To campaign or not

[bob]

Enrique made me aware of this thread and it made me subscribe again to CCC as I have been the victim of a similar accusation back in 1994 with (the commercial) REBEL-6 when the program was accused of having manipulated a then popular rating test. I tell you it was ugly. But at least the accusers got it right, very good detective work, they came with 100% proof except that they judged my intentions wrong. I immediately pleaded guilty. You see, that's what proof does.

I remember that one. Wasn't it Rebel 8? You had been testing some variant of knight maneuvering code, which solved one of the test positions (Nd1-e3-f5 or something) in 1-2 seconds. You had forgotten to leave this out in the final version and along came the onslaught.

I think most accepted your explanation. I know I did. It was a bit "in the face" to be some dastardly plan after all....

Albert

Nope. What happened was that most programs back then put on the front of the boxes "solves 21 of the BK positions, or solves 6 of the XYZ positions, etc." Someone noticed that Rebel would solve the position correctly, but that if you reversed the pieces and made it black to move it would not. Or if you change the position of an unrelated pawn, or you mirror the position right-to-left. It turned out to be a built-in positional learning data that had results for those positions.

Yes, now I remember. I only remembered one of the positions, but not the precise details. Only that it had been an unintentional gaffe.

Some thought it was an attempt to do better on certain test suites. I didn't follow it very closely as I didn't care. I can tell you I removed positional learning in Crafty fairly recently because I got tired of all the testing mistakes it caused. Play two long matches and forget to erase positional learning and you get different results.

Yes, when testing using an openings suite, I am always careful to disable book learning to prevent any issues. I never know if this is necessary, but it certainly can't hurt.

I recall when I first saw learning in a Fidelity stand-alone. Maybe '88 or '89. Its book stopped 2 moves early in a main line of the Italian, and it would get clobbered by not knowing the next two essential moves. I played the line against it some 15 times in blitz, fascinated as it tried a new move every game, until it finally knew the correct two moves. This was new, and I recall being impressed.

All I can say is that it caused me much trouble when I would forget. And that would usually be when I moved to a new test machine. It caused me much trouble with users who would complain "OK, I know SMP search changes the answers on occasion, but your program changes the answers often and I only have one cpu, why?" And it was always positional learning. I had done that to avoid the repeated game syndrome we all fear. Turns out you can't repeat a game if you try, so it seemed reasonable to get rid of it.

[Graham Banks]

My POV:

Without the source code of Rybka any "comparision" would be pointless. So to prove any possible GPL infringement would be impossible "beyond any reasonnable doubt".

Because we all now know that FSF has the copyright of Fruit 2.1, I think it would be logical if any further steps are in their, FSF, responsibility.

So let them do their work (if they find there is something to do, of course).

Actually, you have a good point.

Most chesstournements say the programmer has to show his sourcecode when accused of not being original work.

I'll make sure next time when I'm participating at a tournement ( and Rybka is) , I'll file this complaint. It's the easiest way of checking wether the situation still exists.

Tony

With all due respect Tony, isn't your engine private?
If so, that doesn't put yourself in a very good position to accuse others of hiding things.

Regards, Graham.

[Zach Wegner]

Ed,

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Of course, I completely agree. Proof should be posted. But there are a couple of things you don't understand.

1. I was not the one who started this, and only got involved once the flamewars started.
2. When I got involved, just by adding simple opinions, numerous people started clamoring for evidence. So I began to collect it, and post it as it came. Of course I got incessantly flamed for doing so anyway.

I'm not really sure why you feel the need to take my posts out of context and use them to single me out. The people I was responding to simply said that I was conducting myself with a level of maturity above many others here. If you do not agree, I do not see why you have to start a new thread about it.

Your friend Enrique tried to argue with me about this on the Rybka forum. He said "So self-servingly touchy about your name and cheerfully disrespectful of Vas, whose name is really being dragged down by all this. A bit too devoid of thought, don't you think?"

I asked him to provide an instance where I was disrespectful of Vas, and apparently he cannot find one.

You see, I AM collecting evidence, and we ARE in the process of creating a web page. Even then, I think your insistence on proper "due process" is a bit unnecessary. After all, if this debate didn't come up here, I wouldn't be involved at all. Many other respected programmers wouldn't have given their input.

Maybe you have noticed that the actual debating has taken very little space here. From what I have posted, massive flamewars have erupted. Where people say I am wrong, I try to defend myself. When people say I am envious, I try to defend myself. Whenever people say the numerous other things they have said to try to defame me, detract from my points, and drown out intelligent conversations, you're damn right I will try to defend myself. If you think that that constitutes waging a campaign, I will not argue.

But still, for some reason, you felt the need to call me out specifically and act as if this whole debacle should rest on my shoulders. I will note that a ridiculous thread has been posted in the Rybka forum, "Ed Schroder's lesson for Zach Wegner". Perhaps this is the outcome you intended. If so, I applaud your ability to further detract from any logical discussion.

I am the only one who is reverse engineering Rybka right now to my knowledge, not in an attempt to defame anyone, but because I am personally interested in the truth. The people on this forum are very impatient and have continued to poke me about it. But this debate crap is really too much. I am going to post one more piece of evidence here, and that is because some of the disassembly I posted before has been disputed or said to be irrelevant. After that, I will stay quiet about this issue for a while, discussing in less hostile environments. I made this decision long before you made your post, BTW.

I also am getting pretty tired of people bringing up my age. It happens again and again. For quite a while my age was not well known at all in this community. And guess what, nobody noticed. This is not directed at you specifically, but I have seen it brought up several times in the past week or so.

