OpenChess

Chris Whittington wrote:

hyatt wrote:You said "this":

hahahahaha!! can you read ASM? find it yourself and work it out. Ridiculous question.There's a Rybka bonus (in the discussed code) for rook behind blocked enemy pawn chain, a common pattern.

"rybka bonus for rook behind blocked enemy pawn chain, a common pattern" But you didn't say that?

There is no such bonus. There is a bonus for being on a file in front of all pawns. Which would seem to be a bit silly with a white pawn on e7, white rook on e8, which is a KNOWN bad way to defend said pawn. But of course, his rule is "perfect" right? White gets to play without its rook, and probably lose that pawn quickly as well. Black puts his rook BEHIND said pawn and gets to use it normally.

It is pretty easy to see what he intended. The rook lift idea. But he didn't implement it very well and left a significant hold that was certainly unintentional. If there is a black pawn chain b7/c6/d5 I would certainly not move my rook off the open e file to get it behind that d5 pawn, and let black have the actual open e file while I busily attack a pawn I can't take. It is just a poorly written piece of code, with the intent as already explained, with the actual implementation having a fairly ugly mis-evaluation.

To make it simple for you, common situation - two pawns on same file in opposition to other, not passed. We have three possibilities for a rook:

Both Fruit and Rybka give no bonus to the wR here, wR behind own pawn:
bp
..
..
wp
..
wR


Fruit gives no bonus to the rook here, we might assume the Rook came down an open file and swung over to attack the pawn from in front:
Rybka gives it a bonus (you call this half-open file bonus. Obviously it isn't). Humans would like the rook here too.
bp
..
wR
..
..
wP


Fruit gives no bonus to the Rook here. Again, we might assume the Rook came down an open file and swung across behind the pawn.
Rybka gives this a large bonus (erroneously, again, you call it open file bonus, obviously it isn't). Humans would do the same, they like this position a lot.
wR
..
bp
..
..
wp


So, now you can imagine a closed pawn position, one open file:
Fruit, with its rook-pawn code, likes to get on the open file, that's it.
Rybka with its rook-pawn code, like to get on the open, but it also likes most to get behind the enemy pawn chain.

The bonus for being BEHIND THE BLOCKED ENEMY PAWN CHAIN is an EMERGENT PROPERTY of the Rybka code. It's creative and original, qualitatively different to Fruit (or Crafty at the time, for that matter). But it was dismissed as unimportant. By investigators who clearly don't understand chess, they just understand code. Which is not enough. This chess code is NOT the same. It is not even open file/semi open file code, as you tried to shoehorn it into in desperate attempt to claim Fruit equivalence.
For rook-pawn endings, this Rybka code is a big boost.

Some other points you made:
"Badly implemented". Who cares, even if true? This is about whether Vas plagiariased Fruit. We are looking for disimilarities in chess code, not your idea of good/bad code.
"it is done by rook on 7th code." Who cares and so what? This is about plagiarised or not. Not your idea of how to program ideas.
"the effect is unintentional". Maybe to you. Which doesn't mean you can mind read it into his brain. I'ld imagine it was perfectly intentional, he is a smart programmer and understands chess way better than you do. But so what? It is what it is. A qualitatively different chess coding.
"you can construct positions where the code is not useful". Watkins "with a wp on a7 etc ..." Sure you can disrupt what is effectively a pattern recognition with fanciful patterns. The Rybka code is general purpose, and there are always exceptions. But this is another giant SO WHAT? for our purposes (did Vas plagiarise Fruit?), the question is whether there is or is not a qualitative difference. There is. So you can remove this section from the Zach paper, he got it all wrong, called it unimportant, and the Watkins paper, who also didn't seem to comprehend the effect and was convinced to shoehorn code that was NOT open file code, into Fruits open file model. So he could score it against Rybka. Unreasonable. Probably unconscious bias. Should not even be being compared together. Not same thing.

hyatt wrote:

Rebel wrote:

hyatt wrote: Doesn't that say EVERYTHING here? "Soren (a non-programmer)" getting involved in a technical discussion that can ONLY be understood by programmers. Of course that explains the complete lack of veracity in his "article". He should also write an article explaining why direct connections between a computer and human brain tissue can not be done, he'd probably know JUST AS MUCH about that specific topic so in his world he would be well-qualified to explain that to the "non-technical readers" I presume?

Have you read it? What about the criticism on rule #2?

http://en.chessbase.com/post/a-gro-misc ... -part-one-

For a non-specialist, including tournament directors and other ICGA board members, the flaws in Rule 2 might not be so obvious. However, to begin to understand the problem with Rule 2 one can start by acknowledging the truth contained within Rajlich’s remark on this topic:

When two modern top chess programs play against each other maybe 95% of the programs are algorithmically the same. What is classing is the other 5%.

Putting it bluntly, Rule 2 has become obsolete. It is completely vague or unrealistic on critical points that have emerged in recent years, or have always existed but were not as well understood in the past. Years ago, because of the way chess programs were traditionally developed, it was much easier to identify fraudulent entries and programmer-poseurs. Perhaps in that era Rule 2 was quite sufficient to expel entries not meeting originality standards. But, as will be shown, times have changed in computer chess and some of the old standards have been undermined or supplanted due to advances in information technology.

To make Rule 2’s absurdity as clear as possible, let me pose some straightforward questions:

•Given the great algorithmic overlap between modern chess programs, what is the definitional distinction between “original” and “non-original” work?

