament to his character that Dr. Hyatt continues to share his thoughts with us despite the discourteous behavior he has to endure.

I have no idea if Dr. Hyatt’s opinions on this matter or correct or not. However, I think this community should show him a significant degree of deference in regard to the ideas and theories he has pertaining to this debate. I think that a person with his credentials should be afforded a high degree of respect. I’m disappointed so few users here feel the same.

it's been absolutley despicable, shameful. i lodged a complaint yesterday to the mods (swami) because a couple members were posting unflattering enlarged photos in an effort to mock him. i was gratified to see the offending posts had been removed.

i have a suggestion, perhaps if ChrisW was more respectful (as an authoratative 'mod' role model), others might be more inclined to follow suit...

there have been 'no holes barred' in the recent efforts to discredit him, IMHO, and the forum moderator seems to be leading the way.

Photo doesn't bother me at all. It comes from our web page. Students took the pictures. It looks about as much like me as any other photograph would. If that is how someone judges me, then it just means that their opinion is not worth much (you can't judge a book by its cover comes to mind.).

Some here are just not going to have any part of this discussion proceed in a sane and scientific way. Enough noise can drown out any signal. The primary discussions have moved out of CCC until they are completed, then a lengthy and pointed result can be given, without having to work thru tons of static. There is no final conclusion yet. I think the evidence so far is surprising. If there is more of the same, it will become damning at some point.

[bob]

I am shocked at the degree of disrespect that is frequently shown to him by members of this community. If I were him, I would have given-up on forums such as this long ago. I think it is a testament to his character that Dr. Hyatt continues to share his thoughts with us despite the discourteous behavior he has to endure.

I have no idea if Dr. Hyatt’s opinions on this matter or correct or not. However, I think this community should show him a significant degree of deference in regard to the ideas and theories he has pertaining to this debate. I think that a person with his credentials should be afforded a high degree of respect. I’m disappointed so few users here feel the same.

I would hope that most computer chess enthusiasts do respect Bob's tremendous ongoing contribution to computer chess. I most certainly do. There is nobody more helpful in answering questions about programming in this forum.

The problem here Michael is that if you stick your head too far out when discussing a controversial issue, some are bound to try and chop it off. Just human nature.

There is a deeper issue. I had the privilege of "growing up" when we could have discussions with Dave Slate, Ken Thompson, Hans Berliner, Hsu and Campbell, Schaeffer, the list goes on and on. But as the internet became more accessible, the "moron factor" went through the roof. Schaeffer was drummed out of r.g.c.c because Marion Tinsley did the honorable thing and resigned in their last match due to health, and later said he was convinced he would lose anyway. But the usual moronistic crowd insulted, haranged, until he left. Ditto for Hsu and Campbell.

Some of my "greatest memories" go back to online conversations with people like Seymour Cray, Gene Amdahl, Ken Thompson, etc. Today, thanks to a ever-widening "barrel" (euphemism for internet) the old "the bigger the barrel the more bad apples there are in there" becomes an issue and it becomes harder and harder to reach the people many of us would love to one-on-one new ideas with.

I play every night on xbox-live. There are idiots there. hardly anybody knows who I really am, but I noticed that once I became a 10-prestige in COD4, suddenly I became a target for insults on a regular basis. Prior to becoming a "gold cross" people chatted and played with me with normal behavior. Apparently playing a couple of hours a night, and becoming good enough to go thru the ranks 11 times in total makes you fair game for those that I suppose feel inferior based on their own accomplishments to instead turn their attention to attacking/insulting others. The MF (moron factor) is here to stay.

[swami]

Up until this point, I have not participated in any of these clone debate threads because I am not a programmer and I do not think there is any substantive material I could add to the discussion.

I feel compelled put this in the record before this message board implodes: Dr. Hyatt is one of the pioneers in computer chess programming with over forty years of experience in his field. He has a doctorate in computer science and, based on the posts I have seen him make on various newsgroups over the years, I get the feeling that he is probably smarter than 99.9% of the rest of us. I am sure that his teaching, research, and personal interests consume a large amount of his time. Despite that, he actively participates in this group with lucid and informative posts and he responds promptly to emails from complete strangers asking him questions about computer chess.

Given these observations, I am shocked at the degree of disrespect that is frequently shown to him by members of this community. If I were him, I would have given-up on forums such as this long ago. I think it is a testament to his character that Dr. Hyatt continues to share his thoughts with us despite the discourteous behavior he has to endure.

I have no idea if Dr. Hyatt’s opinions on this matter or correct or not. However, I think this community should show him a significant degree of deference in regard to the ideas and theories he has pertaining to this debate. I think that a person with his credentials should be afforded a high degree of respect. I’m disappointed so few users here feel the same.

it's been absolutley despicable, shameful. i lodged a complaint yesterday to the mods (swami) because a couple members were posting unflattering enlarged photos in an effort to mock him. i was gratified to see the offending posts had been removed.

i have a suggestion, perhaps if ChrisW was more respectful (as an authoratative 'mod' role model), others might be more inclined to follow suit...

there have been 'no holes barred' in the recent efforts to discredit him, IMHO, and the forum moderator seems to be leading the way.

Photo doesn't bother me at all. It comes from our web page. Students took the pictures. It looks about as much like me as any other photograph would. If that is how someone judges me, then it just means that their opinion is not worth much (you can't judge a book by its cover comes to mind.).

