OpenChess

Posted: **Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:42 pm**

Kevin Frayer wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
Kevin Frayer wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
thorstenczub wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:I think it is hilarious all you guys are trying to hijack this thread. That is all I have to say.
its interesting to see, harvey, how the amount of content you write in a discussion has to do with the fact, that you cannot delete or ban those people who disagree with you.
i guess it is a completely new experience for you not to control the discussion by censoring them,
banning those with different opinions or beeing able to throw out people from newsgroups or playchess-areas. i think this somehow reduces your output, isn't it ?

lol this is making my night. You were not banned from the Hiarcs forum you asked to be deleted. As far as I know all the others taking part in this debate are members of the hiarcs forum.

On Playchess it is my job to enforce the rules. You have been a moderator several times yourself usually ending in tears when you can not resist publishing private emails.

Now what do you think about about the current status of Ippo etc which is what this thread is about?
Actually Harvey that is not true, I have been banned from the Hiarcs Forum. Its just that nobody sent me any kind of notification. My Name (Frayer) and password no longer allow me to log in.
Your login there is 'kevin Frayer' I just checked and it is active.
Sorry Harvey, this is just not the case. I have not been able to get into your forum for some time now. (perhaps you should check with Rob)

My internet browser said my login name on Hiarc Forum was (Frayer) and retained a password. When I tried Kevin Frayer as you just suggested and ask for a new pass word be sent to my email, this is what I got. (The maximum number of 5 login attempts has been exceeded. You are not allowed to login for the next 30 minutes.)

But you see, its not hardly worth it. I am still upset that Rob moved a discussion that included myself and Don Juan to a non public part of this forum and renamed it Laurel and Hardy. It seemed very disrespectful to me.

Your login has always been Kevin Frayer and has never been changed by any Admin. If you still can not log in let me know what you want your password to be and I will change it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:02 am**

Chan Rasjid wrote:
kingliveson wrote: ...
Working on premises that Rybka is a legal and legitimate program; an engineer obtains a Rybka binary being a scientist interested in advancement of computer chess -- disassembles it, uses ideas found combined with new ones to produce a stronger program, and then releases the source to the community. We are not talking about code copying line for line, but rather expression of ideas which is legal.
The problem is the sources and the method which we use to obtain something and contribute for the benefit of a community at large. That the end and the intention of an act is right does not mean the act is not questionable.

Rasjid

Not unless they didn't pay for the version of software in which these knowledge were obtained. RE is legitimate form of discovery -- yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By the way, you didn't respond to the first part of my comment:

It would be silly for me to say Rybka "cloned" Fruit. Rybka took code line for line, modified procedures, and in some cases expressed the same ideas differently. Rybka source is then closed and the binaries were distributed for sale. Fruit being GPL is the problem. GPL does not allow mixing closed-source with open-source. So how does one justify "cloning anything from open source is wholly accepted?"

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:08 am**

Thank you Harvey, and please understand I mean no disrespect, you have always been personally fair with me. But I don't think anyone is highjacking this thread. Because the subtle tactics being used by those that would prevent others opinions from being heard are many and varied.

Also we are not battling over just one engine being excepted, (even in a thread with a name like this one) Rather it is a fight of ideologies. Commercial monopolies vs free thinking scientific method of software advancement.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:11 am**

Kevin Frayer wrote:Thank you Harvey, and please understand I mean no disrespect, you have always been personally fair with me. But I don't think anyone is highjacking this thread. Because the subtle tactics being used by those that would prevent others opinions from being heard are many and varied.

Also we are not battling over just one engine being excepted, (even in a thread with a name like this one) Rather it is a fight of ideologies. Commercial monopolies vs free thinking scientific method of software advancement.

If the best some people can do is attack posters here rather than discussing the issues then it will be no better than any other forum.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:20 am**

Harvey Williamson wrote:
Kevin Frayer wrote:Thank you Harvey, and please understand I mean no disrespect, you have always been personally fair with me. But I don't think anyone is highjacking this thread. Because the subtle tactics being used by those that would prevent others opinions from being heard are many and varied.

