Rolf wrote:I dont buy that. Since that code has been stolen anything added to that would give away too much. Wait for a later version if it is properly safe. Or the online thing. The games must go on! Sorry but you have to suffer because criminals had been involved. In such a case you just cant dream of living on a moon. It's here, it's real life. Period.
Where has Vas ever said the R3 code was stolen?
It was during his stay in Budapest, Wroclaw or Dresden.
Can you point us to it? He has said several times that he does not have it because he moved on with rybka development and did not keep a copy of the R3 source.
They are both lying Harvey and the ugly thing is that they have forgotten their old lies and hence the confusion of Rolf....
All that I would say here is that nobody in their right mind would release a commercial product and not maintain the source that matches that product somewhere. How do you _ever_ find a reported bug if you don't have the code for that specific version to look at.
"What a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive..." - Shakespeare
If one is honest at every turn, one never has to eat his own words... -Hyatt
Damn right Bob....just damn right
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
bob wrote:
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.
I don't know what you are talking about. Vas claimed Strelka to be his code. Someone compared this to fruit and said "aha, lots of copied/similar code". That started the discussion. Later others went directly to Rybka 1 binary and compared to fruit. End of that story.
Here, Vas has only claimed Robo* is a clone. No proof. No nothing. Makes the claim absolutely meaningless.
You misunderstand. THe point is if data from Vas would have any impact. Strelka showed a different result, he was even more accused. Same now. What all are asking you now is look at the code (without allowance from Vas) and join Don and PLEASE then help to get over the mess, Bob. Save computerchess now. Please.
Of course, if he has even more to "hide" then you could be correct. But then that would not exactly be flattering for him, would it? You can't have it all ways. This either falls on one side of the line or the other. We know what happened with Rybka 1 and fruit. And no amount of hand-waving and such is going to change that at all. We don't yet know what happened with Robo* and Rybka 3. And I suspect we are not going to know. What that implies I don't know, and don't care.
Well, to be precise a new program that was clearly made by decompiling Rybka 3 and putting it back together with changes to the evaluation function published its source code. So not the entire R3 code is public, but most of it other than the exact evaluation function is. The "author" does not publicly admit that his program was taken from R3, but Vas has said so and I can tell you that the similarities are so overwhelming that any claim to the contrary is a joke.
Does this help you or not?
Not one iota.
Sure you need details so that they could be utilized. But the text is from the Honorable GM Larry Kaufman, and you will perhaps treat it with respect please. Larry knows what he's talking about. But again unless the whole original source code of R isnt sent to you you will call Vas a liar. The story is well known. Tolerating anon dirt and scapegoating Brightness. -> Witchhunting.
If you have something useful to offer in this debate, feel free to do so. Otherwise, simply shut up.
I personally know Larry and have for _many_ years. But he only knows about some values he sent. He does not know _if_ they were used. He has not seen any source code. So that comment is completely unhelpful, particularly when he says "they are similar". Similar does _not_ mean "identical" which is what a clone would most likely be in that regard. This is a technical issue, not an issue for debate. There is one and only one truth. All I am seeing is multiple opinions with zero supporting data. So stay out of the debate unless you have something _new_ to add. Continually repeating the same things, over and over, is anything but helping Vas' case.
Unless it's obfuscated. --
Please note. All I'm trying to do is following the debates. How could I have original data or results? Why not letting me propose certain interpretations. As I explained, you are responsible for the details but the eternal questions of good or ugly are not yours since you then need sleep. What nobody can disturb. Well this is where I see my job. I am disturbed by so much hatred in the community and want to show why it's unnecessary. But then you again, no, sorry, this must go on until Vas shows this, that and also this per favor. Are you really sleeping, when it looks as if you were heading crossriders who scapegoat an innocent business guy while all others now take his code with big spoons...and whoopie are 150 Elo points above zero sea level?
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
M ANSARI wrote:I think there is a good way to show that it is a Rybka 3 clone, even though I have absolutely no doubt. By looking at a lot of games between the two engines I have yet to see a position where both engines do not agree, except of course with some of the known bugs of Rybka 3 ... mostly the EGTB hash bug and the blind bishop bug. If there was a MV mode maybe we could look at the output of the best moves and correlate that to see how both engines assess the position. Obviously there would have to be a speed correction factor since the clone runs the executable much faster. I would not be surprised if the equivalent move selection would be by far higher than would be expected from a non clone. Maybe there is a good reason there is no MV mode as things would be too obvious. Some knowledge in Robbo is missing but that knowledge seems to be compensated for by speed. I have yet to see a game where Rybka 3 was outplayed by evaluation and not by faster speed. Rybka 3 has some weaknesses, of course the bugs are well documented, but it also has a weakness in King safety and in bishop pair evaluation ... if you look at games with Rybka 3 against DS 12 and Naum 4 and Stockfish ... you will see that even R3 on 8 cores will lose games due to mis evaluation of the positions being mentioned against single core programs of those versions. This does not happen with R3 8 cores against Robbo 1 core ... which is consistent with what I think a clone's results would be. I think if we set some positions and factor in whatever speed advantage Robbolito has over R3 single core, that the play would be virtually identical.
I'll try to give you a hind about your doubts:
If you have a position with mate in 3, almost all good engines will show you the same sequence of moves.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
kingliveson wrote:I can't imagine how adults can be so gullible and follow by blind devotion without pausing and thinking for a second. It is almost getting embarrassing when you read some of the comments. Bogus and ridiculous claims are made without backing them up. If you merely express reasonable doubt, you are labeled anti xxxxx. When someone hints that you have done wrong, and you come out and say you have not done wrong, who should describe what happened and provide proof?
Ok, I tell you what is embarassing. If Bob calls Vas a liar and the expects that today business as usual. Look, I'm a psychologist, I have a daily situation that people fight my innocent proposals or interpretations. And it really comes from the deep inside. But why should Vas take Bob for serious if it's simply true that there is no Fruit in his code? Should he now explain to this mountain of expertise what he had missed and then falsely accused and insulted? Would Bob really accept that? No, from all what we and Graham know, Bob will never admit of having made a mistake, which is very wrong because we all make mistakes. But not Bob. For me the explanation is simple. But if I stated it Bob would cry wolf again. But we all know the truth. I was shocked when I realised with how little coolness Bob looked upon questions and ideas from other nearby fields of science. Moral: Bob is a highly experienced specialist but he's not something above that, because that would require a certain distance in judging. Computer sciences is a technical discipline but nothing in classical sciences. Or social sciences for all. It's about engineering stuff. Without abstract questions of ethics.
Typical example from such a "specialist" today: dont want to harm business people - ok, Vas was harmed - but I couldnt care less what he thinks - ok, perhaps he thinks that stolen code is cool and therefore he stopped delivering new updates... but damages? who the hell cares - or less...
Sorry I doubt you are the right to understand the offense.
Why are you so hung up on that comment of mine? He said, explicitly, "There is no fruit code in Rybka 1." That statement is absolutely and unconditionally false. And it has been proven so. But apparently I am wrong for pointing out that a false statement was made, and now Vas refuses to discuss the details? If he had not made the false statement in the first place, we would not be at this supposed impasse, either. It's hardly _my_ doing.
As far as ethics go, computer science includes that particular topic quite a few times. "Plagiarism" is a good example. Who here has actually committed that particular act? Who has actually copied code from another and used it, but claiming all the while that none was copied? Again, you are doing Vas far more harm than good with these kinds of discussions.
kingliveson wrote: The bottom line remains, and this is common sense which a two year old child knows; you can't accuse someone and refuse to provide proof.
Of course I can. In sports, in politics, in wars, everywhere, you cant demonstrate all the proof you have. Of course that is something a kid isnt ready to digest. That's why we have our dissent. Look, you make a clown out of yoursel if you claim that I needed hokospokus to beat you in a debate. Ridiculous how now the whining begins after it failed to legalize the clones. Look, I would never accuse you of being dishonest. No, but you miss the main elements in the debate. And nevertheless you think you have the joker. That's funny but it's not really important.
