Thoughts on Fruit=Rybka EVAL

[Rebel]

Perhaps I should just state rather categorically "the evaluation ordering in Rybka 1.0 Beta is essentially the same as Fruit, except for a few insignificant modifications that derive from bitboard and performance issues".

Which is a statement that can't be checked because we will have to assume you have done your EVAL reverse engineering work right, which BTW is not available. We have seen some snippets but not the whole thing. What's at stake here is that you can't back up the above for understandable technical reasons the fact still remains it's impossible for us to verify.

What I can verify is Strelka and although I realize the buts that come with Strelka I see 2 different signatures.

Besides of that, yesterday I saw you posted the reverse engineered Rybka EVAL order from you notes. They did not match the Fruit EVAL order. I can not find it anymore. Did you remove it? Or am I in need for new glasses? Apologies in advance if the latter seems to be the case.

But El Chinito point taken.

======================================

Alright the emotional stuff then.

Remember it was you who started this all with your silly PM. I can understand your frustration for asking you questions but please don't sent a PM to warn me for your upcoming wrath to pour on me. That's so silly. Have I answered the PM? No.

About the one after, no, you are not allowed to post. Have I answered the PM? No.

Next item, I am not on Vas payroll, he can't afford me

Sorry, you did say "interesting read" to the first one. I similarly would prefer not have "silly PMs" from you asking me to join the discussion at the Rybka Forum. Are you willing to let me make public what you said to Fabien back in February, when signing the Open Letter?

That was before you started the 2 silly PM's, yes ?

[mjlef]

Perhaps I should just state rather categorically "the evaluation ordering in Rybka 1.0 Beta is essentially the same as Fruit, except for a few insignificant modifications that derive from bitboard and performance issues".

Which is a statement that can't be checked because we will have to assume you have done your EVAL reverse engineering work right, which BTW is not available. We have seen some snippets but not the whole thing. What's at stake here is that you can't back up the above for understandable technical reasons the fact still remains it's impossible for us to verify.

Actually, there is an annotated listing of several Rybka evals available on the ICGA web site. Here is Rybka 2.3.2a:

http://icga.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ryb232eval.txt

And Rybka 1.0 eval annotated is here:

http://icga.wikispaces.com/file/view/R1x64eval.txt

It shows the assembly code and shows what it means. You can use a debugger to confirm it is accurate (I did for much of it when it was first posted). Note the code accesses other memory locations, so you will need to use a degugger to get some of the values, but most of the values are hard coded right in the disassembled code.

You should look thorough this and the eval.cpp file from Fruit 2.1, and you can pretty easily see the same evaluation features being measured in the same ways (with only a very few minor changes such as due to bitboard versus mailbox structure).

[Rebel]

That will keep me busy for a while

Mark, now that you here, allow me a few words to talk about the future of the ICGA. And if you think there is value in it please address it to the ICGA board members.

I see a looming scenario that future WCC cycles become worthless because the strongest engines can not participate due to rule no.2. The problem is already present. For the upcoming WC cycle the ICGA is already in the situation that 4-5 of the strongest engines, all candidates for the title, actually all of those 4-5 will have a top ranking when allowed. This number will increase the coming years because of the free source code out there estimated elo 3000+ What is the purpose any longer of a WC title if the strongest engines can't compete?

The ICGA is in need for a new rule no.2 that can stand the heat of the 2011 kitchen.

The ICGA also can play a major role in the restoration of the current chaos in computer chess land created by the clones. This small community needs new criteria, a new structure and hold on for programmers. A discussion about this is started at Rybka Forum. I proposed a brainstorm model that perhaps has a future.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=22719

Thanks.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Stockfish, Critter, Komodo. Which of those 3 engines do you claim violate rule #2? Can you back that assertion up?

And no, claiming that those engines benefit from the simple existence of Ippolit isn't valid. If you do, you are (once again) trying to blur the boundary between ideas and code. If you can demonstrate that these engines have unacknowledged stolen code, though, I'm sure we're all ears.

That said, I agree that Rule #2 could benefit from some specificity. In spirit, though, it's 100% correct.

Or would you prefer something like "Entrants can legitimately steal up to 95% of the code stolen by the previous year's WCCC. The returning WCCC is not subject to this clause, and may steal code as deemed appropriate. Winners demonstrated to have violated this rule retain their titles and merely push the upper boundary higher."?

Jeremy

That will keep me busy for a while

Mark, now that you here, allow me a few words to talk about the future of the ICGA. And if you think there is value in it please address it to the ICGA board members.

I see a looming scenario that future WCC cycles become worthless because the strongest engines can not participate due to rule no.2. The problem is already present. For the upcoming WC cycle the ICGA is already in the situation that 4-5 of the strongest engines, all candidates for the title, actually all of those 4-5 will have a top ranking when allowed. This number will increase the coming years because of the free source code out there estimated elo 3000+ What is the purpose any longer of a WC title if the strongest engines can't compete?

