Programmers Open Letter to ICGA on Rybka/Fruit

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Where can one get the binary?

The ICGA obtained a pre-Beta Rybka for the purposes of advancing the Rybka/Fruit investigations (of particular interest was whether the pre-Beta Rybka was similar to Rybka 1.0 Beta). It was given to Zach and myself to analyse and report back. Once the large amount of Crafty copying became clear, Bob chose to publicise various information (it is his code, after all -- we are much more tight-lipped about aspects which are not copying-related). I am not sure what the "Rules of Evidence" will be regarding this binary if/when the Panel proceeds. I suspect that Fabien/FSF will subpoena it for a civil case.

PS. It seems that MichaelIsGreat has migrated to the Rybka Forum, but has not yet discovered the annoying yellow highlighting.

Obviously, it would be good if non-panelists were in a position to verify your findings.

Jeremy

[kingliveson]

Where can one get the binary?

The ICGA obtained a pre-Beta Rybka for the purpose of advancing the Rybka/Fruit investigation (of particular interest was whether the pre-Beta Rybka was similar to Rybka 1.0 Beta). It was given to Zach and myself [and possibly others -- I'm not omniscient] to analyse and report back. Once the large amount of Crafty copying became clear, Bob chose to publicise various information (it is his code, after all -- we are much more tight-lipped about aspects which are not copying-related). I am not sure what the "Rules of Evidence" will be regarding this binary if/when the Panel proceeds. The Rybka Forum has already mentioned that the PDFs of Zach and myself might be completely fabricated, so I guess you can't discount that possibility here too. I suspect that Fabien/FSF will subpoena a copy for their civil case.

[...]

Thanks, I wanted to look for myself, not that I question your expertise or Zach's...

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Where can one get the binary?

The ICGA obtained a pre-Beta Rybka for the purpose of advancing the Rybka/Fruit investigation (of particular interest was whether the pre-Beta Rybka was similar to Rybka 1.0 Beta). It was given to Zach and myself [and possibly others -- I'm not omniscient] to analyse and report back. Once the large amount of Crafty copying became clear, Bob chose to publicise various information (it is his code, after all -- we are much more tight-lipped about aspects which are not copying-related). I am not sure what the "Rules of Evidence" will be regarding this binary if/when the Panel proceeds. The Rybka Forum has already mentioned that the PDFs of Zach and myself might be completely fabricated, so I guess you can't discount that possibility here too. I suspect that Fabien/FSF will subpoena a copy for their civil case.

[...]

Thanks, I wanted to look for myself, not that I question your expertise or Zach's...

I presume that none of the pre-betas are here. Is that true? http://cap.connx.com/chess-engines/new-approach/

[kingliveson]

Where can one get the binary?

The ICGA obtained a pre-Beta Rybka for the purpose of advancing the Rybka/Fruit investigation (of particular interest was whether the pre-Beta Rybka was similar to Rybka 1.0 Beta). It was given to Zach and myself [and possibly others -- I'm not omniscient] to analyse and report back. Once the large amount of Crafty copying became clear, Bob chose to publicise various information (it is his code, after all -- we are much more tight-lipped about aspects which are not copying-related). I am not sure what the "Rules of Evidence" will be regarding this binary if/when the Panel proceeds. The Rybka Forum has already mentioned that the PDFs of Zach and myself might be completely fabricated, so I guess you can't discount that possibility here too. I suspect that Fabien/FSF will subpoena a copy for their civil case.

[...]

Thanks, I wanted to look for myself, not that I question your expertise or Zach's...

I presume that none of the pre-betas are here. Is that true? http://cap.connx.com/chess-engines/new-approach/

I have everything from there.

[BB+]

Obviously, it would be good if non-panelists were in a position to verify your findings.

For that matter, it would also be good if I could indeed verify that the executable given to me by the ICGA is actually a pre-Beta Rybka as it is claimed to be.

It is not even clear to me that a pre-Beta Rybka executable would be made available to the Panel. Most likely there would just be a question put to Rajlich on whether he agreed that the evidence presented was correct (i.e., that the ASM dumps [ignoring my comments] really do come from a pre-Beta Rybka -- obviously he himself would be privy to the evidence, if he happens not to have a copy). I can imagine two ways he might dispute this: if he were to say "No, that is not a pre-Beta Rybka", then the question of chain of custody would arise; if he were to say "Yes, that is a pre-Beta Rybka, but I don't think the ASM dump is correct", then I suspect the ICGA could find an outside expert to mediate such a picayune dispute. In neither case would the pre-Beta Rybka executable in its entirety need to be made available to the Panel.

