FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[hyatt]

lol Bob, I was actually WAITING you to come up with the compiler excuse.

It's an ASSUMPTION man, deal with it.

Give it up.

For once

You state it as a 100% incontrovertible fact, which it definitely is not.

I state it as a possible explanation, which it definitely is. I don't claim it is THE CORRECT explanation, however.

I deal with the facts the code is telling me, not with your VIG fantasies.

The code is NOT telling you what you claim as fact. I gave a simple piece of C code along with the compiler output to PROVE that statement is wrong.

[hyatt]

Wasn't the topic the evaluation of the bishop pair?

What's the similarity between Fruit and Rybka?

Where is that 0.3 coming from?

They both count bishops. They both give a bonus for having two of 'em. They both have the SAME bug in that two bishops on the same color still get the bonus.

They count them differently, one by a normal count, one by a material imbalance lookup.

How hard is that???

[hyatt]

Credit BOTH of you for not having a clue about non-binary issues. It is not 100% or 0%. There ARE numbers in between the two end point extremes. SOME of us actually get that.

[Rebel]

Wasn't the topic the evaluation of the bishop pair?

What's the similarity between Fruit and Rybka?

Where is that 0.3 coming from?

Some programs are more "not equal" than others. hahahahahaha!!!

with a list of 8 programs to pair up, all the researcher need to do is find a pair which are so hacked around with the usual find-ELO desperations that the differences and stupidities zoom off into the stratosphere - and call that 0.0; then all the other pairs have to have raised numbers, even though they are still different, they are not insanely different. Hence some programs are more "not equal" than others.

"more not equal" maps to using values like 0.3 or 0.5, these are all just magical guesses for "not equal" but, eg, Faile and Crappy pair were even more "not equal" so they got the 0.0. Then we get the MAGIC TRICK. "degree of not equal" becomes "degree of similarity". hahahahaha!! clever, no? Thus two "not equal" programs are registered as "similar", and possibly "plagiarised".

Yep, with 8 engines to compare numbers have to correlate in order to make sense, in a direct compare the only thing that counts is Rybka <> Fruit at an exact understanding what the code actually evaluates, whole different game.

Yes, cunning. That was your spot. Credit to Ed for the non-obvious mathematical intuition.

If I try to put this whole thing back in a nutshell then my perception of what happened is that the initial accusers peeking into the Rybka binary found what Vas had said for years, that he took many things from Fruit and then they got all worked up by that?? Did they not believe him when he made those statements??

And in all the excitement of the discoveries they made, the emotions swollen to indescribably heights, they made statements they couldn't proof and yet threw them into the unaware and astonished audience who could not believe it and protested. But they kept on pushing the mantra that Vas copied Fruit, Theron, Zach and Bob in the lead, loud and noisy.

Zach - I came to the conclusion, after seeing what I saw, that Rybka started its life as Fruit.

Zach - It's very clear to me that the reason Rybka 1.0 was strong was that it took Fruit 2.1, tuned the parameters, made some other inconsequential changes, and sped it up quite a bit. Why anyone would want to consider Rybka an original engine in light of the pages I posted is beyond me.

Zach - it's just so obvious to me that Vas took Fruit as a base and rewrote things on top of it, presumably until he felt it was "clean".

The echo of the "conjecture" of Fabien.

And then in the end they couldn't proof it.

In the end all they have proven is that Vas spoke the truth when he on multiple occasions stated: - I took many things from Fruit.

[hyatt]

Wasn't the topic the evaluation of the bishop pair?

What's the similarity between Fruit and Rybka?

Where is that 0.3 coming from?

Some programs are more "not equal" than others. hahahahahaha!!!

with a list of 8 programs to pair up, all the researcher need to do is find a pair which are so hacked around with the usual find-ELO desperations that the differences and stupidities zoom off into the stratosphere - and call that 0.0; then all the other pairs have to have raised numbers, even though they are still different, they are not insanely different. Hence some programs are more "not equal" than others.

"more not equal" maps to using values like 0.3 or 0.5, these are all just magical guesses for "not equal" but, eg, Faile and Crappy pair were even more "not equal" so they got the 0.0. Then we get the MAGIC TRICK. "degree of not equal" becomes "degree of similarity". hahahahaha!! clever, no? Thus two "not equal" programs are registered as "similar", and possibly "plagiarised".

Yep, with 8 engines to compare numbers have to correlate in order to make sense, in a direct compare the only thing that counts is Rybka <> Fruit at an exact understanding what the code actually evaluates, whole different game.

