The Evidence against Rybka

[hyatt]

Some friendly advice. If you are outside and a hurricane is blowing in from the south, and the wind is at 100 knots and climbing, do NOT piss toward the south. The only possible outcome is bad.

That's about where the RF discussions stand. But it is fun trying to educate them.

[Chris Whittington]

Minority Report 5, Not plagiarism unless feature is unique

This is a limited definition of plagiarism. In the Rybka/Fruit case, the principal aspect was the overlap in the set (and specification) of features, not any single feature itself. This has been discussed so often, both in the abstract and in the case here, it is almost pointless to reiterate.

I refer to this post, with the quotations Originality requires neither novelty or uniqueness, and The Appellate Court found that the term original should be read to mean "owes its origin" to a particular author, and not that the work was "startling, novel or unusual, or a marked departure from the past." In the Rybka/Fruit case, the specific choice of evaluation features in Fruit 2.1 "owed its origin" to Letouzey, and various Rybka versions were found (by the ICGA) to derive from this origin.

Apologies, I diverted you from the dictionary/wiki definition of "plagiarism" by changing it slightly as a title.

The definition actually says:

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication," of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2]

cutting this definition down for our purposes of discussion, we have

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "close imitation," of another author's "ideas" AND the representation of them as one's own original work.

Key to this definition is the term another author's "ideas"

If the "idea" was not Fruit's but "another author's" then it is not plagiarism of Fruit. So, if you can't show the "idea" as what I maybe erroneously describe as "unique" when what I mean is "owned by Fruit" only, then the "plagiarism" charge does not hold and "plagiarism" case collapses. Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

You could see this "ownership" concept as a kind of FILTRATION process prior to COMPARISON.

[orgfert]

Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

But the specific recipe of how the ideas (which you say are not owned by fruit) are combined is owned by fruit. That recipe is fruit's idea.

[Chris Whittington]

Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

But the specific recipe of how the ideas (which you say are not owned by fruit) are combined is owned by fruit. That recipe is fruit's idea.

Absolutely, and that's the key and where the discussion should eventually be. Unfortunately we are still bogged down in disagreement over the particular importance of individual elements and with confusing global use of the term copying vis a vis ideas/code etc

[hyatt]

nobody except the "vas supporters" are talking about "ideas". The REST of us are talking about copying "code". Based on the ICGA "original code" concept in rule 2.

[hyatt]

Minority Report 5, Not plagiarism unless feature is unique

This is a limited definition of plagiarism. In the Rybka/Fruit case, the principal aspect was the overlap in the set (and specification) of features, not any single feature itself. This has been discussed so often, both in the abstract and in the case here, it is almost pointless to reiterate.

I refer to this post, with the quotations Originality requires neither novelty or uniqueness, and The Appellate Court found that the term original should be read to mean "owes its origin" to a particular author, and not that the work was "startling, novel or unusual, or a marked departure from the past." In the Rybka/Fruit case, the specific choice of evaluation features in Fruit 2.1 "owed its origin" to Letouzey, and various Rybka versions were found (by the ICGA) to derive from this origin.

Apologies, I diverted you from the dictionary/wiki definition of "plagiarism" by changing it slightly as a title.

The definition actually says:

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication," of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2]

cutting this definition down for our purposes of discussion, we have

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "close imitation," of another author's "ideas" AND the representation of them as one's own original work.

Key to this definition is the term another author's "ideas"

If the "idea" was not Fruit's but "another author's" then it is not plagiarism of Fruit. So, if you can't show the "idea" as what I maybe erroneously describe as "unique" when what I mean is "owned by Fruit" only, then the "plagiarism" charge does not hold and "plagiarism" case collapses. Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

You could see this "ownership" concept as a kind of FILTRATION process prior to COMPARISON.

another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

That says it all. Source code is a semantic expression of an idea. That is what can NOT ber copied. The key is NOT "idea". The key is "the expresssion of that idea', AKA "source code."

