Thoughts on Fruit=Rybka EVAL

[hyatt]

The EVAL of all program's differ in order and Fruit and Strelka are no exception.

No idea what you mean.

Exactly, because the panel never came up with the consideration.

It's a smoking gun, missing link, it should be there but it isn't.

No shame in this, just want to have it recognized.

Did you look at Mark's analysis and explanations? His eval matching was based on order of things done. So, as I said, no idea what you are talking about...

Overall order doesn't have to match at all. Order within an individual term shouldn't match either. Too many options for many terms. If the same things are done in the same way using the same order etc, something's up. The more of those "things" there are, the more up something is, to use a horrible grammatical construct that would make an English teacher cringe.

[BB+]

The PM is interesting for the following reasons,

1. Is basically telling me to shut up.

Was basically telling you to make serious suggestions, and not indulge in things closer to conspiracy theories, with little or no supporting evidence. If you interpret that as "shut up", so be it. As Julien Marcel put it on TalkChess, the principal manner in which any movement will occur is by rational and convincing argument, not by: proposing X, then saying that it didn't matter anyway, rinse-lather-repeat -- in this genre, Adam Hair [sorry to drag him into this] termed this as "spurious alternative positions" of you (and ChrisW).

One reason why I've answered almost everything you raised so far (and as promptly as feasible) is that I have (or had) great respect for you as a doyen of computer chess. REBEL was indeed my favourite program back in my college days. But now recently I have concluded that my efforts in enumerating specific evidence are simply squandered, as it is not even clear that you even read them. I could have posted something in Swahili, yet I think your "form letter" response: Thank you for clarification. To say it in a few words, you basically discovered that comparing the eval of 2 good chess programs contain about the same amount of chess knowledge and its implementation look similar. I could have told you that from the beginning -- would still seem to fit.

2. Raises questions, such as why that urgent need to reply to my (or anyone else for that matter) postings? Since when Is that an obligation on the Internet?

I happened to have some time to spare, as earlier in the morning I was at the US Consulate for a passport issue (then got my haircut), which freed up a chunk of time. I figured you might prefer an answer sooner, rather than later -- I conclude that my 3 hours was not well-spent. You yourself: said it was an atomic bomb, noted that I didn't comment on the issue [I am so sorry for all your work. [...] For me (today) the whole issue stands or falls with the part you did not comment...], said you weren't interested in other things now, etc. I thought, at the very least, that it would be courteous of me to respond in an informed manner as quickly as possible.

As I proposed in a previous PM (when you asked me to join the Rybka Forum discussions): I will, however, be happy to answer any technical questions about the ICGA process or its findings -- can you condemn me for vigilance in such duty? [NB: I hereby retract any inherent or implied commitment therein]. If I'm too fast, you complain -- if I'm too slow, you complain. I reiterate that I took your previous response to my efforts as a quite dismissive slap-in-the-face (my next-door Dutch colleague informs me that denoting it a kaakslag would be an over-statement).

Did the ICGA compensate you for your work ?

No. If they were (say) to offer me an Honorary Membership, I would refuse. To get a sense of my "ethical duties" on a related question, Fabien offered to put me up for the night in Lille when I visited -- as there is some chance I will be providing "expert opinions" for his legal action with the FSF, I declined this, as being a possible conflict of interest [otherwise, I likely would have taken him up on the offer -- nor did I let him pay for lunch/dinner]. As Bob mentioned in a different thread, academics have this stuff drilled into them periodically [though they do, of course, often have lapses like anyone else]. Furthermore, I don't quite think that "Extracurricular duties, related to profession: Computer Chess Fraud Investigator, International Computer Games Association" will exactly be something that I will put on my CV.

If you wish to make the issue about persons (me, Levy, Hyatt, Harvey, Ken Thompson...) and impugn motives therein, rather than having the issue be Rybka/Fruit, then say so -- but then don't obscure this among impertinent queries concerning the R/F evidence. Perhaps I should inquire if you and ChrisW are being compensated by VR to "stir up trouble"?

[BB+]

A Fruit copy-boy prior to 2006 would leave the order of EVAL intact.

