So now we have three groups: "academics" who mostly value "originality", "commercials" who balance Elo and originality, and "end-users" who only want Elo.Rebel wrote:Perhaps it's not a coincidence we are both ex-commercials and therefore have different weight-factors.
Perhaps since I am mathematician, I personally think that "tuning parameters" is of less value than "choosing/combining features", and indeed, I get the impression that some of the Fruit 2.1 values are simply "placeholders" before the tuning was done [FL carried out (in part) such tuning over the next few months, before the 2005 WCCC, and then after it prior to Fruit commercialisation]. Back in 2004, VR had a comment regarding the scope of "simplistic evaluation" with Fruit 1.0:
Approaching 9 months after this, Rybka's eval appears still to be in a nascent form. I would guess that [contrary to LK's first guess] it would take more than just a couple of weeks to spruce out a suitable set of tested eval terms. I would venture about 6 months (it took FL around 15 months on a part-time basis).
Incidentally, Fruit 1.0 was initially designed on paper -- FL lacked a computer for the first month or so upon moving to Cambridge.
I think the case for "copyright infringement" (or plagiarism) of the evaluation function as a whole is quite weighty, particularly when combined with the various other Fruit 2.1 bits that appear here-and-there in Rybka 1.0 Beta. Whether or not such "copyright infringement" (as I see it) was done by "copying" [as you seem to use the term, giving it a more literal sense] is a different matter. I look at the end result, and see (as per Fabien's comment about Strelka "re-writing the same thing with different words") what I consider to fall under the umbrella of "substantial similarity". Whether or not it's 10% or 90% of the totality of Rybka version X is a different (and difficult) matter. The ICGA Board verdict concluded that Rajlich had exceeded their "originality" boundary, though some of the Panel (such as Gerd Isenberg, and also Bob Hyatt and myself in part) counselled that a more appropriate punishment would be to simply change the winners for the appropriate years to be a "Rybka/Fruit" hybrid [this would seem much more delicate, perhaps even impossible, w/o VR's agreement on the matter].Rebel wrote:Taking 4.1 - 4.3 into consideration I can't really say this makes a convincing case for copying, neither semantics.
I agree, that Fruit has little "unique" to itself in evaluation. But what is of value is its rendition on what knowledge to use/combine. As can be noted from the above, VR was quite interested in how strong one could get an engine with the (essentially empty) Fruit 1.0 eval [I could give other 2004 posts, where he concludes that eval is by far the most important aspect -- by 2005, perhaps in part due to Fruit influence, I think he had switched his opinion of what was of most import]. I would call it "taking a shortcut" if one were to use FL's choice of eval components, even if none is spectacular by itself. As stated above, I personally find "tuning the numbers" to be of a more rote nature, with choosing features (as eventually done by LK for Rybka 3) to have more creative content.Rebel wrote:Fruit's EVAL is nothing special, it's just good. Rebel has everything Fruit has and more AND already in the 80's. From the early accusations back in 2006 till now only the 0.0 still stands as strong evidence of COPYING. I always felt EVAL (even during the period I held the VIG view) to be the weakest part of the of the allegations. What you find in Fruit and Rybka are the basic ingredients of normal general and public available knowledge. There is no copyright on knowledge.
To adduce another example about "collation of knowledge" being protected expression, I happened to stop at the library this morning, and picked up Sacrifices in the Sicilian by no less than DNL Levy. In his Preface, he even notes that not much is "new" in this book, other than his collation aspect (emphasis added).
You can probably guess my comment on this, that although not much is "novel" or "unique" to the contents of the book, DNL Levy would indeed retain copyright on the structural aspects of this collation (such as which games to include). A modern version of this could certainly re-use the overall chapter division (Rxc3, Nf5, Rxf6, Bxb5, Nxb5, Nd5, Bd5, Ne6, Bxe6, Nxe6, d5), and could use the older classical/historical games where appropriate (Tal-Larsen and Velimirovic-Ljubojevic for Nd5, Bronstein-Najdorf and Vasyukov-Averbakh for Bxb5), but no one should expect the overall game selection to have great resemblance with that chosen by Levy in 1973.In collecting the material for this book I have relied almost entirely on my own library and that of R. G. Wade who I would like to thank for his ever helpful assistance. I should also like to thank P. Poutiainen, C. W. Pritchett and H. Westerinen who readily contributed analyses, The Chess Player for permission to reproduce the Padevsky-Botvinnik example from Botvinnik's Best Games 1947-70, Chess for permission to use a translation that appeared in some of its 1963 issues, D. N. L. Levy for permission to quote from his excellent monograph The Sicilian Dragon, and lastly K. J. O'Connell for preparing the indexes and reading the proofs. Much of the analysis contained in this book stems from Soviet and Yugoslav sources. I would like to mention all those commentators whose notes I have used but there are too many of them. Perhaps one should also acknowledge the players who produced these sacrificial examples and games. While creativity of this kind exists in master chess the game will continue to appeal to an ever increasing number.