< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 79 OF 79 ·
|Jan-18-12|| ||drik: <polarmis: <drik>, no-one's doing anything "with impunity".>|
...it was you who claimed that the ICGA had the right to act with impunity, give that it was a 'private club'.
< I don't dismiss him, I just disagree and don't think one person's view outweighs the other 20+ experts who disagree with him.>
He was one of the signatories. He disagreed with the conclusions vehemently. This would seem reason to apply the lesser sanction first, & THEN the greater one once he was convinced. Rather then try to explain why this measured approach was unacceptable - you proceeded to tell me that DISQUALIFICATION & BANNING FOR LIFE was a lesser sanction than a SHARED TROPHY. LOL! And you complain that I use rhetoric? At least I don't have to resort to doublethink.
<If you can show he had some mafia buddies who made all the panel members/board vote at gunpoint>
... because the panel members were all entirely neutral parties? Do people normally have to be coerced at gunpoint to behave in self-interest?
<Why are you leaving out the evaluation function, which was the main thing looked at?>
I don't think there is any clarity about the evaluation function. There are claims that it has been deliberately 'obfuscated', but that does not prove anything. There major difference in the form of the code - though I cannot comment on whether this is due to some form of transcription.
I notice you also ignore the major rewrite between Rybka 2 & 3 where stuff like Monte-Carlo simulations were added & Rybka gained a further 80 Elo.
|Jan-18-12|| ||polarmis: <He was one of the signatories. He disagreed with the conclusions vehemently. This would seem reason to apply the lesser sanction first, & THEN the greater one once he was convinced.>|
You do realise Schroeder had his change of heart after the verdict was published? And you think the verdict should be overturned (without Rajlich appealing) and everyone else involved should wait for one person to be convinced? And I'm the one who's supposed to be unworldly? (besides, Schroeder doesn't actually dispute Rajlich copied Fruit code, so it's all a bit bizarre)
By the way, your "pack of baying hounds", or the panel, didn't recommend a life-time ban, and thought it would be fine for Rybka to play in ICGA events if the latest version was shown to be free of Fruit code.
|Jan-19-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
Rebuttal of Soren Riis's idiotic diatribe. (He was paid by Rajlich to write the article, Riis is also very much PRO-Rybka and a moderator in one of their forums. You cannot possibly consider Riis unbiased.)
|Jan-19-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: ICGA slammed the door on this one ...|
|Jan-19-12|| ||drik: <polarmis: You do realise Schroeder had his change of heart after the verdict was published?>|
Yes - but it seems he was inadequately consulted during the final process. Which is odd for such a momentous decision.
<Schroeder doesn't actually dispute Rajlich copied Fruit code, so it's all a bit bizarre>
He disputes that the copied code is a major factor in Rybka's playing strength. Again, it seems the ICGA could have at least taken more trouble to communicate with its experts.
<By the way, your "pack of baying hounds", or the panel, didn't recommend a life-time ban>
If I remember correctly - one guy wanted shared attribution, another was very specific in version (up to 2.3.3 I think) and a few others were reasonably moderate. But Mark Uniacke's opinion seems to be the one adopted by the ICGA. Not only does he proclaim Rybka a derivative up to 2.3.3, but claims that this means that all subsequent versions are untrustworthy - without any need for detailed examination! Once guilty - always guilty. That's quite a spectrum of opinions, and an unsatisfactory consensus for me.
|Jan-19-12|| ||drik: <polarmis:> With regard to reaching a satisfactory consensus - let me outline how the mathematics community reached one on the 2002/3 proof of the Poincare conjecture.|
Perelman published on arXiv rather than a refereed paper & did so it such a terse manner (~80 pages) that almost no one in the world could follow it. When asked to elaborate, he refused on the grounds that anyone not willing to put in the effort, did not deserve to be enlightened. And this despite a million dollar prize being at stake.
Another group tried to claim success after publishing a 360 page article, filling in all the details. But after nearly 3 years of concerted effort around the world, specialists in Ricci flow established that Perleman's method was completely defined in the original preprint - it just referred a range of known, but obscure theorems from the theory of Alexandrov spaces.
Perelman was awarded the million dollar Clay prize & the Fields Medal (Math Nobel) - without having to share any credit. The fact that he declined both is another matter ...
Coming to a consensus on something MUCH simpler, like derivative code, should not take anything like 3 years. But if you want the whole truth you need open the discussion up to the whole community. If not, you should frame your rules more professionally.
|Jan-19-12|| ||drik: <polarmis: And I'm the one who's supposed to be unworldly?>|
Not unworldly ... just from a different world to me ;-)
|Jan-20-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: R copied code - there is no disputing that. He used Fruit, and the initial versions of Rybka were virtual clones of Fruit. |
Trying to argue otherwise is to play sematics - or simply lie. Might have gone better for him if he had admitted the whole thing up front.
|Jan-20-12|| ||rapidcitychess: Obviously he tinkered with these programs right? Otherwise they would be just as good as Crafty and Fruit. Improving the gasoline car didn't make them plagiarizing Henry Ford's work. Of course, I'm probably wrong. ^^;|
|Jan-20-12|| ||polarmis: <Yes - but it seems he was inadequately consulted during the final process. Which is odd for such a momentous decision.>|
It's really not all that much odder that they didn't ask me :) Seriously, I don't see the fixation with one programmer out of many, especially as he still agreed with the general view at the time the panel was making its recommendations (and if he wanted to voice his view he should have joined the panel - or did he join and then later have his name removed!?).
