BB's Rybka/Ippolit comparison

[Rebel]

It means that the "technique used" doesn't need dozens of posts explaining how it was done. Whether it is factual or not I could not say with 100% certainty. It seems sound, well thought out, and detailed. I tend to take things at face value unless there is something that stands out like a red flag. I do not see one, but that doesn't mean there is not one. In light of absolutely no data to contradict any of this, it certainly looks like "the real deal" imho.

In an ideal world I would agree with you. The paper is a bomb under the credibility of Vas, a programmer who ruled the computer chess world for years. Therefore we must be absolutely sure the document is real. What we want to believe is a non-issue, all what matters is the naked truth, good or bad.

Hence I want proof else the speculation will be everlasting.

Ed

[BTO7]

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.

How about Ben its YOUR TURN to put something up. How about BB has provided WAY more then the Rybka team ever has EVER on the issue. Funny how after a 33 page report the Rybka guys still need this man to do MORE? What have you guys got ? Where is your paper prooving any different? You guys just want more more more yet provide noting to the original claim in the first place. Sorry as I did not name anyone personally yet Rybka guys calling me a troll. They provide nothing but insults ...you want the TRUTH ...you guys CAN'T handle the truth it looks like. BB shouldnt have to do another thing until your guys 33 page report refuting all he said already comes out ....we will be waiting. Unless you guys start putting some kinda proof up yourself ..your not looking for truth you just trying to swarm with senseless never ending questions. ..Yet all Vas had to give you guys was a couple sentences and your ALL good from his side. Go to Rybka forum and ask your master for his 33 page refute so you actually have something to question sheeesh,

Regards
BT

[BTO7]

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

A good start ? Against what...Vas coupld sentences of his good start? Good start against WHAT??????? Where is all your guys info to the contrary. You make it sound like its a start against some 100 page report claiming Ippo Cloned Rybka. A good start.....how about thats a good laugh. Ippo shouldnt even be the one trying to prove ANYTHING in the first place ...how about you accusers put something up other then a few positions that are the same. I work with both programs and IPPO's to me are clearly different form Rybka. Yet the familys engines all remain very close. Waiting on what you guys have first before BB should do anything more. Hes done plenty ....its a shame a engine having to prove its innocent when it wasnt even PROVED in anyway shape or form it was a clone to begin with. Hmmmm Vas only has to say a few words its ACCEPTED. Now we have a 33 page report that really shouldnt have even been made when there is no original proof to even try to refute against accept Vas words? Yea you guys make sense. You need to be ASKING VAS these very questions...Time he puts up something now no ???

[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.

How about Ben its YOUR TURN to put something up. How about BB has provided WAY more then the Rybka team ever has EVER on the issue. Funny how after a 33 page report the Rybka guys still need this man to do MORE? What have you guys got ? Where is your paper prooving any different? You guys just want more more more yet provide noting to the original claim in the first place. Sorry as I did not name anyone personally yet Rybka guys calling me a troll. They provide nothing but insults ...you want the TRUTH ...you guys CAN'T handle the truth it looks like. BB shouldnt have to do another thing until your guys 33 page report refuting all he said already comes out ....we will be waiting. Unless you guys start putting some kinda proof up yourself ..your not looking for truth you just trying to swarm with senseless never ending questions. ..Yet all Vas had to give you guys was a couple sentences and your ALL good from his side. Go to Rybka forum and ask your master for his 33 page refute so you actually have something to question sheeesh,

Regards
BT

I take it you're satisfied with the BB report.

[Chris Whittington]

It means that the "technique used" doesn't need dozens of posts explaining how it was done. Whether it is factual or not I could not say with 100% certainty. It seems sound, well thought out, and detailed. I tend to take things at face value unless there is something that stands out like a red flag. I do not see one, but that doesn't mean there is not one. In light of absolutely no data to contradict any of this, it certainly looks like "the real deal" imho.

In an ideal world I would agree with you. The paper is a bomb under the credibility of Vas, a programmer who ruled the computer chess world for years. Therefore we must be absolutely sure the document is real. What we want to believe is a non-issue, all what matters is the naked truth, good or bad.

Hence I want proof else the speculation will be everlasting.

Ed

Bob is right, you too up to a point. But, on our innocent until proven guilty basis .......

There's no evidential data to back up the original allegations against IPPOLIT. There is evidential data that appears to clear IPPOLIT.

On a burden of proof basis at this stage IPPOLIT is therefore a clean engine and all those in computer chess who discriminate against the program should cease and desist.