The ICGA is in need for a new rule no.2 that can stand the heat of the 2011 kitchen.

The ICGA also can play a major role in the restoration of the current chaos in computer chess land created by the clones. This small community needs new criteria, a new structure and hold on for programmers. A discussion about this is started at Rybka Forum. I proposed a brainstorm model that perhaps has a future.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=22719

Thanks.

[Chris Whittington]

Stockfish, Critter, Komodo. Which of those 3 engines do you claim violate rule #2? Can you back that assertion up?

And no, claiming that those engines benefit from the simple existence of Ippolit isn't valid. If you do, you are (once again) trying to blur the boundary between ideas and code. If you can demonstrate that these engines have unacknowledged stolen code, though, I'm sure we're all ears.

That said, I agree that Rule #2 could benefit from some specificity. In spirit, though, it's 100% correct.

Or would you prefer something like "Entrants can legitimately steal up to 95% of the code stolen by the previous year's WCCC. The returning WCCC is not subject to this clause, and may steal code as deemed appropriate. Winners demonstrated to have violated this rule retain their titles and merely push the upper boundary higher."?

Jeremy

That will keep me busy for a while

Mark, now that you here, allow me a few words to talk about the future of the ICGA. And if you think there is value in it please address it to the ICGA board members.

I see a looming scenario that future WCC cycles become worthless because the strongest engines can not participate due to rule no.2. The problem is already present. For the upcoming WC cycle the ICGA is already in the situation that 4-5 of the strongest engines, all candidates for the title, actually all of those 4-5 will have a top ranking when allowed. This number will increase the coming years because of the free source code out there estimated elo 3000+ What is the purpose any longer of a WC title if the strongest engines can't compete?

The ICGA is in need for a new rule no.2 that can stand the heat of the 2011 kitchen.

The ICGA also can play a major role in the restoration of the current chaos in computer chess land created by the clones. This small community needs new criteria, a new structure and hold on for programmers. A discussion about this is started at Rybka Forum. I proposed a brainstorm model that perhaps has a future.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=22719

Thanks.

Everything is too simplistic for you, kid.

Taking IDEAS is not stealing. Taking algorithms is not stealing. ideas and algorithms are NOT protected by copyright law. It is quite deliberate that they are not protected, because the purpose of copyright law is to encourage the publication of innovation AND allow sufficient loopholes for others to build on that innovation. Something copyright law achieves by (a) timing out and (b) distinguishing between the idea and the specific expression of the idea. It creates even more loopholes on the idea/expression concept by introducing the "filtration" concept such that DIRECT COPY is lawful under certain specific circumstances as well.

In an attempt to circumvent the spirit of copyright law, certain programmer(s) have attempted to introduce extra conditions re tournament entry and so on. These conditions are being treated as onerous and unenforceable. A certain programmer has announced he has no intention of enforcement in any case. In a legal sense these extra conditions can be safely ignored. The particular programmer, unwilling to enforce his conditions himself (because he can't) now runs to tournament organisers, the icga and anyone else he can influence and tries to get them to enforce his terms for him.

The result is a mish-mash of inconsistent and self-contradictory and highly confusing rules of engagement for programmers, particularly new programmers.

The best course of action for programmers is the same course of action they have probably all been applying for years anyway, namely ....

Thanks very much for the open source, we will go through it backwards and forwards lawfully taking ideas. We reject your special fancy terms and conditions as onerous and unlawful and unenforceable. Bye and thanks for all the fish, so to speak.

Meanwhile, and to avoid sinking into meaningless oblivion, the icga should tell Hyatt to quit hassling them and other tournament organisers and rating lists and, if he feels so strongly about it, to go to law, otherwise shut up. Rule #2 is out of date and inconsistent with the current situation. It should be scrapped and tournament organisers operate on the basis that, unless a program is illegal/unlawful then it can be entered into any tournament or rating list.

[mjlef]

That will keep me busy for a while

Mark, now that you here, allow me a few words to talk about the future of the ICGA. And if you think there is value in it please address it to the ICGA board members.

I see a looming scenario that future WCC cycles become worthless because the strongest engines can not participate due to rule no.2. The problem is already present. For the upcoming WC cycle the ICGA is already in the situation that 4-5 of the strongest engines, all candidates for the title, actually all of those 4-5 will have a top ranking when allowed. This number will increase the coming years because of the free source code out there estimated elo 3000+ What is the purpose any longer of a WC title if the strongest engines can't compete?

The ICGA is in need for a new rule no.2 that can stand the heat of the 2011 kitchen.

The ICGA also can play a major role in the restoration of the current chaos in computer chess land created by the clones. This small community needs new criteria, a new structure and hold on for programmers. A discussion about this is started at Rybka Forum. I proposed a brainstorm model that perhaps has a future.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=22719

Thanks.

Ed,

We setup a discussion topic here:

http://icga.wikispaces.com/message/list ... g+cheating
labeled "Tournament Rules Change Suggestions" to address suggestions about the rules. I request you put suggestions there, since things posted on all these forums are just going to get lost. Might I suggest you summarize the "brainstorm" ideas and add them to the ICGA discussion thread?