[Chris Whittington]

Minority Report 5, Not plagiarism unless feature is unique

This is a limited definition of plagiarism. In the Rybka/Fruit case, the principal aspect was the overlap in the set (and specification) of features, not any single feature itself. This has been discussed so often, both in the abstract and in the case here, it is almost pointless to reiterate.

I refer to this post, with the quotations Originality requires neither novelty or uniqueness, and The Appellate Court found that the term original should be read to mean "owes its origin" to a particular author, and not that the work was "startling, novel or unusual, or a marked departure from the past." In the Rybka/Fruit case, the specific choice of evaluation features in Fruit 2.1 "owed its origin" to Letouzey, and various Rybka versions were found (by the ICGA) to derive from this origin.

Apologies, I diverted you from the dictionary/wiki definition of "plagiarism" by changing it slightly as a title.

The definition actually says:

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication," of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2]

cutting this definition down for our purposes of discussion, we have

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "close imitation," of another author's "ideas" AND the representation of them as one's own original work.

Key to this definition is the term another author's "ideas"

If the "idea" was not Fruit's but "another author's" then it is not plagiarism of Fruit. So, if you can't show the "idea" as what I maybe erroneously describe as "unique" when what I mean is "owned by Fruit" only, then the "plagiarism" charge does not hold and "plagiarism" case collapses. Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

You could see this "ownership" concept as a kind of FILTRATION process prior to COMPARISON.

another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

That says it all. Source code is a semantic expression of an idea. That is what can NOT ber copied. The key is NOT "idea". The key is "the expresssion of that idea', AKA "source code."

There is NO game-playing code copied. If there was you would put it side by side, as asked a thousand times, and show it. But you don't and can't. The Zach document shows parallel use of IDEAS, different weights, different implementations. The ideas overlap is partial. Not all of Fruit is in Rybka, not all Rybka is in Fruit. Rybka contains own ideas and Fruit ideas that Vas said all along he went forwards and backwards taking. There's no copyright violations and the plagiarism charge collapses on the basis that the cross-over ideas are not owned by Fruit in the first place. You can't plagiarise null move or minimax because they are in general usage, likewise you can't plagiarise used or second hand evaluation ideas.

[veritas]

Minority Report 5, Not plagiarism unless feature is unique

This is a limited definition of plagiarism. In the Rybka/Fruit case, the principal aspect was the overlap in the set (and specification) of features, not any single feature itself. This has been discussed so often, both in the abstract and in the case here, it is almost pointless to reiterate.

I refer to this post, with the quotations Originality requires neither novelty or uniqueness, and The Appellate Court found that the term original should be read to mean "owes its origin" to a particular author, and not that the work was "startling, novel or unusual, or a marked departure from the past." In the Rybka/Fruit case, the specific choice of evaluation features in Fruit 2.1 "owed its origin" to Letouzey, and various Rybka versions were found (by the ICGA) to derive from this origin.

Apologies, I diverted you from the dictionary/wiki definition of "plagiarism" by changing it slightly as a title.

The definition actually says:

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication," of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2]

cutting this definition down for our purposes of discussion, we have

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "close imitation," of another author's "ideas" AND the representation of them as one's own original work.

Key to this definition is the term another author's "ideas"

If the "idea" was not Fruit's but "another author's" then it is not plagiarism of Fruit. So, if you can't show the "idea" as what I maybe erroneously describe as "unique" when what I mean is "owned by Fruit" only, then the "plagiarism" charge does not hold and "plagiarism" case collapses. Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

You could see this "ownership" concept as a kind of FILTRATION process prior to COMPARISON.

another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

That says it all. Source code is a semantic expression of an idea. That is what can NOT ber copied. The key is NOT "idea". The key is "the expresssion of that idea', AKA "source code."

