Vas Speaks in Tongues

[MoldyJacket]

I laughed my ass off when I saw claims that Vas has created a whole new programming language with Rybka in other threads, but now he speaks in tongues! Who knew using simple defines could spawn such spirituality…and an effectively higher level proprietary language.

[Prima]

I laughed my ass off when I saw claims that Vas has created a whole new programming language with Rybka in other threads, but now he speaks in tongues! Who knew using simple defines could spawn such spirituality…and an effectively higher level proprietary language.

More gibberish from Trotsky/Ed & co. As usual.

1. First, these caricatures denied Vas ever copied Fruit [and Crafty] codes to make Rybka. Evidences proved otherwise.
2. Next, these Rybka clowns claimed code-plagiarism couldn't have occurred, else how could Rybka 1.0 beta be stronger than Fruit. This ship sank with evidences.
3. Then, they claimed the contribution from Fruit to Rybka was negligible. Evidences showed with manipulation of constants etc, ELO can be obtained. Shot down.
4. Next excuse from them: "Vas didn't know it was not okay to plagiarize codes" . If I didn't know better, I'd say that's a confession & admittance of guilt.
5. Next avenue: These buffoons lamented "ICGA's punishment towards Vas is too harsh." But the ICGA gave Vas ample time and communicated with Vas but Vas refused to cooperate.
6. Next step, they claimed all other commercial authors plagiarize codes, so Rybka must should be given a free-pass. Problem is, Rybka is the one CAUGHT in code plagiarism and suffers the same ban punishment previous authors have faced when caught in similar situation.
7. Next excuse: Banned for Life, Lukas Cinmiotti et.al cries out: "ICGA is meaningless". "ICGA is nothing". "ICGA is useless". "ICGA will die-out". Not happening, not working.
8. Next step, "we are in the millennium and things have changed. It is okay to pass-off someone's work as yours". This Ed's mantra. Problem is, it's not okay to plagiarize without due credit, if not by conscience & ethics, at least as mandated by GPL License. Equally important, it also violates ICGA's Rule #2 of originality.
9. Next: "Rybka is original on the premise Vas contributed to Fruit 2.1 in make Rybka 1.0 beta to Rybka 2.3.2a stronger than Fruit 2.1. Problem AGAIN is; Fruit 1.0 beta, all the way to Fruit 2.3.2a, are not original at the source code level. Substantiated by evidence. It won't shock me if Fruit 4.1 (now known as Rybka 4.1) still contains traces of Fruit 2.1.
10. Next joke, the [u]definition of originality. Found here:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
So their new tactic (if worth it) is to swindle into the methodology of how code was plagiarized. That is: Manually typing-in exact codes of intended target versus Copy-and-Paste codes of intended target. Problem and reality of the matter is; whether codes were copied via copy-and-paste OR manually typing-in someone's code, the end results are the same: You have an exact match of codes to that of the codes copied FROM. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

With the cognizance of such jests from these dolts, sensible serious-minded people see the posts from these Rybka clowns for exactly what it is: jabbering, if not dissipation of mischievousness.

[gaard]

I laughed my ass off when I saw claims that Vas has created a whole new programming language with Rybka in other threads, but now he speaks in tongues! Who knew using simple defines could spawn such spirituality…and an effectively higher level proprietary language.

More gibberish from Trotsky/Ed & co. As usual.

1. First, these caricatures denied Vas ever copied Fruit [and Crafty] codes to make Rybka. Evidences proved otherwise.
2. Next, these Rybka clowns claimed code-plagiarism couldn't have occurred, else how could Rybka 1.0 beta be stronger than Fruit. This ship sank with evidences.
3. Then, they claimed the contribution from Fruit to Rybka was negligible. Evidences showed with manipulation of constants etc, ELO can be obtained. Shot down.
4. Next excuse from them: "Vas didn't know it was not okay to plagiarize codes" . If I didn't know better, I'd say that's a confession & admittance of guilt.
5. Next avenue: These buffoons lamented "ICGA's punishment towards Vas is too harsh." But the ICGA gave Vas ample time and communicated with Vas but Vas refused to cooperate.
6. Next step, they claimed all other commercial authors plagiarize codes, so Rybka must should be given a free-pass. Problem is, Rybka is the one CAUGHT in code plagiarism and suffers the same ban punishment previous authors have faced when caught in similar situation.
7. Next excuse: Banned for Life, Lukas Cinmiotti et.al cries out: "ICGA is meaningless". "ICGA is nothing". "ICGA is useless". "ICGA will die-out". Not happening, not working.
8. Next step, "we are in the millennium and things have changed. It is okay to pass-off someone's work as yours". This Ed's mantra. Problem is, it's not okay to plagiarize without due credit, if not by conscience & ethics, at least as mandated by GPL License. Equally important, it also violates ICGA's Rule #2 of originality.
9. Next: "Rybka is original on the premise Vas contributed to Fruit 2.1 in make Rybka 1.0 beta to Rybka 2.3.2a stronger than Fruit 2.1. Problem AGAIN is; Fruit 1.0 beta, all the way to Fruit 2.3.2a, are not original at the source code level. Substantiated by evidence. It won't shock me if Fruit 4.1 (now known as Rybka 4.1) still contains traces of Fruit 2.1.
10. Next joke, the [u]definition of originality. Found here:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
So their new tactic (if worth it) is to swindle into the methodology of how code was plagiarized. That is: Manually typing-in exact codes of intended target versus Copy-and-Paste codes of intended target. Problem and reality of the matter is; whether codes were copied via copy-and-paste OR manually typing-in someone's code, the end results are the same: You have an exact match of codes to that of the codes copied FROM. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

With the cognizance of such jests from these dolts, sensible serious-minded people see the posts from these Rybka clowns for exactly what it is: jabbering, if not dissipation of mischievousness.

simply. staggering.