Yes, cunning. That was your spot. Credit to Ed for the non-obvious mathematical intuition.

If I try to put this whole thing back in a nutshell then my perception of what happened is that the initial accusers peeking into the Rybka binary found what Vas had said for years, that he took many things from Fruit and then they got all worked up by that?? Did they not believe him when he made those statements??

And in all the excitement of the discoveries they made, the emotions swollen to indescribably heights, they made statements they couldn't proof and yet threw them into the unaware and astonished audience who could not believe it and protested. But they kept on pushing the mantra that Vas copied Fruit, Theron, Zach and Bob in the lead, loud and noisy.

Zach - I came to the conclusion, after seeing what I saw, that Rybka started its life as Fruit.

Zach - It's very clear to me that the reason Rybka 1.0 was strong was that it took Fruit 2.1, tuned the parameters, made some other inconsequential changes, and sped it up quite a bit. Why anyone would want to consider Rybka an original engine in light of the pages I posted is beyond me.

Zach - it's just so obvious to me that Vas took Fruit as a base and rewrote things on top of it, presumably until he felt it was "clean".

The echo of the "conjecture" of Fabien.

And then in the end they couldn't proof it.

In the end all they have proven is that Vas spoke the truth when he on multiple occasions stated: - I took many things from Fruit.

We don't disagree with the "I took many things from Fruit." That's obvious. But it could be reworded "I took TOO MUCH from Fruit". And he was too dishonest along the way about claiming everything was original, even the near clones he produced (Rybka 1.4 - 1.6.1). Your way of thinking says he could (a) copy EVERYTHING in its entirety, make one change, and it is no longer a derivative. Just one difference seems to be enough. Most of us simply disagree with that. There is also the instances of direct copying. Hashing. the go_parse() stuff with TWO 0.0 constants (you said a cat might have stepped on the keyboard, does he have TWO cats?). So there is still some original fruit stuff left, even though much of it had to be recast as bit boards which changes things. But converting from mailbox to bit board is not going to produce an original program... I've already done that once. There are likely others that did it both ways as well. The code might look vastly different. Until you look inside, carefully, which is what Zach did. And then the fingerprints/DNA/etc are visible.

You say Zach couldn't "proof it". To me it looks like he did an extremely convincing job of doing just that. Apparently to a lot of others as well. Or are you saying everyone on the panel was incompetent and just voted "guilty"???

[Chris Whittington]

Wasn't the topic the evaluation of the bishop pair?

What's the similarity between Fruit and Rybka?

Where is that 0.3 coming from?

Some programs are more "not equal" than others. hahahahahaha!!!

with a list of 8 programs to pair up, all the researcher need to do is find a pair which are so hacked around with the usual find-ELO desperations that the differences and stupidities zoom off into the stratosphere - and call that 0.0; then all the other pairs have to have raised numbers, even though they are still different, they are not insanely different. Hence some programs are more "not equal" than others.

"more not equal" maps to using values like 0.3 or 0.5, these are all just magical guesses for "not equal" but, eg, Faile and Crappy pair were even more "not equal" so they got the 0.0. Then we get the MAGIC TRICK. "degree of not equal" becomes "degree of similarity". hahahahaha!! clever, no? Thus two "not equal" programs are registered as "similar", and possibly "plagiarised".

Yep, with 8 engines to compare numbers have to correlate in order to make sense, in a direct compare the only thing that counts is Rybka <> Fruit at an exact understanding what the code actually evaluates, whole different game.

Yes, cunning. That was your spot. Credit to Ed for the non-obvious mathematical intuition.

If I try to put this whole thing back in a nutshell then my perception of what happened is that the initial accusers peeking into the Rybka binary found what Vas had said for years, that he took many things from Fruit and then they got all worked up by that?? Did they not believe him when he made those statements??

And in all the excitement of the discoveries they made, the emotions swollen to indescribably heights, they made statements they couldn't proof and yet threw them into the unaware and astonished audience who could not believe it and protested. But they kept on pushing the mantra that Vas copied Fruit, Theron, Zach and Bob in the lead, loud and noisy.

Zach - I came to the conclusion, after seeing what I saw, that Rybka started its life as Fruit.

Zach - It's very clear to me that the reason Rybka 1.0 was strong was that it took Fruit 2.1, tuned the parameters, made some other inconsequential changes, and sped it up quite a bit. Why anyone would want to consider Rybka an original engine in light of the pages I posted is beyond me.

