?

It all depends on your moral code. Vas insists his behavior is the norm for programmers but there are many who do not agree. His admitted behavior is not the norm in science. Some do not care. In NY there are many street vendors who hawk stolen items. There seems to be many people who think buying these things that "fell off the truck" are a good deal. Sometimes they are selling normal discount merchandise. I almost always avoided these vendors so I didnt have to bother figuring out who was who. There is an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry pays full price for an organzier (tip calculator) but lies to his father, who loves to hear he got a deal off the street.   

The ethics can be argued, but it seems clear the ICGA was within its powers to strip rybka of its titles and if vas wanted them back he needed to show them his code was clean by producing the original source code and not claiming the dog ate his homework.

rybka will still get my money, they get my vote :)

Another admission! I answered with a follow up to be sure. Read his reply below. Dr Hyatt, the Crafty programmer replied copy/paste is the only conclusion.

Hi Vas,

When you say there was no copy and paste in the released Rybka versions, does that mean there was copy/paste Crafty code in the pre-released versions? If so, until which version?

Thanks,

Brian

> I have one question that I have not seen answered on any forum. What about the charges that code from Crafty was used typos and all? This would indicate that copy/paste was used or at least blindly typing from crafty's source code.

Those were private Rybka versions. I didn't release anything like that.

Since Vas has not commented on the Crafty similarity charges, I asked him directly as a followup to Mark's: One last question. 

> One last question.  Why do you consider the pre Rybka 1.0 question to be a "private matter"?  Did you have an agreement with Bob Hyatt to reuse his code/algorithms?

I'll probably say more about those later. They are not relevant to the ICGA case.

Vas

.....

me: I have one question that I have not seen answered on any forum. What about the charges that code from Crafty was used typos and all? This would indicate that copy/paste was used or at least blindly typing from crafty's source code.

Vas backtracked and answered some earlier questions of Mark's.  The admissions are amazing. He is presented with a clear case of plagiarism and calls it a borderline case!  Mark has made a big deal out of Rybka being 2050 in his 1st tourney and then 2100 before making an 800 point jump. The program allegedly went from crafty based to fruit based in this time.

Mark,

> As for Strelka, when I first saw the code it was clear to be the basic evaluation was based on Fruit 2.1.

Ok, then I stand corrected on that point. Did you mention this to anyone at the time?

> So let me ask Vas a question.  Do you think it is OK to read another programs source code then reconstruct it, step by step in another form (like C to Pascal or converting it from mailbox to bitboard)?  No copy and paste, just retyping?

I would say that that's a borderline case. It would depend on among other things the nature of the transformation and the amount of code. I wouldn't call this operation "retyping".

> You defend yourself saying everything was "typed" by you.  But that is not defense at all.  Monks hand copy manuscripts for centuries but that did not make the words original.

I made it pretty clear in that discussion that that process does not result in "original source code". Manually typing your code is a necessary condition for code originality, but it's not 100% sufficient.

> I think reusing basic ideas is OK, like knights should be in the center.  But copying a scheme adding rank and file specific ratios from another program is not.

Here I strongly disagree.

> Vas says 75% of the code change around the time of Fruit release.  Change from what to what?  Out EXE analysis says it changed to closely resemble Fruit (and in the process gained something like 800 ELO).

Please note that Zach's question was for the six months between June 2005 and December 2005. My Elo gain during that time span was in the neighborhood of 200. For the 800 Elo gain my code turnover would have been something like 95%.

Vas

More personal attacks and factless assumptions. I know enough programming to understand the basics, which is apparently too much for LZ :

LZ:"Even Dr. Hyde himself admits that reverse engineering leads to a one to many mapping." That is hardly the point, the point is that they can get back there in 18 steps and it has been challenged to find another program where this is so easy. It appears LZ is the one who has only read one side of this.  

BB+ wrote:I also consider it a challenge to find a 2005-era engine (on any engine which is not specifically Fruit-influenced) whose PST can be replicated via a set of modifications that is comparable to the smallness of the Rybka/Fruit difference.  (openchess)

Just because he needed the code for 2.32a is hardly any reason to believe he would not have the code for Rybka1, unless he was carefully concealing the evidence as he went along. This is just another clue that points in the direction of a code stealer, as he was deemed by the ICGA.  Funny he never offered this defense when it mght have mattered. Only his forum cheerleader tried this one year after the fact. No sensible person writes a program without many backups, the smallest programming effort is many hours of work. Someone may overwrite one version by mistake (2.32a), but no copies of any version, REALLY?? Version control and keeping a copy of the 1st version are 2 different things.