Some things I would like to see done (this is my opinion, and not the ICGA):
a. Require executables for all entires be retained by the ICGA. I think the mere threat of possible investigations of specific entries would discourage clone entries.
b. Maybe some kind of "lock box" system where an independent party could retain encrypted source code of entries, which could be unlocked only with agreement of the programmer and ICGA Board. Refusal to unlock by a programmer would be an admission of guilt. TO unlock we would have to set the bar pretty high, so rules would have to be established for this.

[Rebel]

That said, I agree that Rule #2 could benefit from some specificity. In spirit, though, it's 100% correct.

Before 2005 yes, after the Fruit release not. Outdated. If nothing happens CC goes up in smoke and the ICGA with it. And it's already late.

[Rebel]

Ed,

We setup a discussion topic here:

http://icga.wikispaces.com/message/list ... g+cheating
labeled "Tournament Rules Change Suggestions" to address suggestions about the rules. I request you put suggestions there, since things posted on all these forums are just going to get lost. Might I suggest you summarize the "brainstorm" ideas and add them to the ICGA discussion thread?

Some things I would like to see done (this is my opinion, and not the ICGA):
a. Require executables for all entires be retained by the ICGA. I think the mere threat of possible investigations of specific entries would discourage clone entries.
b. Maybe some kind of "lock box" system where an independent party could retain encrypted source code of entries, which could be unlocked only with agreement of the programmer and ICGA Board. Refusal to unlock by a programmer would be an admission of guilt. TO unlock we would have to set the bar pretty high, so rules would have to be established for this.

Glad something is happening.

[Prima]

That will keep me busy for a while

Mark, now that you here, allow me a few words to talk about the future of the ICGA. And if you think there is value in it please address it to the ICGA board members.

I see a looming scenario that future WCC cycles become worthless because the strongest engines can not participate due to rule no.2. The problem is already present. For the upcoming WC cycle the ICGA is already in the situation that 4-5 of the strongest engines, all candidates for the title, actually all of those 4-5 will have a top ranking when allowed. This number will increase the coming years because of the free source code out there estimated elo 3000+ What is the purpose any longer of a WC title if the strongest engines can't compete?

The ICGA is in need for a new rule no.2 that can stand the heat of the 2011 kitchen.

The ICGA also can play a major role in the restoration of the current chaos in computer chess land created by the clones. This small community needs new criteria, a new structure and hold on for programmers. A discussion about this is started at Rybka Forum. I proposed a brainstorm model that perhaps has a future.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=22719

Thanks.

I. The ICGA tournaments isn't solely about having "the strongest engine". Nor is the ICGA's worth based on "the strongest engine". Never mind the ICGA rules that has to be respected and adhered to, by all registering programmers. In your myopic view, it's about having the strongest engine, at all cost, participate in spite of its unethical and immoral origins. Your adamant defend of Rybka, as emotionally-charged and hypocritical as it is, shows this.

2. By your use of the word "chaos" and "clone", I'm sure you're referring an engine still NOT proven to be a clone by the cloner himself who has lied about his own engine's origin/makeup. And we're suppose to take his word that the supposedly "clone" engine is based on Rybka without proof? Very twisted, unless I'm mistaken about which engine you referred to as "clone". I'm sure you're referring to the "chaos" brought about by "Rybka", an engine proven to be a Fruit and Crafty clone. It's the only sensible deduction, of your statement, in this matter...

[Terry McCracken]

Given that every reasonable chess program has all (or almost all) the ingredients as mentioned in the Zach & BB documents (mine certainly has all) makes a comparison hardly possible. Much of what's described in the document I either have done similar (and a lot earlier than good old Fabien ) or is done in a general known but just in a somewhat different way of doing the same thing, namely, to evaluate a positional aspect of a position following his understanding of the aspect.

Problem with EVAL is (and with PST it's similar) there are not so much choices. There are not 10 or 20 ways to calculate mobility, only few. Same with other aspects, king safety, all programs evaluate the squares close to the enemy king. Furthermore a chess programmer is forced to do it in quick and simple solutions for speed reasons. So possible alternatives quickly shrink and programs tend to become similar in the techniques they use.

However what I would accept as damaging is an exact or a great similarity in the order of the evaluation ingredients. I had a quick look at the Fruit and Strelka EVAL and that doesn't appear the case, I leave this to the Rybka/Fruit/Strelka experts.

The point is, I have a hard time to believe that Vas (in 2005) took the Fruit sources as a base and changed the order of Fruit's EVAL because he foresaw a scenario he would become so famous that somebody would re-engineer his program an he possibly could be caught on exact order of the ingredients in EVAL.

I would say, no similarity, not guilty.

What will you say when the FSF finds Vas guilty of copyright infringement??? You sure don't have any problem slamming your peers to protect one dubious programmer. What the hell Ed?