Komodo - Rybka in Danger?

[Albert Silver]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

[Don]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

Vas has no way to prove anything publicly without giving away his source code.

No one seems to think he has that right to keep his own code secret.

Of course he could show you sections of that code, in which case you will say that he faked it. The best he can do is what he has already done.

To me this has been a terrible injustice to Vas, it's like getting robbed, and then having a different gang of thugs come after you with baseball bats.

[Albert Silver]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

As far as I know Vas still has code that is closed source, so he has not way to prove anything publicly without giving away his source code.

Of course nobody seems to think he has that right to keep his own code secret.

Of course he could show you sections of that code, in which case you will say that he faked it.

So you guys are being jerks by demanding that he reveal his proof to you and casting him as a false accuser and unethical. The victim is the unethical one because he will not make his code public to you.

You guys?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

As far as I know Vas still has code that is closed source, so he has not way to prove anything publicly without giving away his source code.

Of course nobody seems to think he has that right to keep his own code secret.

Of course he could show you sections of that code, in which case you will say that he faked it.

So you guys are being jerks by demanding that he reveal his proof to you and casting him as a false accuser and unethical. The victim is the unethical one because he will not make his code public to you.

But he said lately that he doesn't have Rybka 3 code anymore hence not releasing Rybka 3+
What's going on here,you lie and then you forge that you've lied and get yourself in a messy situation

Please don'r offend the respected members here by calling them jerks just because they want eveidence and your friend Vasik is a liar that can't provide one....
Dr.D

[lkaufman]

PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:09 pm Post subject: Re: Komodo - Rybka in Danger?

slobo wrote:

"2. the presence of these tables is sufficient to call Ippolit derivates clones?

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?"

Regarding point 2, I prefer to use the term "derivative" rather than clone since they are not identical, but slightly modified.
Regarding point 3, I don't know anything about the differences between Fruit and Rybka 1, as I joined Rybka in the middle of Rybka 2. But I can say that the Rybka 3 eval is quite different in most respects from the eval when I joined the team, as I was given full responsibility for all numerical values of existing terms as well as proposing the huge number of new terms added to make Rybka 3. So regardless of any similarities in the eval that may or may not exist between Rybka 1 and Fruit, the eval in Rybka 3 is original work, Vas doing the coding and I setting the values. It was my opinion that the eval in Rybka 1 was in general quite poor (Vas disagrees with this) and so I basically discarded most of it.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

As far as I know Vas still has code that is closed source, so he has not way to prove anything publicly without giving away his source code.

Of course nobody seems to think he has that right to keep his own code secret.

Of course he could show you sections of that code, in which case you will say that he faked it.

So you guys are being jerks by demanding that he reveal his proof to you and casting him as a false accuser and unethical. The victim is the unethical one because he will not make his code public to you.

You guys?

I told you Albert,it's a whole sect with vicious sectarians in it
Thanks God he didn't wrote you gays
Dr.D

[Albert Silver]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

As far as I know Vas still has code that is closed source, so he has not way to prove anything publicly without giving away his source code.

Of course nobody seems to think he has that right to keep his own code secret.

Of course he could show you sections of that code, in which case you will say that he faked it.

So you guys are being jerks by demanding that he reveal his proof to you and casting him as a false accuser and unethical. The victim is the unethical one because he will not make his code public to you.

You guys?

I told you Albert,it's a whole sect with vicious sectarians in it
Thanks God he didn't wrote you gays
Dr.D

Well, the problem is that he quotes my post when stating "you guys", which makes it sound as if I'm one of the detractors.

[Graham Banks]

You guys?

I think that Don misread your post and your intentions. He therefore edited his reply.

[Don]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

As far as I know Vas still has code that is closed source, so he has not way to prove anything publicly without giving away his source code.

Of course nobody seems to think he has that right to keep his own code secret.

Of course he could show you sections of that code, in which case you will say that he faked it.

So you guys are being jerks by demanding that he reveal his proof to you and casting him as a false accuser and unethical. The victim is the unethical one because he will not make his code public to you.

You guys?

I'm from the U.S. Midwest and that is a term in common usage. Is this what your argument comes down to, making fun of someones grammer?

[Graham Banks]

I'm from the U.S. Midwest and that is a term in common usage. Is this what your argument comes down to, making fun of someones grammer?

Albert is actually supporting your stance Don. He believes that Vas has been stiffed also.

Cheers,
Graham.