Programmers Open Letter to ICGA on Rybka/Fruit

[BB+]

This has appeared elsewhere, and I copy it here:

Open letter to the ICGA about the Rybka-Fruit issue

Dear David Levy, Jaap van den Herik and the ICGA Board,

Recently the author of Fruit, Fabien Letouzey, wrote an open letter to the computer chess community where he raised the concern that Rybka 1.0 beta may be a derivative of Fruit 2.1 in this public post: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37762

Since then it has emerged from highly respected sources like Zach Wegner, Bob Hyatt and others that there is a lot of evidence that has been accumulated over the last few years that Rybka 1.0 beta is a derivative of Fruit 2.1.

Zach Wegner has presented evidence of alleged significant copied/derived Fruit evaluations in Rybka 1.0 beta here: https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html

A collection of evidence of the many cases of alleged copied/derived Fruit structure, code & data appearing in Rybka 1.0 beta has been put together in this PDF by Mark Watkins: download/file.php?id=304

It is also worth considering that prior to Rybka 1.0 beta, previous Rybka versions were many hundreds of Elo points weaker than the Rybka 1.0 beta version that suddenly emerged in public in December 2005, just a few months after the open source public release of Fruit 2.1 under the GPL license. That same month Rybka beta entered and won the International Paderborn Computer Chess tournament.

The evidence alleges that by using and deriving code, data and structure from Fruit 2.1, Vasik Rajlich was able to make dramatic and huge progress with "his" program Rybka to the detriment of his fellow competitors. In our view this has made competitions involving Rybka grossly unfair.

As chess programmers we find this overwhelming evidence compelling. We believe Rybka is a Fruit derivative albeit an advanced one.

It is very likely that later Rybka versions have derived and benefited from Rybka 1.0 beta and hence in the circumstances our view is they should also be considered derivatives of Fruit 2.1 until proven otherwise.

We wish to make an official complaint to the ICGA that Rybka is a Fruit 2.1 derivative. Furthermore we believe it is a breach of the GPL license under which Fruit 2.1 was released.

We believe as an unauthorized Fruit derivative Rybka's entry into ICGA events has been contrary to the ICGA rules and the rules of fair play.

We ask the ICGA to carefully review the evidence, assess its validity, and act accordingly.

We note that the ICGA is intending on setting up a tribunal to assess such allegations and we believe this evidence should be strongly considered in that process.

In addition, we think the ICGA should in future insist that all authors of entries to ICGA events must submit to the ICGA the same executable(s), that is taking part in the ICGA event, where they can be stored for future analysis of potential derivative claims should they arise. Each author should also make a full and clear statement as to the originality of the entry, its contributors and any acknowledgements. Should justified suspicions exist authors must be willing to submit source code on a private and confidential basis to a select group of impartial programmers to privately determine source code origin.

Co-signed by the following chess programmers,
Fabien Letouzey
Zach Wegner
Mark Uniacke
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Ed Schröder
Don Dailey
Christophe Theron
Richard Pijl
Amir Ban
Anthony Cozzie
Tord Romstad
Ralf Schäfer
Gerd Isenberg
Johannes Zwanzger

[BB+]

1) It seems like I might have jumped the gun on this. Maybe I missed understood the publicity plan. In any event, it was definitely intended to be an open letter (and indeed, it has been sent to the addressees), and I guess I've ensured the "open" part has come sooner rather than later.

2) Moderation deleted a "TCEC is Best" post from MichaelIsGreat [see copies in other threads, if you care -- 2 exasperated replies to that were also moved(?)]. As I say, most of it was "off-topic" and about TCEC, but there is one issue that was raised that I might address.

In it, three times he specifically called me (BB+) "pathetic", and more than once insinuated that specifically I, and more generally other programmers, were doing this only to see the Rybka source [indeed, even the Subject was changed to reflect this].

As pointed out by others, this is a bit ridiculous.
a) In the 2006 LION++ case, the source code was reviewed independently by Bjornsson and Schaeffer, both men whose competence I could not doubt, and neither of whom are directly involved in computer chess. I suspect the ICGA would handle any Rybka source code in a similar manner.
b) If I really cared, I could likely decompile Rybka. So, for instance, could Zach. Back when Strelka appeared in 2008, Cozzie opined it would take him about 3 months to do so. Ed and Gerd are noted for the ASM skills, etc.
c) In my discussions with Fabien, I've never got the impression that he particularly cares to see whatever Rybka source code (new or old) that Rajlich might possess -- it seems just as likely to me [though I haven't asked] that he is more interesting in re-couping a fair share of whatever monies he feels Rajlich made through unfair competitive practises (whether or not the FSF has the same desideratum is a different question).