Zach - it's just so obvious to me that Vas took Fruit as a base and rewrote things on top of it, presumably until he felt it was "clean".

The echo of the "conjecture" of Fabien.

And then in the end they couldn't proof it.

In the end all they have proven is that Vas spoke the truth when he on multiple occasions stated: - I took many things from Fruit.

We don't disagree with the "I took many things from Fruit." That's obvious. But it could be reworded "I took TOO MUCH from Fruit". And he was too dishonest along the way about claiming everything was original, even the near clones he produced (Rybka 1.4 - 1.6.1). Your way of thinking says he could (a) copy EVERYTHING in its entirety, make one change, and it is no longer a derivative. Just one difference seems to be enough. Most of us simply disagree with that. There is also the instances of direct copying. Hashing. the go_parse() stuff with TWO 0.0 constants (you said a cat might have stepped on the keyboard, does he have TWO cats?). So there is still some original fruit stuff left, even though much of it had to be recast as bit boards which changes things. But converting from mailbox to bit board is not going to produce an original program... I've already done that once. There are likely others that did it both ways as well. The code might look vastly different. Until you look inside, carefully, which is what Zach did. And then the fingerprints/DNA/etc are visible.

You say Zach couldn't "proof it". To me it looks like he did an extremely convincing job of doing just that. Apparently to a lot of others as well. Or are you saying everyone on the panel was incompetent and just voted "guilty"???

Unsurprisingly you are misinterpreting the word "take".

As in "I took many things from the jewelry counter", when actually it means "I took many things from the bible".

Get the difference? Probably not, since it doesn't fit VIG mode. Did you take many things from your education?

[Rebel]

lol Bob, I was actually WAITING you to come up with the compiler excuse.

It's an ASSUMPTION man, deal with it.

Give it up.

For once

You state it as a 100% incontrovertible fact, which it definitely is not.

I state it as a possible explanation, which it definitely is. I don't claim it is THE CORRECT explanation, however.

I deal with the facts the code is telling me, not with your VIG fantasies.

The code is NOT telling you what you claim as fact. I gave a simple piece of C code along with the compiler output to PROVE that statement is wrong.

I could suggest to Vas to make you co-author since you want to contribute code to the Rybka binary

But then again I am just curious how your brother in arms is going respond on the double pawn issue and if he does apply the same logic as you.

Lemme guess, I think not.

[Rebel]

We don't disagree with the "I took many things from Fruit." That's obvious.

No, it wasn't obvious. Like everyone else you believed that Rybka was okay and Vas didn't do anything different anyone else was doing else you wouldn't have waited for years.

But it could be reworded "I took TOO MUCH from Fruit".

See? Only after the RE work you came to that conclusion.

And it is something I have repeatedly asked and never got a good answer:

1. What is too much? And where in rule #2 is that described, defined?

2. If it's not defined, then who decides what is too much?

It's wasn't defined in the old rule #2, it still isn't in the new rule #2.

3. How much is a programmer allowed to take from an open source?

Until you have good answers rule #2 is an obstacle for progress.

You say Zach couldn't "proof it". To me it looks like he did an extremely convincing job of doing just that. Apparently to a lot of others as well. Or are you saying everyone on the panel was incompetent and just voted "guilty"???

It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is that you could not proof it. It's NOT in the verdict. And rightly so. At least that part you got right.

[hyatt]

Wasn't the topic the evaluation of the bishop pair?

What's the similarity between Fruit and Rybka?

Where is that 0.3 coming from?

Some programs are more "not equal" than others. hahahahahaha!!!

with a list of 8 programs to pair up, all the researcher need to do is find a pair which are so hacked around with the usual find-ELO desperations that the differences and stupidities zoom off into the stratosphere - and call that 0.0; then all the other pairs have to have raised numbers, even though they are still different, they are not insanely different. Hence some programs are more "not equal" than others.

"more not equal" maps to using values like 0.3 or 0.5, these are all just magical guesses for "not equal" but, eg, Faile and Crappy pair were even more "not equal" so they got the 0.0. Then we get the MAGIC TRICK. "degree of not equal" becomes "degree of similarity". hahahahaha!! clever, no? Thus two "not equal" programs are registered as "similar", and possibly "plagiarised".

Yep, with 8 engines to compare numbers have to correlate in order to make sense, in a direct compare the only thing that counts is Rybka <> Fruit at an exact understanding what the code actually evaluates, whole different game.

