BB's Rybka/Ippolit comparison

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Where do we go from here?

Ideally, we get some independent confirmation from a reliable source that the data presented by BB is legit. I don't mean to be in any way disrespectful when I say that, BB. But given the events of the last months, it seems wise to verify claims, even (especially) those which resonate with one's own gut feeling. I wonder if Zach could be convinced to at least spot-check a few things.

Jeremy

Also, I think we should get to the bottom of this anonymity thingy;

Assuming IPPO & co. are legal, why does the author(s) stay anonymous, and could something be done to get them to reveal their identities?

Anonymity is just a fact of life on the internet. I agree that, in an ideal world, the author(s) would have faces and (real) names, as it would be reassuring somehow. But I personally don't see how revealing your personal data can be a prerequisite to participation in any net-based activities.

Jeremy

[Richard Vida]

Just for a random "similarity", in Appendix B.3 you can see that both use "move [...] is not a king move, is not ep, or hash-move, does not give check, and bad SEE" as part of a condition for ignoring a move [particularly interesting is the "not a king move" constraint].

I do not find the "not a king move" constraint particularly interesting, it is just common sense. It is meaningless to call SEE on king moves, especially if you check for legality in the movegen. If a king move is legal, then its SEE will be always good.

Richard

[Chris Whittington]

Where do we go from here?

Ideally, we get some independent confirmation from a reliable source that the data presented by BB is legit. I don't mean to be in any way disrespectful when I say that, BB. But given the events of the last months, it seems wise to verify claims, even (especially) those which resonate with one's own gut feeling. I wonder if Zach could be convinced to at least spot-check a few things.

Jeremy

Also, I think we should get to the bottom of this anonymity thingy;

Assuming IPPO & co. are legal, why does the author(s) stay anonymous, and could something be done to get them to reveal their identities?

Anonymity is just a fact of life on the internet. I agree that, in an ideal world, the author(s) would have faces and (real) names, as it would be reassuring somehow. But I personally don't see how revealing your personal data can be a prerequisite to participation in any net-based activities.

Jeremy

well, I don't see a problem with IPPOLIT team being anonymous, I suppose it makes it a bit more difficult for them if they are accused of whatever, but anonymity, in itself, is not a precursor or proof of the misbehaviours they have been accused of.

the anonymity problem does hold for BB (unfortunately, because he may well have good reason). BB is effectively the expert witness in this affair. Expert witnesses need a track record to be credible, without one their evidence can be dismissed in many ways, for example the suggestions that BB is part of IPPOLIT and the work is a fraud (not that I suggest it is, just that it's impossible to assert the evidence in the face of that attack on it).

Whilst BB has been of incalculable help in moving forward to a possible resolution, comp chess is not going to get there without some sort of usual expert witness demonstration of independence and track record.

To put it another way, BB has produced a category A report, us category B guys (who can read and understand, ie, other cc programmers) can interpret what he says and, pretty uniformly, we interpret it as meaning IPPOLIT is clean, and deliver our conclusions to the rest of cc, but what we can't do is assess the overall status of the category A expert witness because of the anonymity.

[kingliveson]

the anonymity problem does hold for BB (unfortunately, because he may well have good reason). BB is effectively the expert witness in this affair. Expert witnesses need a track record to be credible, without one their evidence can be dismissed in many ways, for example the suggestions that BB is part of IPPOLIT and the work is a fraud (not that I suggest it is, just that it's impossible to assert the evidence in the face of that attack on it).

Whilst BB has been of incalculable help in moving forward to a possible resolution, comp chess is not going to get there without some sort of usual expert witness demonstration of independence and track record.

To put it another way, BB has produced a category A report, us category B guys (who can read and understand, ie, other cc programmers) can interpret what he says and, pretty uniformly, we interpret it as meaning IPPOLIT is clean, and deliver our conclusions to the rest of cc, but what we can't do is assess the overall status of the category A expert witness because of the anonymity.

Personally, I don't have a problem with BB being anonymous. Zach has stated he met him in person, and there's no reason for me to doubt. I have a good feeling who he is, but not 100% certain -- so please nobody PM me asking as I will not respond. My guess is probably as good as yours. As for authors of Ippolit, even if 99.9% of the chess community dont know who they are am sure someone here does. It is even possible they post here.