[IWB]

Hello

>This has appeared elsewhere, and I copy it here ...

Where "elsewhere"?

Not that I have doubts about the letter but is there an "official" page somewhere - it would be a nice link for references?

Bye and Thanks
Ingo

[Harvey Williamson]

Hello

>This has appeared elsewhere, and I copy it here ...

Where "elsewhere"?

Not that I have doubts about the letter but is there an "official" page somewhere - it would be a nice link for references?

Bye and Thanks
Ingo

Hi Ingo,

It was 1st posted on the ICGA Wiki. It is now on the Hiarcs forum and David has posted it as a reply to his article on Chessvives also.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

2) Moderation deleted a "TCEC is Best" post from MichaelIsGreat [see copies in other threads, if you care -- 2 exasperated replies to that were also moved(?)]. As I say, most of it was "off-topic" and about TCEC, but there is one issue that was raised that I might address.

In it, three times he specifically called me (BB+) "pathetic", and more than once insinuated that specifically I, and more generally other programmers, were doing this only to see the Rybka source [indeed, even the Subject was changed to reflect this].

As pointed out by others, this is a bit ridiculous.
a) In the 2006 LION++ case, the source code was reviewed independently by Bjornsson and Schaeffer, both men whose competence I could not doubt, and neither of whom are directly involved in computer chess. I suspect the ICGA would handle any Rybka source code in a similar manner.
b) If I really cared, I could likely decompile Rybka. So, for instance, could Zach. Back when Strelka appeared in 2008, Cozzie opined it would take him about 3 months to do so. Ed and Gerd are noted for the ASM skills, etc.
c) In my discussions with Fabien, I've never got the impression that he particularly cares to see whatever Rybka source code (new or old) that Rajlich might possess -- it seems just as likely to me [though I haven't asked] that he is more interesting in re-couping a fair share of whatever monies he feels Rajlich made through unfair competitive practises (whether or not the FSF has the same desideratum is a different question).

I don't feel so great about having his message removed and then commented upon without the author's original "points" in place as context/defense, and am tempted to repost it, despite the significant problems I had with it (I didn't remove it, though -- another mod did).

Nevertheless, I agree with you that none of the engine authors on that list require Rybka's source code, and that the argument is a straw man attempt to shut down a serious and well-prepared inquiry into what actually happened.

Good luck. I personally don't expect much to happen (I don't even expect a response from Mr Rajlich), but it's good to have all of the info out on the table.

Jeremy

[BB+]

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/progr ... uit-issue/

Recently we published an article by David Levy, President of the International Computer Games Association (ICGA), about the cloning of chess engines. Meanwhile the ICGA Clone and Derivative Investigation Panel has been established, and today we received an open letter about the Rybka-Fruit case signed by fourteen chess programmers.

In his Attack of the clones, which we published on February 19th, David Levy expresses his concern about the cloning of chess engines. At the end of his article, he mentions the intention “to set up a forum for investigating prima facia claims of cloning in the world of computer strategy games”. Four days later, Mr Levy let us know in a comment that the ICGA Clone and Derivative Investigation Panel has been established.

Most of the ongoing debate is about the Rybka-Fruit issue: the famous Rybka program from Vasik Rajlich was allegedly cloned from Fabien Letouzey’s Fruit. We received the following open letter signed by fourteen chess programmers (including Letouzey himself), who support this claim:

Well, I wouldn't say "cloned" in the penultimate sentence (rather "derived"), but... The article then mentions the ICGA Forum Charter concerning what disciplinary actions could be taken.

[MichaelIsGreat]