Even when he reacted emotionally to the verdict/publicity he started his "open letter" by reasserting Rajlich was guilty:
<I have signed that letter that triggered the IGCA tribunal to investigate the origins of Rybka. I did that because I believed (and still believe) Rybka started it's life as Fruit 2.1 and as such in that state was not allowed to participate in ICGA tournaments.>
It seems to me it was only later - after he'd got into heated arguments on forums and so on - that he started to try and prove that Rajlich might be innocent and not just harshly treated. As someone who prefers to look at motivations rather than arguments that should appeal to you :)
<If I remember correctly...>
At a glance I'm not sure you do. The consensus, and it's absolutely clear, was that Rybka broke the rules - and even on the details you're misrepresenting e.g. Mark Uniacke as being isolated (others mention later Rybkas can't be considered clean unless that's proven). He speaks in slightly more forceful terms (which strike me as justified if Rajlich is guilty as charged) but he doesn't ask for a lifetime ban, so it's odd to say the board went with his view. And of course the views given are just a sample - only the recommendations can be considered the official view of the panel as a whole.
|Jan-20-12|| ||nok: Perelman's adventures are irrelevant. Railich <signed up> for a competition with specific rules ("may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director / must be available on demand to the Tournament Director"). Perelman did not sign anything, because he wants his freedom rather than titles and publicity.|
|Jan-20-12|| ||AylerKupp: One problem with the rule that Rajlich broke, ICGA Tournament Rule 2, is that it is impossible to satisfy. The first sentence says "Each program must be the original work of the entering developers." The second sentence says "Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details." It seems to me that if any entrant lists contributions from other programs or sources then the entered chess program is no longer "original work" and can be disqualified. If they don't list these contributions, then they are disqualified for that reason. So, for instance, Stockfish would be ineligible to participate since it is a derivate of Glaurung 2.1 and not original work by two of the three Stockfish developers.|
And the last sentence of Rule 2, "For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director." is to me an unreasonable expectation and demand by the ICGA. If the participating chess playing program is a commercial product, then its source code is typically considered a trade secret, and disclosing it without requiring any competitive commercial chess playing program to do the same, regardless of whether they participate in the tournament or not, would place the developers of the participating chess program at a competitive disadvantage. Imposing this requirement by the ICGA as a condition of participating in the tournament would likely leave the commercial chess playing program developer no alternative but to decline participating in the tournament.
I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of ICGA Tournament Rule 2 and it's clear to me that Rajlich broke it but it needs to be entirely rewritten to fit the realities of modern software development. I believe that, as written, most if not all the programs that were entered in the latest tournament would be disqualified if they were subjected to the same level of scrutiny that Rybka was. But, of course, that's just my unsubstantiated opinion and I canít prove it, so please don't ask me to.
|Jan-20-12|| ||nok: Having sources does not mean your work is unoriginal. But quote the damn sources, so that the community can discern promising directions. You want the publicity of ICGA, you pay the price of ICGA.|
|Jan-20-12|| ||Tomlinsky: Exactly. It isn't complicated.|
|Jan-20-12|| ||AylerKupp: <nok> It all depends on the interpretation of "original work". If taken literally I don't see how having sources allows one to claim that their work was original. I know that this is just semantics but I think that the ICGA needs to clarify it. And under the current tournament rules I don't think that the price of admission to an ICGA tournament is worth the publicity, particularly given the meaninglessness of the title "World Computer Chess Champion" in view of the lack of participation by the top engines. Of course, that's once again only my opinion, each developer must make their own choices. But by the lack of participation in the tournament by the top engines, I think that they have.|
|Jan-21-12|| ||drik: <Seriously, I don't see the fixation with one programmer out of many>|
Not just one programmer...the Computer Chess Association of the Netherlands agree with him.
If the ICGA cannot take the trouble to even confer with a national organisation - then it suggests to me that little effort has been made to achieve a broad consensus.
<At a glance I'm not sure you do.>
I can't find the document again, if you have the link please repost it. I'd be surprised if my memory was that far off. One guy definitely mentioned the shared award (that's where I picked up on it). A couple of guys highlighted doubts up to Rybka 2.3.2, but said nothing further. Mark Uniacke's comment stuck in my mind, because it amounted to - 'if the initial versions are derivative, then all subsequent versions are derivative'.
For me, the strongest possible action compatible with neutrality; would be to disqualify Rybka 2007, 2008 & 2009. Though I'd still be pretty doubtful about that. To disqualify V3 without examination, is unacceptable given that Kaufman tuned the evaluation function then & Monte-Carlo play-outs were added to the search suite.
