If a frog had pockets, he'd carry a gun and not have to worry about snakes while sitting on his lilly pad. But he doesn't. And the ip "author" will not likely step forward, as he/they would run right into a buzzsaw and get hit from all sides.
One doesn't knowingly step into a rattlesnake pit wearing shorts and sandals if they have any sense at all
Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
i realy did not expect that an intelligent answer to a polite question was beyond your abilityhyatt wrote:If a frog had pockets, he'd carry a gun and not have to worry about snakes while sitting on his lilly pad. But he doesn't. And the ip "author" will not likely step forward, as he/they would run right into a buzzsaw and get hit from all sides.
One doesn't knowingly step into a rattlesnake pit wearing shorts and sandals if they have any sense at all
however seeing as my expectations were so wrong could you provide one to this ..
wtf have they to fear and from whom
ps one rarely wears sandals when around snakes , a good pair of fry boots works for me
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Contact:
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
They have to fear claims that they RE'd rybka. That the code is _clearly_ RE'd something due to programming style. That's why they are not going to show up. I thought the humor made that clear. They were _instantly_ labeled a clone when the program appeared, if you remember. It would only get worse if they became known.
Who? Vas. His "legion of supporters". And possibly the FSF due to fruit/rybka issues...
Who? Vas. His "legion of supporters". And possibly the FSF due to fruit/rybka issues...
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
as according to Richards opinion the code is fundamentally clean i fail to see / understand why there would be a problem with the FSF
as for the "take the money and run half a man " and his fanboys , they're all" talk talk talk chess" and pretty toothless guard dogs , the world of computer chess owes ippolit a vote of thanks ( many owe it debts and or apologies as well IMHO )and whilst i understand that sticks in the craws of some im at a loss to understand some attitudes to ippolit , not least of all yours
that's said with respect so keep your draws on
but not in your engine,,,,more wins appreciated
as for the "take the money and run half a man " and his fanboys , they're all" talk talk talk chess" and pretty toothless guard dogs , the world of computer chess owes ippolit a vote of thanks ( many owe it debts and or apologies as well IMHO )and whilst i understand that sticks in the craws of some im at a loss to understand some attitudes to ippolit , not least of all yours
that's said with respect so keep your draws on
but not in your engine,,,,more wins appreciated
-
jury_osipov
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:41 pm
- Real Name: Yury Osipov
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
Bob!
Your opinion is based on the opinions of others. Someone you trust, someone you do not believe. And on this basis you doing "your" conclusions.
I could send you the source code of Rybka 3. You could compare it themselves with Ippolit. Maybe after that you change your point of view on the origin of Ippolit.
Your opinion is based on the opinions of others. Someone you trust, someone you do not believe. And on this basis you doing "your" conclusions.
I could send you the source code of Rybka 3. You could compare it themselves with Ippolit. Maybe after that you change your point of view on the origin of Ippolit.
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Contact:
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
I don't have an opinion on Rybka 3 at all. I am convinced of just one thing in the ip*/robo*/etc + rybka 3 discussions.
ip*/robo* are reverse-engineered from _something_. Based solely on 40+ years of programming and dealing with compiler optimizations in a compiler course I taught for years. Humans don't write code that looks like that. Not ever. Whether it was modified _after_ the RE was done, I can't say, because I have not tried to ascertain where the original code came from. But I am _certain_ that the "family" is the produce of RE first. Whether something was modified after that is unknown. Whether the source was Rybka 2, Rybka 3, or something else is also unknown. So for those, I have no opinion.
I have a strong suspicion that they came from Rybka. Based on the author's comments. But whether it is a clone or a derivative I have no idea, and it really doesn't matter enough to cause me to want to step through that very messy code and compare it to something that is more naturally written.
Do you believe that ippolit and friends to _not_ come from Rybka at all? Because they certainly came from somewhere, and do not represent original programming effort. At least, of that I am certain. Unless it was written by aliens that think like an optimizing compiler when they write code, that is...
ip*/robo* are reverse-engineered from _something_. Based solely on 40+ years of programming and dealing with compiler optimizations in a compiler course I taught for years. Humans don't write code that looks like that. Not ever. Whether it was modified _after_ the RE was done, I can't say, because I have not tried to ascertain where the original code came from. But I am _certain_ that the "family" is the produce of RE first. Whether something was modified after that is unknown. Whether the source was Rybka 2, Rybka 3, or something else is also unknown. So for those, I have no opinion.
I have a strong suspicion that they came from Rybka. Based on the author's comments. But whether it is a clone or a derivative I have no idea, and it really doesn't matter enough to cause me to want to step through that very messy code and compare it to something that is more naturally written.