Also we are not battling over just one engine being excepted, (even in a thread with a name like this one) Rather it is a fight of ideologies. Commercial monopolies vs free thinking scientific method of software advancement.
If the best some people can do is attack posters here rather than discussing the issues then it will be no better than any other forum.

No Harvey, it is much better already than TalkChess, Rybka and Hiarc forums. The only difference is, now you are the one getting shouted down. Directly confronted by those that do not share your commercial interested and no mute or boot button to press.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:23 am**

Kevin Frayer wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
Kevin Frayer wrote:Thank you Harvey, and please understand I mean no disrespect, you have always been personally fair with me. But I don't think anyone is highjacking this thread. Because the subtle tactics being used by those that would prevent others opinions from being heard are many and varied.

Also we are not battling over just one engine being excepted, (even in a thread with a name like this one) Rather it is a fight of ideologies. Commercial monopolies vs free thinking scientific method of software advancement.
If the best some people can do is attack posters here rather than discussing the issues then it will be no better than any other forum.
No Harvey, it is much better already than TalkChess, Rybka and Hiarc forums. The only difference is, now you are the one getting shouted down. Directly confronted by those that do not share your commercial interested and no mute or boot button to press.

lol again. All that seems to have happened is your conspiracy theory is proved to be untrue and you were not deleted on the hiarcs forum. But please carry on making it personal. I am enjoying it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:51 am**

Harvey Williamson wrote:I suspect when he says he does not have the R3 source he is splitting hairs. Rybka 2.xxx was probably compiled as R3 and he may well have that source code. If he does not he will have a version that is very close as I am sure he produces several versions every week.

No, he lost the Rybka 3's time management code and had to devise a new one, causing all sort of problems. Rybka 4 would have been very different if he kept Rybka 3 sources, or sources close to it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:14 am**

Ovyron wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:I suspect when he says he does not have the R3 source he is splitting hairs. Rybka 2.xxx was probably compiled as R3 and he may well have that source code. If he does not he will have a version that is very close as I am sure he produces several versions every week.
No, he lost the Rybka 3's time management code and had to devise a new one, causing all sort of problems. Rybka 4 would have been very different if he kept Rybka 3 sources, or sources close to it.

That's.... a little weird. Did he lose the code in a crash, or just turned it into R4? Or can I come up with a conspiracy theory here?

Peter

(BTW, does this smiley --->

make anyone else think of Juri Osipov?!

)

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:18 am**

I hate to write in this thread (which seems to degenerated into conspiracy theories), but as the quotation was here:

NH >> But practically nothing is identical or appears to be copied
VR > Really?

This can be made more precise. I find little (if any) evidence of "code" copying, but an abundance of recycling of ideas. Most of the latter seem to involve at least some modification of the idea, though by stretching the colloquial impress of "identical" or "copied", a case could be made for the use of such verbiage.

As an example, both Rybka and IPPOLIT have a "positional gain" table for moves (herein noncaptures, for simplicity). I don't know who else (if anyone) did so before them. As the crudest level, Rybka indexes it as [piece7][move] and IPPOLIT as [piece16][move]. Not a big deal. Rybka replaces the current table value when it is exceeded by a given eval, and decrements it by one if the given eval is more than 20 less than the current table value. IPPOLIT replaces it when exceeded, and else decrements it (no margin of 20). Rybka has this table as signed 8-bit entries, and there is some mechanism to prevent overflow in extreme situations (or maybe not -- on reappraisal, I think the overflow control might only be in the other posgain-like tables, which are not in IPPOLIT, and whose purpose in Rybka seems to be with controlling lazy eval). IPPOLIT has these as 16-bit entries, and overflow control is not used. Rybka starts these values (upon startup or newgame) from some huge array that makes little sense (to me at least -- for instance, it seems not just to be the static value of the move). IPPOLIT starts all these values as zero (which also doesn't seem that trenchant to me).

