The "well meaning" witch hunters have caused much

[Nimzovik]

MOAN!!! Oh great. Deep sigh...... Now the moderators are too paranoid to move this discussion to the Engine Origins Forum after all the hullabalu of the previous (some not all) unsavory types ....... Can't say that I blame them really!

[Roger Brown]

Whoever understands the amount and types of these dissimilarities and still has the nerve to speak of cloning, has to be knowingly dishonest.

A rough comparason for non-programmers is this:

when Rybka1 was found to be bitboard-based (contrary to Fruit21), many people took that as main proof that Rybka1 could not be a clone of Fruit.

It should however be noted that the amount of effort needed to transform a Rybka3 (full C/C++ source code assumed available) to Ippolit (taking into account the amount and types of dissimilarities mentioned in the BB report) would be at least 20 times the effort to introduce bitboards into Fruit and adapt all routines affected.

Matthias.

Hello Matthias,

Is there any chance - for non-programmers like me - that you could expand on that ratio of work required?

In non-programming language as far as possible.

That is an astonishing ratio.
Later.

[K I Hyams]

Hi Matthias,

Normally, those who blindly classified Ippolit as a reverse-engineered Rybka would now be expected to simply apologize for the mess they have caused. However, if you know them well enough, expect no apologies. BB's unbelievably detailed report is proof only to those who have been genuinely seeking to know the truth.

well, first of all, like with all documents, one have to be careful, I mean there is nearly no code comparison or whatever so like with all other statements about the topic we have to trust in the author.

But of course, how likely is it that someone would create such a 33 page report just for fun ? Not very likely. To compare this all with just objdump, chapeau !
Therefor I tend to agree that it's well possible that they re-engineered parts of Rybka, but it looks like most of the code is original, using ideas of Rybka, ideas of other engines and ideas of it's own. This would make Ippolit and all it's follow-ups absolutely legal and even morally safe. For a final conclusion I would like to wait whether Vas can come up with something different, but for now I want to say sorry to the unknown authors. You might say this is just a apologize light - and you are right, but understand me that I want to wait for a statement of Vas, after that I might make a clearer statement. But I wont wait forever, let's say about a month, after that I would even allow them in official tournaments if they would come up with a real name. (E.g. if Norman or Mr. Houdart would like to take part they would need the permission of the Ippolit authors according to ICGA rules)

Greets, Thomas

This post is based on the assumption that the BB document is accurate.

I don’t think that you have much to apologise for Thomas; you said what you thought was right. Decent people say and do what they think is right. Whether or not they are right is of relatively little importance. I believe that Graham Banks also said and did what he thought was right. The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.

It is not clear what motivated the Ippolit authors to attract suspicion to themselves however, whatever it was, they do not deserve a full-blown apology and I doubt whether they are looking for one.

Vas Rajlich appears to me to now have even more explaining to do. Not only does he need to talk about possible Fruit code in Rybka, in the light of the work of Bob and Zach, he needs to talk about his behaviour regarding the Ippolit series, in the light of the work of BB. Neither job should be too demanding because, unlike Bob, Zach and BB, he has access to all of the source code that he needs.

now that is funny!

Well, I am so glad it appeals to your sense of humour. However, I don’t see your point.
It looks like I am more inclined to forgive a person who makes a wrong decision with good motives than you are. If you do have a valid point other than a puerile belief in vindictiveness, kindly explain what it is.

My statement was not an attack on anyone, or focused on any individual. However, with your logic, any action should be fine, as long as you meant well ? The point is before you make stance on an issue you should know the facts and have solid evidence. Or henceforth, one becomes a fool who is trapped within his own hypocrisy.

I have no problem with peoples opinions, but when you look at the damage that has occured to this forum, it does not take a genius to see something is messed up. But, hey I could be wrong ? Although, whether I am right or wrong is of relatively little importance. Correct ?

However, with your logic, any action should be fine, as long as you meant well ?

I neither said that nor implied it. I did however imply that in anything more sophisticated than the playground politics that you espouse, motive is a relevant consideration.

My statement was not an attack on anyone, or focused on any individual.

Statement?? What statement? Do you call the 4 words below a meaningful statement?

now that is funny!

If as you claim, it wasn’t focussed on an individual, why did you take out of context one sentence in a 3 paragraph post and direct your 4 word vacuous comment at me?

but when you look at the damage that has occured to this forum, it does not take a genius to see something is messed up.

Yes, I referred to the damage that I consider that Graham Banks has done to this forum, my quote is below, didn’t you notice?

The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.

The final sentence of your final paragraph is another crude distortion and the final sentence of your penultimate paragraph is totally lacking in meaning.

[bob]

There is absolutely nothing legal in potential cease & desist notice.

