OpenChess

Bottom line .....what is ILLEGAL about IPPOLIT ? I dont want what anyone thinks should be ect.....what is ILLEGAL about IPPOLIT? Its not a clone is a fact so lets hear it.

Regards
BT

In light of the poll and the silence of this post ....I think we have a answer.

Regards
BT

i couldn't answer the question if there is anything illegal (tho i voted legal & ethical as my opinion btw), but i don't think end users such as myself can safely say it is 'fact' that it's not a clone (well, derivative). if you're a programmer & that's your informed opinion, i cannot argue with you, but as a layman i have trouble believing vas would be so terribly dishonest as many seem to think. unfortunately that's now probably greatest reason for doubt in my mind (i used to be in the school that thought it was 'obvious' they were very, very heavily derived from rybka, from simple use of them)...i've also seen a lot of 'assuming BB is being honest' type stuff from the programmers commenting -- we don't know for certain there isn't an agenda which didn't consciously or subconsciously cloud his report. so we have the programmers are taking one man's word, even if at a distance, because it's an extraordinary undertaking that few if any of them are going to do themselves.

i'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but i am not remotely ready to say it is literally FACT that ippolit is not a rybka derivative. i think that will remain my case until (if ever) there is a uniform expert opinion.

Keep in mine ...CLONE and derivative are very separate things At the Rybka forum they been calling the IPPO team cloners correct? Im always hearing the CLONERS. Also i think derivative is a very sneaky confusing word...used on purpose. In this case i would think to even call it a derivative it would have to have copied code ...exact copied code. A clone would be exact duplicate and a derivative would be same code mostly but not totally. They are trying to use derivative in place of has similar ideas which it does but is not a derivative. Ideas are fair play.

BT

the official name for these at the rybka forum is 'clone', yes, although i believe LK did at least try to introduce derivative. i mostly used clone for shorthand despite believe them to derivatives, but it's gotten to the point that i'm not comfortable using either -- especially clone -- in good conscious. of course this is just a less accurate & somewhat snide shorthand dismissal of ippolit, i am quite sure the majority of the people who use the word 'clone' on the forum know it.

i don't think those that those who use the word 'derivative' are being dishonest. i think that is their genuine opinion. for me like i said the jury is still out, but i agree that, say, intensely studying rybka 3 in the pursuit of one's own engine, at a time when R3 was obviously far & away the engine most worth poring time into studying & borrowing ideas from, does not a derivative make.

now 'simply' (tho apparently its not simple) disassembling the code, obfuscating it, then reassembling it or whatever; that's a clone. adding to/subtracting from/editing/tweaking enough of the code would make it a derivative. i assume BBs report, which i haven't read in depth (mostly because i don't think it would change anything for me if i did), provides solid information these things most likely or almost certainly did not happen.

problem is, it's one guy. no disrespect to BB, but we've basically got two obviously very bright guys (vas & BB) saying very different things.

i do wonder however, if the ippolit authors were so brilliant, why in over a year they've made no real improvement in pure strength. that's a tough one to wrap my head around if i assume that it's not a clone or derivative of R3.

yanquis1972 wrote:

i do wonder however, if the ippolit authors were so brilliant, why in over a year they've made no real improvement in pure strength. that's a tough one to wrap my head around if i assume that it's not a clone or derivative of R3.

Vas hasn't improved Rybka much either in the 2 years between R3 and R4.

yanquis1972 wrote:the official name for these at the rybka forum is 'clone', yes, although i believe LK did at least try to introduce derivative. i mostly used clone for shorthand despite believe them to derivatives, but it's gotten to the point that i'm not comfortable using either -- especially clone -- in good conscious. of course this is just a less accurate & somewhat snide shorthand dismissal of ippolit, i am quite sure the majority of the people who use the word 'clone' on the forum know it.

i don't think those that those who use the word 'derivative' are being dishonest. i think that is their genuine opinion. for me like i said the jury is still out, but i agree that, say, intensely studying rybka 3 in the pursuit of one's own engine, at a time when R3 was obviously far & away the engine most worth poring time into studying & borrowing ideas from, does not a derivative make.

now 'simply' (tho apparently its not simple) disassembling the code, obfuscating it, then reassembling it or whatever; that's a clone. adding to/subtracting from/editing/tweaking enough of the code would make it a derivative. i assume BBs report, which i haven't read in depth (mostly because i don't think it would change anything for me if i did), provides solid information these things most likely or almost certainly did not happen.

problem is, it's one guy. no disrespect to BB, but we've basically got two obviously very bright guys (vas & BB) saying very different things.

i do wonder however, if the ippolit authors were so brilliant, why in over a year they've made no real improvement in pure strength. that's a tough one to wrap my head around if i assume that it's not a clone or derivative of R3.

Some good points but think of it this way. You said "problem is, it's one guy. no disrespect to BB, but we've basically got two obviously very bright guys (vas & BB) saying very different things. " Now this is true ...but who said more ? BB said and put up a TON more then Vas. Vas spoke few words ....BB spent two months of his time trying to get to the bottom of this is how i feel. Then i want to get back to the clone thing. I personally think of it this way ...Clone- exact copy ...such as the sheep experiment...they were as exact as exact can be. Derivative - Is like me or you to your mom and dad. They can do dna and tell we are for sure the same family...thus we have a lot of the exact same code but not totally the same. Then something with the same ideas would be like a different race or even a robot. We look alike act alike but no DNA the same. So to me even derivative is too much when you look at BB's report. See what I'm trying to say. BTW I like chatting with ya

Regards
BT

p.s. Like the last post ...Vas didnt even improve over R3 to where the IPPO engines already are. Mod12c kills R4 32bit . So I'm not sure thats a valid point.

Martin Andersen wrote:Vas hasn't improved Rybka much either in the 2 years between R3 and R4.

He's just withholding the improvements, saving them for Remote Rybka.

Ovyron wrote:

Martin Andersen wrote:Vas hasn't improved Rybka much either in the 2 years between R3 and R4.

He's just withholding the improvements, saving them for Remote Rybka.

I doubt anyone will really know. Im better its gonna only be a lot better based on hardware alone...not that the program will really be any stronger myself. You show up with a 200 core monster machine ...then try to convince someone how much better your program is ? Its a gimmick more then anything held back IMHO

BT

Ovyron wrote:

Martin Andersen wrote:Vas hasn't improved Rybka much either in the 2 years between R3 and R4.

He's just withholding the improvements, saving them for Remote Rybka.

And so this means.... he is just exploiting his loyal fan base with the less than expected quality of R4? In which case we seem to be saying he is a businessmen interested in only making a profit.

Or could it be, he has just reached his level of competence as the person that can take chess programing to the next level?