Re: POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:46 pm
Ippolit is derived from Rybka 3.
Independent Computer Chess Discussion Forum
https://open-chess.org/
Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?Peter C wrote:Evidence?
Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119
It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).
Peter
Are you indirectly saying that Ippolit got its ideas from Fruit ?Charles wrote:Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?Peter C wrote:Evidence?
Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119
It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).
Peter
And how does Ippolit get its strength? Is there something unique within its design that does this or is it simply the ideas taken from Rybka 3?
I think that pdf pretty much makes the case that Ippolit is legal, but there are higher ethical standards needed in determining how original the ideas contained within a chess engine are.
Matthias Gemuh wrote:Are you indirectly saying that Ippolit got its ideas from Fruit ?Charles wrote:Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?Peter C wrote:Evidence?
Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119
It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).
Peter
And how does Ippolit get its strength? Is there something unique within its design that does this or is it simply the ideas taken from Rybka 3?
I think that pdf pretty much makes the case that Ippolit is legal, but there are higher ethical standards needed in determining how original the ideas contained within a chess engine are.
A nice quote: "I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things".
The Ippolit authors took lots of ideas from Rybka and added some of their own. Like the search is more aggressive than Rybka's and added some new stuff.Charles wrote:Yes, but did they not get most of their ideas from Rybka?Peter C wrote:Evidence?
Read the pdf file attached to the first post in this thread:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119
It's got a lot of good evidence that Ippolit is original (though the authors certainly looked at ideas in Rybka).
Peter
And how does Ippolit get its strength? Is there something unique within its design that does this or is it simply the ideas taken from Rybka 3?
I think that pdf pretty much makes the case that Ippolit is legal, but there are higher ethical standards needed in determining how original the ideas contained within a chess engine are.
Charles wrote: Vas has to account for it not me. However, other programmers have disputed this. My definition of original is the amount of innovation contained in the program. I suspect that Vas studeied fruit and others as he said and built his engine from it. Maybe he copied something in the process. and so Rybka is not original. However, he innovated by making his engine considerably stronger. So I feel the engine has considerable VALUE for the enduser.
Again, I am uncomfortable with the strength making it all right argument. Strength is not a justification in and of itself.Charles wrote: The amount of originality in rybka makes it a useful product.. Btw.. no one would buy rybka if it was same strength of fruit. ---Rybka's innovation is in its considerable strength.
Should you be referring to the evaluation comparisons I would want to be careful with that analysis. When it was expanded, similarities among other engines - commercial and free - were also noted. That would suggest that either the method lacks the requisite rigour or there is an incestuous arrangement in terms of chess engine coding.Charles wrote: This is established with the "clone testing" in talkchess. It can show (not necessarily conclusively) which engines are close in evaluation. Also the latest report by BB shows clearly that Ippolit is not a copy and paste but does show that there are a lot of similarities.
And the innovation is ippolit is strenght in blitz that almost vanishes at long time controls --- I have yet to see enough LTC games showing dominance over Rybka 3!
Are the games or results of the games available somewhere? If not, could you state the time-control you used?Charles wrote: Rybka 4 - adjusting time control factors is much stronger. and is equal or better than ivanhoe. However, houdini might be stronger ...My tests show that.
Ippo* was not sold.Charles wrote: Anyway, if Rybka is NOT original, then neither is ippolit by the same standards.
Cross Table
No Name Feder Rtg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Hiarcs, 2812 28:W 16:W 10:L 20:D 34:W 13:W 15:W 9:W 3:D
2. Junior, 2701 29:D 7:W 14:W 5:L 38:W 19:W 16:W 3:D 9:D
3. Crafty, 2607 30:W 20:W 12:W 10:D 8:W 9:W 21:D 2:D 1:D
4. Rebel 12, 2600 31:W 19:W 9:L 21:L 33:W 25:W 5:L 7:W 40:L
5. Ruffian, 2595 32:W 22:D 34:W 2:W 9:L 20:W 4:W 21:W 10:L
6. Quark, 2586 33:W 21:D 15:D 19:L 36:W 31:L 26:W 24:W 14:L
