On Vas: a Rybka users point of view

[geots]

There are a lot of would be GODS lurching here who think they know the answer to all of chess questions. They seem to think that they should be able to tell programmers what they can and can not do. They also seem to think that they can read peoples minds and read unwritten chess program codes. If they say that program A is a clone of Program B then you had better believe it as they are the Gods of chess.
Because Vas had looked at the source of another chess program that automatically makes his program a clone of sorts. I my opinion this is all a bunch of childish bull shit.
Long before that was such a thing as an 'internet' I longed for a chess program that I could play against. To be more specific one that I might have written myself. Being as there was no source of any kind that I might use a model I had to write my own from scratch, so I did. I even went so far as to release a version of it into public archives. Back then we did not have an internet but had hundreds of BBS's. The public bulitin boards were the for runners of the internet.
At that time we also had a few somewhat large computer clubs. One of those clubs was held at Stanford Linear Accelerater. It wa called the "Homebrew Computer Club" and has some members who were soon to become very famous. Both Steves, Jobs and Woziac were members and I remember when they first brought in the one board color computer which they stated would be great for playing games.
The point of this posting is that I had developed a few algorithms in my little chess program that almost every chess program written today use.
Does that mean that they are all clones of mine? I don't think so and for some others who don't have the mental capacity to write world chess playing programs of thier own should not speak out about someone elses when they don't have one iota of information about the source.
Maybe they think they are impressing every one with thier vast chess knowlege but to me they are only displaying their ignorance.
Bill

It's too bad you insist on this cloning issue which has actually not been brought up in the discussion about Fruit and Rybka.

Reusing ideas is fine and I have not seen a single post telling the contrary. Have you?

However there is an open issue about starting from a GPL source code, modifying it, and releasing it as proprietary software.



// Christophe

Tomorrow I will show you what you have written yourself. About what were not allowed and what Vas HAS done in your eyes. Strange that you cant remember, CT.

Rolf, we have all stated our opinions on this issue- most more than once. It's over now- please put it to bed and let's move on.

Best,

[tiger]

The death knell of anti computer chess has not been presented yet gentlemen..... Thesis , antithesis -synthesis. Anti computer chess will evolve as do the machines. Indeed Pablo, despite his current admissions has indeed drawn the thing in bullet (or at least come close enuff for it to become a reality and bullet in fighting computers is no small feat. Speaking of monkey time tricks and time bugs of Gui's --is not speeding up the program to play instantly (as compared to creatively) in closed (blocked positions) just a 'MACHINE monkey trick?' Hmmmmmmmmm...........

The way the antihuman Tiger does it is not really by speeding the program up but by avoiding blocked positions. If it cannot avoid it, when in time pressure it will go as far as to sacrifice a full piece to break the stonewall, which is deadly for the human playing the other side because at that point the game becomes a wild tactical storm.



// Christophe

[Father]

Christophe


Chess Tiger is a very great chess program too, but unfortunatelly it is not the number one in the list.

Comp Quarf from Mr Thomas Mayer playing against me is fantstic engine. I love it machine.

And Crafttfy by Dr. Hyatt are wonderfull games.

Junior Machine showed us a nice develoment in its moves, making nice material sacrifices for develoment.

There are other beutifull Queens like Hiarcs, Fritz, Shredder, with power superior too every human.

If you read my comments, you can see a commun idea in them. That a the top machine in first place, ca not be at same time an antiwall machine. I dont know about technics and computers science. I dont know how Vssik made his work. But I know, only for my own experience playing, that this is a new kind of engine.

I am learning a lot playing Rybka 3, and I hope to catch finally some times. But I know too, that first I must play thousands of games to do that. And I am going to try. You can be sure, that If i will be doing same against Tiger, finally I will leartning a lot about it.

I have discover now some strategic secrets of Rybka 3 playing it against the Wall. For me they are a secret, becouse of, this few weeknesses are my unique plataform to win in futuru.

[Nimzovik]

Yes..... This aspect of the debate you mention is very true ---a sacrifice to break up the stone wall. However remember Pablo found it extremly difficult to deal with tiger due to this issue. Again however is the sac sound? Would Annand refute this sac? If Anand started off playing Pablos' anti computer tactics/stonewall and waited till Tiger Sac'd (or some would say crack) just to avoid closed positions would Anand refute the sac that Pablo was not up to? This is the interesting question here. Is sacrificing just to avoid the stone wall always sound? And If sound ....then indeed the human player has perhaps succeeded in limiting the computer's options and can then begin serious preperations for the limited possibilities that is available to the computerdue to choice of opening. In short He (the human) can prepare (perhaps relatively easily) for his machine opponent just as GMs prepare for thier human opponents. Hmmmmmmm

[George Tsavdaris]

First of all I'd like to say the Vas as well as Larry Kaufman are two outstanding indivisuals of High Chracter. Although there has been several rude accusations against Vas, I have yet to see him strike back in anger or open his mouth at all. I don't think he really has to because the strength of his programs says it all.

Your statement is exactly the kind I was reacting against in another thread.

It was the (much flamed) message about Mr Right.

There is the unconscious misconception that the one who is successful is also of high moral value, which leads many to defend her/him without actually studying carefully what is said.

And how do you know that they haven't studied carefully what is said?
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said.
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said, agreed with him(so disagreed with you) and defend him.

What you propose here is that people are shallow-brained and their behavior is shallow and they just behave with emotions and not by actually thinking too much, in contrast with you that you think deeply.

I don't think you are authorized from anyone to define what is right and what is wrong.
I also think you are not authorized from anyone to define with what way the acts and thoughts of people came.