I reiterate the conclusion I gave with the evidence which I so kindly enumerated. It is difficult to say much one way or the other, partially due to external factors (bitboards and performance issues). One can argue it either way. Do you have a specific argument as to why you find the evidence to point so assuredly in the direction you espouse? I can fairly well argue either:

*) Rybka changes as about as little as possible in the EVAL order as could be expected from external necessities;
*) or, Rybka has notable differences from Fruit 2.1 in EVAL ordering, significantly more than one should expect
   if assuming the Fruit 2.1 evaluation code was foraged and then refurbished into bitboard form.

I could well be convinced of either, when properly presented and supported. As of yet, I don't see much argument either way.

Is that a huge point or not ?

As a counterpoint to "evaluation ordering" being overly important on the whole ("a huge point"), I could note a related case, in that IPPOLIT has a number of places where it re-orders R3 elements (in eval and other places), though this doesn't really seem to be much of a contra-indication to its Rybka origins. The Panel never considered the issue, in part because nobody proffered that it was of great interest, and partially since one couldn't say much definite [or should the Report have included "it is possible (to use Wylie's term) that the Rybka evaluation ordering derives from Fruit", just so that you would know that any issue here hadn't passed over everyone's heads?].

And again I could suggest that I see little to indicate that you have read/digested what I previously wrote regarding the "evaluation ordering" evidence itself [as an aside, I have a colleague who once told me that one should ponder the meaning of evidence (or data, in a mathematical/experimental setting) for at least as long it takes to assemble it(!)]. Furthermore, even if the evidence had clearly showed the same evaluation ordering, would you merely have switched positions (again) and perhaps demurred "It's a logical order, I do much the same"?

[BB+]

But okay, BB can answer the question himself.
But perhaps you missed the question addressed in the link below.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1535&start=120
Thanks.

The Rybka-Fruit controversy has many aspects but I feel that one aspect hardly is addressed, the harsh punishment by the ICGA without a decent self-analysis of their own involvement, role and responsibilities.

It's 2005, out of the blue an relative unknown engine with an estimated elo of 2000-2200 surprises the CC community with its enormous playing strength of roughly 2900 elo. It enters the IGCA arena in 2006 and conquers the second place during the yearly WC cycle. The next year 2007, world champion. Rybka rules.

It's not the ICGA has no knowledge and experience with unknown booming engines that make giant elo-jumps and later are detected as clones and banned. During the lifetime of the ICGA they discovered 6 of such cases, see, http://icga.wikispaces.com/Historical+Examples

What I want to accentuate is the lack of action shown by the ICGA when Vas became second in 2006 considering the fact Rybka made that incredible elo-jump of +/- 700 elo points in one year. All alarm bells should have been ringing and an investigation should have been started.

Perhaps there are valid reasons the ICGA did not, illness, not enough man power, etc. and I understand the ICGA is not a multi-million dollar organization with unlimited resources, it's not my intention to scoffer. Fact remains it should have happened and it did not. As such the ICGA became part of the problem. This whole drama could have been avoided right after the 2006 WC cycle with much less consequences and emotional impact.

Considering all of the above I feel the punishment too harsh and I want to ask the ICGA to be generous to Vas and soften the punishment.

I have no idea why you are requesting me particularly to answer this, but I think I already mentioned one issue here [yes, I know, you can't read all my posts ], so there's little additional effort in copying it here.

For instance, Ed (quite reasonably, at least in retrospect) found the ICGA to be rather languid in diligence when accepting Rybka in mid-2006 -- yet Rybka was (to the best of my knowledge) generally "accepted by the community" at that time, in no small part due to the "20 Elo" wild guess from VR's interview, and his statements in mid-Dec 2005: The Rybka source code is original and pre-dates all of the Fruit releases, and As far as I know, Rybka has a very original search and evaluation framework. The CC community has at least some level of trust in its dramatis personae, so unless there was a specific complaint against Rajlich in 2006, I can't see why the ICGA should "definitely" have done more than just have suspicious whisperings.

If the ICGA had investigated Rajlich in 2006 with no specific complaint against him, would the argument then be that he "was being singled out"?

I mentioned the "softening of punishment" question here (among other places).