<Rules are rules ...>
... which apply to everybody, not just the accused. Since 'total' originality is such an issue - every competitor should submit their code, to ensure that it complies. Failure to win is no proof of innocence.
|Jan-21-12|| ||polarmis: <Not just one programmer...the Computer Chess Association of the Netherlands agree with him.>|
Ed Schroeder is from the Netherlands, which I guess isn't an unrelated factor.
<If the ICGA cannot take the trouble to even confer with a national organisation - then it suggests to me that little effort has been made to achieve a broad consensus.>
Again, their decision was taken after the verdict was announced, so obviously couldn't have affected the verdict.
By the way, the more I read about Schroeder the more it just seems a purely emotional response. One of the key items in his decision to defend Rajlich was a single tabloid story published after the verdict was announced: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/867998-... Schroeder and various other Rajlich supporters jump to the obviously false conclusion that it must have been planted by the ICGA, when anyone familiar with the British tabloids would recognise the style instantly. Schroeder should be annoyed with them (and I agree, they're reprehensible), not the ICGA.
Here's the ICGA panel's report (a pdf file): http://chessprogramming.wikispaces....
|Jan-26-12|| ||timhortons: btw, i hope somebody answer my question.
why company like microsoft and ibm not interested develop a strong software like rybka or maybe a super more monster software more stronger than this?
why the corporate giants are not involve in development of this? why small guys like rajlich are into it?
|Jan-26-12|| ||Kinghunt: <why company like microsoft and ibm not interested develop a strong software like rybka or maybe a super more monster software more stronger than this?|
why the corporate giants are not involve in development of this? why small guys like rajlich are into it?>
It's a small niche. Big corporations have no reason to focus on chess. They won't earn a lot from sales, and current programs are already well beyond the point of being able to fight against humans in publicity matches. There's simply nothing in computer chess for Microsoft or IBM.
|Jan-26-12|| ||timhortons: thanks king hunt, so thats the reason.
btw ubisoft at one point is involved in the development of chessmaster software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft ubisoft is a fairly size multinational company from quebec involve in developing gaming software.
I never heard them making a more stronger chess master software lately, maybe its not worth their time, maybe the company decided to produce gaming software for ps3.
|Jan-26-12|| ||timhortons: sorry, its not maybe, reading from wike entry, their more on ps3 and xbox,<right, why spend precious time making chess software? for a company this big? its not worth their time.>|
Brothers in Arms: Furious 4 (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows)
Far Cry 3 (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows)
I Am Alive (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360)
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier (Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Microsoft Windows)
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Online (Microsoft Windows, Wii U)
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Retribution (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows)
Prince of Persia 2: Prodigy (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii U)
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Patriots (Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360)
Tom Clancy's EndWar 2 (TBA)
Beyond Good & Evil 2 (TBA)
Killer Freaks from Outer Space (Wii U)
|Jan-26-12|| ||benjinathan: When there is crazy strong chess software available for free, it is difficult to see why any company makes chess software anymore.|
|Feb-02-12|| ||AylerKupp: <timhortons> I would think that the most likely answer is that they don't see it as a big money maker. And chess programs are not that large or complicated. For example, the latest Stockfish 2.2.2 consists of only 42 files and 8107 source lines of code (SLOC). A "small guy" can do it much more efficiently. To put in perspective, in 2001 Windows XP has been estimated (no accurate numbers apparently exist) to consist of 35-50 million (SLOC) and Windows 7 should be much larger, maybe 60 million. That's why you need corporate giants.|
Of course, the number of <useful> SLOC in Windows 7 is much, much smaller. :-)
|Feb-02-12|| ||AylerKupp: I think that Vasik Rajlich better get that Rybka 5 out quickly. In the latest CCRL 40/40 rankings (Jan-29-12) Rybka 4.1 has dropped to #3 behind the new Stockfish 2.2.2. And Critter 1.2 is only 7 ELO points behind, with the newly released Critter 1.4 probably stronger. Single processor Komodo 4 is 40 ELO points behind Rybka 4.1 with a new SMP version coning out "soon". I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2 months Rybka 4.1 has dropped to #5 in the CCRL 40/40 rankings.|
Then again, since he likely won't be competing in any ICGA tournaments in the near future, he should have extra time in his hands.
|Jul-10-13|| ||perfidious: <DrMAL: <Everett:>....Although I am not sure such a cynical approach to using computers as a tool is usually the case. I can see how a lot of lower level players could just play out games with an engine on and, when the engine evaluates a move played as bad, go spouting off how dumb that player was and/or how smart they are because blah blah blah...pity. No doubt this site and others have plenty of such people, even worse it seems, there are people on here (and elsewhere) who go around with some attitude of trying to put down others, especially those higher level than them who kibitz....>|
While you and I have had our differences-strong ones, I might add-can't agree more with you on this.
There are, fortunately, enough posters such as <Everett> who are open to ideas which involve more effort than simply sitting before the silicon monstrosity and letting it crunch out moves <ad infinitum>.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 79 OF 79 ·