In short: Don't underestimate other people's intelligence because you disagree with them.....

[tiger]

First of all I'd like to say the Vas as well as Larry Kaufman are two outstanding indivisuals of High Chracter. Although there has been several rude accusations against Vas, I have yet to see him strike back in anger or open his mouth at all. I don't think he really has to because the strength of his programs says it all.

Your statement is exactly the kind I was reacting against in another thread.

It was the (much flamed) message about Mr Right.

There is the unconscious misconception that the one who is successful is also of high moral value, which leads many to defend her/him without actually studying carefully what is said.

And how do you know that they haven't studied carefully what is said?
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said.
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said, agreed with him(so disagreed with you) and defend him.

What you propose here is that people are shallow-brained and their behavior is shallow and they just behave with emotions and not by actually thinking too much, in contrast with you that you think deeply.

I don't think you are authorized from anyone to define what is right and what is wrong.
I also think you are not authorized from anyone to define with what way the acts and thoughts of people came.

In short: Don't underestimate other people's intelligence because you disagree with them.....

I believe that he has not studied the matter I had brought up and that he was reacting to.

And he has shown that he didn't have the right information about Chess Tiger. So I gave the correct information.

I don't underestimate the intelligence of the poster. However I see that he considers that playing strength is an answer to anything I could say. How can this be?

There is no discussion at all here. The most prominent argument of the poster is simply "the strength of his programs says it all".

Do you support this point of view?



// Christophe

[George Tsavdaris]

First of all I'd like to say the Vas as well as Larry Kaufman are two outstanding indivisuals of High Chracter. Although there has been several rude accusations against Vas, I have yet to see him strike back in anger or open his mouth at all. I don't think he really has to because the strength of his programs says it all.

Your statement is exactly the kind I was reacting against in another thread.

It was the (much flamed) message about Mr Right.

There is the unconscious misconception that the one who is successful is also of high moral value, which leads many to defend her/him without actually studying carefully what is said.

And how do you know that they haven't studied carefully what is said?
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said.
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said, agreed with him(so disagreed with you) and defend him.

What you propose here is that people are shallow-brained and their behavior is shallow and they just behave with emotions and not by actually thinking too much, in contrast with you that you think deeply.

I don't think you are authorized from anyone to define what is right and what is wrong.
I also think you are not authorized from anyone to define with what way the acts and thoughts of people came.

In short: Don't underestimate other people's intelligence because you disagree with them.....

I believe that he has not studied the matter I had brought up and that he was reacting to.

No, previously you didn't speak only for him. You generalized and spoke about many that defends Vasik: "which leads many to defend".

You took one example(that actually you can't prove, that he has not studied the matter), one person, generalized it and made it "MANY people".

This makes your point stronger but it's wrong.

And he has shown that he didn't have the right information about Chess Tiger. So I gave the correct information.

This is irrelevant to the point i was referring.

I don't underestimate the intelligence of the poster. However I see that he considers that playing strength is an answer to anything I could say. How can this be?

I see it too and i find it wrong.
But i will not say that most people are this way.

There is no discussion at all here. The most prominent argument of the poster is simply "the strength of his programs says it all".

Do you support this point of view?

It's logical that i don't agree at all with this.
Even if someone writes a program 500 points stronger than Rybka 3, if he says for example that minimax is better than alpha-beta, then obviously he is wrong.

A correct or not statement does not depend on the person who says it or on the success of a product of that person.

[tiger]

First of all I'd like to say the Vas as well as Larry Kaufman are two outstanding indivisuals of High Chracter. Although there has been several rude accusations against Vas, I have yet to see him strike back in anger or open his mouth at all. I don't think he really has to because the strength of his programs says it all.

Your statement is exactly the kind I was reacting against in another thread.

It was the (much flamed) message about Mr Right.

There is the unconscious misconception that the one who is successful is also of high moral value, which leads many to defend her/him without actually studying carefully what is said.

And how do you know that they haven't studied carefully what is said?
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said.
Perhaps they studied carefully what he said, agreed with him(so disagreed with you) and defend him.

What you propose here is that people are shallow-brained and their behavior is shallow and they just behave with emotions and not by actually thinking too much, in contrast with you that you think deeply.

I don't think you are authorized from anyone to define what is right and what is wrong.
I also think you are not authorized from anyone to define with what way the acts and thoughts of people came.

In short: Don't underestimate other people's intelligence because you disagree with them.....

I believe that he has not studied the matter I had brought up and that he was reacting to.

No, previously you didn't speak only for him. You generalized and spoke about many that defends Vasik: "which leads many to defend".

You took one example(that actually you can't prove, that he has not studied the matter), one person, generalized it and made it "MANY people".

This makes your point stronger but it's wrong.

And he has shown that he didn't have the right information about Chess Tiger. So I gave the correct information.

This is irrelevant to the point i was referring.

I don't underestimate the intelligence of the poster. However I see that he considers that playing strength is an answer to anything I could say. How can this be?

I see it too and i find it wrong.
But i will not say that most people are this way.

There is no discussion at all here. The most prominent argument of the poster is simply "the strength of his programs says it all".

Do you support this point of view?

It's logical that i don't agree at all with this.
Even if someone writes a program 500 points stronger than Rybka 3, if he says for example that minimax is better than alpha-beta, then obviously he is wrong.

A correct or not statement does not depend on the person who says it or on the success of a product of that person.

I must say that even knowing that you disagree with me, you will not contradict all my arguments just to contradict me.

This is a wise way of exchanging ideas and I respect you for doing so.



// Christophe