A Common Sense Proposal to all Vas & Rybka Doubters

[geots]

And Bob- dont try to say you are not a major player in this complete farcical attack on Vas. Yesterday, in the Rybka posts- i counted 86 threads you had made. That doesnt even include today. You are stirring the pot- keeping this alive- and 86 threads=MAJOR PLAYER!!! Anyone who cant see this is brain-dead.

[AdminX]

I'm also very confident that if he gets to the point where he finds the evidence does not support the theory he'll say so.

I've been a scientist for 15 years now, and i can say, even in the best instances, people are not motivated by some neutral desire to find the truth. People are driven to be right and they eagerly look for evidence to support the position. things are often antagonistic between the opposing sides.

Often the truth is discovered when people are angry and desire to be right.. (e.g. weren't some of newton's advances driven by his desire to prove Hook wrong).. However, it is also true that people tend to not give up their positions, even when faced with contrary evidence. They may slighly modify their theory to accomadate the evidence or simply say the evidence does not apply or is wrong.


So what I'm saying is: the odds are that neither side will ever agree that the other is right.


So what can you do? Let go of the battle, once you realize it is leading nowhere.

best
Joseph

To quote from the movie "War Games", "The Best Move is not to Play the Game", or something like that!

[kranium]

And Bob- dont try to say you are not a major player in this complete farcical attack on Vas. Yesterday, in the Rybka posts- i counted 86 threads you had made. That doesnt even include today. You are stirring the pot- keeping this alive- and 86 threads=MAJOR PLAYER!!! Anyone who cant see this is brain-dead.

George...
there's a copy of a function from rybka 1.0 beta that matches up with fruit 2.1. It's been posted here on this forum since May...long buried. the similarity is not a farce.
please make the comparison yourself...
here is a link
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

[Terry McCracken]

I'm also very confident that if he gets to the point where he finds the evidence does not support the theory he'll say so.

I've been a scientist for 15 years now, and i can say, even in the best instances, people are not motivated by some neutral desire to find the truth. People are driven to be right and they eagerly look for evidence to support the position. things are often antagonistic between the opposing sides.

Often the truth is discovered when people are angry and desire to be right.. (e.g. weren't some of newton's advances driven by his desire to prove Hook wrong).. However, it is also true that people tend to not give up their positions, even when faced with contrary evidence. They may slighly modify their theory to accomadate the evidence or simply say the evidence does not apply or is wrong.


So what I'm saying is: the odds are that neither side will ever agree that the other is right.


So what can you do? Let go of the battle, once you realize it is leading nowhere.

best
Joseph

I guess not much real science ever gets done, eh?

[bob]

Well said, Uri. And a magic word: "bitboards".

Paulo Soares

Perhaps "well said" but also "completely irrelevant. We all count using digits 0-9. We write using characters a-z and A-Z. We are not talking about copying an array that converts a square number (0-63) into an algebraic coordinate (a1-h8). We are talking about blocks of code (instructions, executable, etc) that are duplicates. All this other stuff is just nonsense.

Yes, you're talking about it and talking about it and talking about it.

Since you're talking about it so much, you must obviously have many examples of these duplicated blocks of instructional and executable code.

Where are they?

Chris, the reason why the allegations from Bob are fishy, are these: a scientist like him cant Prove by million code bits that something, his conclusions, is correct. Science means, you can disprove certain false conclusions in principle with a single bit, but you cant prove that something is true. From that angle already it's all nonsense here. What Bob and his helpers needed is that they had something to deal with - from Vas side. But he cant react on these insults and evil allegations and false factual assumptions.

Any chance you can stop trying to distort the truth and respond to what is being written? I have no "helpers". I joined the discussion when I started to read nonsense about "it is quite likely that you would find identical blocks of code here and there in a program as large as a chess engine." That is patently false. Even in specific pieces of code, such as move ordering (which Chris mentioned). I suggested we take my move ordering code, and then that someone suggest some open-source program and I will post a line-by-line comparison to see if two pieces of code that accomplish the same function have any common lines. That is easy enough to do. If fruit/strelka/rybka share common blocks of code, then it must be extremely common and most programs should exhibit the same property, correct? So name a program and let's test the hypothesis. Shoot. Name 3 open source programs. I have fruit, glaurung 1/2, arasan 9/10, gnuchess 4 and 5 (5 is probably a better choice since it is bitboard as is crafty).

Just pick one or more and let's compare. If it is that common, we must be able to find a match, right? Or is that too much "science" for you and you would prefer to hand-wave and name-call instead?

Just name the programs to compare and let's go. This is far easier than Zach's and Christophe's task, because here we have real source code, they are having to disassemble/reconstruct the C source, which is time-consuming.

Bob- give up and run for cover. You said similar crap with Ruffian a while back- so similar it is eerie. Grahams' links were mysteriously removed overnight. I dont have to have a crystal ball to see the house collapsing around you. Best to go ahead and put a fork in you- you are done.

Cute. No arguments left, eh? I did not say "similar crap" about ruffian. This particular issue never came up with comparing code. But to quote "the Rock", "I am done when I _say_ I am done."

[bob]

Now if you would do the same, this would be a shorter thread.

[bob]

OK. now we have three. Fruit and Rybka that are high-quality programs, and one "bare-bones this is how it is done" program. That is still less than 1%. setjmp() is a horrible approach to doing anything.

two, three, none, ten, schmen - so what?

Very weak ground.

If you think setjmp() in Fruit, Rybka, TSCP and who knows what else goes even one soupcon to establishing anything, let alone anything beyond a reasonable doubt, think again.

Did I _say_ it established anything beyond a reasonable doubt? I merely said "that is interesting" because it is a lousy way to write software, particularly if one plans on doing an SMP search later.

[bob]

And Bob- dont try to say you are not a major player in this complete farcical attack on Vas. Yesterday, in the Rybka posts- i counted 86 threads you had made. That doesnt even include today. You are stirring the pot- keeping this alive- and 86 threads=MAJOR PLAYER!!! Anyone who cant see this is brain-dead.

If you were less brain-dead, you would see that the focus of _my_ posts has been on trying to stop this "this is just luck" bandwagon. Luck is not a part of the potential explanation(s) for what is being discussed in this thread.

[bob]

And Bob- dont try to say you are not a major player in this complete farcical attack on Vas. Yesterday, in the Rybka posts- i counted 86 threads you had made. That doesnt even include today. You are stirring the pot- keeping this alive- and 86 threads=MAJOR PLAYER!!! Anyone who cant see this is brain-dead.

George...
there's a copy of a function from rybka 1.0 beta that matches up with fruit 2.1. It's been posted here on this forum since May...long buried. the similarity is not a farce.
please make the comparison yourself...
here is a link
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

Can you possibly explain why you want to confuse the discussion by introducing real data? that is so uncharacteristic for most of the posts here.

[bob]

Some of that is not even related to the current discussion. #3 was about a new ICC account that claimed to be a new program. We only saw a few hundred of these over the past 10 years there. There are still impossibly strong "private engines" that we all know are now just "renamed Rybka", just as we had "renamed Shredder" and "renamed Fritz" and so forth. But those are just people that want to convince others that they are an author, when they are just a user.

unrelated...