Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Rolf]

So at your age you dont prefer peace and friendship but you prefer dreaming about rising processes. Fine. Let it rise. But you have supported the mess, while I with Terry was for peace. George Speight too. Bob, let's continue this for 20 years and then we bury you with the expression "he looked into the rise of the war evidence instead of watching the daffodiles grow".

Could you please make constructive counter arguments to each of Bob's comments? All you are saying is that Bob should keep his opinions to himself else he will stress himself into an early grave. Please make an effort Rolf.

Cheers,
Andy

I said Peace! Actually I'm thinking about how to apply hypnosis to make you all friends again without this gallic that eats you up from inside.

[mclane]

to make you all friends again

IMO here you are sadly mistaken.

[Terry McCracken]

Note that this is the discussion about Free version of Rybka (Rybka 1.0)

Zach gave me a permission to edit the thread title and and insert "1.0" next to the engine name wherever he mentioned the engine, just to avoid confusion.

I agree with ChrisW that whenever you mention Rybka, It'd help if you include the version number along with it.

I am not personally convinced that it matters. What is the probability that Rybka 3 is vastly different from Rybka2, and R2 vastly different from V1? Most do not do _complete_ rewrites, which means much GPL code, if it was present in R1 will also be present in R3. So this realistically applies to all versions, if it applies to any.

"if it applies to any"......... Extremely clever way you phrase that, when one considers that anyone with one eye and half a brain already knows your true feelings about this whole issue.

Bob has the right to express his professional opinion in this matter. Whether you agree or not.

Terry, from Christophe's thread and yours also- it is easy to see that neither of you caught on to what i was trying to get across. As Bob is certainly entitled to his opinion- i as well am entitled to mine.

Yes you are but you're suggesting Bob's assessment is defamatory, IE the carry over part....


Christophe and myself can read George.

Terry, i never once said you could not read. Your problem here seems to be with interpretation.

Is it?

And what does Bob wish George.....Spell it Out!

So we won't misinterpret you.....

Terry, with all due respect to you- as i like you- this started off as a discussion between Bob and myself. And i think it should stay that way- i have no idea how it pertains to you.

When it's on this board it's open to all. You also challenged me and Christophe that we misunderstood, but in fact we didn't. That concerns me George. Christophe too if he cares to reply.

I do know what you meant, so did Christophe and if you make charges on this board then we're all privy to it.

This discussion should remain open im my opinion.

Terry

[Rolf]

The only legal problem I see looming is for me, because one day I am going to come to your house and kill all those damned monkeys you have typing over there.

(2) the source code snippets posted here provide a direct link between fruit and strelka/rybka, when examined closely. I've not done the data / evidence gathering, I simply commented on what was being shown.

So there is no "credo" I follow, other than I would personally like to see the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at some point in time. One can be convicted without ever taking the witness stand, if the evidence piles up until it becomes overwhelming. We are not there yet, but it is piling up with no contest from anyone at all.

ad 1) correct if you wanted to then you would do this. Fine. But the reverse is wrong. If you do it then the only reason could be you wanted to "cheat". Bob, this is just nonsense. Logically. But perhaps programmers have always both directions in mind.[/quote[



I have made no accusations. I have had two consistent comments that I have made multiple times:

(1) one would choose to obfuscate nodes, depth and PV if one wanted to attempt to hide/conceal internal details of how the search works.

The issue is that there is _no_ reason to doctor up the data to mislead. If it is not intended to mislead, then anyone could jump in and explain some other reason that will stand up under scrutiny. There are potential search algorithms where one could quite justifiably adjust the node count. It would not be technically correct to do so, but you could say "look, before I search a move, I make them each, one at a time, to look at the resulting positional scores, so that I can use that for ordering, extending, reducing and even pruning. And since I actually make the moves, and do that extra work, I am adding those to my node count, in addition to the moves I actually search with alpha/beta." I would respond "good for you" and never give it a second thought, other than to remember that your NPS number is going to be a bit different from others. Any sensible explanation would have put this to rest. But, apparently, there was no sensible way to explain what others were seeing with respect to nodes displayed and NPS.

Then there is depth. One could always say "OK, I search to depth D, but with reductions using R=3, my actual depth is much less in many positions so I am going to arbitrarily report depth-3 as my depth value. Some would probably point out that you also extend other lines, so maybe this is not a good idea, but it would be an explanation.

