General discussion about computer chess...
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
-
Contact:
Post
by hyatt » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:51 pm
Rebel wrote:kingliveson wrote: This is telling given his affiliation with Rybka. And true, there was no new evidence presented in the opinion piece, or by Mr. Schröder. At this point, nothing short of releasing the source code could exoneration Rybka.
Hi,
http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm#C6
I think that:
Code: Select all
Compile the following code with any of the MS compilers.
static int T=1;
void main() { if (T >= 0.) T=5; }
It will produce the same code as 0.0
is quite interesting.
Also the PST's
http://www.top-5000.nl/pst.htm
For starters
?? 0. and 0.0 are EXACTLY the same constant. So you REALLY want to claim that he used 0. rather than 0.0 and therefore did NOT copy the 0. code? You know better. I know better. We ALL know better. Your PST analysis shows either that you know zip about math, or you are dishonest. Either one is bad.
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
-
Contact:
Post
by hyatt » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:56 pm
One addendum to Mark's quibbles:
None of the actual Rybka versions that participated in the four WCCC tournaments were investigated, although a very close version (Rybka 2.3.2a) was examined following a laborious process of reverse-engineering.
We know that Lukas, the OPERATOR for Rybka, clearly stated that 2.3.2a DID participate in the event in question. This quote was found on the Rybka Forum from a post Lukas made DURING the tournament that he was operating that version of Rybka. So we tested EXACTLY the version that participated.
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
-
Contact:
Post
by hyatt » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:03 pm
Uly wrote:And even if it was, the 0.0 is in the middle of non-playing code, so the 0.0 or any other copied part in there couldn't break ICGA's rule 2.
Eh? One can't argue that timing decisions are not part of the "game playing code". In fact, timing is one of several CRITICAL aspects of an engine and how it performs. Just enter an engine that only plays at 1 sec per move into tournaments and see what happens...
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
-
Contact:
Post
by hyatt » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:15 pm
Says exactly nothing that he has not already said on the Rybka Forum. Summary: "The ICGA doesn't understand its own rules, and for plagiarism, copying ideas or code is wrong. Or it is not wrong. Or it is somewhere in between." Even though the ICGA (and even copyright law) has never discussed "copying ideas" as "plagiarism" or "a copyright violation". We are, and always have been, talking about copying code. I notice at the bottom that Ed pressed him to write this report. BIG surprise. More misinformation on Ed's site than any other place except the Rybka forum...
-
kingliveson
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:22 am
- Real Name: Franklin Titus
- Location: 28°32'1"N 81°22'33"W
Post
by kingliveson » Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:32 pm
hyatt wrote:Uly wrote:And even if it was, the 0.0 is in the middle of non-playing code, so the 0.0 or any other copied part in there couldn't break ICGA's rule 2.
Eh? One can't argue that timing decisions are not part of the "game playing code". In fact, timing is one of several CRITICAL aspects of an engine and how it performs. Just enter an engine that only plays at 1 sec per move into tournaments and see what happens...
It is true that time management matters very much. A balance between long search and not getting in time trouble is very important. Just the other day, I posted how Komodo destroys opponents by getting them in time trouble. IPON rating list removed latest Stockfish recently due to timing bug.
PAWN : Knight >> Bishop >> Rook >>Queen
-
Adam Hair
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:29 am
- Real Name: Adam Hair
-
Contact:
Post
by Adam Hair » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:39 pm
kingliveson wrote:
Trying to re-write history I see... He forgot that that same
dendrogram convicted Fritz (ChessBase product) of being a Strelka clone.
Soren is actually quoting a different dendrogram that Kai produces. Also, there is a problem with the test and dendrogram that Kai did for Fritz. He is combining two different data sets ( positions analyzed are different between the two data sets) to draw conclusions about Fritz. It met his expectations and so he has not checked to see if the results are reproducible or valid.
-
Uly
- Posts: 838
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:33 am
Post
by Uly » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:26 pm
hyatt wrote: In fact, timing is one of several CRITICAL aspects of an engine and how it performs.
But not THAT critical, the engine with the best game-playing code is still more likely to win.
Here, I run two games between Crafty 23.4 and Critter 1.4, giving Crafty 5 minutes + 2 seconds of increment, and Critter fixed exact one second per move.
In the first game Critter doesn't have problems reaching a position that Crafty doesn't know how to play.
In the second game Crafty gives up to a 2.82 score to a position it cannot win, and then goes and eventually loses it!
