Rybka disqualified and banned from World Computer Chess Cham

[marcelk]

Hi,

2007
1st Zappa (World Champion)
2nd Loop
=3rd GridChess
=3rd Shredder

Hmm Loop is a clone too isn't it ?

Yes, my understanding is that Loop 2007 contains Fruit's evaluation. Exactly the same problem Rybka has, with even fewer modifications made to it. My expectation is that the Loop case will be addressed as well (and faster, because it is much easier to analyze).

2008

1st Hiarcs (World Champion)
2nd Junior
3rd Cluster Toga

How about Toga ?

Toga is indeed a derivative, but authorized and disclosed. It can enter tournaments where Fruit doesn't enter.

[bob]

When Vas looked at the crafty code he would have seen that TBs were avoided in the case mentioned...
so he assumed that the issue applied to the TBs being used and replicated the code in Rybka??? I don't see how this is proof of wrng doing.

If he had understood why the code was present, then he would not have copied it.

It is the copying without understanding, without authorization, and without disclosure that is the smoking gun. Bang, bang, bang.

Oh come on this is interface code - you see an implementation that makes a check and you use the same check, assuming it is required. The reason for an interface is you don't need to understand the black box in this case TB lookup. If we follow this logic everyone must create their own TBs and write their own probe code?

I am not saying Rybka did not borrow more than it should have, I just do not know, however in this case there is an innocent possibility.

IMPO

Shaun

This is not "interface code". This is inside the iterated search code in Crafty. It is code that made a critical decision when I was using Steven's files because I once lost a game before that code was added. Copying is copying. It doesn't matter _what_ you copy...

[bob]

Chess programming is becoming a dangerous pastime. We must only write 'original' codes as original as our own DNA; if luck runs out and things get similar and overlap somehow with someone else's code or DNA, possibly through the Will of God (one can only pray!), then we may be sued for prize monies we earned and splurged at Las Vegas or we sell our house.

Better don't get involved!

Rasjid.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. There are an infinite number of ways to express a specific semantic operation, when you talk about syntax. Otherwise it would be impossible to detect student plagiarism, which is definitely not the case...

[bob]

"Don't believe when you're told "There's no free lunch!" There is Linux."

That's one expensive free lunch:
http://shop.novell.com/store/novell/Dis ... ID.2872000
https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/cata ... *.4b748952
http://www.ubuntu.com/business/services/server
http://store.mandriva.com/product_info. ... cts_id=433
http://www.pantek.com/linux.php?subsect ... gwod6VF0XQ
etc.

I suppose if you make a razor and give it away and sell the blades, then the razor was free in some sense.

BTW, I am a Linux fan, and I think it is the best platform for servers available.

Just download Fedora and go. zero cost.

[bob]

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/rybka ... pionships/

In case people haven't read that.

I suppose people like Bob, Theron and Zach are happy. They managed to help get rid of competition they were never smart enough to beat. On the way out, 2 things: 1. If i wanted a world champion engine, I would never be stupid enough to get anything from Crafty. Thats's like copying from VWagen to improve a Rolls Royce. Nobody is that f***ing stupid. 2. Concerning the picture in the post with Karpov and the horse.... and the explanation of the one on the "left" and the one on the "right" would have been crucial if it had been a picture of Hyatt, Zach or Christophe and the horse was turned around. One would wonder if mods are brave enough to leave this thread. My money is on chicken-shit. Rest of my money would ride on "I don't give a rats ass."

Yep. I also fought like hell to get Slate, Thompson and Hsu kicked out as well. Particularly Hsu. Never was able to even draw his program in any event. Of course, those that know me know that is nonsense, including the three named above. We all understood the concept of "competition" as well as "friendship". And "honesty".

One can only assume you didn't like the ICGA's decision?

[bob]

For now ChessBase is still selling Rybka.

clearly, he can keep selling it.

wouldn't further action would be needed, i.e. an expensive and victorious law suit,
brought by...FSF or Ryan Benitez, or Bob Hyatt for damages...hmmm
loss of income? no i guess not

well who knows?

this however is simply a disqualification from a gaming association, a rather harsh 'slap' on the fanny, and go stand in the corner,
(thanks John Conway for the nice image and apt analogy)

sorry, but it probably won't faze them one bit IMO, and it's clearly a product for which there's a demand.

I noticed in the investigation report that two people from ChessBase were also in the panel:

Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of Chessbase News (2010-present))

Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)

It seems they were at least interested in the outcome, what they'll do I don't know.

Neither of us were on the panel. We were merely given access to the forums where the debate and analysis took place.

Then why are they using your name? did you sign or agree on the final report?

Miguel

The "secretariat" was formed by David. Three of us. The "panel" was comprised of anyone that had forum access, as anyone could make comments, suggestions, provide new information, or criticize existing information...

[bob]

A sad day for computerchess?