Then feel free to set up your own forum and ignore them. But it's not your decision to make for somebody else.

I do not think this is any problem at all, based on existing case law. A web site that _offers_ warez-type pirated software is certainly legally responsible because the damages are in terms of lost profits. But a public forum is not responsible for posts by individual members, any more than a shopping mall would be legally liable if a customer stands up in the middle of the thing and shouts "Here is where you can download commercial software that has been cracked, and it is absolutely free." Do you think the US postal service could be held liable because A sent an illegal software offer to B thru the mail? The people doing the crimes are liable for their actions. Not the "messengers".

[Matthias Gemuh]

Whoever understands the amount and types of these dissimilarities and still has the nerve to speak of cloning, has to be knowingly dishonest.

A rough comparason for non-programmers is this:

when Rybka1 was found to be bitboard-based (contrary to Fruit21), many people took that as main proof that Rybka1 could not be a clone of Fruit.

It should however be noted that the amount of effort needed to transform a Rybka3 (full C/C++ source code assumed available) to Ippolit (taking into account the amount and types of dissimilarities mentioned in the BB report) would be at least 20 times the effort to introduce bitboards into Fruit and adapt all routines affected.

Matthias.

Hello Matthias,

Is there any chance - for non-programmers like me - that you could expand on that ratio of work required?

In non-programming language as far as possible.

That is an astonishing ratio.
Later.

Hi Roger,

I am trying to be conservative with that "20 times".
I am sure that some programmers would estimate it at 50 times.

If you introduce bitboards into Fruit, the syntax checker of the compiler will guide you to basically every line of source code that needs to be adapted. The adaptation itself is like translating a novel from English to French. The adaption can be done 100% accurately by anybody who knows nothing about chess programming beyond understanding the rules of chess.

The Rybka/Ippo differences are of such a different callibre that a profound understanding of top-level chess programming is very essential.

... to be continued later (a long telephone chat is distracting me now
).

Matthias.

[michiguel]

4.) he pointed out a MOUNTAIN of dissimilarities between the two programs where things were just not done the same way.

Whoever understands the amount and types of these dissimilarities and still has the nerve to speak of cloning, has to be knowingly dishonest.

Nice way to start a discussion.

Miguel

A rough comparason for non-programmers is this:

when Rybka1 was found to be bitboard-based (contrary to Fruit21), many people took that as main proof that Rybka1 could not be a clone of Fruit.

It should however be noted that the amount of effort needed to transform a Rybka3 (full C/C++ source code assumed available) to Ippolit (taking into account the amount and types of dissimilarities mentioned in the BB report) would be at least 20 times the effort to introduce bitboards into Fruit and adapt all routines affected.

Matthias.

[Robert Flesher]

Hi Matthias,

Normally, those who blindly classified Ippolit as a reverse-engineered Rybka would now be expected to simply apologize for the mess they have caused. However, if you know them well enough, expect no apologies. BB's unbelievably detailed report is proof only to those who have been genuinely seeking to know the truth.

well, first of all, like with all documents, one have to be careful, I mean there is nearly no code comparison or whatever so like with all other statements about the topic we have to trust in the author.

But of course, how likely is it that someone would create such a 33 page report just for fun ? Not very likely. To compare this all with just objdump, chapeau !
Therefor I tend to agree that it's well possible that they re-engineered parts of Rybka, but it looks like most of the code is original, using ideas of Rybka, ideas of other engines and ideas of it's own. This would make Ippolit and all it's follow-ups absolutely legal and even morally safe. For a final conclusion I would like to wait whether Vas can come up with something different, but for now I want to say sorry to the unknown authors. You might say this is just a apologize light - and you are right, but understand me that I want to wait for a statement of Vas, after that I might make a clearer statement. But I wont wait forever, let's say about a month, after that I would even allow them in official tournaments if they would come up with a real name. (E.g. if Norman or Mr. Houdart would like to take part they would need the permission of the Ippolit authors according to ICGA rules)

Greets, Thomas

This post is based on the assumption that the BB document is accurate.

I don’t think that you have much to apologise for Thomas; you said what you thought was right. Decent people say and do what they think is right. Whether or not they are right is of relatively little importance. I believe that Graham Banks also said and did what he thought was right. The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.

It is not clear what motivated the Ippolit authors to attract suspicion to themselves however, whatever it was, they do not deserve a full-blown apology and I doubt whether they are looking for one.

Vas Rajlich appears to me to now have even more explaining to do. Not only does he need to talk about possible Fruit code in Rybka, in the light of the work of Bob and Zach, he needs to talk about his behaviour regarding the Ippolit series, in the light of the work of BB. Neither job should be too demanding because, unlike Bob, Zach and BB, he has access to all of the source code that he needs.

now that is funny!