I too, hope this makes some sense to you. I do respect you and your opinion, but I think at this point it just adds to the chaos. I am positive that I will have yet another onslaught of flames against me for even questioning your judgment, but I hope that at least my point gets across to you personally.

Regards,
Zach

[Gerd Isenberg]

My POV:

Without the source code of Rybka any "comparision" would be pointless. So to prove any possible GPL infringement would be impossible "beyond any reasonnable doubt".

Because we all now know that FSF has the copyright of Fruit 2.1, I think it would be logical if any further steps are in their, FSF, responsibility.

So let them do their work (if they find there is something to do, of course).

Actually, you have a good point.

Most chesstournements say the programmer has to show his sourcecode when accused of not being original work.

I'll make sure next time when I'm participating at a tournement ( and Rybka is) , I'll file this complaint. It's the easiest way of checking wether the situation still exists.

Tony

With all due respect Tony, isn't your engine private?
If so, that doesn't put yourself in a very good position to accuse others of hiding things.

Regards, Graham.

Wrong implication on purpose.

There are a lot of private engines around. Playing lots of otb-tournaments here in Europe. There are discussions between programmers, also a kind of "social" control - some share ideas. That is also why we prefer programmers as operators.

My engine is either private or commercial. I am always ready to show and explain my source code if necessary. Same is true for others, specially for Tony.

[Graham Banks]

My POV:

Without the source code of Rybka any "comparision" would be pointless. So to prove any possible GPL infringement would be impossible "beyond any reasonnable doubt".

Because we all now know that FSF has the copyright of Fruit 2.1, I think it would be logical if any further steps are in their, FSF, responsibility.

So let them do their work (if they find there is something to do, of course).

Actually, you have a good point.

Most chesstournements say the programmer has to show his sourcecode when accused of not being original work.

I'll make sure next time when I'm participating at a tournement ( and Rybka is) , I'll file this complaint. It's the easiest way of checking wether the situation still exists.

Tony

With all due respect Tony, isn't your engine private?
If so, that doesn't put yourself in a very good position to accuse others of hiding things.

Regards, Graham.

Wrong implication on purpose.

There are a lot of private engines around. Playing lots of otb-tournaments here in Europe. There are discussions between programmers, also a kind of "social" control - some share ideas. That is also why we prefer programmers as operators.

My engine is either private or commercial. I am always ready to show and explain my source code if necessary. Same is true for others, specially for Tony.

Fair enough. Then I apologise to Tony.

[chrisw]

Ed,

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Of course, I completely agree. Proof should be posted. But there are a couple of things you don't understand.

1. I was not the one who started this, and only got involved once the flamewars started.
2. When I got involved, just by adding simple opinions, numerous people started clamoring for evidence. So I began to collect it, and post it as it came. Of course I got incessantly flamed for doing so anyway.

Well you better watch out and start learning some politics fast. Usually there's a fall guy.

Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

Seems to imply this all started because of Zach's intent. N'est ce pas?

I challenged it where it was posted, but, unsurprisingly, no response.

[rebel777]

I simply factored in what I know of the discussion, as I was there. Others found this behavior and offered 100% proof that something was wrong. What Ed means by "I found 100% proof" I am not sure, unless he is talking about something else entirely. The users offered the proof for the test suite that was being discussed at the time.

The _users_ made it public. And then Ed offered an explanation. It actually _was_ that simple. And it was made public before an explanation from Ed was available, just as what has happened here.

It was not new, it was first published in an Austrian magazine (MODUL) and later copy-cat in the German magazine (CSS), the year was 1994. 2 years later (1996) the issue popped-up into RGCC.

Ed

[chrisw]

Well you better watch out and start learning some politics fast. Usually there's a fall guy.

What has he to be afraid of? It's like writing a book on Rybka internals.

Again trying to intimidate him.

Well, that's the uncharitable view. Actually, given his age (which I know he doesn't like being dragged up, however) and the fact that he probably meant well in the first place, I am actually, paternalistcially and perhaps stupdily trying to give him some protection from the big bad beasts out there who are already running to protect themselves. imo. Anyway, the advice is given now, no need to say it again.

Think your worst if you want, seems to be your forte.

[henkf]

funny, apparently both Ed and Bob are just skimming posts. Bob wrongly assumes that the 100% and 95% remark was about the Rebel 'case', while Ed still assumes that Bob is talking about the MChess case

[Terry McCracken]

Ed,

Thanks for the support guys.

Well, you don't have mine

It's good to know that there's a bit of common sense left on this forum.

Common sense is that you provide proof. I am sorry but you have not. When you attack do it right, with proof else it will backfire on you, as it does now. The rule innocent until proven applies.

Of course, I completely agree. Proof should be posted. But there are a couple of things you don't understand.

1. I was not the one who started this, and only got involved once the flamewars started.
2. When I got involved, just by adding simple opinions, numerous people started clamoring for evidence. So I began to collect it, and post it as it came. Of course I got incessantly flamed for doing so anyway.

Well you better watch out and start learning some politics fast. Usually there's a fall guy.

Zach's intent was to start a discussion where others could help, in a forum known for having lots of technical expertise around (not to mention lots of idiots, vitriol and such of course).

Seems to imply this all started because of Zach's intent. N'est ce pas?

I challenged it where it was posted, but, unsurprisingly, no response.

This all came about due to Christophe's post questioning if Vas breached the GPL Agreement.

There was no crime in asking the question and there's no reason for them to make Zack a fall guy.

However, you're obfuscation of the facts would imply otherwise.

In fact you have played a major role imo to revile Zach when you pretend to do him a service.

This is beneath contempt!

Opprobrious Regards.....