Some here are just not going to have any part of this discussion proceed in a sane and scientific way. Enough noise can drown out any signal. The primary discussions have moved out of CCC until they are completed, then a lengthy and pointed result can be given, without having to work thru tons of static. There is no final conclusion yet. I think the evidence so far is surprising. If there is more of the same, it will become damning at some point.

I didn't delete the post that Norman complained, I didn't see much of a problem with the post of Etard who posted the picture and pretended to complement you, I handed the Normans complaint over to the other mods when it was a late midnight for me, and I was in hurry and had to go back to sleep. It looks like the post and its subsequent replies have been removed by other mods, maybe the post from Etard was contentless spam and was unrelated to the subject matter and borderline deletable to mods with hands on approach to moderation.

[Nimzovik]

Hmmmmmmmmm...... So if Rybka is a clone ...I do not appreciate that Vas did not give credit to the ideas of Fruit. However Rybka IS stronger than fruit. So Vas did contribute SOMETHING apparantly. Hmmmmmmm again...... If Henry Ford put America on wheels (with 4 wheeled cars) Does Chevrolet now have to make cars with only three wheels? Plagarism is a theft. However most inventions come from scientists standing on the shoulders of other scientists. I for one (a mere consumer) am grateful for the strong engine and no longer being financially bled to death by chessbase for 20 rating points in stregth each year. I dare say that this is the posture of most CONSUMERS of chess programs. As for the programmers the fight will continue ad nauseum until one is left standing due to justice or better lawyers. The race does not Always go to the swift or the righteous. So......... for me ---the consumer....All hail to Vas! All hail to the next programmer that gives me MORE of what I want. And pity to the robbed programmer. This is life --yes? Sad, common, but true. IF Vas is guilty I do NOT admire his ethics. However I can NOT afford to wait for resolution to this conflict before I buy the engine.

[kranium]

Hmmmmmmmmm...... So if Rybka is a clone ...I do not appreciate that Vas did not give credit to the ideas of Fruit. However Rybka IS stronger than fruit. So Vas did contribute SOMETHING apparantly. Hmmmmmmm again...... If Henry Ford put America on wheels (with 4 wheeled cars) Does Chevrolet now have to make cars with only three wheels? Plagarism is a theft. However most inventions come from scientists standing on the shoulders of other scientists. I for one (a mere consumer) am grateful for the strong engine and no longer being financially bled to death by chessbase for 20 rating points in stregth each year. I dare say that this is the posture of most CONSUMERS of chess programs. As for the programmers the fight will continue ad nauseum until one is left standing due to justice or better lawyers. The race does not Always go to the swift or the righteous. So......... for me ---the consumer....All hail to Vas! All hail to the next programmer that gives me MORE of what I want. And pity to the robbed programmer. This is life --yes? Sad, common, but true. IF Vas is guilty I do NOT admire his ethics. However I can NOT afford to wait for resolution to this conflict before I buy the engine.

Yes, good point. By all means buy and enjoy Rybka 3. It's a remakable piece of programming.

The discussion here was meant to, and has tried to remain about the non-commercial Rybka 1.0 beta, and only Rybka 1.0 beta, released in Dec. 2005. The discussion has nothing to do with Rybka 2, or 3 which is being sold today.

the discussion tried to remain focused on the possibility that 1.0 was a 'derivative' work of Fruit 2.1, but the conversation got quickly drowned out and smothered by the many passionate Rybka fans, who took it as a direct attack on Vas himself.

PS nobody i'm communicating with has used the dirty 'c' word in reference to Rybka...ever.

Norm

[Graham Banks]

The discussion here was meant to, and has tried to remain about the non-commercial Rybka 1.0 beta, and only Rybka 1.0 beta, released in Dec. 2005. The discussion has nothing to do with Rybka 2, or 3 which is being sold today.
Norm

Not entirely true Norm.
The implication has been made that if Rybka 1.0 has copied code, then Rybka 2 and Rybka 3 must also come under scrutiny.
I think it was Bob that implied this.

[bob]

The discussion here was meant to, and has tried to remain about the non-commercial Rybka 1.0 beta, and only Rybka 1.0 beta, released in Dec. 2005. The discussion has nothing to do with Rybka 2, or 3 which is being sold today.
Norm

Not entirely true Norm.
The implication has been made that if Rybka 1.0 has copied code, then Rybka 2 and Rybka 3 must also come under scrutiny.
I think it was Bob that implied this.

No, I answered a question "what does this have to do with Rybka 3". My response was simple: Normal software development does not see version 2 re-written from scratch. Much code is retained from N to N+1. And the same applies to N+1 to N+2. So there is a high probability that _IF_ rybka one is proven to be a derivative of fruit and violates the GPL, then rybka2 and 3 will have to be examined to see if the violation continued, or the code was removed and rewritten to make 2 and or 3 "clean".

Anybody that thinks in any other way is delusional. Crafty is now 14 years old. I can supply the oldest source tarball I have, and one can use diff to see what has been kept. There is _plenty_ of common code between version 1.0 and version 22.2... that is simply a normal way of developing.

The only point where I did a major rewrite without borrowing a thing was in 1994 where I went from FORTRAN (Cray Blitz) to C (Crafty). Copying was impossible. Even trying the crappy FORTRAN-to-C (commercial products) of the time was no good because it kept odd FORTRAN-isms such as arrays going from 1 to N, all function calls pass by reference rather than by value, no structures, etc. I tried but the code was not worth the effort to salvage and I started from Scratch. Exactly one time in 40 years.