Finally, just on the general "degree of guilt" issue, I've said elsewhere that I concurred with Gerd's comment in the Report, in that the "ideal" solution to the R/F mess would just to be let FL be named as "co-author" for 2006/7 (perhaps additionally replacing "Rybka" with "Fruit/Rybka" if it makes one happy) -- however, I think that reaching this "remedy of mis-appropriation" endpoint would have required some dialogue with VR [you can't easily do this w/o him being at least partially agreeable, even if so agreeing he still strongly asserts that Rybka was indeed "original"by his understanding], which for various reasons proved too unwieldy (ICGA-phobia one side, perhaps an irreconciliatory tone in some documents on the other, maybe some left-over bad-blood between Levy/Rajlich regarding the missed opportunity in 2007).

[BB+]

Indeed, you said well, the emphasis is on occasion. Not within a time frame of 5½ months having tons of other things on your mind among that an elo improvement of 100 elo.

I would think that any such cosmetic re-arranging (including unit-testing) would take a day at most, but as you're the professional in computer chess engine development, you might like to correct me if wrong. It also seems (see node counts and depth) that Rajlich did in fact have "obfuscation" as one of the things on his mind during this period [though maybe just externally]. And as above, it's not clear to me (at this stage) that the EVAL is really re-ordered to much extent beyond the necessary from bitboard/performance issues. Finally, I discussed/rebutted your contention that 5.5 months for 100 Elo was "too short", and essentially got a non sequitur in response.

One can also note that Rybka gained 110 Elo (2816 to 2928 on CEGT 40/20) from Rybka 1.0 Beta (Dec 5 2005) to Rybka 1.2f (May 5 2006), again a 5 month period. Is your argument now going to be that this latter number just shows how Vas is a genius at adding ELO?

Perhaps there are valid reasons the ICGA did not, illness, not enough man power, etc. and I understand the ICGA is not a multi-million dollar organization with unlimited resources, it's not my intention to scoffer. Fact remains it should have happened and it did not. As such the ICGA became part of the problem. This whole drama could have been avoided right after the 2006 WC cycle with much less consequences and emotional impact.

Just to keep this humorous: how about this conspiracy theory? VR bribed the ICGA Board in 2006, and only now with the new Board (from the 2008 Meeting) has there started to be a clean-up campaign! So the current ICGA is not the problem, just the corrupt one from 5 years ago. Have you considered this possibility? I might note that ChrisW (back in March, after relating his opinion of the dysfunctional aspects of the CC world -- no argument from me there!) essentially asked me not to take part in the tribunal/Panel [and instead "work with others to bring peace in the face of the hate"] -- should I interpret this as "shut up"?

[Adam Hair]

At this point in time, I find myself questioning Mr. Schröder's motives. I have no desire to look for fault in his actions. Quite honestly, I acknowledge that he is a man of much stature in computer chess, whether or not he is active now. I understand that he does not agree with the punishment handed out by the ICGA (most of the principals in the community do not agree also). As far as his choice to play devil's advocate in response to Bob Hyatt, Bob seems to evoke similar responses in other people.

However, the promise to give technical insight for non-programmers has largely been unfulfilled. It seems that he decided to adopt what he claimed to be Bob's "street fighter" style and use it on Mark Watkins. The reason for this is known only to Mr. Schröder. The supercilious tone, the adoption of the next semi-plausible opposing position when the previous position is giving way, the lack of effort to provide technical support for his positions, the attack on Mark's integerity, etc.... Quite honestly, Mark did not need to assign some of his "mood" to insomnia. Mr. Schröder's actions are enough to justify a bad mood.

I just can not understand this tack.

[BB+]

I think my frustration with Ed has become clear, but he's still making at least a few reasonable points here and there. In his behalf, I might point out that Ed's native tongue is not English, and he may have mis-interpreted some phrases I used (both in posts, and in PMs). Different culture, different assumptions, ...

It's also the case that I had thought I would be too busy these last two weeks to respond much to him [and essentially told him that at one point], so he might have been surprised that I was so active in debating -- however, I now do indeed have a reading course [in analytic number theory] to supervise. My officemate had kept the students busy (with his own reading course, in a different branch of number theory) for the first couple of weeks, but now he's gone to England/Europe for 2 months.

I also managed to sleep from 6pm-5am (with a few minor wakeups) last night. [And yes, the "billing" was totally tongue-in-cheek -- sorry for omitting the proper emoticon].

This being said, I also do find some recent examples of Ed's hyperbole a bit grating to say the least, not to mention some of his voiced assumptions concerning the Panel process.