[BTO7]

Funny how the Rybka Lovers are STILL some how some way ...even after a very thorough report STILL are trying to somehow affix guilt to Ippolitt??? They are now trying to jam a square peg in a round hole ...trying to still some how some way BLAME Ippo for cloning R3. I mean when all you have is ...well the author is anonymous now??? You guys get 33 PAGES of PROOF and all you can say is ...but why no names? How about WHY are you guys so determine to put blame on these guys still......everyone of you should be APOLOGIZING! GIVE IT UP your wrong...these guys should have never been persecuted in the first place ....now we have proof of no CLONING yet some still wanna blame these guys....WHY? There should be a public apology by Vas and every one of you that was saying guilty until proven innocent. Now Rybka lovers are just trying to dream up way to blame IPPO's anyways. Seems Rybka guys are not wanting to hear the truth ...they are just hell bent on IPPO's are guilty in spite of the facts. Stop arguing just to argue ...try starting to apologize for knowing nothing with not a shred of evidence ...yet being judge, jury, the whole time on NOTHING.

BT

[Chris Whittington]

Funny how the Rybka Lovers are STILL some how some way ...even after a very thorough report STILL are trying to somehow affix guilt to Ippolitt??? They are now trying to jam a square peg in a round hole ...trying to still some how some way BLAME Ippo for cloning R3. I mean when all you have is ...well the author is anonymous now??? You guys get 33 PAGES of PROOF and all you can say is ...but why no names? How about WHY are you guys so determine to put blame on these guys still......everyone of you should be APOLOGIZING! GIVE IT UP your wrong...these guys should have never been persecuted in the first place ....now we have proof of no CLONING yet some still wanna blame these guys....WHY? There should be a public apology by Vas and every one of you that was saying guilty until proven innocent. Now Rybka lovers are just trying to dream up way to blame IPPO's anyways. Seems Rybka guys are not wanting to hear the truth ...they are just hell bent on IPPO's are guilty in spite of the facts. Stop arguing just to argue ...try starting to apologize for knowing nothing with not a shred of evidence ...yet being judge, jury, the whole time on NOTHING.

BT

well, if you're suggesting I'm

a) a Rybka lover
b) trying to blame IPPO
c) 'accusing' the author of anonymity in order to attack him and IPPO

you are sadly mistaken.

I am interested in finding the truth and being as helpful as I can be to find that truth. There have been attacks on BB in other forums to the tune of anonymity could equal a problem with report veracity, and, in a sense that is an unanswerable charge. The way forward and to get past it is to be able to demonstrate total trust the expert report of BB and that, unfortunately because he may have good reason, seems to require some, or sufficient knowledge of his status. No more and no less.

[govert]

Funny how the Rybka Lovers are STILL some how some way ...even after a very thorough report STILL are trying to somehow affix guilt to Ippolitt??? They are now trying to jam a square peg in a round hole ...trying to still some how some way BLAME Ippo for cloning R3. I mean when all you have is ...well the author is anonymous now??? You guys get 33 PAGES of PROOF and all you can say is ...but why no names? How about WHY are you guys so determine to put blame on these guys still......everyone of you should be APOLOGIZING! GIVE IT UP your wrong...these guys should have never been persecuted in the first place ....now we have proof of no CLONING yet some still wanna blame these guys....WHY? There should be a public apology by Vas and every one of you that was saying guilty until proven innocent. Now Rybka lovers are just trying to dream up way to blame IPPO's anyways. Seems Rybka guys are not wanting to hear the truth ...they are just hell bent on IPPO's are guilty in spite of the facts. Stop arguing just to argue ...try starting to apologize for knowing nothing with not a shred of evidence ...yet being judge, jury, the whole time on NOTHING.

BT

well, if you're suggesting I'm

a) a Rybka lover
b) trying to blame IPPO
c) 'accusing' the author of anonymity in order to attack him and IPPO

you are sadly mistaken.

I was just about to write the same.

You know, BT, I'm just trying to have a civilized discussion here about what would be necessary in order for IPPOLIT to gain the acceptance of the established chess engine community. Nothing more, nothing less.

[benstoker]

Where do we go from here?

Ideally, we get some independent confirmation from a reliable source that the data presented by BB is legit. I don't mean to be in any way disrespectful when I say that, BB. But given the events of the last months, it seems wise to verify claims, even (especially) those which resonate with one's own gut feeling. I wonder if Zach could be convinced to at least spot-check a few things.

Jeremy

Also, I think we should get to the bottom of this anonymity thingy;

Assuming IPPO & co. are legal, why does the author(s) stay anonymous, and could something be done to get them to reveal their identities?