It seems impossible to say that IPPOLIT didn't "copy" the idea here. Whether the idea is "identical" is a different question. Certainly the "code" wasn't copied in a strict sense (and I find it hard to distinguish whether it "started as Rybka code", in whatever sense). So we have at least 3 standards of discussion that could be indicated here.

Function WhiteEval 0x479610:

Code: Select all

[...]
0x0047c61b: mov    0xe8(%rsp),%rcx               # to-square
0x0047c623: mov    0x2cab20(%r13,%rcx,4),%eax    # piece moved, 0x6acb20 is the board
0x0047c62f: mov    0x1859a8(%r13,%rax,4),%ebx    # map it via the piece7 table
0x0047c63a: shl    $0xc,%ebx                     # shift by 12 for [piece7]
0x0047c640: add    0xa4(%rsp),%ebx               # add [move]
0x0047c62b: mov 0xffffffffffffffac(%rbp),%r10d   # previous poseval [from move stack]
0x0047c637: sub    %r8d,%r10d                    # subtract the curr poseval [r8d]
0x0047c647: test   %r9d,%r9d                     # if non cap, jump [we jump]
0x0047c64a: je     0x47c687                      # note: r13 is just 0x400000rip
0x0047c687: movslq %ebx,%r8                      # extend to 64-bit for lookup
0x0047c68a: movzbl 0x2fe470(%r8,%r13,1),%edx     # lookup in posgain table
0x0047c693: cmp    %dl,%r10b                     # compare tablebyte to posgain
0x0047c696: jle    0x47c6a2                      # if posgain is bigger
0x0047c698: mov    %r10b,0x2fe470(%r8,%r13,1)    # replace the table value
0x0047c6a0: jmp    0x47c6bb                      # and jump to end
0x0047c6a2: movsbl %dl,%ecx                      # if posgain is smaller
0x0047c6a5: movsbl %r10b,%eax                    # sign-extend everything
0x0047c6a9: sub    $0x14,%ecx                    # subtract 20 from table-value
0x0047c6ac: cmp    %ecx,%eax                     # and if it is still bigger than curr posgain
0x0047c6ae: jge    0x47c6bb
0x0047c6b0: sub    $0x1,%dl                      # then subtract 1
0x0047c6b3: mov    %dl,0x2fe470(%r8,%r13,1)      # and store in posgain table
0x0047c6bb: [...]

About the only (slightly) odd thing I find with IPP_ENG.c is that it manages to use "else if" and a triparite splitting, rather than a bipartite one (note that the first comparison to "itog" could be with "<=", though maybe that would mean an extra memory-write in the off-chance that the table posgain and the curr posgain are the same):

Code: Select all

  sh = position_fixed.square[((move) & 077)];
  d = move & 07777;
  itog = ((tower_dynamics - 1)->positional) - tower_dynamics->positional;
  if (increment_maximal[sh][d] < itog)
    increment_maximal[sh][d] = itog;
  else if (increment_maximal[sh][d] > itog)
    increment_maximal[sh][d]--;

NH >> and finally we have solid, objective and ample technical evidence to the contrary [to the claim that IPPOLIT is a clone].
VR > I can assure you that you don't.

As "finally we have" seems obvious, is the dispute with: "solid", "objective", "ample", "technical", "evidence", or "to the contrary"?

Or maybe the implied word "clone"? If VR is merely saying that he has alternative evidence (either technical or elsewise) that IPPOLIT is in fact a clone, so be it, but if he saying that NH's statement errs in content, an elaboration would be of use.

Posted: **Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:29 am**

Peter C wrote: or just turned it into R4?

That, he just never kept code of old versions. My guess is that he thought he'd never need them, then he started changing the code specifically for the Cluster and broke time management, but there was no turning back possible.

OpenChess

Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted.

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted

Re: Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted