What do you folks make of this?

[Robert Flesher]

Reading the forums regarding the Ipp* and family issue lead me to a very interesting post from Vas himself , this is a direct copy from the Rybka forum :

By Vasik Rajlich Date 2008-08-25 12:29 This discussion looks like a complete mess, I see wild statements like:


> --I noted earlier that the history initialization was different. Strelka and Rybka 1.0 are the same here, using memset(History, 256, 12 * 64 * sizeof(int)); But what I didn't notice is, 256 is out of range for an unsigned char. So that code is the same as Fruit's memset(History, 0, 12 * 64 * sizeof(int)); Why would Rybka 1.0 have 256? Is it the optimizer gone wild, or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation?


Maybe somebody can summarize the points.

Generally, code theft is easy to show - just show the two sections of identical code, side-by-side. There isn't much to debate in such cases. Rybka is of course original (with some accepted exceptions like bit scans & bit counters, etc). Strelka contains Rybka code. Whether Strelka also contains Fruit code, I don't know and don't really care.

Re. algorithms and structures - sure, you'll get a lot of similarity between programs. Take something like "modern move ordering" - by this, I mean hash move, non-losing captures (by MVV/LVA), killers, non-captures, and losing captures. The chance of two programmers settling on this independently is more or less zero.


Here we have a statement from Vas himself saying how easy it is to prove that the Ipp* and other are clones. Yet he has not done this ? I know some will say, "why should Vas have to do this ? " I answer, what harm can be done ? If they are truly clones, the open source of the Rybka code if already available all over the internet. Logically, it cannot make any sense. However, what does make appear to make sense is that this same conclusion that Vas came to also applies to parts of Rybka being a direct copy of Fruit. This would indeed explain his reluctance to come forth with evidence.

This is just one possibility among many, maybe Vas will still explain. I will not hold my breath.

[Sven]

Your post would be easier to read, and also to reply to, if you would clearly separate the quoted parts from your own comments, and if you would also make clear what is quoted from whom (in case there sevaral persons involved like in this case).

Also, in general using extraordinary highlighting like bold face or bigger font size does not necessarily make a post easier to understand.

So may I kindly ask you to repost, please, for these two reasons?

Sven

[Robert Flesher]

Reading the forums regarding the Ipp* and family issue lead me to a very interesting post from Vas himself , this is a direct copy from the Rybka forum :

By Vasik Rajlich Date 2008-08-25 12:29 This discussion looks like a complete mess, I see wild statements like:


> --I noted earlier that the history initialization was different. Strelka and Rybka 1.0 are the same here, using memset(History, 256, 12 * 64 * sizeof(int)); But what I didn't notice is, 256 is out of range for an unsigned char. So that code is the same as Fruit's memset(History, 0, 12 * 64 * sizeof(int)); Why would Rybka 1.0 have 256? Is it the optimizer gone wild, or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation?


Maybe somebody can summarize the points.

"Generally, code theft is easy to show - just show the two sections of identical code, side-by-side. There isn't much to debate in such cases. Rybka is of course original (with some accepted exceptions like bit scans & bit counters, etc). Strelka contains Rybka code. Whether Strelka also contains Fruit code, I don't know and don't really care. "

Re. algorithms and structures - sure, you'll get a lot of similarity between programs. Take something like "modern move ordering" - by this, I mean hash move, non-losing captures (by MVV/LVA), killers, non-captures, and losing captures. The chance of two programmers settling on this independently is more or less zero.



My statements, although I thought it was obvious.

Here we have a statement from Vas himself saying how easy it is to prove that the Ipp* and other are clones. Yet he has not done this ? I know some will say, "why should Vas have to do this ? " I answer, what harm can be done ? If they are truly clones, the open source of the Rybka code if already available all over the internet. Logically, it cannot make any sense. However, what does make appear to make sense is that this same conclusion that Vas came to also applies to parts of Rybka being a direct copy of Fruit. This would indeed explain his reluctance to come forth with evidence.

This is just one possibility among many, maybe Vas will still explain. I will not hold my breath.

[gerold]

Fruit=Rybka(Strelka)=Ippo family.= The next clones.

All this is well known.

Best,
Gerold.

[Sean Evans]

Fruit=Rybka(Strelka)=Ippo family.= The next clones.

All this is well known.

Best,
Gerold.

If it is so well known, then why is Rybka allowed to play at the WCCC as an original work

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/t ... php?id=209

Cordially,

Sean

[CRoberson]

Fruit=Rybka(Strelka)=Ippo family.= The next clones.

All this is well known.

Best,
Gerold.

When somebody says "Rybka", I think of R3 and R4. There exist claims that Rybka 1 has Fruit code. I have not seen any claims that R3 and/or R4 has Fruit code.

It is ok to glean concepts, but not code with some exceptions. It is R4 that enters tournaments not R1.

[Marek Soszynski]

It is R4 that enters tournaments not R1.

Would you make the same distinction between Houdini or Firebird and Ippolit? Just as R4 has diverged from and progressed since R1, so have Houdini and Firebird since Ippolit.

[Roger Brown]

It is R4 that enters tournaments not R1.

Would you make the same distinction between Houdini or Firebird and Ippolit? Just as R4 has diverged from and progressed since R1, so have Houdini and Firebird since Ippolit.

Hello Marek,

[sarcasm on]

Do not be ridiculous!

After all, those other Fire* and Hou* things are written by well known...uh, no-one knows who they are, correct?

Well then, it is proven that they are clones....uh, well at least Vas has said so!

Please, expecting consistency is too much to ask for.

The goal post keeps shifting and it will shift again. First it was nothing in Rybka 1 owes anything to Fruit, 100 percent original.

Then maybe some (unknown) percentage.

Then there is no Fruit in Rybka 3 or 4.

Sigh.

The distinction will not be made. I will put money on it...

Later.

[Rolf]

Fruit=Rybka(Strelka)=Ippo family.= The next clones.

All this is well known.

Best,
Gerold.

That is allegedly know but it's still crap. Please read how ChrisW refutates everything what Zach had to demonstrate on his webpage. I am thankful to Chrles Robertson who seems to have kept cool during the year-long campaign against Rybka and Vas.

Ok, dont take me wrong, I have no tech expertise at all but as an interdisciplinary motivated member and with my academic study experiences I can understand the difference of conjectures and refutations. Believe it or not, Bob with his belief is refutated.

[bob]

Fruit=Rybka(Strelka)=Ippo family.= The next clones.

All this is well known.

Best,
Gerold.

When somebody says "Rybka", I think of R3 and R4. There exist claims that Rybka 1 has Fruit code. I have not seen any claims that R3 and/or R4 has Fruit code.

It is ok to glean concepts, but not code with some exceptions. It is R4 that enters tournaments not R1.

For the record, what is the chance that version N+1 contains _ZERO_ code from version N? I still have code in Crafty that came directly from Cray Blitz, which dates back to the early 70's and Blitz.

There is nothing that says that R4 is completely new. And most any decent programmer would realize it almost certainly is not. I change major version numbers when there is a significant internal difference, not because of 100% rewrites. Some major versions were done because of book incompatibilities. Some because the bits were renumbered from Cray to Intel ordering. But there has been no complete rewrite in Crafty in the 15+ years it has been playing. So what would make anyone believe this happened over a much shorter period of time with Rybka? Makes absolutely no sense to me.