Perhaps it's not the best day for computer chess, but it can be a good day if the actions taken serve as a positive influence on current and future authors who might otherwise might think that they can easily get away with unauthorized cloning.

The sad thing is that if Bob were asked if parts of Crafty's code could be copied, he probably would have said yes if a reasonable acknowledgement arrangement was made.

Correct. I have given _many_ permission to use the rotated bit-board code in older versions of Crafty. And I explained my reasoning that suggested that such code was OK to borrow. But then again, when someone asked, they included an acknowledgement. Vas claimed _everything_ in his code was original and written by him...

[bob]

A sad day for computerchess?

Perhaps it's not the best day for computer chess, but it can be a good day if the actions taken serve as a positive influence on current and future authors who might otherwise might think that they can easily get away with unauthorized cloning.

The treatment of Vas is not consistent - lets now examine a few more top engines. I wonder how many would pass, who knows a few unknown authors might end up with a world title

If we can come up with a view on what can be copied / used and apply that consistently then perhaps something good will come of this mess.

Even if we assume Vas started from Fruit 2.1, something that I am not convinced of, he added over 450 elo (CCRL 40/40) over 6 years or so. This is not the same as taking an open source engine or decompiled source and making some tweaks...

Shaun

Law enforcement folks always tell the same "short story". Traffic is moving down an interstate at 85+ mph in a 70 mph speed limit zone. Trooper pulls one guy over and starts to write him a ticket. "But everybody was driving over 85 and I was just keeping up with traffic to be safer." The trooper responded "Yes, but I caught YOU."

Vas caught himself when the Strelka fiasco came to light. That started the ball rolling. Nobody is going to volunteer to disassemble every commercial engine because it is both hard and time-consuming. However, given some evidence to support a suspicion, things will happen. Problem is, most sit back and say "this isn't fair, somebody should look at every commercial program." That "somebody" could include the person writing the comment, of course...

[mwyoung]

I see the claim Vas only took code because he was Lazy, not to help Rybka's Elo. Vas only stole code that any program needed just to save time, it had nothing to do with Rybka's elo rating.

"Vasik did some copying which was wrong and he had been 'stoned' and so all's over for the copying that added no ELO"

This is not true, those people need to read the report! And stop playing spin doctor for Vas.

From the report:

2.2 Sudden Strength Increase. Early versions of Rybka had a much lower rating.
For example, in the Chesswar 7 tournament: http://www.open-aurec.com/chesswar/
Chesswar007/Chesswar007CSt.htm, Rybka had a rating estimate of only 2064 ELO
(pre-Rybka version 1.6.1 was dated 19 April 2004). In a little over a year, its rating
had jumped in Rybka 1.0 beta to 2919 ELO (http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
rating_list_all.html). Rajlich has offered no explanation for the enormous rating increase over such a short period. Historically, after the first year of development, programs
increase a maximum of 50-100 ELO per year.
2.3 Statements by Vasik Rajlich: Vasik Rajlich has made many statements about the
originality of Rybka.
In a CCC post of Dec 16 2005, Rajlich stated:
"As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework.”
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=470751.
Based on the analysis in 2.1 above, this statement is false.

In an email with Zach Wegner, Rajlich wrote:
“FWIW Vasik told me this in private correspondence:
"Rybka started as a bitboard/MTD(f)/UCI engine back in March 2003. Everything
I did after that, until today, has been incremental - although there were some
pretty sharp turns. I can't imagine ever ditching my code base."
Based on the massive changes between pre Rybka 1.6.1 and Rybka 1.0 beta
documented in 2.1 and the ICGA Wiki, this statement is false.

4. Conclusions

● Vasik Rajlich’s claims of complete originality are not borne out by the facts.
Rybka’s rapid strength growth (over 800 ELO in about one year) is largely due
to copying evaluation terms and programming methods from Fruit 2.1. Rajlich’s
claim that “Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework” is false.
The “framework” of Rybka 1.0 beta through Rybka 2.3.2a is Fruit. Rajlich’s “wild
guess” that Fruit only made Rybka 20 rating points stronger is, to put it mildly,
highly doubtful. The sudden and dramatic increase in Rybka’s playing strength
appears to be due to copying from Fruit in violation of the Fruit license.

[Dann Corbit]

Cloning that code, or any other chess-specific code, is nothing like copying a call to a general system library routine.

I don't see it as very different

Until the day comes when there's a Unix system call to probe a TB file, then it is very, very different.

Just for the record, the day in which TBs could be probed using a call to linux/unix library has come.

Gosh, I must have missed the documentation update for I can't find the man page for

Code: Select all

score = tblookup(<FEN-string>);

Maybe it's in the same section as

Code: Select all

move = ab_pvs_search(<FEN-string>, <depth>);

If there is a linux library and you can call it and get the results of a probe, then the challenge has been met. In fact, there is:
http://sites.google.com/site/gaviotache ... e/download

If you meant a system library, that is another matter. Of course, it would be rather silly to put tablebase probes into a system library.