Vas Speaks in Tongues

[Damir Desevac]

I am talking about this:

Vas, where did the ratios/formulas for the Rybka 1.0 PST arrays come from?
I don't remember, but they very well may have come from Fruit. I would have no qualms about using them.
Vas


PS: you really should bother to read before you jump to any conclusions, but than again you might have inherited that from prof Hyatt. Why do you butt in btw, I did not ask you anything. Are you Hyatt ?

[Prima]

I am talking about this:

Vas, where did the ratios/formulas for the Rybka 1.0 PST arrays come from?
I don't remember, but they very well may have come from Fruit. I would have no qualms about using them.
Vas


PS: you really should bother to read before you jump to any conclusions, but than again you might have inherited that from prof Hyatt. Why do you butt in btw, I did not ask you anything. Are you Hyatt ?

Oh I read and comprehended your statements.

Except one thing that keeps standing out: Vas stated in 2005 he went through Fruit forwards and backwards and took many things. He later maintained he has not used Fruit ideas and/or codes. Evidence showed Vas not only used Fruit ideas which is okay btw, but also used Fruit CODES! Comparing his reply about the Fruit PST arrays found in Rybka 1.0 beta doesn't add up with his famous & repeated statement "Rybka is 100% at the source code level.", among MANY Fruit codes found in Rybka 1.0 - Rybka 2.3.2a.

Kind of hard to escape that contradictory statement, don't you think?

[hyatt]

Gets worse. Vas has also stated that "if you type something in by hand, it is original at the source code level." So if you type, rather than cut/paste, it is not copying. That's pretty difficult to believe, but it came directly from the Rybka forum...

[hyatt]

And why should you bother, whether he copy some stuff from Fruit, you did the exact same thing as Miguel pointed out , and you refuse to admit it. At least Vas has balls to admit, whether or not he used/borrowed some ideas from open source engine, which is more that I can say about you and your fellow programmers in the ICGA panel. You are all bunch of saints, have never copied/borrowed any ideas from open source engines...

Besides, are you author of Fruit ? Let Fabien speak for himself. It is his program, not yours. You speak as if Fruit was your own creation. I want to read Monsieur Letouzey's views, not what you or anybody else think. I suppose the only purpose to get Fabien from his retirement was to convince him that Vas plagiarized his program, so that you could strip him of his titles and ban him from participating in future events. Now that you have accomplished that, there is no need for Fabien's assistance, so he might just as well go back to his cave, where he used to be...

1. I've not copied ANYTHING. I published my PST generator, which came right out of Cray Blitz. Notice I have just ONE that is even close. Fruit/Rybka share them ALL.

2. No one has found any copied code in my source. We have found LOTS of copied code in Rybka binary.

3. No one is talking about borrowing IDEAS. That has been perfectly acceptable since day 1. If that were not allowed, what EXACTLY would be the purpose of the ICGA journal? To publish ideas no one can use without getting kicked out of the WCCC? Makes a lot of sense.

4. You will have to ask Fabien why he chose to come back and challenge this. Perhaps because he was working on a commercial deal with Fruit when suddenly a new program shows up that is stronger and the deal falls through???

[marcelk]

Gets worse. Vas has also stated that "if you type something in by hand, it is original at the source code level." So if you type, rather than cut/paste, it is not copying. That's pretty difficult to believe, but it came directly from the Rybka forum...

He did not state that, you are turning his words around (literally!).
His actual words are "original means [...] typed his own code"

"A means B"
A = original
means = have as a consequence or result (Oxford American Dictionaries)
B = typed his own code

Here 'means' does not denote a symmetric relation. (B means A).
Also the word 'own' makes his intention very clear.
Pretending he meant it otherwise ("typing means original") is just foul.

[BB+]

Vas has also stated that "if you type something in by hand, it is original at the source code level."

I think the quotation Bob was trying to chase down was one that VR directed at my inquiry about Strelka/IPPOLIT:

Regarding Strelka/IPPOLIT: as the author(s) seem to have typed their own source code (or code to generate this), how are they not "original" under your definition?

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

As much as I might hate to agree with Bob, I think his made-up (or at least inexact) quotation is fairly close to how I read the above statement of VR.

Also the word 'own' makes his intention very clear.

I always thought this was the crux of the matter, whether he typed his own code or typed/inputted something that derived from code of others. This tends to get obscured in any arcane discussion of input method. My parsing of VR's original statement (partially interpolating from his other comments) is that he means for (source) code that you input/type to be your "own", unless it's a direct/literal copy of source code of others.

Since the phrase "original at the source code level" seems distinct to this case, it's hard to say what exactly it means. I'm sure I can find many students who would posit that code becomes their "own" (and "original") if they re-type code (e.g. found on the Internet) while (say) re-naming variables -- I would hope that VR has a narrower sense of what "own" code means, but I can't say that I've trawled through the Rybka Forum to find any evidence of that.