The claim that I did not read Riis article just proves LZ a person with no credibility and not worth engaging in a discussion. Calling me dishonest shows his  character  much more than mine. Labeling "Rubka", an obvious typo, sic is just trolling plain and simple.

Axe to grind?? Obviously LZ has not read  talkchess and openchess. There most have closed the book on Vas and list many many reasons and simple questions Vas has ignored on his own page, after promising to answer all. I gave him a chance to explain himself regarding the theft of intellectual property. He did answer me and wrote that ideas should be more important in computer programming but tried to claim their standard was the same as his, as long as someone types the code themselves (not copy/paste, same as cheerleader defence), they are not stealing it. He seems to be the only one to adhere to this standard, which has been mocked and ridiculed on both sites. It  is easy to see I am one of the most civil and open people at the Rybka page.

@BMC

"I am not the one who sounds biased.  I have read both sides extensively. Dr. Levy and Mark Watkins refuted every point in the rubka forum cheerleader's pathetic defense"

Haha.  I doubt you even realize how foolish or contradictory this sounds. 

You claim to not be biased and to have read both sides "extensively" (nonsense, considering you're ignorant of basic facts of the investigation), and in the very next sentence, you call the opposite viewpoint "Rubka forum cheerleader's (sic) pathetic defense". 

I don't know why you have such an axe to grind, honestly.

Personally, I've never even had a copy of Rybka, nor did I make up my mind until carefully reading both sides. 

Based on the evidence, there are numerous factual errors in the initial WCG investigation, and they did an insufficient job of proving their point. 

"They did not make up any code, they had to reverse engineeer the executable and then listed how many adjustment it took to get back to Fruit. This is hardly their fault."

Even Dr. Hyde himself admits that reverse engineering leads to a one to many mapping.  That is, it's virtually impossible to reverse engineer code and get back the same thing the original program implemented. 

Again, you would know all this had you read Dr. Riis's articles, as you dishonestly claim you have.

"If Vas wanted to prove his innocence, he merely has to publish the original source code"

Once again, read the actual article.

Dr. Riis directly addresses this point in part 4 of his articles;

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7813

"But this crack in the ICGA argument was a trifle compared to the subsequent train of events. Critics of the ICGA soon realized that no one has actual Rybka source code from before 2010, not even Rajlich himself, who sheepishly admitted to Nelson Hernandez off-camera in the course of their July 2011 video interview that he had never maintained any form of version control for Rybka source code until Rybka 4.

This jaw-dropping admission is entirely believable because Rajlich asked for copies of his own program long before the ICGA controversy started. In mid-2010 he makes this rather embarrassing request in the Rybka forum:

Can someone please post here all of the Rybka 2.3.2a versions? (I don't seem to have a copy any more.)"

Considering all this happened over a year before the investigation even started, it sounds legitimate. 

"I am not a programmer and I have used the best program in the world for the last decade or more."

Yeah, no kidding.  It's obvious you're massively ignorant on the subject of programming from your statements about reverse engineering. 

Unlike you, I am a programmer, and by the way, so is Dr. Riis. 

You understand precisely nothing about this investigation, refuse to read Dr. Riis's articles, and yet, make insulting statements about both Rajilch and Rybka. 

When other people then point out you're being biased, you then get very indignant at it...while continuing to make factually incorrect statements (ones that even the WCG themselves disagree with) and slinging mud at Rajilch. 

I was hoping someone convinced of Rajilch and Rybka's guilt could advance a stronger, more coherent argument, and at least knew something about programming, but alas. 

@LZ I am not the one who sounds biased.  I have read both sides extensively. Dr. Levy and Mark Watkins refuted every point in the rubka forum cheerleader's pathetic defense. They did not make up any code, they had to reverse engineeer the executable and then listed how many adjustment it took to get back to Fruit. This is hardly their fault. If Vas wanted to prove his innocence, he merely has to publish the original source code, or make it available to a computer legend like Ken Thompson, one of the UNIX inventors. If he did not directly use fruit code, what is he afraid of?