On a reasonable basis at this stage (there has still to be a question on credibility of the report) there is no possibility of a hard and fast incrimination of Vas for making 'false allegations'. Therefore the computer chess community should continue to treat Vas with all respect.

I agree that an establishment of the facts may well have implications for some reputations, but facts are not established and detail may emerge such that we see the entire affair in another light. Truth is a long way from coming out imo.

[benstoker]

It means that the "technique used" doesn't need dozens of posts explaining how it was done. Whether it is factual or not I could not say with 100% certainty. It seems sound, well thought out, and detailed. I tend to take things at face value unless there is something that stands out like a red flag. I do not see one, but that doesn't mean there is not one. In light of absolutely no data to contradict any of this, it certainly looks like "the real deal" imho.

In an ideal world I would agree with you. The paper is a bomb under the credibility of Vas, a programmer who ruled the computer chess world for years. Therefore we must be absolutely sure the document is real. What we want to believe is a non-issue, all what matters is the naked truth, good or bad.

Hence I want proof else the speculation will be everlasting.

Ed

Bob is right, you too up to a point. But, on our innocent until proven guilty basis .......

There's no evidential data to back up the original allegations against IPPOLIT. There is evidential data that appears to clear IPPOLIT.

On a burden of proof basis at this stage IPPOLIT is therefore a clean engine and all those in computer chess who discriminate against the program should cease and desist.

On a reasonable basis at this stage (there has still to be a question on credibility of the report) there is no possibility of a hard and fast incrimination of Vas for making 'false allegations'. Therefore the computer chess community should continue to treat Vas with all respect.

I agree that an establishment of the facts may well have implications for some reputations, but facts are not established and detail may emerge such that we see the entire affair in another light. Truth is a long way from coming out imo.

Couldn't BB just add a few comments here and there, such as "the gdb dump of r3 shows the following at these addresses, and this shows that blah blah blah ..." That way, one could simply do a little comparison shopping and check things out by doing their own disassembly dumps and have something to refer back to in BB's report. BB doesn't need to do this for the whole enchilada, but how about a select handful of places. How does BB even find in the disassembled R3 assembly the parts that correspond to the qsearch, etc.?

[BTO7]

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.

How about Ben its YOUR TURN to put something up. How about BB has provided WAY more then the Rybka team ever has EVER on the issue. Funny how after a 33 page report the Rybka guys still need this man to do MORE? What have you guys got ? Where is your paper prooving any different? You guys just want more more more yet provide noting to the original claim in the first place. Sorry as I did not name anyone personally yet Rybka guys calling me a troll. They provide nothing but insults ...you want the TRUTH ...you guys CAN'T handle the truth it looks like. BB shouldnt have to do another thing until your guys 33 page report refuting all he said already comes out ....we will be waiting. Unless you guys start putting some kinda proof up yourself ..your not looking for truth you just trying to swarm with senseless never ending questions. ..Yet all Vas had to give you guys was a couple sentences and your ALL good from his side. Go to Rybka forum and ask your master for his 33 page refute so you actually have something to question sheeesh,

Regards
BT

I take it you're satisfied with the BB report.

Yes im very satisfied. That report seems very very genuine to me. For someone to go to all the effort and just make it up is now a super super stretch. Did BB make a couple errors ?....possibly but when Vas says the LARGE amount was taken from Rybka then it becomes very obviously that is for sure NOT true. We are lucky someone went to this extent to find out the truth. This is clearly not cut and paste ...this is clearly not a clone (exact duplicate) outside of that ....nothing illegal could have been done right? Weather ideas were gotten through understanding rybka would be totally irrelevant and NOT illegal. All programs have some IDEAS from others and that is legal and fine. What is clear here is this is not copied code .../a cloned rybka period. I feel sorry for the IPPO team having to defend their program when they didnt even do anything to start with.....walked in and just got blamed. It would be different if Vas had said such and then backed it up with a document like this....then IPPO would have something to defend itself against but looks they just got the GUILTY until proven INNOCENT slapped on them walking through the door on mere words....and those words were fully accepted no questions asked by the very guys drilling the IPPO engines. I want truth too ....even Bob said this looks very legit and following bobs threads hes someone we can trust. Case should be closed unless VAS and ONLY VAS provides something substantial .....otherwise hes basically guilty of defamation of character and should most certainly apologize immediately. Also i have read why haven't the IPPO team claimed otherwise....well just try going to their site....they have been screaming injustice from the start. Its just really funny to me how we can continue to walk all over this proof and yet everyone from the otherside (rybka) was completely happy with just a FEW words from Vas. Funny how that works

Regards
BT

[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.