[Rebel]

Is that a huge point or not ?

As a counterpoint to "evaluation ordering" being overly important on the whole ("a huge point"), I could note a related case, in that IPPOLIT has a number of places where it re-orders R3 elements (in eval and other places), though this doesn't really seem to be much of a contra-indication to its Rybka origins.

You must have missed prior to 2006 and the implication of that.

As for all the compliments directed at me, I understand your frustration. You don't have a good answer to the unburden point I made.

But you could stop sending me those silly PM's.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Is that a huge point or not ?

As a counterpoint to "evaluation ordering" being overly important on the whole ("a huge point"), I could note a related case, in that IPPOLIT has a number of places where it re-orders R3 elements (in eval and other places), though this doesn't really seem to be much of a contra-indication to its Rybka origins.

You must have missed prior to 2006 and the implication of that.

As for all the compliments directed at me, I understand your frustration. You don't have a good answer to the unburden point I made.

But you could stop sending me those silly PM's.

As much as you and Chris make a show about being outside/above the moody, psycho-complicated, paranoid and generally crusty/grumpy atmosphere which characterizes computer chess, you guys really epitomize it. Congratulations on going with your gut feeling, in the face of outrageously, overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary.

Jeremy

[Chris Whittington]

Is that a huge point or not ?

As a counterpoint to "evaluation ordering" being overly important on the whole ("a huge point"), I could note a related case, in that IPPOLIT has a number of places where it re-orders R3 elements (in eval and other places), though this doesn't really seem to be much of a contra-indication to its Rybka origins.

You must have missed prior to 2006 and the implication of that.

As for all the compliments directed at me, I understand your frustration. You don't have a good answer to the unburden point I made.

But you could stop sending me those silly PM's.

As much as you and Chris make a show about being outside/above the moody, psycho-complicated, paranoid and generally crusty/grumpy atmosphere which characterizes computer chess, you guys really epitomize it. Congratulations on going with your gut feeling, in the face of outrageously, overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary.

Jeremy

Ah well, you see I find the fact that the PST tables generate from:

PST table = Different weights + Ramping array(1,2,3,4)

and thus boil down to the non-copyrightable common element(1,2,3,4)

as "overwhelmingly convincing evidence" that the PST table sections of the attack documents be filed to the wastepaper bin. Gut feeling led us there, but factual and logical analysis confirmed it.

Of course I disliked intensely the lies generated by certain of the attack group waving around and misleading large numbers of people about such things as:

identical code Rybka/Fruit PST table generation when the Rybka code was fantasy code and did not exist

ALL PSTs identical, when they were clearly not

all PSTs identical except for one multiplier, when they were clearly not.

ONLY Fruit/Rybka show similarites PST-wise, when we are now finding, quite randomly, that others show similarities too.

Now, what Ed's experience demonstrates, and he has said so several times now, that, if you go into this process with the belief "Vas is Guilty" or VIG as Ed puts it, an easy assumption to make especially after the six year bombardment from Prof Hyatt and others at talkchess, then it is not difficult to find "data" to support this assumption. Ed made the choice to relook at the data from a Vas is Innocent,VII startpoint. This necessitates a critical and questioning attitude and with that it is not difficult to start to discover that substantial elements of the attack documents begin to disintegrate, viz the PSTs which happen to currently be under the microscope.

My beef with you attack guys is that the FIRST FIVE PAGES of the important and incriminating Zach document create in readers, especially casual readers, the VIG mindset. When you add that to the six year long dirty propaganda campaign it is hardly surprising that you are going to get accused of creating an atmosphere where a kangaroo court of preconceived notions can get going, and all on the basis of dirty propaganda and lies.

You also perhaps ought to ask yourselves what is the purpose of this process? Do you have any positive solutions other than "get Vas"? Are you trying to find a new set of operating guidelines for computer chess game developers and publishers that look at the problems of copyright law code/ideas specifically in the fast moving games development world? Are you considering the effect on your hobby group as a whole? Are you considering the mental health/psychological effect on your attack target? Are you considering the mental health/psychological effect on Bob Hyatt? Or does it all boil down to a simple maths problem, no other factors involved?

You guys have gone bonkers imo, with BH, your leader, showing that in spades.