There is NO game-playing code copied. If there was you would put it side by side, as asked a thousand times, and show it. But you don't and can't. The Zach document shows parallel use of IDEAS, different weights, different implementations. The ideas overlap is partial. Not all of Fruit is in Rybka, not all Rybka is in Fruit. Rybka contains own ideas and Fruit ideas that Vas said all along he went forwards and backwards taking. There's no copyright violations and the plagiarism charge collapses on the basis that the cross-over ideas are not owned by Fruit in the first place. You can't plagiarise null move or minimax because they are in general usage, likewise you can't plagiarise used or second hand evaluation ideas.

Simple question
Do you concede Vas broke the rule when entering the world championships

Yes or NO

[hyatt]

Minority Report 5, Not plagiarism unless feature is unique

This is a limited definition of plagiarism. In the Rybka/Fruit case, the principal aspect was the overlap in the set (and specification) of features, not any single feature itself. This has been discussed so often, both in the abstract and in the case here, it is almost pointless to reiterate.

I refer to this post, with the quotations Originality requires neither novelty or uniqueness, and The Appellate Court found that the term original should be read to mean "owes its origin" to a particular author, and not that the work was "startling, novel or unusual, or a marked departure from the past." In the Rybka/Fruit case, the specific choice of evaluation features in Fruit 2.1 "owed its origin" to Letouzey, and various Rybka versions were found (by the ICGA) to derive from this origin.

Apologies, I diverted you from the dictionary/wiki definition of "plagiarism" by changing it slightly as a title.

The definition actually says:

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication," of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2]

cutting this definition down for our purposes of discussion, we have

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "close imitation," of another author's "ideas" AND the representation of them as one's own original work.

Key to this definition is the term another author's "ideas"

If the "idea" was not Fruit's but "another author's" then it is not plagiarism of Fruit. So, if you can't show the "idea" as what I maybe erroneously describe as "unique" when what I mean is "owned by Fruit" only, then the "plagiarism" charge does not hold and "plagiarism" case collapses. Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

You could see this "ownership" concept as a kind of FILTRATION process prior to COMPARISON.

another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

That says it all. Source code is a semantic expression of an idea. That is what can NOT ber copied. The key is NOT "idea". The key is "the expresssion of that idea', AKA "source code."

There is NO game-playing code copied. If there was you would put it side by side, as asked a thousand times, and show it. But you don't and can't. The Zach document shows parallel use of IDEAS, different weights, different implementations. The ideas overlap is partial. Not all of Fruit is in Rybka, not all Rybka is in Fruit. Rybka contains own ideas and Fruit ideas that Vas said all along he went forwards and backwards taking. There's no copyright violations and the plagiarism charge collapses on the basis that the cross-over ideas are not owned by Fruit in the first place. You can't plagiarise null move or minimax because they are in general usage, likewise you can't plagiarise used or second hand evaluation ideas.

Zach did this. I copied a piece of his report and posted it on the rybka forum. Damn, didn't do it side-by-side. Posted fruit first, and rybka second, because "side by side" doesn't work there. Is "side-by-side" that important, or can we just take a dozen lines of code from fruit and then rybka and list them vertically instead? Are you "vertically challenged"?

Otherwise, why do you keep saying "show me the code" when this has been done repeatedly?

Maybe you can open a document on google docs and let me edit it? I can insert the code at a place I KNOW you can find and read, then you will get off that nonsense...

[Chris Whittington]

Minority Report 5, Not plagiarism unless feature is unique

This is a limited definition of plagiarism. In the Rybka/Fruit case, the principal aspect was the overlap in the set (and specification) of features, not any single feature itself. This has been discussed so often, both in the abstract and in the case here, it is almost pointless to reiterate.

I refer to this post, with the quotations Originality requires neither novelty or uniqueness, and The Appellate Court found that the term original should be read to mean "owes its origin" to a particular author, and not that the work was "startling, novel or unusual, or a marked departure from the past." In the Rybka/Fruit case, the specific choice of evaluation features in Fruit 2.1 "owed its origin" to Letouzey, and various Rybka versions were found (by the ICGA) to derive from this origin.