How about Ben its YOUR TURN to put something up. How about BB has provided WAY more then the Rybka team ever has EVER on the issue. Funny how after a 33 page report the Rybka guys still need this man to do MORE? What have you guys got ? Where is your paper prooving any different? You guys just want more more more yet provide noting to the original claim in the first place. Sorry as I did not name anyone personally yet Rybka guys calling me a troll. They provide nothing but insults ...you want the TRUTH ...you guys CAN'T handle the truth it looks like. BB shouldnt have to do another thing until your guys 33 page report refuting all he said already comes out ....we will be waiting. Unless you guys start putting some kinda proof up yourself ..your not looking for truth you just trying to swarm with senseless never ending questions. ..Yet all Vas had to give you guys was a couple sentences and your ALL good from his side. Go to Rybka forum and ask your master for his 33 page refute so you actually have something to question sheeesh,

Regards
BT

I take it you're satisfied with the BB report.

Yes im very satisfied. That report seems very very genuine to me. For someone to go to all the effort and just make it up is now a super super stretch. Did BB make a couple errors ?....possibly but when Vas says the LARGE amount was taken from Rybka then it becomes very obviously that is for sure NOT true. We are lucky someone went to this extent to find out the truth. This is clearly not cut and paste ...this is clearly not a clone (exact duplicate) outside of that ....nothing illegal could have been done right? Weather ideas were gotten through understanding rybka would be totally irrelevant and NOT illegal. All programs have some IDEAS from others and that is legal and fine. What is clear here is this is not copied code .../a cloned rybka period. I feel sorry for the IPPO team having to defend their program when they didnt even do anything to start with.....walked in and just got blamed. It would be different if Vas had said such and then backed it up with a document like this....then IPPO would have something to defend itself against but looks they just got the GUILTY until proven INNOCENT slapped on them walking through the door on mere words....and those words were fully accepted no questions asked by the very guys drilling the IPPO engines. I want truth too ....even Bob said this looks very legit and following bobs threads hes someone we can trust. Case should be closed unless VAS and ONLY VAS provides something substantial .....otherwise hes basically guilty of defamation of character and should most certainly apologize immediately. Also i have read why haven't the IPPO team claimed otherwise....well just try going to their site....they have been screaming injustice from the start. Its just really funny to me how we can continue to walk all over this proof and yet everyone from the otherside (rybka) was completely happy with just a FEW words from Vas. Funny how that works

Regards
BT

But Vas has little to say, only speaks in 6 month intervals, doesn't care about it, and lost the source code for his Rybka 3. On the other hand, the 33 page BB report gives us a lot to talk about.

[BTO7]

Ben this is true "But Vas has little to say, only speaks in 6 month intervals, doesn't care about it, and lost the source code for his Rybka 3. On the other hand, the 33 page BB report gives us a lot to talk about." I agree fully Everyone will proly tear at this until there is nothing left but Vas original words. Vas track record.....you will get R3+ with updates....never happened.....R4 will be out by summer 2009...never happened.....R4 would be out for christmas 2009 ....never happened. R4 was gonna be awesome and worth the wait...you got 18-40 elo. Then recently finally admitting Rybka used about 20% from fruit....that in my book alone means its not 100% original ..yet is perfectly legal as original work? Vas has nothing and knows it ...so hes playing the silent gambit hoping his reputation alone will be enough ....only takes one smart guy to manipulate a army of ignorant ones. Hes too lazy and doesn't want to be bothered ...which you can clearly see in what he just released in R4. After selling out to Toppy...he just slapped it together ...couple weeks of testing ...ok its done there you suckers go. I trust less and less he has his customers in his best interest more every day. Why hes gonna scale to just high end clients IMHO.

Regards
BT

p.s. Just to note ...i don't hate anyone ...here for apposing thoughts....im just glad we have OPEN CHESS now to be able to talk freely in the first place.....Problem with CCC is you dont mix business and pleasure....and their forum is pleasure that conflicting with their business

[kingliveson]

FAQ from Ippolit website:

Q. IPPOLIT pursues previous ships?
A. True, with KAISSA, Crafty, Fruit/Toga/Rybka/Strelka, etc. Yet beyond solely saponification from predescendants.

Is it time for this debate to change? On the basis that BB+'s report is an accurate analysis, perhaps it's time to shift the conversation a bit. Will the chess community accept Reverse Engineering as a legitimate form of discovery? Study a strong program, find out its strength, and implement these ideas into your own program. Where should a line be drawn, and is there really necessity for a line?