Well, I am so glad it appeals to your sense of humour. However, I don’t see your point.
It looks like I am more inclined to forgive a person who makes a wrong decision with good motives than you are. If you do have a valid point other than a puerile belief in vindictiveness, kindly explain what it is.

My statement was not an attack on anyone, or focused on any individual. However, with your logic, any action should be fine, as long as you meant well ? The point is before you make stance on an issue you should know the facts and have solid evidence. Or henceforth, one becomes a fool who is trapped within his own hypocrisy.

I have no problem with peoples opinions, but when you look at the damage that has occured to this forum, it does not take a genius to see something is messed up. But, hey I could be wrong ? Although, whether I am right or wrong is of relatively little importance. Correct ?

However, with your logic, any action should be fine, as long as you meant well ?

I neither said that nor implied it. I did however imply that in anything more sophisticated than the playground politics that you espouse, motive is a relevant consideration.

My statement was not an attack on anyone, or focused on any individual.

Statement?? What statement? Do you call the 4 words below a meaningful statement?

now that is funny!

If as you claim, it wasn’t focussed on an individual, why did you take out of context one sentence in a 3 paragraph post and direct your 4 word vacuous comment at me?

but when you look at the damage that has occured to this forum, it does not take a genius to see something is messed up.

Yes, I referred to the damage that I consider that Graham Banks has done to this forum, my quote is below, didn’t you notice?

The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.

The final sentence of your final paragraph is another crude distortion and the final sentence of your penultimate paragraph is totally lacking in meaning.

Perhaps, my first statement was a frivolous poke at you. It was not my intent, but, it seems pretty obvious when I read it again. I just wanted to state that I believed it is of the utmost importance that people are correct before there make a decision. As is the case they are often people or moderators who decide what is allowed on the forum. Harsh action, or censorship without evidence is absurd. Yet for months this is exactly what we have seen. This is a computer chess forum, yet ask yourself this. Why have so many respected chess authors left this forum, forever ?

[K I Hyams]

Hi Matthias,

Normally, those who blindly classified Ippolit as a reverse-engineered Rybka would now be expected to simply apologize for the mess they have caused. However, if you know them well enough, expect no apologies. BB's unbelievably detailed report is proof only to those who have been genuinely seeking to know the truth.

well, first of all, like with all documents, one have to be careful, I mean there is nearly no code comparison or whatever so like with all other statements about the topic we have to trust in the author.

But of course, how likely is it that someone would create such a 33 page report just for fun ? Not very likely. To compare this all with just objdump, chapeau !
Therefor I tend to agree that it's well possible that they re-engineered parts of Rybka, but it looks like most of the code is original, using ideas of Rybka, ideas of other engines and ideas of it's own. This would make Ippolit and all it's follow-ups absolutely legal and even morally safe. For a final conclusion I would like to wait whether Vas can come up with something different, but for now I want to say sorry to the unknown authors. You might say this is just a apologize light - and you are right, but understand me that I want to wait for a statement of Vas, after that I might make a clearer statement. But I wont wait forever, let's say about a month, after that I would even allow them in official tournaments if they would come up with a real name. (E.g. if Norman or Mr. Houdart would like to take part they would need the permission of the Ippolit authors according to ICGA rules)

Greets, Thomas

This post is based on the assumption that the BB document is accurate.

I don’t think that you have much to apologise for Thomas; you said what you thought was right. Decent people say and do what they think is right. Whether or not they are right is of relatively little importance. I believe that Graham Banks also said and did what he thought was right. The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.

It is not clear what motivated the Ippolit authors to attract suspicion to themselves however, whatever it was, they do not deserve a full-blown apology and I doubt whether they are looking for one.

Vas Rajlich appears to me to now have even more explaining to do. Not only does he need to talk about possible Fruit code in Rybka, in the light of the work of Bob and Zach, he needs to talk about his behaviour regarding the Ippolit series, in the light of the work of BB. Neither job should be too demanding because, unlike Bob, Zach and BB, he has access to all of the source code that he needs.

now that is funny!

Well, I am so glad it appeals to your sense of humour. However, I don’t see your point.
It looks like I am more inclined to forgive a person who makes a wrong decision with good motives than you are. If you do have a valid point other than a puerile belief in vindictiveness, kindly explain what it is.

My statement was not an attack on anyone, or focused on any individual. However, with your logic, any action should be fine, as long as you meant well ? The point is before you make stance on an issue you should know the facts and have solid evidence. Or henceforth, one becomes a fool who is trapped within his own hypocrisy.

