< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Jan-07-12|| ||King Death: <twinlark> I'll bet he's checking out his options.|
|Jan-08-12|| ||The Rocket: <twinlark:> the main problem with the rybka team response is that they complain about the rule rather than the verdict.. if they in anyway found it nonsensical they did not need to participate.. a rule can't be good enough unless it affects you and then suddenly they are outraged.... so its pretty silly|
|Jan-08-12|| ||mrbasso: CB is biased, they sell Rybka after all.|
|Jan-08-12|| ||AlphaMale: Not wishing to travail through all four parts of <Gross Miscarriage of Justice>, does Soren Riis identify who was responsible for writing the ICGA's report with its falsified/manipulated/misleading/misattributed code?|
|Jan-08-12|| ||heuristic: the chessbase report is very good.
i found some of the terminology inconsistent (templates vs header files); OTOH the supporting URLs contain hard data to support the writing.
i found rajilich's comments to be technically correct and his situation w.r.t. source code management to be hilarous!
it names a trio of folks, one who is quite active in the newsgroup. their comments are less technical.
|Jan-08-12|| ||alexmagnus: Riis is not unbiased though. He is (or was?) a moderator in the official Rybka forum, and also he was in the Rybka team in all that world champs.
But we'll see...|
|Jan-08-12|| ||Tomlinsky: I don't think that the CB article washes personally. The initialisation routines alone are in many places a direct copy, not just an implementation or inerpretation of an algorythm, repeating the exact same order of setup. That isn't a coincidence. Lifting ideas and interpreting them to suit your own code is one thing, taking someone else's source code and basically pressing the compile button is another.|
|Jan-08-12|| ||AlphaMale: <The initialisation routines alone are in many places a direct copy, not just an implementation or inerpretation of an algorythm, repeating the exact same order of setup.>|
So what else is a direct copy?
|Jan-08-12|| ||gezafan: What would these programs be rated? How do they compare with top human players?|
|Jan-09-12|| ||Kinghunt: The stronger programs competing here would be rated about 3000. It's difficult to assign them a meaningful human rating though.|
|Jan-09-12|| ||twinlark: <Tomlinsky>
You posted earlier that:
<I don't think that the CB article washes personally. The initialisation routines alone are in many places a direct copy, not just an implementation or inerpretation of an algorythm, repeating the exact same order of setup.>
I don't know much about the technical issues involved but Riis seems to have addressed that point quite directly:
<Given the points Iíve outlined above what are we to make of the following categorical statements made by Zach Wegner in his ICGA report findings?
Because of Fruit's unique PST initialization code, the origin of Rybka's PSTs in Fruit is clear.>
These are all demonstrably incorrect and tendentious conclusions...>
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp... (about half way down Part 3 of the article)
|Jan-10-12|| ||Tomlinsky: <TL: I don't know much about the technical issues involved but Riis seems to have addressed that point quite directly>|
Riis hasn't addressed that point at all apart from offering an opinion and attempting to obfuscate, as far as I can see, what is pretty much crystal clear when looking at the presented evidence of retrograde reassembled object code. In my opinion. :)
The initialisation routines and structures given as examples of direct copying, as opposed to an implementation of the same or similar 'idea(s)', are in many places in exactly the same order as each other. Even if they are initialised with different, tweaked, variables and constants this is quite obviously not a coincidence and enough on its own for the rules to have been broken.
I'm purposely sticking with one issue raised as evidence as there really is no need to argue the toss on other points with regard ethics/copyright/etc. This alone is a rule breaker and enough to claim infraction.
Chessbase and Rajlich are, in my opinion, being very disingenuous in the way they are handling this by letting a 'third party' offer opinion and insight while doing absolutely nothing to address, or be seen to address, the issue directly.
|Jan-11-12|| ||twinlark: Fair enough. There's more discussion at Rybka (Computer).|
|Jan-11-12|| ||HeMateMe: For those who follow computer chess closely, would the weakest program here, Woodpusher, still have a higher estimated ELO than world champion Anand?|
|Jan-11-12|| ||chessexp: NO WAY. Woodpusher is < 2000.|
|Jan-11-12|| ||HeMateMe: If Woody is so weak, then why was it invited to such an elite event?|
|Jan-11-12|| ||chessexp: Anybody with an original (ie. Not Rybka) chess engine can participate. It's not really a world championship in the sense that only the strongest 3000+ can join for the fun.|
|Jan-11-12|| ||nimh: Woodpusher is not found on any engine rating lists, as far as I can see. How can one say with confidence it's below 2000 without even specifying hardware?|
|Jan-11-12|| ||chessexp: Woodpusher is an old private engine, I noticed its estimated rating a long time ago from somewhere I can't remember. It's not a new program.|
|Jan-11-12|| ||AylerKupp: <HeMateMe> I wouldn't consider this an elite event. The following engines did not participate: Houdini, Rybka, Critter, Stockfish, Komodo, Naum, and Spike. All these engines have consistently been rated higher than the highest-entered engine entered in this event, Shredder, in the CCRL 40/40 tournaments. That is the equivalent of holding a World Championship tournament where Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik, Anand, Radjabov, Topalov, and Karjakin did not participate. Oh, the organizers can CLAIM that this is the "World Computer Chess Championship Tournament" but in my opinion that is a meaningless claim.|
|Jan-11-12|| ||HeMateMe: Thats a good point. I didn't realize that so many heavy hitters were not at this event. I wonder why there isn't one really strong event where all the software handlers feel they MUST attend, so that we can have a truly "world computer championship"? A little financial reward would probably help things along.|
|Jan-11-12|| ||Marmot PFL: <I wouldn't consider this an elite event. The following engines did not participate: Houdini, Rybka, Critter, Stockfish, Komodo, Naum, and Spike.>|
Maybe they copy each other so much that they could all risk being disqualified.
|Jan-11-12|| ||chessexp: <HeMateMe> Nobody wants to finance it. FIDE doesn't care, Chessbase just wants Rybka to win the ICGA etc.|
|Jan-11-12|| ||Tomlinsky: <TL> Thanks and Happy New Year.|
|Jan-11-12|| ||AylerKupp: <Marmot PFL> LOL! Yes, chess engine development can certainly be an incestuous enterprise!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·