Ed Do you really think this is an answer?

[JcMaTe]

- - By bob (*****) [us] Date 2012-01-08 20:01
Ed suggested I post here, so here is question 1.

You have repeatedly claimed that ALL versions of Rybka were original, including the early versions that pre-dated Fruit. Can you offer any explanation for the findings of the ICGA panel regarding Rybka 1.4 thru 1.6.1 and Crafty 19.x? There are MANY identical sections of code in both. Some of the code was utterly useless in both because Edwards tablebases were not available after Nalimov came out. Some of the code was vestigial in Crafty, left over from previous versions. The infamous

int ms=EvaluateMate(tree);
if (ms == 99999) break;

Yet if you look at EvaluateMate, it can NEVER return 99999. At one point it could, but that slipped by me as I released 18.0 (it was an early approach that I changed for efficiency, but forgot to remove that test.) This is the same code that uncovered El Chinito as a Crafty clone, which was a thread on CCC that you once posted in.

There are many other examples. For example, code in iterate.c to avoid egtb probes in KPKP ONLY, when the two pawns were on adjacent files and one of them was on its original square. Steven't EGTBs did not consider en passant, so it was unsafe to probe if an ep capture was possible.

There are dozens of other identical things between the two programs.

So, exactly what gives? You entered these versions in CCT, which had the originality requirement. You submitted them to others (such as ChessWar) which also expected original programs. Can you explain that, as a first step. It looks really ugly.

By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) [pl] Date 2012-01-08 20:16
Bob,

I'm not going to go into this today. My view is that these are private versions which are my private business. This is something for another day.

Vas

Ed assuming you're smart is this a reply to a question?
just say yes or no

[hyatt]

- - By bob (*****) [us] Date 2012-01-08 20:01
Ed suggested I post here, so here is question 1.

You have repeatedly claimed that ALL versions of Rybka were original, including the early versions that pre-dated Fruit. Can you offer any explanation for the findings of the ICGA panel regarding Rybka 1.4 thru 1.6.1 and Crafty 19.x? There are MANY identical sections of code in both. Some of the code was utterly useless in both because Edwards tablebases were not available after Nalimov came out. Some of the code was vestigial in Crafty, left over from previous versions. The infamous

int ms=EvaluateMate(tree);
if (ms == 99999) break;

Yet if you look at EvaluateMate, it can NEVER return 99999. At one point it could, but that slipped by me as I released 18.0 (it was an early approach that I changed for efficiency, but forgot to remove that test.) This is the same code that uncovered El Chinito as a Crafty clone, which was a thread on CCC that you once posted in.

There are many other examples. For example, code in iterate.c to avoid egtb probes in KPKP ONLY, when the two pawns were on adjacent files and one of them was on its original square. Steven't EGTBs did not consider en passant, so it was unsafe to probe if an ep capture was possible.

There are dozens of other identical things between the two programs.

So, exactly what gives? You entered these versions in CCT, which had the originality requirement. You submitted them to others (such as ChessWar) which also expected original programs. Can you explain that, as a first step. It looks really ugly.

By Vasik Rajlich (Silver) [pl] Date 2012-01-08 20:16
Bob,

I'm not going to go into this today. My view is that these are private versions which are my private business. This is something for another day.

Vas

Ed assuming you're smart is this a reply to a question?
just say yes or no

You MUST learn how to phrase the question so that you get an answer that is useful.

For example, the answer to your question as phrased is "yes". Had you instead asked "Ed assuming you're smart, is this a USEFUL reply to a question?" Then the answer would clearly be "no". I didn't think he would answer. I was not disappointed. But I thought I would try, just to show that Ed gets tricked by them as well, but he will keep going back for more.