FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[hyatt]

If you guys would stop removing context, even YOU might understand the statements...

I hope you are not referring to me here. I always quote your text in full, then reply. Ie I hit the "quote" button and append my comments. I leave your text entirely alone.
An apology would too much from you, I imagine?

Did you notice WHO I quoted? Are you also known as "Rebel"?

[Chris Whittington]

If you guys would stop removing context, even YOU might understand the statements...

I hope you are not referring to me here. I always quote your text in full, then reply. Ie I hit the "quote" button and append my comments. I leave your text entirely alone.
An apology would too much from you, I imagine?

Did you notice WHO I quoted? Are you also known as "Rebel"?

You didn't "quote" anything.

I noted the use of the plural. Who else are you referring to?

[Rebel]

Rybka is NOT "different here".

What

Zach and Mark admit that in their documents.

I think he has lost the plot. His comments are just ridiculous.

It's the same with for example this assumption / accusation:

Robert Hyatt: The well-known pawn values, used by almost everyone are (a) 100, (b) 128 (deep thought, etc, making it a power of 2 to allow divisions to be replaced by shifts; (c) 256, which makes it again a perfect power of 2. Why he [Vasik Rajlich] chose 3200 is unknown, and I won't speculate very much. But we do KNOW that he obfuscated the depth and node counts (is that a VIG statement or a pure statement of FACT, BTW?). So it is not unreasonable to assume that obfuscation played a part. [ answer ]

So while unraveling the Rybka secrets via RE they (Zach and/or Mark) came accross the observation Rybka uses the quite extraordinary pawn-value of 3200 in EVAL. Ooops thinks Bob, different than in Fruit. But Vas is guilty, has to be guilty, he copied Fruit, so what's the explanation? Aha, simply use the Fabien conjecture, it's an obfuscation (!!) to hide the Fruit origin and throw it into the public to incriminate Rybka. The world according to Bob is okay again.

While if Bob had paid attention he would had noticed that at the end of EVAL the score is shifted 5 bits resulting into the normal pawn-value of 100 or 1.00. And he missed that he was an eyewitness of a brandnew idea in computer chess. 2 seperate scores, one in EVAL (3200) and one in SEARCH (100) now in use by others because Zack and Mark offered their RE work for download at the ICGA-WIKI (it's still there) and on major chess sites such as Chessvibes. [ http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/ry ... mpionships ]

In tunnel | VIG thinking 3200 means obfuscation as explanation for Bob, a bit thinking about the effects of the code reveals that a) EVAL will give better rounded 1.00 scores and b) likely it will produce more beta-cutoffs.

FACT - Rybka <> Fruit.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
-- Albert Einstein

BTW Bob, do you still think Rybka's pawn value of 3200 is an obfuscation to hide the Fruit origins?

Please. YOU took something out of context.

Nope, context is here.

Bob - He doesn't ALWAYS use 3200. He also uses 3399 [ correct ]

Bob - And yes, I'd be willing to bet that this figures into his obfuscation ideas somewhere, [ context Fruit ]

Bob - because what sense does it make to start with values that are 32x larger than normal, then shift right 5 bits at the last second??? Why not just use 100 all the way??? [ missing the idea ]

See?

You did not understand the idea Vas introduced and guessed as (of course) VIG.

Threw into the audience, people relying on your expertise.

[Rebel]

Rybka is NOT "different here".

What

Zach and Mark admit that in their documents.

Why don't you stop cutting things OUT OF CONTEXT?

The full statement:

Rybka is NOT "different here".

It's in context because Fruit <> Rybka. Thus different.

Every reason to snip.

Because it's what you often do when in trouble, start some other subject as a distraction, as below. I wil let it stand and comment to justify my snip.

In 1992 Stanback and I were talking at an ACM event and we discussed the idea of evaluating a "rook lift" since we both did it

What has this to do with the Fruit=Rybka code? Distraction perhaps?

We were talking about the idea of rook in front of pawn. What Rybka did is NO DIFFERENT that what we were doing in the early 90's to evaluate the usefulness of a "rook lift".

More distraction.

Not a MENTION of the word "fruit" in that statement.

What

Not a mention of anything related to Zach or Mark. Again, distortion.

I informed you (see above, the green) both Zach and Mark notice the difference in coding in their documents.

Look it up and admit or start a discussion with Mark

[hyatt]

If you guys would stop removing context, even YOU might understand the statements...

I hope you are not referring to me here. I always quote your text in full, then reply. Ie I hit the "quote" button and append my comments. I leave your text entirely alone.
An apology would too much from you, I imagine?