I think we've reached the point where something even more dramatic will have to happen for us to post too many more examples of copied code. Whether there's 5 copied functions or 20 copied functions can't matter that much. As before, I will state my opinion that much of the search and evaluation in the pre-Beta Rybka is not from Crafty (e.g., it uses MTD(f) rather than PVS).

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Most likely there would just be a question put to Rajlich on whether he agreed that the evidence presented was correct (i.e., that the ASM dumps [ignoring my comments] really do come from a pre-Beta Rybka -- obviously he himself would be privy to the evidence, if he happens not to have a copy). I can imagine two ways he might dispute this: if he were to say "No, that is not a pre-Beta Rybka", then the question of chain of custody would arise; if he were to say "Yes, that is a pre-Beta Rybka, but I don't think the ASM dump is correct", then I suspect the ICGA could find an outside expert to mediate such a picayune dispute. In neither case would the pre-Beta Rybka executable in its entirety need to be made available to the Panel.

What are the chances, though, that Vasik is going to comment on this at all? I suppose that, if it reaches the point of a civil suit on the basis of the data obtained in the investigation, that will be the point where he is required to defend. Whether he'll comment on anything that occurs up until that point seems, in my assessment, very unlikely.

Jeremy

[BB+]

What are the chances, though, that Vasik is going to comment on this at all? I suppose that, if it reaches the point of a civil suit on the basis of the data obtained in the investigation, that will be the point where he is required to defend. Whether he'll comment on anything that occurs up until that point seems, in my assessment, very unlikely.

This opinion has been voiced, and there appear to be many in agreement. As has the idea that he will avoid the ICGA tribunal particularly on the fear that he might therein self-incriminate himself for a later civil suit.

If the process becomes in absentia, I suspect the ICGA will still be rather thorough in examining the evidence (to the extent possible w/o a proper dialogue) and deciding what penalties to apply [obviously his failing to show up should result in an indefinite ban -- the questions then would become: what titles (if any) to annul, how strongly to word a recommendation to other entities, and the proper means of publicising the findings].

[kingliveson]

What are the chances, though, that Vasik is going to comment on this at all? I suppose that, if it reaches the point of a civil suit on the basis of the data obtained in the investigation, that will be the point where he is required to defend. Whether he'll comment on anything that occurs up until that point seems, in my assessment, very unlikely.

This opinion has been voiced, and there appear to be many in agreement. As has the idea that he will avoid the ICGA tribunal particularly on the fear that he might therein self-incriminate himself for a later civil suit.

If the process becomes in absentia, I suspect the ICGA will still be rather thorough in examining the evidence (to the extent possible w/o a proper dialogue) and deciding what penalties to apply [obviously his failing to show up should result in an indefinite ban -- the questions then would become: what titles (if any) to annul, how strongly to word a recommendation to other entities, and the proper means of publicising the findings].

It makes sense for him not publicly comment or respond to ICGA inquiries especially if there are improprieties that could result in legal matters. That said, does any foresee a scenario where a private and public apology and acknowledgment of misconduct revolves the long debate?

[hyatt]

Pseudocode for the aforementioned "renormalization". I think BB is a bit generous here, I'd personally call it an "obfuscation".

And a rather crappy one, too.

Code: Select all

score /= 2; // with rounding towards zero
if (score > 0) {
	if (score >= 128) {
		score -= 128;
		if (score < 0) score += 15; // Never executed??
		score = score >> 4 + 128;
	}
} else {
	if (score <= -128) {
		score += 128;
		if (score < 0) score += 15;
		score = score >> 4 - 128; // round towards -inf
	}
}
return score;

Obfuscation? What is that? Who would obfuscate scores? Or NPS? Or nodes searched? Or depth? Or the PV?

seems like a vivid imagination at work to suggest that happened...

[hyatt]

I do not use capitals to shout, just to highlight important points!!

Hello to All,

<massive snippage>

MichaelIsGreat

Why is this f**king troll still posting here, why hasn't he been booted yet?

Jeremy has already booted him. But you didn't help by quoting all of his garbage, either...