Yes, cunning. That was your spot. Credit to Ed for the non-obvious mathematical intuition.

If I try to put this whole thing back in a nutshell then my perception of what happened is that the initial accusers peeking into the Rybka binary found what Vas had said for years, that he took many things from Fruit and then they got all worked up by that?? Did they not believe him when he made those statements??

And in all the excitement of the discoveries they made, the emotions swollen to indescribably heights, they made statements they couldn't proof and yet threw them into the unaware and astonished audience who could not believe it and protested. But they kept on pushing the mantra that Vas copied Fruit, Theron, Zach and Bob in the lead, loud and noisy.

Zach - I came to the conclusion, after seeing what I saw, that Rybka started its life as Fruit.

Zach - It's very clear to me that the reason Rybka 1.0 was strong was that it took Fruit 2.1, tuned the parameters, made some other inconsequential changes, and sped it up quite a bit. Why anyone would want to consider Rybka an original engine in light of the pages I posted is beyond me.

Zach - it's just so obvious to me that Vas took Fruit as a base and rewrote things on top of it, presumably until he felt it was "clean".

The echo of the "conjecture" of Fabien.

And then in the end they couldn't proof it.

In the end all they have proven is that Vas spoke the truth when he on multiple occasions stated: - I took many things from Fruit.

We don't disagree with the "I took many things from Fruit." That's obvious. But it could be reworded "I took TOO MUCH from Fruit". And he was too dishonest along the way about claiming everything was original, even the near clones he produced (Rybka 1.4 - 1.6.1). Your way of thinking says he could (a) copy EVERYTHING in its entirety, make one change, and it is no longer a derivative. Just one difference seems to be enough. Most of us simply disagree with that. There is also the instances of direct copying. Hashing. the go_parse() stuff with TWO 0.0 constants (you said a cat might have stepped on the keyboard, does he have TWO cats?). So there is still some original fruit stuff left, even though much of it had to be recast as bit boards which changes things. But converting from mailbox to bit board is not going to produce an original program... I've already done that once. There are likely others that did it both ways as well. The code might look vastly different. Until you look inside, carefully, which is what Zach did. And then the fingerprints/DNA/etc are visible.

You say Zach couldn't "proof it". To me it looks like he did an extremely convincing job of doing just that. Apparently to a lot of others as well. Or are you saying everyone on the panel was incompetent and just voted "guilty"???

Unsurprisingly you are misinterpreting the word "take".

As in "I took many things from the jewelry counter", when actually it means "I took many things from the bible".

Get the difference? Probably not, since it doesn't fit VIG mode. Did you take many things from your education?

Sorry, _I_ use the definition that fits the observed evidence. There, "take" means "copy". The evidence showed that from his very first program on.

[hyatt]

We don't disagree with the "I took many things from Fruit." That's obvious.

No, it wasn't obvious. Like everyone else you believed that Rybka was okay and Vas didn't do anything different anyone else was doing else you wouldn't have waited for years.

But it could be reworded "I took TOO MUCH from Fruit".

See? Only after the RE work you came to that conclusion.

And it is something I have repeatedly asked and never got a good answer:

1. What is too much? And where in rule #2 is that described, defined?

2. If it's not defined, then who decides what is too much?

It's wasn't defined in the old rule #2, it still isn't in the new rule #2.

3. How much is a programmer allowed to take from an open source?

Until you have good answers rule #2 is an obstacle for progress.

You say Zach couldn't "proof it". To me it looks like he did an extremely convincing job of doing just that. Apparently to a lot of others as well. Or are you saying everyone on the panel was incompetent and just voted "guilty"???

It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is that you could not proof it. It's NOT in the verdict. And rightly so. At least that part you got right.

This is a misrepresentation of facts. I did NOT say I originally thought the program was clean. I DID say "I originally ignored the claim since such a claim was not exactly an infrequent occurrence, and I believe the doubt goes to the programmer until evidence suggests otherwise. I ignored the claims of copying/cheating because of what turned out to be a poor assumption, namely that Vincent (and others) were just making their usual noises about new programs that were too good to be true, and that generally hardly any claims of cheating had ever been verified. But Zach certainly convinced me otherwise. And the panel investigation was eye-opening when we started to look at the pre-1.0beta versions...

"It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is that you could not proof it"??? The evidence is overwhelming. It convinced me beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as "how much is too much"? That omission is scattered throughout the law. 1.0beta was way too close to be an accident. Way too close to be original by any definition. Perhaps rybka 3 or 4 were, we will apparently never know.