Hello to All,


A few points that I will repeat here and that I already mentioned in other posts:
1) [color=#0000FF][b][i]The ICGA World Computer Chess Championships with same hardware for each opponent and the version for unlimited hardware are completely useless and totally irrelevant because the number of games played between each opponent is simply too small. And David Levy does not want to make the necessary changes to make these two tournaments relevant![/i][/b][/color]
The ICGA could keep calling their two tournaments with a title similar to the World Computer Chess Championships but the reality is that these tournaments are a very bad joke and an insult to the title of "World Computer Chess Championship" and to the meaning of the word tournament.
[color=#0000FF][b][u]THE TCEC TOURNAMENTS ARE THE TRUE WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS.[/u][/b][/color] [color=#0000FF][b][i]The Elite match between Rybka 4 and Houdini 1.5a was the true World Computer Chess Championship and, with 40 games played against each other, we had the opportunity to see very clearly which chess program was the best (Houdini 1.5a).[/i][/b][/color]
---[b][i]How many games were played between the supposedly (sic) best two chess engine programs (Shredder and Rondo!) participating at the World Computer (Chess) Software Championship (WCSC) in 2010?[/i][/b]
[b][i]ONLY ONE GAME[/i][/b] WAS PLAYED BETWEEN THE WINNER (Shredder) AND THE SECOND CHESS PROGRAM (Rondo) at the World Computer (Chess) Software Championship (WCSC) in 2010!! Hard to believe but true! And the same at the previous WCSCs!!
[b][i]In the TCEC TOURNAMENTS, 40 games between the two best chess engines[/i][/b] and many more games in the various tournaments leading to the selection of the best two chess engine programs.
---[b][i]How many chess engine programs were participating at the World Computer (Chess) Software Championship (WCSC) in 2010?
ONLY NINE CHESS PROGRAMS!![/i][/b]
THE TCEC TOURNAMENTS ARE THE TRUE WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS, [b][i]for the second edition[/i][/b], have 6 divisions with 6 chess engines each so [b][i]36 chess engine programs participate[/i][/b]!
[color=#FF0000][u]Conclusion:[/u][/color] [color=#FF0000][b][u]THE TCEC TOURNAMENTS ARE THE TRUE WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS and the ICGA World Computer Chess Championships are a very bad joke, are completely irrelevant and are basically dead.[/u][/b][/color]
[color=#0000FF][b][i]So much so that, in 2010, Rybka 4.0 did not even make the effort of participating at the completely irrelevant World Computer (Chess) Software Championship (WCSC)!![/i][/b][/color]
(See "Shredder wins 2010 World Computer (Chess) Software Championship « ChessCentral's Blog" at http://chesscentral.wordpress.com/2010/ ... mpionship/ )

2) There is a strong desire for many among you to behave like inquisitors concerning the origin(s) of chess engine programs! And for what hidden purpose? To have access to the source code of the strongest chess engine programs and maybe to steal their original ideas. That is probably the only motivation that you have!
You, blind purists, there is nothing that comes from nothing, from scratch in chess engine programming. The same could be said of many types of programs: word processors, spreadsheets, you name it basically!
Once again, and it is worth repeating what I have already clearly said in a previous posting:
-----------------------------------
[color=#0000FF][b][i]Many (if not most!!) discoveries in the past have been made by inventors who have changed only a simple detail to the work of many others before them but this tiny change made a huge difference at creating a discovery whereas before the discovery did not exist!!!
Therefore, I could say the same for a programmer who would manage to increase a chess engine program that was at 2700 ELO to say 2800 ELO. This programmer could be considered the true author or the true inventor of this new chess engine program even if he would have changed only very few ideas or very few parts of the source code of this chess engine program![/i][/b][/color] This programmer has added the indispensable "ingredient" that had eluded many other programmers before him and that transformed completely the strength of the chess engine program that he modified, even if it would have modified this chess engine program only very slightly.

CONCLUSION:
Those who want to accuse a chess engine program to be a clone of a previous chess engine program are blind and they certainly have no idea at all how discoveries are made. In any invention or in any discovery or in any new chess engine program whose strength increases dramatically, it is not the amount or the number of changes made to what was previously known that matters, it is the result that is obtained by any amount or by any number of changes made to what was previously known that matters!
[color=#0000FF][b][i]In other words, even if a programmer would change only a few lines of code to an existing chess engine program whose source code is available on the Internet, if the new program increases dramatically in its strength by increasing dramatically its ELO, then this programmer should be entitled to claim full credit for his accomplishment, NO MATTER THE FACT THAT HE CHANGED ONLY A FEW LINES OF CODE TO AN EXISTING CHESS ENGINE PROGRAM!!! That is the difference between making a discovery and being stuck with a not satisfying solution!![/i][/b][/color]
-----------------------------------

[color=#FF0000][b][u]When someone gives the source code of his chess engine program, he is surely ready to have every single line of his source code used in other chess engine programs. He knows that very well!![/u][/b][/color] Those who use his source code have the only (moral) obligation to have the decency to acknowledge from which source code they got inspired, even if they took every single line of code from the source code of the chess engine from which they got most of their inspiration.

