BB's Rybka/Ippolit comparison

[BB+]

Hopefully, the investigation will make a positive, theres indeed alot of material against Rybka, the funny thing is the attitude of its supporters in the Rybka forum.

My understanding is that most of the Rybka forum support is essentially predicated on "Might makes right", that is, Elo is all that matters [except when IPPOLIT/Houdini are involved, naturally]. Having a Rybka team member dismiss the signers of the open letter as "runners-up at best" cannot bode well for an amicable resolution.

For the ICGA process, that sanctioning body has made it quite clear (in both this and previous cases) that mere strength cannot dispense with the need for originality -- in particular, the re-use of code of others has never been permitted without permission. For the FSF lawsuit, the issue again is not "strength" per se, but the exclusive adaptation right of the copyright owner (see my other post).

[slobo]

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.

My answer is late, but I had no time to read this thread before.
I don´t agree completely with you Chris. Yes, from one side we "should continue to treat Vas with all respect" because he contributed a lot to the CC community. On the other side, however, as an ethical being, he does not deserve any respect. That is how I see his casting false accusations against the Ippolit team. Being myself a victim of false accusations I cannot see it in other way.

Best.
SL

[slobo]

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?

"Will the chess community accept Reverse Engineering as a legitimate form of discovery? "

It should, I think. Who does RE, however, should not be allowed to sell his new version if he does not make it better (stronger - chess engines) then the original source.

[Rebel]

It is going on 2 years since the initial release (May 2009) of Ippolit...and is now accepted to a point since rating lists are testing them. This is a good time for write up on the Ippolit case.

Ippolit is disassembled Rybka 3 with changes. The changes are considerable but not even close to enough to leave any doubt. Robbolito is an evolved Ippolit, with more changes and more cleanup. I haven't checked the other new engines yet.

I'll definitely write up the Ippolit case at some point, for the historical record. Anonymous engines are not accepted by the CC community, so there is no hurry. I think it's best to wait one to two years before writing up an anonymous engine. Otherwise, cloners could use anonymous releases to get information, and then take more aggressive steps.

Re. tracking down the cloners: Not worth the energy, IMO.

Re. Fruit and Rybka: The Rybka source code is original. I did take a lot of things from Fruit, but legally. If there are some good concrete questions from credible people, please send them along.

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34908

I have been rereading this thread and coming to your post I want to say 2 things:

1. Reading Sven's correspondence with Vas I feel that Vas has been in deficit backing up his Ippolit claim.

2. The Ippolit issue is currently in the center of interest again at Talkchess EO.

[kingliveson]

It is going on 2 years since the initial release (May 2009) of Ippolit...and is now accepted to a point since rating lists are testing them. This is a good time for write up on the Ippolit case.

Ippolit is disassembled Rybka 3 with changes. The changes are considerable but not even close to enough to leave any doubt. Robbolito is an evolved Ippolit, with more changes and more cleanup. I haven't checked the other new engines yet.

I'll definitely write up the Ippolit case at some point, for the historical record. Anonymous engines are not accepted by the CC community, so there is no hurry. I think it's best to wait one to two years before writing up an anonymous engine. Otherwise, cloners could use anonymous releases to get information, and then take more aggressive steps.

Re. tracking down the cloners: Not worth the energy, IMO.

Re. Fruit and Rybka: The Rybka source code is original. I did take a lot of things from Fruit, but legally. If there are some good concrete questions from credible people, please send them along.

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34908

I have been rereading this thread and coming to your post I want to say 2 things:

1. Reading Sven's correspondence with Vas I feel that Vas has been in deficit backing up his Ippolit claim.

2. The Ippolit issue is currently in the center of interest again at Talkchess EO.

Lord have mercy...first, the link requires authentication, second, I have no idea whether or not, my account is still active there...and third, any discussion at this point that does not involve IM Rajlich himself on this topic, is somewhat inane.