Do you believe that ippolit and friends to _not_ come from Rybka at all? Because they certainly came from somewhere, and do not represent original programming effort. At least, of that I am certain. Unless it was written by aliens that think like an optimizing compiler when they write code, that is...
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
shame you only find criticism for those who have done more than ANY others in computer chess this last decade, IMHO (shared by many others )and done so with open handed generosity , presumably your churlish attitude stems from your stance of not taking any of Decemberists ideas ( a perfectly laudable stance ) unlike your repeated snideness towards themhyatt wrote:I don't have an opinion on Rybka 3 at all. I am convinced of just one thing in the ip*/robo*/etc + rybka 3 discussions.
ip*/robo* are reverse-engineered from _something_. Based solely on 40+ years of programming and dealing with compiler optimizations in a compiler course I taught for years. Humans don't write code that looks like that. Not ever. Whether it was modified _after_ the RE was done, I can't say, because I have not tried to ascertain where the original code came from. But I am _certain_ that the "family" is the produce of RE first. Whether something was modified after that is unknown. Whether the source was Rybka 2, Rybka 3, or something else is also unknown. So for those, I have no opinion.
I have a strong suspicion that they came from Rybka. Based on the author's comments. But whether it is a clone or a derivative I have no idea, and it really doesn't matter enough to cause me to want to step through that very messy code and compare it to something that is more naturally written.
Do you believe that ippolit and friends to _not_ come from Rybka at all? Because they certainly came from somewhere, and do not represent original programming effort. At least, of that I am certain. Unless it was written by aliens that think like an optimizing compiler when they write code, that is...
personally i would have omitted you from IGCA panel (based solely on your attitude re Ippolit )
i would have been wrong to do so
i also believe the omission of CW was a poor decision as anyone with any common sense would have known that would be as blood in the water for the fishes minnows and sprats
credit where credits due Doc
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
I think this is quite a leap in logic. There are plenty of ways that code could have been written, even if you can assume that it wasn't written by hand. I don't think it looks like RE code.hyatt wrote:ip*/robo* are reverse-engineered from _something_. Based solely on 40+ years of programming and dealing with compiler optimizations in a compiler course I taught for years. Humans don't write code that looks like that. Not ever. Whether it was modified _after_ the RE was done, I can't say, because I have not tried to ascertain where the original code came from. But I am _certain_ that the "family" is the produce of RE first. Whether something was modified after that is unknown. Whether the source was Rybka 2, Rybka 3, or something else is also unknown. So for those, I have no opinion.
It's hard to say, but right now my best guess is that the code actually came not from b (too lazy to get the proper character), but some equivalent--maybe b is a Russianized/obfuscated version of the actual source.
-
hyatt
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:13 am
- Real Name: Bob Hyatt (Robert M. Hyatt)
- Location: University of Alabama at Birmingham
- Contact:
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
I think that is about as likely as a snowball's chances of survival in hell...
I've both written too much code, graded too much code, and looked at too much code written by others. It just isn't written like that. And who would write a "B" to C compiler? that's likely more work than writing a real compiler, based on the syntax they produced... I just do not believe that is what happened. I think it is a RE of something. Whether it was significantly modified after that or not is unknown, since the original has not bee exposed by anyone (other than Vas' statement).
I've both written too much code, graded too much code, and looked at too much code written by others. It just isn't written like that. And who would write a "B" to C compiler? that's likely more work than writing a real compiler, based on the syntax they produced... I just do not believe that is what happened. I think it is a RE of something. Whether it was significantly modified after that or not is unknown, since the original has not bee exposed by anyone (other than Vas' statement).
Re: Back to R3/IPPOLIT(/R4?)
duh....hyatt wrote:I think that is about as likely as a snowball's chances of survival in hell...
I've both written too much code, graded too much code, and looked at too much code written by others. It just isn't written like that. And who would write a "B" to C compiler? that's likely more work than writing a real compiler, based on the syntax they produced... I just do not believe that is what happened. I think it is a RE of something. Whether it was significantly modified after that or not is unknown, since the original has not bee exposed by anyone (other than Vas' statement).
did you miss this post doc ?
or choose to ignore it and his offer ?
Postby jury_osipov » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:22 pm
Bob!
Your opinion is based on the opinions of others. Someone you trust, someone you do not believe. And on this basis you doing "your" conclusions.
I could send you the source code of Rybka 3. You could compare it themselves with Ippolit. Maybe after that you change your point of view on the origin of Ippolit.
jury_osipov
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:41 pm