[color=#0000FF][b][i]I remind you that the programmer of Rybka, Vasik Rajlich, very honestly fully acknowledged that he used many ideas from the open source program Fruit whose source code is widely available on the Internet. Vasik Rajlich did the maximum one could ask him to do on this matter and there is nothing more to ask Vasik Rajlich.[/i][/b][/color]
Oh, yes, I forget? Quite a few among you would like to ask Vasik Rajlich his source code for inquisition!! Sorry people, it is not going to happen anytime soon!
For your information, Vasik Rajlich did not even bother participating at the irrelevant bad joke that is pompously and dishonestly entitled "the World Computer (Chess) Software Championship (WCSC)" that was organised by the ICGA because he knew too well that this WCSC was completely irrelevant.

[color=#FF0000][b][u]YOUR DESIRE TO ACCUSE PEOPLE WHO DO WELL OF HAVING CREATED A CLONE IS NOTHING LESS THAN A DESIRE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SOURCE CODE OF THE CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS THAT ARE THE STRONGEST.[/u][/b][/color] And for what dishonest purpose?! Sorry, but the ICGA World Computer Chess Championships with same hardware for each opponent and the version for unlimited hardware are already completely irrelevant and basically dead! Soon, they will have to pay participants to come to these bogus ICGA World Computer Chess Championships!!

[color=#0000FF][b][u]Long live THE TCEC TOURNAMENTS THAT ARE THE TRUE WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS. And with the TCEC, no inquisition, only the performance of the chess engine programs is what matters!! As it should be.[/u][/b][/color]
[color=#FF0000][b]Here is the TCEC TOURNAMENTS WEB SITE at[/b][/color] http://www.tcec-chess.org/ [color=#FF0000][b]Select the Archive section at the top and use the drop-down menu to see the 40 games of the Elite Match where Houdini 1.5a was crowned the true 2010 World Computer Chess Champion against a worthy opponent Rybka 4.0.[/b][/color]


Best Regards to All
MichaelIsGreat

[Jeremy Bernstein]

MichaelIsGreat,

Your post is nearly 100% irrelevant to the issues being raised by the programmers in their open letter. Furthermore, your views are well known from the 20 or so other colorful posts with which you've peppered OpenChess, and you don't need to continue to recycle your material. The open letter has nothing to do with ICGA hardware policy or ICGA v TCEC. And your assertion that programmers are motivated by their desire to look at Rybka's source code is simply uninformed and borderline stupid.

If you can't respond to the post on its merits, maybe you should consider not responding at all.

Jeremy

[kingliveson]

Some notable names in computer chess:

Georgy Adelson-Velsky
Larry Atkin
D. F. Beal
Hans Berliner
Mikhail Botvinnik
Don Dailey
Robert Hyatt
Alexander Kronrod
Fabien Letouzey
Vasik Rajlich*
Claude Shannon
David Slate

IM Vasik Rajlich is a talented individual who set the bar quite high for computer chess, but will always have an asterisk next to his name. It is very telling when Don Dailey, one of Vasik’s most vocal supporters has signed unto the open letter due to evidence he believes show Rybka (version 1.0) to be a Fruit derivative or at least incorporated significant parts.

The issue could have been resolved without it coming to a point that might prove to be embarrassing and leave a stain in his legacy -- Mr. Rajlich had 5 years. It should also serve as a lesson and warning to anyone who thinks he or she can get away with insincerity in the computer chess community. You will forever tarnish your name and reputation.

To digress a bit, there are those who felt Vasik’s reaction to Ippolit overstepped his bounds given his own beginnings, and it helped further flaming debate into Rybka/Fruit derivative allegations.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Some notable names in computer chess:

Georgy Adelson-Velsky
Larry Atkin
D. F. Beal
Hans Berliner
Mikhail Botvinnik
Don Dailey
Robert Hyatt
Alexander Kronrod
Fabien Letouzey
Vasik Rajlich*
Claude Shannon
David Slate

IM Vasik Rajlich is a talented individual who set the bar quite high for computer chess, but will always have an asterisk next to his name. It is very telling when Don Dailey, one of Vasik’s most vocal supporters has signed unto the open letter due to evidence he believes show Rybka (version 1.0) to be a Fruit derivative or at least incorporated significant parts.

The issue could have been resolved without it coming to a point that might prove to be embarrassing and leave a stain in his legacy -- Mr. Rajlich had 5 years. It should also serve as a lesson to anyone who thinks he or she can get away with insincerity. You will forever ruin your name and reputation.

To digress a bit, there are those who felt Vasik’s reaction to Ippolit overstepped his bounds given his own beginnings, and it helped further flaming debate into Rybka/Fruit derivative allegations.

Most interesting to me is that people like Tord (see http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=467224) and Don have changed their views on this.

Jeremy