As for the points you made I refuse every one of them. Untrue and fantasy. Otherwise show exactly with quotes what you mean but not on such a fantasy level.
I had absolutely no reason to cheat you because you already cheated yourself hard enough. I'm not even interested in you. Look, if I comment w/o qoutes it doesnt mean that I would want to talk with the one. It's just a bit of text and not the wonderful personality in its whole that I am referring to. Dont try to elevate a psychologist that he should respect his clients. This is a seperate area. Here it's about just talks about obsessions, hate and nonsense. Ok, Vas would see it different. But that is something you dont have to care about... As long as you are not the scapegoat it's fun for you.
Rolf, his statement was quite clear, easy to understand, and accurate on principle and fact. You make yourself look like an idiot when you try to attack such a simple and direct statement by going off on so many tangents, nobody can figure out where the original circle was located or what it looked like.
His thoughts mirror mine, _exactly_. When someone makes an accusation, the onus is on them to provide supporting details. This is how clone issues have always been handled in the past. What is different now? Oh, yes. You simply can't stand the idea that Vas has behaved badly. So there must be some justification for this. You just can't grasp why, so you make up things right and left in a failed attempt to explain this away.
kingliveson wrote:I can't imagine how adults can be so gullible and follow by blind devotion without pausing and thinking for a second. It is almost getting embarrassing when you read some of the comments. Bogus and ridiculous claims are made without backing them up. If you merely express reasonable doubt, you are labeled anti xxxxx. When someone hints that you have done wrong, and you come out and say you have not done wrong, who should describe what happened and provide proof?
Gullible my ass. I have looked at over 2000 games and unlike you I don't need to look at anybodies results as I know that people use different hardware and different books and setups which can be very confusing. I am lucky to have 3 Octas and 4 Quads where I can do my own testing and find out. Unlike you I do go through the games and I do try to figure out where one engine went wrong and what the reason was. I am especially interested when a certain engine's evaluation fails. You might think it is silly but that just shows how clueless you are of the facts. Have you looked at any Rybka 3 vs Robbo games? When you do, please report back and tell me if you think that Rybka 3 single core has a different evaluation than Robbo. Before you talk out of your ass, maybe YOU should investigate it some more. I have yet to see one single game where Robbo beat Rybka 3 due to a better evaluation. Rybka 3 loses either because it has a high contempt or it is simply outsearched ... never because Robbo evaluation is better or different. Now try looking at games between Stockfish or Shredder or Naum 4 ... they have different evaluations to R3 and even on a single core they will get some wins against an 8 core Rybka 3 because in some positions (not many) they have a superior evaluation. Robbo results against Rybka 3 8 core seem strange as the 8 core R3 has so far lost only 3 games out of 144. If results of other 4 core testing is looked at from posters, it would seem that the ELO difference between 8 core R3 and 1 core RL should be only 50 ELO not 170 ELO. I of course could be wrong about all this, but I most certainly have looked at tons of data and vigorously spend lots of time testing before coming to my conclusion. You are more than welcome to disagree, but to call something silly off the hip just shows ignorance.
Graham Banks wrote:
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.
Apparently if you declare someone guilty, then that is proof that they are guilty, at least in some court somewhere in never-never-land.
Furthermore, the charter states "questionable legal status", which means there are doubts, not that there is proof. The final decision, if no proof is pending, is a judgment call by the moderators.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
Graham Banks wrote:
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.
Apparently if you declare someone guilty, then that is proof that they are guilty, at least in some court somewhere in never-never-land.
Furthermore, the charter states "questionable legal status", which means there are doubts, not that there is proof. The final decision, if no proof is pending, is a judgment call by the moderators.
The decision by the moderators indicates that in their opinion the legal status of Robbo is not in question. In their opinion it is most likely not a clone or a reverse-engineered anything. If they thought otherwise, then the legal status would have to be in question.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
