Where is the evidence to be found?

[Terry McCracken]

I read many times now that Rybka is a bitboard program and Fruit not, presumably Fruit uses 0x88

For non-chess-programmers this means that the internal representation of the chess board and pieces in program memory (the data structure) could not be more different.

To sustain the postion that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit the accusers are going to have to find unexplainable code similarities between the two engines. We're talking of chess engines, so we're not interested in the UCI part of the program, solely the engine part, where the AI exists.

Now, a chess engine can conceptually be divided up into various parts.

Generate moves
Move and unmove
Evaluate a position
Search

Genmove, move and unmove all have to obey the rules of chess, and they all operate on and are dependent on the data structure of the program. Since Fruit and Rybka have wildly different data structures, the accusers are not going to find any code similarities in any of those component parts. So they won't even bother looking there.

Evaluate has much scope for programmer creativity, but again, the routine spends much of its time interrogating the data structure, and again, Fruit and Rybka with wildly different data structures are unlikely to be providing evidence of similarity in Evaluate either.

If Rybka came from Fruit, and uses bitboards when Fruit doesn't, then a developer from one to the other would need to completely rewrite move, unmove, genmove and evaluate. Actually these parts comprise the bulk of any chess program.

That leaves Search. Search is broadly independent of data structure and it could be one place where similarities could be found, if there are any. It's therefore no surprise that Zach's disassembly chunk is of part of Search. The question is begged - why, assuming its the case, since the main bulk of Fruit would have to be rewritten anyway, why not rewrite Search also? It's relatively not a difficult task in comparison. We also know Rybka is pretty damn strong - that won't have been done by a quick copy of somebody else's Search routine, but by some serious and special development.

Now the problem of using Search to prove similarities is that Search across a wide range of engines uses known similar techniques. It does things in a certain order that's been established as most efficient. Move ordering for example is a case where most programmers do the same thing (discussed elsewhere). If similarities are found they are likely to be down to use of ideas rather than code copying.

Personally, I think the accusers are flogging a dead horse. They have no case.

Right...

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

And be sure to follow Zack and Christophe when they compare Rybka to Fruit!

Something is Wrong on Saturn 3...

[bob]

I don't think it's strange at all. Chris demanded from Zach to present the 'proof' in such a way that it would convince an 'average' ( if not all ) member. This is no simple task. I think for most members ( including myself ) an assembler to random bible texts translation makes as much sense as an assembler to C translation. So probably more needs to be done. I don't even think the request from Chris to Zach was fair, but at least it's strange while the request was coming from him, he's now acting like a child one week before Christmas.

Well, I think I am simply asking those who continue with the allegations even before Zach has produced anything to provide the evidence. If Zach is producing stuff then it perhaps behoves the accusers to wait until he's done so. It would certainly have been wise for them to have waited for evidence before opening any of these threads imo.

Accuse first, hunt for the evidence later does seem the wrong way round. Doesn't it?

Except that is not the way it happened. Both produced evidence at the beginning, but apparently it was a bit too technical for most to understand. So back to the drawing board to come out with pictures colored in with crayons to make it easier to follow, but it does take some time...

[John]

"Personally, I think the accusers are flogging a dead horse."

... while arguing that dead-horse-flogging is a noble activity ...

... that is the highest expression of chess analysis ...

[geots]

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.

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.

You are not being fair to me, Albert. When i stated that "you could stick a fork in Bob- he was done"- you never said anything about having to wipe egg off first.

[bob]

I assume your only goal here is to keep posting so much "nothing" that you try to drown out all the legitimate discussion? If so, in a way you are making some progress, but the discussion probably won't die until a final conclusion is reached, like it or not.

So cluttering up the threads with such nonsense is just cluttering up the thread, but it won't go away as a result.

[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.

And that clearly shows your bias. Let's take a quick poll here: has anyone _else_ seen me complain about commercial authors that first lurk and ask questions in CCC, but who do not discuss any new ideas they find? Has anyone ever read a prior post in any year from me? Maybe better, can anyone remember reading a similar comment almost _every_ year?

Only Vas my ass. That is such an inaccurate statement. Why don't you do another of your context-free posts and take some of those prior posts of mine and clip the context so you can continue to try to make a point that won't fly?

Only Vas. Only a complete idiot would write such a statement when I get heat for making that statement (in general, not applied toward Rybka) on a regular basis.

Only Vas... Selective memory or intentional deceit?

Only 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

[geots]

I assume your only goal here is to keep posting so much "nothing" that you try to drown out all the legitimate discussion? If so, in a way you are making some progress, but the discussion probably won't die until a final conclusion is reached, like it or not.

So cluttering up the threads with such nonsense is just cluttering up the thread, but it won't go away as a result.

"Legitimate discussion" ???? Exactly where in the hell would that be. Havent seen it on this forum in 6 days. Andas for a final conclusion, it has been reached, dear heart. You cant prove anything- you wont prove anything- except that you are fairly good at giving people headaches with all your jibber-jabber.

[GenoM]

I assume your only goal here is to keep posting so much "nothing" that you try to drown out all the legitimate discussion? If so, in a way you are making some progress, but the discussion probably won't die until a final conclusion is reached, like it or not.

So cluttering up the threads with such nonsense is just cluttering up the thread, but it won't go away as a result.

"Legitimate discussion" ???? <...>Havent seen it on this forum in 6 days.

It's not my fault you're short-sighted.

[swami]

Well, I think I am simply asking those who continue with the allegations even before Zach has produced anything to provide the evidence. If Zach is producing stuff then it perhaps behoves the accusers to wait until he's done so. It would certainly have been wise for them to have waited for evidence before opening any of these threads imo.

Accuse first, hunt for the evidence later does seem the wrong way round. Doesn't it?

Maybe they are trying to find people who may want to join them in building their case to work out the similarities in 2 engines, and they decided to post few similarities first in order to attract programmers with similar interest,, so far they have managed to get Norman, Bob and few other programmers. So they were creating threads in order to see which people are interested in joining them in their project

For them, more people = more findings in similarities. That's just my guess.

[geots]

I assume your only goal here is to keep posting so much "nothing" that you try to drown out all the legitimate discussion? If so, in a way you are making some progress, but the discussion probably won't die until a final conclusion is reached, like it or not.

So cluttering up the threads with such nonsense is just cluttering up the thread, but it won't go away as a result.

"Legitimate discussion" ???? <...>Havent seen it on this forum in 6 days.

It's not my fault you're short-sighted.

I can without a doubt tell you what i am not: a "follow the crowd simpleton". Enough has been said. The evidence is either here, or it is there, or it was there and is somewhere else now. Sounds a lot like a shell game to me. It is time to put up or shut up.