7. Arasan, 2557 34:L 2:L 48:W 36:L 45:W 39:W 32:W 4:L 31:W
8. Searcher, 2532 35:W 23:W 13:W 9:L 3:L 40:D 38:W 10:L 16:W
9. Yace, 2531 36:W 26:W 4:W 8:W 5:W 3:L 10:D 1:L 2:D
10. Zappa, 2530 37:W 27:W 1:W 3:D 21:L 11:W 9:D 8:W 5:W
11. Falcon, 2500 38:W 34:D 22:D 40:W 19:D 10:L 23:L 28:W 51:L
12. Pepito, 2500 39:W 45:W 3:L 23:L 37:D 51:L 33:D 35:W 36:W
13. Green Light Chess, 2495 40:W 44:W 8:L 22:W 23:W 1:L 51:D 20:L 26:W
14. Comet B68, 2489 41:W 51:W 2:L 29:D 15:L 37:W 31:D 25:W 6:W
15. King of Kings, 2479 42:W 52:D 6:D 38:D 14:W 22:W 1:L 51:W 23:W
16. Post Modernist, 2471 43:W 1:L 33:W 51:W 31:W 21:D 2:L 40:D 8:L
17. Chezzz, 2468 44:L 40:L 54:W 42:L 46:W 38:L 45:W 34:D 28:W
18. Ikarus, 2466 45:L 29:D 43:W 39:D 40:L 36:L 41:L : :
19. The Baron, 2465 46:W 4:L 32:W 6:W 11:D 2:L 40:L 27:W 29:L
20. Pharaon, 2450 47:W 3:L 37:W 1:D 29:W 5:L 42:W 13:W 21:D
21. Thinker 4.5a, 2450 48:W 6:D 52:W 4:W 10:W 16:D 3:D 5:L 20:D
22. WildCat, 2425 49:W 5:D 11:D 13:L 39:W 15:L 27:D 29:L 37:W
23. XiniX, 2420 50:W 8:L 36:W 12:W 13:L 42:D 11:W 31:W 15:L
24. OliThink, 2400 51:L 39:L 47:W 35:W 42:L 41:W 36:W 6:L 33:L
25. BlackBishop, 2400 52:L 42:W 38:L 44:W 50:W 4:L 34:W 14:L 32:W
26. SpiderChess, 2396 53:W 9:L 39:D 31:L 52:W 29:W 6:L 38:W 13:L
27. Frenzee, 2380 54:W 10:L 40:L 45:D 28:W 34:D 22:D 19:L 38:L
28. Djinn, 2378 1:L 41:D 51:L 47:W 27:L 44:W 37:W 11:L 17:L
29. Movei, 2367 2:D 18:D 44:W 14:D 20:L 26:L 50:W 22:W 19:W
30. messchess, 2367 3:L 43:D 35:D 37:L 41:L 52:W 47:W 36:L 46:L
31. Amateur, 2361 4:L 46:W 45:W 26:W 16:L 6:W 14:D 23:L 7:L
32. Averno, 2354 5:L 47:W 19:L 41:W 51:L 49:W 7:L 42:W 25:L
33. Bodo, 2351 6:L 48:W 16:L 46:W 4:L 50:D 12:D 39:W 24:W
34. Butcher, 2337 7:W 11:D 5:L 52:W 1:L 27:D 25:L 17:D 42:L
35. Dorky 4.0, 2324 8:L 50:D 30:D 24:L 44:D 45:D 46:W 12:L 43:W
36. Chepla, 2323 9:L 49:W 23:L 7:W 6:L 18:W 24:L 30:W 12:L
37. Hossa, 2317 10:L 54:W 20:L 30:W 12:D 14:L 28:L 50:W 22:L
38. Amyan, 2292 11:L 53:W 25:W 15:D 2:L 17:W 8:L 26:L 27:W
39. Alarm, 2290 12:L 24:W 26:D 18:D 22:L 7:L 49:W 33:L 52:L
40. Bringer 1.9, 2283 13:L 17:W 27:W 11:L 18:W 8:D 19:W 16:D 4:W
41. Chompster, 2274 14:L 28:D 50:D 32:L 30:W 24:L 18:L : :
42. Tao 5.6, 2274 15:L 25:L 49:W 17:W 24:W 23:D 20:L 32:L 34:W
43. Tinker, 2232 16:L 30:D 18:L 50:L 53:D 46:L 54:W 47:W 35:L
44. Rascal, 2225 17:W 13:L 29:L 25:L 35:D 28:L 53:W 52:D 49:W
45. Nullmover, 2213 18:W 12:L 31:L 27:D 7:L 35:D 17:L 49:L 53:D
46. Chiron, 2200 19:L 31:L 53:W 33:L 17:L 43:W 35:L 48:W 30:W
47. SEE, 2196 20:L 32:L 24:L 28:L 54:W 53:W 30:L 43:L 48:D
48. Noonian Chess, 2128 21:L 33:L 7:L 53:D 49:L 54:W 52:L 46:L 47:D
49. 31337/Celes, 2127 22:L 36:L 42:L 54:W 48:W 32:L 39:L 45:W 44:L
50. Cheetah, 2104 23:L 35:D 41:D 43:W 25:L 33:D 29:L 37:L 54:W
51. Jonny 2.54, 2075 24:W 14:L 28:W 16:L 32:W 12:W 13:D 15:L 11:W
52. MatadorX, 2000 25:W 15:D 21:L 34:L 26:L 30:L 48:W 44:D 39:W
53. Rybka, 2000 26:L 38:L 46:L 48:D 43:D 47:L 44:L 54:W 45:D
54. Tohno, 1800 27:L 37:L 17:L 49:L 47:L 48:L 43:L 53:L 50:L
The exact numerology is much beyond a similarity (as I mentioned, merely having the same Rank/File/Line centralisation strategy for PST is a different bailiwick than having the same numbers from them). I can't find any engines other than Fruit and Rybka whose PST values are derived from (minor exceptions with Rybka in central pawns):
I can imagine someone with the same idea producing 4 or 5 of these arrays that are the same, but not all 9.Code: Select all
static const int PawnFile[8] = {-3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3,}; static const int KnightLine[8] = {-4, -2, +0, +1, +1, +0, -2, -4,}; static const int KnightRank[8] = {-2, -1, +0, +1, +2, +3, +2, +1,}; static const int BishopLine[8] = {-3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3,}; static const int RookFile[8] = {-2, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -2,}; static const int QueenLine[8] = { -3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3,}; static const int KingLine[8] = {-3, -1, +0, +1, +1, +0, -1, -3,}; static const int KingFile[8] = { +3, +4, +2, +0, +0, +2, +4, +3,}; static const int KingRank[8] = { +1, +0, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7,};
You can see the original report showing Rybka is modified Fruit here or get the attached pdf file.Rybka's evaluation has been the subject of much speculation ever since its appearance. Various theories have been put forth about the inner workings of the evaluation, but with the publication of Strelka, it was shown just how wrong everyone was. It is perhaps ironic that Rybka's evaluation is its most similar part to Fruit; it contains, in my opinion, the most damning evidence of all. Simply put, Rybka's evaluation is virtually identical to Fruit's.
05.12.2005, Vasik Rajlich wrote:Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on. I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.