[hyatt]

Thanks for posting that. I had forgotten about the post. I had already raised this "issue" at RF and a couple jumped in and tried to twist Vas' words to NOT mean "typing code makes it original." I just posted a quote plus a link to the post on the RF. Ought to be fun to see how "trotsky" (Chris W) and Ed try to wrangle out of that DIRECT statement about what makes something original.

[kingliveson]

I laughed my ass off when I saw claims that Vas has created a whole new programming language with Rybka in other threads, but now he speaks in tongues! Who knew using simple defines could spawn such spirituality…and an effectively higher level proprietary language.

As someone who has written an assembler for RISC architecture, translating instruction sets to opcodes, the subject matter is not foreign to me. Bob can probably elaborate more on how involved writing a compiler is, which I have not done.

C.W. is just fantasizing; he throws out these "fantastic" theories, and then expects people to try debunking them. It definitely seems like a venerated religious observance and ritual gathering over there.

[hyatt]

We have had "language variants" since the early days. Slate/Atkin wrote chess 4.x in compass, CDC's asm language. At one point I had a copy of their source, years after the program was retired. It had a BUNCH of macros that did nothing more than make the asm easier to read, and hence easier to support / modify. I use a bunch of macros in Crafty simply to make the code more "dense" and easier to grasp (I can understand a few lines of dense code far easier than a lot of lines of "sparse" code.)

This is NOT new. And the claim on RF was pretty funny in light of that.

Compilers are difficult, but not THAT difficult. I have written several, and done a lot of debugging on gcc back when long long was "new" and I needed it for the first Crafty versions (not to mention using it in testing Cray Blitz on a vax/unix system). These claims that you can't compare an optimized binary to the original source is ridiculous. That would imply one can not debug an optimized program when working on the compiler. And that happens every day.

[MoldyJacket]

By Vasik Rajlich Date 2012-01-12 17:38
> Vas, where did the ratios/formulas for the Rybka 1.0 PST arrays come from?
I don't remember, but they very well may have come from Fruit. I would have no qualms about using them.
Vas

How does the rest of the CC programming community feel about this statement?

[hyatt]

That is almost incidental in light of his other comments. Such as it would be OK to copy the entire fruit pst initialization as far as he is concerned...

[Damir Desevac]

And why should you bother, whether he copy some stuff from Fruit, you did the exact same thing as Miguel pointed out , and you refuse to admit it. At least Vas has balls to admit, whether or not he used/borrowed some ideas from open source engine, which is more that I can say about you and your fellow programmers in the ICGA panel. You are all bunch of saints, have never copied/borrowed any ideas from open source engines...

Besides, are you author of Fruit ? Let Fabien speak for himself. It is his program, not yours. You speak as if Fruit was your own creation. I want to read Monsieur Letouzey's views, not what you or anybody else think. I suppose the only purpose to get Fabien from his retirement was to convince him that Vas plagiarized his program, so that you could strip him of his titles and ban him from participating in future events. Now that you have accomplished that, there is no need for Fabien's assistance, so he might just as well go back to his cave, where he used to be...

[Prima]

And why should you bother, whether he copy some stuff from Fruit, you did the exact same thing as Miguel pointed out , and you refuse to admit it. At least Vas has balls to admit, whether or not he used/borrowed some ideas from open source engine, which is more that I can say about you and your fellow programmers in the ICGA panel. You are all bunch of saints, have never copied/borrowed any ideas from open source engines...

Besides, are you author of Fruit ? Let Fabien speak for himself. It is his program, not yours. You speak as if Fruit was your own creation. I want to read Monsieur Letouzey's views, not what you or anybody else think. I suppose the only purpose to get Fabien from his retirement was to convince him that Vas plagiarized his program, so that you could strip him of his titles and ban him from participating in future events. Now that you have accomplished that, there is no need for Fabien's assistance, so he might just as well go back to his cave, where he used to be...

Damir Desevec, your post is indicative of those, mostly the pro Rybkas, NOT understanding part(s) of the technical arguments or evidences. The issue of plagiarism has always been about CODE theft and/or failure to acknowledge external code copied FROM. Otherwise called CODE-plagiarism. NOT about idea-plagiarism!!!. Ideas are and have always been free for anyone to use and not have to give credit. But one MUST give credit when using another persons' codes.
In a nutshell: Vas was not banned from ICGA because he used ideas. He was banned because he copied [other] CODES and deliberately FAILED to disclosed the sources of the said codes. How many times has this simple concept been reiterated over and over???

By the way, Vas NEVER admitted, to this day, that he used CODES from Fruit. Not sure where you got the false idea Vas "had some balls to admit using Fruit codes...". In fact, he still claims Rybka is original at the source code level, despite facts proving otherwise. Then he goes on to give a warped, bogus definition of originality of source code. Additionally, the ICGA has stated, REPEATEDLY, that PSTs values ALONE is not admissible as evidence that Vas copied Fruit/Crafty Codes. However, in light of numerous evidences collected, including the 0.0 codes etc, it shows a high probability beyond doubt that the PSTs were copied as well.

Yet you want to criticize Bob and/or the technical matters that you have no conceptual understanding of.