•A modern computer chess program can consist of tens of thousands of lines of code. Which of these lines can a programmer feel certain are in public domain and therefore exempt from Rule 2, and which are not?

•What exactly is meant by “game playing code” and on what basis does the ICGA make its distinction?

•What exactly is the definition of a “close derivative”? Is this phrase entirely a “we know it when we see it” construct, and if not, then what sensible, consistent, well-defined and articulated principles is such a determination based upon?

•Does Rule 2 require all competitors to maintain a copy of any source code they used in competition for an indefinite number of years?

•Can Rule 2 be invoked after tournaments are completed without any time limitation whatsoever? (In law, there is a defense called laches, which certainly applies to the Rajlich/Rybka case.)

• Finally, what safeguards exist to prevent ex post facto interpretations of rules which are not fully consistent with what competitors understood at the time the tournament took place?

It seems to me rather imperative that a tournament billing itself a “world championship” have crystal-clear rules. These rules should evolve in response to circumstances, contain well-defined procedures and credible enforcement mechanisms, and be designed to protect the integrity of the competition and the title.

Just random, uninformed noise.

BB+ wrote:

Rebel wrote: How can common chess knowledge fall under the interpretation of rule #2 which is about originality? There is no originality in chess knowledge, it's fixed, you better follow the rules of the books that teach chess else your engine will perform bad.

As had been indicated any number of times, it is the specific choices that both Fruit and Rybka make to realise said common chess knowledge. As Letouzey said, it's just as much about what Fruit doesn't do in EVAL as what it does. Stockfish and Komodo both implement "chess knowledge", but do so in quite different ways, not a "copy with different words" as with Rybka/Fruit. What is ordinary and common is "an extraction of a couple of ideas", not taking the whole EVAL framework.

hyatt wrote:BTW in all of your "brilliant" nonsense, you DO realize that the eval terms were quashed back to centipawn before the search saw anything?

hyatt wrote:As far as "who writes these rules?" Isn't that a question that is answered when it is asked? The organization that USES the rules?

BB+ wrote:

Rebel wrote:Secondly there are quite errors in the Levy article on Chessvibes. I only want to highlight one misconception that still is stubbornly alive while false. It's Vas statement about Strelka (Date 2008-01-11 12:26) and people not realizing Vas a few days (and pages) later retracted that in the same thread (for those are willing to look it up).

I still don't see where Rajlich clearly "retracted" anything in that thread, he only stated he would think over the question of claiming ownership (and in a later thread did clarify that he was not claiming ownership).

I guess you wanted "retracted that [statement]" to indicate a rethinking of "I am claiming Strelka 2.0 as my own", but I don't think this was very clear, and the logical reading of your phrasing would be that "Raljich retracted his claim that Strelka is a clone of Rybka", or "Rajlich retracted his statement that Strelka source code started life as a decompiled Rybka 1.0".

Rebel wrote:

hyatt wrote:As far as "who writes these rules?" Isn't that a question that is answered when it is asked? The organization that USES the rules?

I have problems with rules that are an obstacle for progress.

The new rule #2 has complicated matters even more.

It's like the farmers in the beginning of the 20th century protesting against the machines that replaced the harrow and the hayfork. They went banrupt. In the meantime the world moved forward.

Rebel wrote:

BB+ wrote:

Rebel wrote: How can common chess knowledge fall under the interpretation of rule #2 which is about originality? There is no originality in chess knowledge, it's fixed, you better follow the rules of the books that teach chess else your engine will perform bad.

As had been indicated any number of times, it is the specific choices that both Fruit and Rybka make to realise said common chess knowledge. As Letouzey said, it's just as much about what Fruit doesn't do in EVAL as what it does. Stockfish and Komodo both implement "chess knowledge", but do so in quite different ways, not a "copy with different words" as with Rybka/Fruit. What is ordinary and common is "an extraction of a couple of ideas", not taking the whole EVAL framework.

Catching up...

I am sorry, but that (the red) is a huge exaggeration. Was Vas inspired by Fruit's eval? Yes, he honestly indicated to that by his statement in december 2005, a cheater likely never would, I am not aware of any example. Did he modelled Rybka's eval to Fruit's? Maybe to likely. Did he verbatim copy Fruit's eval? NO. Is it possible after studying an open source (forwards and backwards using Vas' own words of december 2005) to erase the influence from your mind and to what extend? Difficult.

Let's say Vas modelled Rybka's eval to Fruit's as a hypothesis and by doing so he overstepped the boundaries of rule #2 then where does rule #2 states that it is forbidden? Did the ICGA ever bothered to modernize and adapt to the changing world of internet and strong open sources? They blamed Vas for not contributing on the "Program Details" while at the same time never caring about it (I have gathered enough evidence) and to emphasize (warn) programmers to do so in a changed landscape. The new rule #2 does now. Programmers are warned. Emphasize on the Program Details. But not back then.

Let's be reasonable, the crime (if there was one) doesn't fit the punishment.

A warning (taking responsibity for their own failures) would have been more in place.

hyatt wrote: I would have been tempted myself to simply take that final panel recommendation, "program is disqualified from future competitions until it is proven to comply with rule 2."

That COULD have ended up as a warning if he immediately contacted the ICGA and agreed on a 3rd party to do the examination. But when he didn't even try to deal with the process, there was no real expectation on the board's part that he would undertake that process either...