I have no problem with peoples opinions, but when you look at the damage that has occured to this forum, it does not take a genius to see something is messed up. But, hey I could be wrong ? Although, whether I am right or wrong is of relatively little importance. Correct ?

However, with your logic, any action should be fine, as long as you meant well ?

I neither said that nor implied it. I did however imply that in anything more sophisticated than the playground politics that you espouse, motive is a relevant consideration.

My statement was not an attack on anyone, or focused on any individual.

Statement?? What statement? Do you call the 4 words below a meaningful statement?

now that is funny!

If as you claim, it wasn’t focussed on an individual, why did you take out of context one sentence in a 3 paragraph post and direct your 4 word vacuous comment at me?

but when you look at the damage that has occured to this forum, it does not take a genius to see something is messed up.

Yes, I referred to the damage that I consider that Graham Banks has done to this forum, my quote is below, didn’t you notice?

The fact that, in the opinion of many of us, he became obsessive, out of control and therefore damaging may be another issue.

The final sentence of your final paragraph is another crude distortion and the final sentence of your penultimate paragraph is totally lacking in meaning.

Perhaps, my first statement was a frivolous poke at you. It was not my intent, but, it seems pretty obvious when I read it again. I just wanted to state that I believed it is of the utmost importance that people are correct before there make a decision. As is the case they are often people or moderators who decide what is allowed on the forum. Harsh action, or censorship without evidence is absurd. Yet for months this is exactly what we have seen. This is a computer chess forum, yet ask yourself this. Why have so many respected chess authors left this forum, forever ?

OK, fair enough. One final comment: I have good reason to believe that Graham Banks knows exactly what I think about the way in which he has behaved towards the previous moderation team, the current moderation team and our members. However, I don't think that he agrees with my assessment.

[bob]

Whoever understands the amount and types of these dissimilarities and still has the nerve to speak of cloning, has to be knowingly dishonest.

A rough comparason for non-programmers is this:

when Rybka1 was found to be bitboard-based (contrary to Fruit21), many people took that as main proof that Rybka1 could not be a clone of Fruit.

It should however be noted that the amount of effort needed to transform a Rybka3 (full C/C++ source code assumed available) to Ippolit (taking into account the amount and types of dissimilarities mentioned in the BB report) would be at least 20 times the effort to introduce bitboards into Fruit and adapt all routines affected.

Matthias.

Hello Matthias,

Is there any chance - for non-programmers like me - that you could expand on that ratio of work required?

In non-programming language as far as possible.

That is an astonishing ratio.
Later.

I believe he is under-estimating the non-bitboard to bitboard effort. I have done this in three flavors. The first was the original crafty project coming from the previous Cray Blitz mailbox approach. Big learning curve. The second was re-numbering the bits since the bits were originally numbered to be efficient on a Cray, while the program effectively became a PC-based project over time. Just changing bit numbers is a _huge_ effort. There are all sorts of bit patterns used in evaluation. Or in move generation. And if you change the bit numbers, the patterns have to change as well. And the compiler doesn't warn you which patterns are wrong. Then I changed these patterns again to get rid of the black/white duplication, and it was a significant effort. Going from non-bitboards to bitboards is a huge project, since it affects almost every part of a program... evaluation, move generation, making/unmaking moves, SEE, check/attack detection, position setup, move ordering, etc. But none of this removes the fact that the original code was copied when making those changes...

[Matthias Gemuh]

Hello Matthias,

Is there any chance - for non-programmers like me - that you could expand on that ratio of work required?

In non-programming language as far as possible.

That is an astonishing ratio.
Later.

I believe he is under-estimating the non-bitboard to bitboard effort. I have done this in three flavors. The first was the original crafty project coming from the previous Cray Blitz mailbox approach. Big learning curve. The second was re-numbering the bits since the bits were originally numbered to be efficient on a Cray, while the program effectively became a PC-based project over time. Just changing bit numbers is a _huge_ effort. There are all sorts of bit patterns used in evaluation. Or in move generation. And if you change the bit numbers, the patterns have to change as well. And the compiler doesn't warn you which patterns are wrong. Then I changed these patterns again to get rid of the black/white duplication, and it was a significant effort. Going from non-bitboards to bitboards is a huge project, since it affects almost every part of a program... evaluation, move generation, making/unmaking moves, SEE, check/attack detection, position setup, move ordering, etc. But none of this removes the fact that the original code was copied when making those changes...

The big learning curve may have applied to you as a bitboard pioneer in chess programming. My generation and younger get bitboards spoon-fed with no learning curve. Translating a non-bitboard infrastructure to a bitboard infrastructure is no big deal. The _amount_ of work to do may be high, but its _complexity_ is very low for people who think "in bitboards".

Matthias.