POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

General discussion about computer chess...

Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Poll ended at Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:23 pm

Yes
9
18%
No
34
69%
Do not know
6
12%
 
Total votes: 49

Charles
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:41 pm
Real Name: Charles
Contact:

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by Charles » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:46 pm

Ippolit is derived from Rybka 3.

Peter C
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:12 am
Real Name: Peter C

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by Peter C » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:50 pm

Evidence?

Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).

Peter

Charles
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:41 pm
Real Name: Charles
Contact:

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by Charles » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:08 pm

Peter C wrote:Evidence?

Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).

Peter
Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?
And how does Ippolit get its strength? Is there something unique within its design that does this or is it simply the ideas taken from Rybka 3?

I think that pdf pretty much makes the case that Ippolit is legal, but there are higher ethical standards needed in determining how original the ideas contained within a chess engine are.

User avatar
Matthias Gemuh
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by Matthias Gemuh » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:35 pm

Charles wrote:
Peter C wrote:Evidence?

Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).

Peter
Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?
And how does Ippolit get its strength? Is there something unique within its design that does this or is it simply the ideas taken from Rybka 3?

I think that pdf pretty much makes the case that Ippolit is legal, but there are higher ethical standards needed in determining how original the ideas contained within a chess engine are.
Are you indirectly saying that Ippolit got its ideas from Fruit ?

A nice quote: "I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things".
Aided by engines, GMs can be very strong.
http://www.hylogic.de

Charles
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:41 pm
Real Name: Charles
Contact:

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by Charles » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:59 pm

Matthias Gemuh wrote:
Charles wrote:
Peter C wrote:Evidence?

Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).

Peter
Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?
And how does Ippolit get its strength? Is there something unique within its design that does this or is it simply the ideas taken from Rybka 3?

I think that pdf pretty much makes the case that Ippolit is legal, but there are higher ethical standards needed in determining how original the ideas contained within a chess engine are.
Are you indirectly saying that Ippolit got its ideas from Fruit ?

A nice quote: "I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things".

No, I am saying it got its ideas from Rybka 3.
You can argue forever whether Rybka beta took ideas or copied directly from fruit. It is clear to most that if someone takes all ideas from fruit and re-arranges the code they cannot make it stronger.
I am saying that Rybka 3 & 4 have more original ideas than ippolit that's all.

Are you saying Ippolit is an entirely original engine that just appeared to have strength of Rybka 3?

Peter C
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:12 am
Real Name: Peter C

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by Peter C » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:15 pm

Charles wrote:
Peter C wrote:Evidence?

Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).

Peter
Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?
And how does Ippolit get its strength? Is there something unique within its design that does this or is it simply the ideas taken from Rybka 3?

I think that pdf pretty much makes the case that Ippolit is legal, but there are higher ethical standards needed in determining how original the ideas contained within a chess engine are.
The Ippolit authors took lots of ideas from Rybka and added some of their own. Like the search is more aggressive than Rybka's and added some new stuff.

Er, most engines take ideas from other engines. Vas even said he got tons of ideas from the Fruit code. The jury is still out on whether he just took ideas or copied code.

Peter

Roger Brown
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:35 am

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by Roger Brown » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:24 pm

Charles wrote: Vas has to account for it not me. However, other programmers have disputed this. My definition of original is the amount of innovation contained in the program. I suspect that Vas studeied fruit and others as he said and built his engine from it. Maybe he copied something in the process. and so Rybka is not original. However, he innovated by making his engine considerably stronger. So I feel the engine has considerable VALUE for the enduser.

Hello Charles,

I see the above as the thin edge of the wedge. You accept innovation where this results in increased strength even where copying took place. I have a problem with that acceptance BUT let's go with it.

What then would be the case against Ippo*?

Isn't it an innovation when Houdini et al (and as yet I am not saying clone, I am saying ideas as the author himself stated on his website) turns out stronger than Rybka?

I prefer to argue the principle of copying first to establish what is right and wrong then treat with each engine based on that principle. Whether the thing is stronger or weaker becomes a slippery slope. What if Rybka was weaker than Fruit? Would the sale of it be any less worse or better (depending on your perspective)?
Charles wrote: The amount of originality in rybka makes it a useful product.. Btw.. no one would buy rybka if it was same strength of fruit. ---Rybka's innovation is in its considerable strength.
Again, I am uncomfortable with the strength making it all right argument. Strength is not a justification in and of itself.
Charles wrote: This is established with the "clone testing" in talkchess. It can show (not necessarily conclusively) which engines are close in evaluation. Also the latest report by BB shows clearly that Ippolit is not a copy and paste but does show that there are a lot of similarities.
And the innovation is ippolit is strenght in blitz that almost vanishes at long time controls --- I have yet to see enough LTC games showing dominance over Rybka 3!
Should you be referring to the evaluation comparisons I would want to be careful with that analysis. When it was expanded, similarities among other engines - commercial and free - were also noted. That would suggest that either the method lacks the requisite rigour or there is an incestuous arrangement in terms of chess engine coding.

:-)
Charles wrote: Rybka 4 - adjusting time control factors is much stronger. and is equal or better than ivanhoe. However, houdini might be stronger ...My tests show that.
Are the games or results of the games available somewhere? If not, could you state the time-control you used?
Charles wrote: Anyway, if Rybka is NOT original, then neither is ippolit by the same standards.
Ippo* was not sold.

Later.

User avatar
kingliveson
Posts: 1388
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:22 am
Real Name: Franklin Titus
Location: 28°32'1"N 81°22'33"W

Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

Post by kingliveson » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:06 pm

Houdini smashes Rybka tactically in a recent tournament and what happens afterwards is laughable comments by Rybka's (team) henchmen in attempt to discredit the wicked win.