Anonymity is just a fact of life on the internet. I agree that, in an ideal world, the author(s) would have faces and (real) names, as it would be reassuring somehow. But I personally don't see how revealing your personal data can be a prerequisite to participation in any net-based activities.

Jeremy

well, I don't see a problem with IPPOLIT team being anonymous, I suppose it makes it a bit more difficult for them if they are accused of whatever, but anonymity, in itself, is not a precursor or proof of the misbehaviours they have been accused of.

the anonymity problem does hold for BB (unfortunately, because he may well have good reason). BB is effectively the expert witness in this affair. Expert witnesses need a track record to be credible, without one their evidence can be dismissed in many ways, for example the suggestions that BB is part of IPPOLIT and the work is a fraud (not that I suggest it is, just that it's impossible to assert the evidence in the face of that attack on it).

Whilst BB has been of incalculable help in moving forward to a possible resolution, comp chess is not going to get there without some sort of usual expert witness demonstration of independence and track record.

To put it another way, BB has produced a category A report, us category B guys (who can read and understand, ie, other cc programmers) can interpret what he says and, pretty uniformly, we interpret it as meaning IPPOLIT is clean, and deliver our conclusions to the rest of cc, but what we can't do is assess the overall status of the category A expert witness because of the anonymity.

I would like to see BB followup with a detailed explanation of his methods, with at least some illustrations of what utilities he used to disassemble and how he came to certain conclusions by examination of the assembly. This would allow third parties to easily test things out themselves and confirm assertions or otherwise raise questions. Scientific theories must be based on experimental results that are repeatable using the same conditions and methods. I hope BB helps by showing us exactly how he conducted his examination.

If the examination can be easily repeated, then it is largely irrelevant who BB is, since other experts can easily test the hypotheses and see for themselves.

[benstoker]

Funny how the Rybka Lovers are STILL some how some way ...even after a very thorough report STILL are trying to somehow affix guilt to Ippolitt??? They are now trying to jam a square peg in a round hole ...trying to still some how some way BLAME Ippo for cloning R3. I mean when all you have is ...well the author is anonymous now??? You guys get 33 PAGES of PROOF and all you can say is ...but why no names? How about WHY are you guys so determine to put blame on these guys still......everyone of you should be APOLOGIZING! GIVE IT UP your wrong...these guys should have never been persecuted in the first place ....now we have proof of no CLONING yet some still wanna blame these guys....WHY? There should be a public apology by Vas and every one of you that was saying guilty until proven innocent. Now Rybka lovers are just trying to dream up way to blame IPPO's anyways. Seems Rybka guys are not wanting to hear the truth ...they are just hell bent on IPPO's are guilty in spite of the facts. Stop arguing just to argue ...try starting to apologize for knowing nothing with not a shred of evidence ...yet being judge, jury, the whole time on NOTHING.

BT

well, if you're suggesting I'm

a) a Rybka lover
b) trying to blame IPPO
c) 'accusing' the author of anonymity in order to attack him and IPPO

you are sadly mistaken.

I am interested in finding the truth and being as helpful as I can be to find that truth. There have been attacks on BB in other forums to the tune of anonymity could equal a problem with report veracity, and, in a sense that is an unanswerable charge. The way forward and to get past it is to be able to demonstrate total trust the expert report of BB and that, unfortunately because he may have good reason, seems to require some, or sufficient knowledge of his status. No more and no less.

CW, are you a member of talkchess also. I haven't seen posts from you there lately. Just wonderin. Thanks.

[Olivier Deville]

Where do we go from here?

Ideally, we get some independent confirmation from a reliable source that the data presented by BB is legit. I don't mean to be in any way disrespectful when I say that, BB. But given the events of the last months, it seems wise to verify claims, even (especially) those which resonate with one's own gut feeling. I wonder if Zach could be convinced to at least spot-check a few things.

Jeremy

Also, I think we should get to the bottom of this anonymity thingy;

Assuming IPPO & co. are legal, why does the author(s) stay anonymous, and could something be done to get them to reveal their identities?

Anonymity is just a fact of life on the internet. I agree that, in an ideal world, the author(s) would have faces and (real) names, as it would be reassuring somehow. But I personally don't see how revealing your personal data can be a prerequisite to participation in any net-based activities.

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy

It seems to me all other engines around have known authors, with full names.

Before the troll attacks me, let me state I only want to know the truth about the whole story. When/if Ippolit is proven to be legit (the report is a good start), and the authors drop the mask, I will gladly add it to my tournaments.

Olivier