Did you notice WHO I quoted? Are you also known as "Rebel"?

You didn't "quote" anything.

I noted the use of the plural. Who else are you referring to?

Just pay attention. There WAS a quoted post. Here it is AGAIN:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebel wrote:
hyatt wrote:
Rybka is NOT "different here".

What

Zach and Mark admit that in their documents.



Why don't you stop cutting things OUT OF CONTEXT?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the post, you don't see anything quoted? What is that "Rebel wrote:" at the top, perhaps?

[Chris Whittington]

If you guys would stop removing context, even YOU might understand the statements...

I hope you are not referring to me here. I always quote your text in full, then reply. Ie I hit the "quote" button and append my comments. I leave your text entirely alone.
An apology would too much from you, I imagine?

Did you notice WHO I quoted? Are you also known as "Rebel"?

You didn't "quote" anything.

I noted the use of the plural. Who else are you referring to?

Just pay attention. There WAS a quoted post. Here it is AGAIN:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebel wrote:
hyatt wrote:
Rybka is NOT "different here".

What

Zach and Mark admit that in their documents.



Why don't you stop cutting things OUT OF CONTEXT?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the post, you don't see anything quoted? What is that "Rebel wrote:" at the top, perhaps?

I see only:

Re: FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy
Postby hyatt » Sat May 16, 2015 4:24 pm

If you guys would stop removing context, even YOU might understand the statements...
hyatt

Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham


nothing at all about "rebel wrote: or hyatt wrote:"

looks to me like you are "adding" context
and "guys" is plural.

[Rebel]

BTW Bob, do you still think Rybka's pawn value of 3200 is an obfuscation to hide the Fruit origins?

As far as his pawn value goes, I don't know (emphasis on KNOW) the reason behind it, no. There is no rational/logical explanation for such an unusual number that NOBODY else uses. Of course, internally, he quashed the number back to a normal pawn value... which certainly makes it useless.

Think a few plies deeper

To avoid the need of a calculator lets compare a pawn value in EVAL with 1000 and 100. 1000 offering a much wider choice in evaluation numbers as with 100. We have a zillion of bonuses and penalties in EVAL, all varying to our understanding of chess.

Arithmetic
Using the 100 system (say) we have 3 bonuses of (say) 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.12 = total 0.23
Using the 1000 system allows us to fine-tune these (same) values much better (say) 0.048 | 0.075 | 0129 = total = 252 / 100 = 0.25

That's 2 centipawns more secure

Imagine that with the 50-100 evaluations an average chess engine might have.

And by our experience we know that's a lot and likely will have a possitive effect on the searh speed as well.

Brilliant, yes?

[hyatt]

I made a direct statement to CW about the rook lift stuff. NOTHING to do with fruit.

[Chris Whittington]

I made a direct statement to CW about the rook lift stuff. NOTHING to do with fruit.

yes, you are stuck on the "rook lift" descriptor, which similar to Zach's comments about rook up and over to join in king attack, which he said was uncommon. You both miss the other way more important feature of the Rybka rook-pawn code, which is penetration down open file (Fruit know that too) and then swing behind enemy pawns. Which the Rybka code promotes and the Fruit code doesn't. It's also NOT at all uncommon in rook-pawn endings (which are common themselves) or rook-pawn and minor piece endings, since this can be the major purpose of the rook. Rybka KNOWS. Hyatt/Fruit/Zach/Watkins missed it. Need CHESS expertise as well as code expertise to analyse the chess code of an IM. You lacked that, hence the poor quality of your comparisons, example this case.

[Rebel]

If you want to say that "gives a bonus for being behind a pawn" that looks like pretty fanciful dreaming. Anyone can, with a little bit of reasoning, determine EXACTLY what his intent was.

And there we go again, assumptions.

FACT - Rybka <> Fruit

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
-- Mark Twain

Ed, incredibly, he hasn't even analysed correctly what the bitwise AND operations on the file are doing. So, his basic facts are false! It's impossible to discuss with him, we are on the complexities arising, and he can't even get the raw simple stuff right. Hopeless. What's happened? I used to be able to count on at least some sort of technical sense from Bob, but now?

Bob is unable to give a point to the opposition. As if the world would collapse if he did. I don't understand it.

I remember when I made my change from slightly VIG to reasonable convinced VII Bob hunted me for days as a traitor in various postings at RF. Saying things like, "Once you made a decision you stick to it". Telling.