OpenChess

The Rybka Investigation: A Survey Of Evidence From Both Perspectives

The purpose of this exposition (which, given its intended neutral position, is most likely
to be quickly forgotten) is to collect, into one place, all evidence presented in this
debate by both sides. The debate has been conducted across at least 3 forums, with the
evidence/counterevidence spread among these forums, the ICGA investigation wiki, the
ChessBase website, Ed Schröder's website, and Mark Watkins' PDF reports. To counteract this
dispersion, I am attempting (perhaps futilely) to bring focus to the debate and to provide
a commentary for the general observer, while remaining neutral. None of the commentary on
the investigation and subsequent debate has provided a neutral point of view, either out of
choice/intent (such as Søren Riis' 4 part rebuttal for ChessBase) or due to the nature of
the commentary (such as Mark Watkins' statements concerning the investigation, given his
role in the investigation).

http://www.mediafire.com/?9928a0drd1xmy9f

Interesting summary...well put together...fair overall.

First of all, I think this is a very nice effort. Kudos.

As for some feedback, I felt that the case for actual code copying as evidenced by the side-by-side code comparisons was not really highlighted well, and this is really the strongest part of the case. So for example, the sections on Search Control Code, Control of Iterative Deepening, and SETJMP (although Root Search may be a better heading here) are all areas where the code comparison shows extreme similarity. This is really key. If you believe the reconstructed c-from-asm code, then this stuff is pretty strong.

On the topic of the c-from-asm code, The Chessbase article calls this "imaginary code", which I think is very dismissive of the legitimacy of this kind of work. It would be nice if you could add a heading addressing this issue, because it is central to deciding the weight of the side-by-side comparisons, and these really are the heart of the case.

Thanks!
Lar

lmader wrote:First of all, I think this is a very nice effort. Kudos.

As for some feedback, I felt that the case for actual code copying as evidenced by the side-by-side code comparisons was not really highlighted well, and this is really the strongest part of the case. So for example, the sections on Search Control Code, Control of Iterative Deepening, and SETJMP (although Root Search may be a better heading here) are all areas where the code comparison shows extreme similarity. This is really key. If you believe the reconstructed c-from-asm code, then this stuff is pretty strong.

On the topic of the c-from-asm code, The Chessbase article calls this "imaginary code", which I think is very dismissive of the legitimacy of this kind of work. It would be nice if you could add a heading addressing this issue, because it is central to deciding the weight of the side-by-side comparisons, and these really are the heart of the case.

Thanks!
Lar

Hi Lar,

I understand your point of view. However, given my intended goal of neutrality and my lack of expertise in programming, I did about as well as I could. As you can see, I went into much greater detail in the parts that I have a greater understanding for. I felt able to be more explicit while maintaining neutrality.

Adam

kingliveson wrote:Interesting summary...well put together...fair overall.

Thanks, Franklin. If people on both sides feel this way, then I guess that I achieved my goal.

Ed has graciously created a page for my report and is hosting it.

http://www.top-5000.nl/adamhair.htm