Apologies, I diverted you from the dictionary/wiki definition of "plagiarism" by changing it slightly as a title.

The definition actually says:

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication," of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work,[1][2]

cutting this definition down for our purposes of discussion, we have

Twentieth-century dictionaries define plagiarism as "close imitation," of another author's "ideas" AND the representation of them as one's own original work.

Key to this definition is the term another author's "ideas"

If the "idea" was not Fruit's but "another author's" then it is not plagiarism of Fruit. So, if you can't show the "idea" as what I maybe erroneously describe as "unique" when what I mean is "owned by Fruit" only, then the "plagiarism" charge does not hold and "plagiarism" case collapses. Our contention is that ideas in Fruit which are paralleled in some way in Rybka are NOT "owned by Fruit" in the first place.

You could see this "ownership" concept as a kind of FILTRATION process prior to COMPARISON.

another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions

That says it all. Source code is a semantic expression of an idea. That is what can NOT ber copied. The key is NOT "idea". The key is "the expresssion of that idea', AKA "source code."

There is NO game-playing code copied. If there was you would put it side by side, as asked a thousand times, and show it. But you don't and can't. The Zach document shows parallel use of IDEAS, different weights, different implementations. The ideas overlap is partial. Not all of Fruit is in Rybka, not all Rybka is in Fruit. Rybka contains own ideas and Fruit ideas that Vas said all along he went forwards and backwards taking. There's no copyright violations and the plagiarism charge collapses on the basis that the cross-over ideas are not owned by Fruit in the first place. You can't plagiarise null move or minimax because they are in general usage, likewise you can't plagiarise used or second hand evaluation ideas.

Zach did this. I copied a piece of his report and posted it on the rybka forum. Damn, didn't do it side-by-side. Posted fruit first, and rybka second, because "side by side" doesn't work there. Is "side-by-side" that important, or can we just take a dozen lines of code from fruit and then rybka and list them vertically instead? Are you "vertically challenged"?

Otherwise, why do you keep saying "show me the code" when this has been done repeatedly?

Maybe you can open a document on google docs and let me edit it? I can insert the code at a place I KNOW you can find and read, then you will get off that nonsense...

Can you actually read?

Firstly I posted some side by side code which you had to run away from, saying how about "this code instead".

"This code instead" has already been critiqued by me and by Ed ....

Ed:

Perhaps Zach is also willing to explain the extraordinary factor differences between Fruit and Rybka.

Fruit:
static const int RookSemiOpenFileOpening = 10;
static const int RookSemiOpenFileEndgame = 10;
static const int RookOpenFileOpening = 20;
static const int RookOpenFileEndgame = 20;

Rybka:
static const int RookSemiOpenFileOpening = 64; // factor 6.4
static const int RookSemiOpenFileEndgame = 256; // factor 25.6 (25.6 / 6.4 -> factor 4 more as in Fruit)
static const int RookOpenFileOpening = 1035; // factor 51.7 (51.7 / 6.4 -> factor 8 more as in Fruit)
static const int RookOpenFileEndgame = 428; // factor 21.4 (21.4 / 6.4 -> factor 3.3 more as in Fruit)

Trotsky Date 2011-09-25 09:39
Idea - parallel usage
Implementation - a bit different but being very different in such a simple sub-function is not easy, even the Hyatt example Crafty code was semantically almost identical
Weights - completely different
Relative balance between the weights - completely different
Chessicly - very different, will lead to different move selections
Copyright - no violations
Plagiarism - concept of open files, semi open files is not owned by Fruit, so plagiarism does not apply

So far we have not studied ONE SINGLE SECTION of the Zach document which itself supports either copyright or plagiarism charges, whether the section was selected by us or selected by Hyatt. PSTs, no good. Pawn shelter, no good. Open and half open files for rook, no good.

You'll find the original on Rybka forum. Stop with the disembling please.