Then there is the PV. We know that Deep Blue PVs were incomplete, because they had no way to obtain the PVS from the chess processors, as they had no way to back up a PV, nor a hash table to allow later reconstruction. So we know their PVs are short by 6-7-8 plies depending on the depth the hardware processors were searching. Makes their PV less informative, but the reason is legitimate. just not showing the last few moves so that no one knows exactly what terminal position you are evaluating is another way to hide things. Give me several positions, and your scores, and I can begin to piece together what positional ideas you are evaluating.

So good explanations end discussion. Nonsense or no explanations simple cause it to continue and pop back up in a cyclical pattern until the issue is resolved.

ad 2) are you really happy to rely anything on the Osipov activities? And how do you know who he was and what motives had held him? What is the difference in your eyes between a reverse doctored Rybka 1 and Tiger 14? What sense does it give you ff you must work with illegally doctored data? Would you help to doctor Tiger for balance reasons? Or let's take Fritz 9. Would you help? If not why you are here in it against Rybka 1? Out of cooperation with CT in a revival of Ruffian times?

What does "help doctor xxx" mean? I have not extracted source. I have looked at what has been presented and drawn conclusions. And I have read lots of nonsense about how this could happen quite by chance...

Why not dream with me on peace? Making a picture in our brains and then let it become real? Peace is better than watching something piling up. Let' get ethical, Bob! Please! Peace for all!

Peace would be a natural consequence of answering the questions others are asking. I can't bring about peace in the middle east, I have no control. Ditto with this discussion. Only the "principals" can settle the issue, and one seems unwilling to discuss anything at all. I don't know how I could deal with that to help...

Thanks for another lecture. The help with doctoring... was meant as follows. I still seek peace in the community on the base that some activists would really see what happens if their creation is reverse doctored and something strange comes out. For example that the output was cheated. Perhaps only then some begin to reconsider. to speed up the learning curve I asked you for support. I would then expect the white flag and the whole campaign stuff would be over.

Again Bob, I was convincet that violating the eternal laws in computerchess would mean court trial against you. But you instead stated that you wouldnt believe Vas would sue CT. For me the World stands on its head for a moment. Still this remaining rest of the problem. What is your answer or had you a different proposal to lead people carefully to recognize the eternal truths of Christ, that if you point one finger at someone there are three pointing in your own direction! Some people never heard of it... Just in case.

[Graham Banks]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

[Rolf]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

Is this a matter of dark or bright?

[Graham Banks]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

Is this a matter of dark or bright?

What do we know Rolf? We're not programmers and therefore our opinion doesn't count.

[Zach Wegner]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

I'm sorry, but this has got to stop. George was saying it about Bob, and now you're saying it apparently about everyone. I feel greatly offended by people questioning my motives behind this. Perhaps you are just joking, but this has gone on far enough. You are just adding fuel to the fire. 90% of the discussion in this thread is completely unnecessary, and is just meaningless bickering. Suggestions such as yours only create more diversions, where people tend to concentrate more on who is talking and why rather than the actual evidence being presented.

I could care less about the Rybka 1.0 source. I looked at Strelka for maybe 10 minutes total, and only bothered to take a closer look about a week ago. If Vas were to release Rybka 1.0 as open source today, I would spend about the same amount of time looking at it.

So whatever was your intention in writing that post, all it does is dishearten me. I feel that the whole community could be the victim of the biggest fraud in CC history, yet somehow pointing it out opens me up to relentless attacks.

[Graham Banks]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

I'm sorry, but this has got to stop. George was saying it about Bob, and now you're saying it apparently about everyone. I feel greatly offended by people questioning my motives behind this. Perhaps you are just joking, but this has gone on far enough. You are just adding fuel to the fire. 90% of the discussion in this thread is completely unnecessary, and is just meaningless bickering. Suggestions such as yours only create more diversions, where people tend to concentrate more on who is talking and why rather than the actual evidence being presented.

I could care less about the Rybka 1.0 source. I looked at Strelka for maybe 10 minutes total, and only bothered to take a closer look about a week ago. If Vas were to release Rybka 1.0 as open source today, I would spend about the same amount of time looking at it.

So whatever was your intention in writing that post, all it does is dishearten me. I feel that the whole community could be the victim of the biggest fraud in CC history, yet somehow pointing it out opens me up to relentless attacks.

Perhaps these discussions belong in the programming subforum because nobody else's views mean anything.

[tiger]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

No it is not.

We already have the source code.

It's about fair play, believe it or not.



// Christophe