[hyatt]

Gets worse. Vas has also stated that "if you type something in by hand, it is original at the source code level." So if you type, rather than cut/paste, it is not copying. That's pretty difficult to believe, but it came directly from the Rybka forum...

He did not state that, you are turning his words around (literally!).
His actual words are "original means [...] typed his own code"

"A means B"
A = original
means = have as a consequence or result (Oxford American Dictionaries)
B = typed his own code

Here 'means' does not denote a symmetric relation. (B means A).
Also the word 'own' makes his intention very clear.
Pretending he meant it otherwise ("typing means original") is just foul.

All well and good, but you are looking at the WRONG quote. Here is the right one, extracted from the Rybka Forum... this was in response to the ippolit code's originality.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

So if someone "copies code" and types it in by hand, it is original at the source level. And that is not my "interpretation". It is the ONLY interpretation of his response that makes any sense...

Except that it is wrong, of course.

[Prima]

All well and good, but you are looking at the WRONG quote. Here is the right one, extracted from the Rybka Forum... this was in response to the ippolit code's originality.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

So if someone "copies code" and types it in by hand, it is original at the source level. And that is not my "interpretation". It is the ONLY interpretation of his response that makes any sense...

Except that it is wrong, of course.

It's also how I interpreted it. In light of evidences, there are 3 possible occurrences and #3 is highly unlikely to have occurred with Vas.

1. Vas directly copied Crafty/Fruit codes via typing. In his world, this = maximal manual "work done" on [copied] codes. Hence his warped definition of originality.
2. Or, Vas copied Crafty/Fruit codes via copy and paste = translating to "minimal" work done on [copied] codes and hence his definition of originality.
3. Genuinely created his own unique codes & implementation. Not likely, since 2 authors can't create 2 semantically identical implementation of codes.

1 & 2 lead to the same end results of code/implementation plagiarism and the likely path undertaken by Vas.
Not sure how or why typing code(s) is "suddenly" of importance appertaining originality, since other honest authors also type their codes but do not resort code plagiarism - either by typing, copy and paste, memorization, or by any other means.
Typing code(s) does NOT equate to original work done IF the codes typed are semantics/ exact duplicate functions of another [undisclosed] source. Ditto for copy and paste method.

If other commercial engine were to undergo similar code dissection and scrutiny, it is probable their codes are typed as well (my supposition), except without plagiarized codes and/or implementation from another source.
When the smoke-screen reasons and/or definition of originality (as touted by Vas) are eliminated, the net question still remains for the pro Rybkas:
How did Vas end up with Crafty codes, and then Fruit's, in Rybka 1.4/1.6.1 - Rybka 2.3.2a?

Only at Rybka forum are such straw-man reasons/arguments constructed and hailed.

[Prima]

When the smoke-screen reasons and/or definition of originality (as touted by Vas) are eliminated, the net question still remains for the pro Rybkas:
How did Vas end up with Crafty codes, and then Fruit's, in Rybka 1.4/1.6.1 - Rybka 2.3.2a?

Only at Rybka forum are such straw-man reasons/arguments constructed and hailed.

Actually, I meant to posit:

Even if the smoke-screen reasons and/or definition of originality (as touted by Vas) are considered, the net question still remains for the pro Rybkas:
How did Vas end up with Crafty codes, and then Fruit's, in Rybka 1.4/1.6.1 - Rybka 2.3.2a? which directly contradicts his "Rybka is 100% original at the source code level" statement.

[marcelk]

Gets worse. Vas has also stated that "if you type something in by hand, it is original at the source code level." So if you type, rather than cut/paste, it is not copying. That's pretty difficult to believe, but it came directly from the Rybka forum...

He did not state that, you are turning his words around (literally!).
His actual words are "original means [...] typed his own code"

"A means B"
A = original
means = have as a consequence or result (Oxford American Dictionaries)
B = typed his own code

Here 'means' does not denote a symmetric relation. (B means A).
Also the word 'own' makes his intention very clear.
Pretending he meant it otherwise ("typing means original") is just foul.

All well and good, but you are looking at the WRONG quote. Here is the right one, extracted from the Rybka Forum... this was in response to the ippolit code's originality.

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

So if someone "copies code" and types it in by hand, it is original at the source level. And that is not my "interpretation". It is the ONLY interpretation of his response that makes any sense...

Except that it is wrong, of course.

'At source code level' would be precisely correct, provided it is 'own code' that was typed as opposed to copied verbatim, deeper down the same thread clarifies that.

At higher abstraction levels than 'source code level' typing would not automatically mean originality. He talks about his 'brilliant ideas' that are in there), hence the qualifier in the statement.

For reference, the entire thread is here:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid390689

You can read in it what you like, the follow-ups in the thread are rather vague that's for sure but at other places he is more explicit that typing is not a sufficient requirement for originality.