This righteous indignation is now a farce, as he has been trying to defend himself on his own forum. Riis claimes since Vas can't be  bothered to defend himslf he will do it for him but this is clearly not the case now. His publshed defense is that Rybka is original at the level of the source code and this means someone typed the code themselves, even if they are typing this code directly from someone else's code. These are his words and they have been universally mocked on talkchess and openchess. If you want to talk about time lags, why did chessbase wait a year to report on the biggest scandal in the history of computer chess?

Giving credit for inspiration is not a proper reference or acknowledgement. I have papers published in pubmed. I know how to reference people. There is a reference section and an acknowledgement section in almost all top papers, they are 2 different things.

All independent reviewers have concluded the same thing and have been very consistent. Vas claimed that all modern programs are 95% identical with the 5% being the difference, then claims large parts of his program are unique. These statements cannot coexist truthfully.

Noone can expect Levy to have taken action before a complaint. Dr. Hyatt has shown that his own typos from Crafty are in Rybka code, he has a right to try to investigate the truth. This calls into question the absurd claim that typing in someone else's code instead of copy/paste makes something original at the source code.

Instead of trying to make sense of these statements by Vas himself, you are doing the same thing as every other rybka apologist and using personal attacks by calling me biased. I am not a programmer and I have used the best program in the world for the last decade or more. Right now this is not Rybka. I have however, spent about 1000 dollars on the convekta database wth Rybka and want to know truth. The biggest clues to me are the actions and words of Vas himself.

@BMcC333

1.  There was no "vague acknowledgment"; Vasik Rajilch thanked Fruit and its programmer in both the initial release and multiple interviews since then.  It was well-known for the last 5 years that Fruit was a huge inspiration for the first beta version of Rybka 1.0

The WCG waited 5 whole years to investigate the submission from the 2006 WCG Championship.

Either they are incompetent, or had a malicious axe to grind.  There are no other alternatives. 

2.  This issue is abundantly investigated in Dr. Riis's articles, but Rule 2 by the WCG specifically mentions that one must acknowledge "game-playing code" that was re-used.  There appears to be insufficient evidence that Rybka ever did this, especially since the WCG doesn't have the Rybka 1.0 beta code to begin with.  They did, however, blatantly make-up fake code and attribute it to Rybka, as their lead investigator Dr. David Hyde admitted on the Rybka forums. 

Keep in mind too that Rybka 1.0 beta is 150 points stronger than Fruit, and has less move overlap with it than many unrelated, commercially available programs of that time.  

Also, what "admissions" are you talking about?  As for his "warped" view of plagiarism, you're reading things into his words that simply don't exist.  Frankly, you sound unbelievably biased on this issue.    

However, if you aren't, I recommend you to actually read Dr.Riis's outstanding articles on the matter, which are kindly linked to at the top of the article.  There seem to be a lot of basic parts of this investigation that you're unaware of.

oooo....this is an important        because some of body misuse this object 

@LZ

1. He did not give full credit to fruit just some vague acknowledgement.

2. As pointed out by David Levy, this is completely irrelevant to his application for the world computer championships.

If anything, these admissions help convict, not exonerate Vas. As can be seen from his own words at the Rybka forum, he has a unique and extremely warped view of the definition of plagiarism.

I posted this at the Rybka forum. Vas really should have kept his mouth shut. He claimed, as documented below, in several posts, that typing the code yourself, even if right from another''s program, would fulfill his standard of "original at the source code"

Vasik,

I have been a customer since the very 1st commercial version. We once drew a hard fought game at the World Open. I remember our correspondence where you explained how Rybka used probability instead of pawn=1, so I am sure that you have made unique contributions to computer chess. I have rooted for Rybka since day 1. However, as a published scientist, where the 30 percent rule mentioned here is the norm, your statement below is the most absurd excuse since Bill Clinton said "it depends on what is is" during his defense of his lies about Monica Lewinsky. You have basically given away your own moral standard for plagiarism and I don't think I am unique to say this is ridiculous. I am not much of a computer programmer having peaked at Pascal, so I don't understand every detail of this debate, but the premise that only copy and paste is plagiarism or that retyping something yourself allows freedom to take others code is a very weak defense. I expected better. Even with the 30% standard for publication in science journals, the simple law is that you can not take someone else's intellectual property without proper reference and/or permission, not even 1%. Your catch phrase "original at the source code" seems a very flimsy fig leaf.

Dr. Brian McCarthy

> Regarding Strelka/IPPOLIT: as the author(s) seem to have typed their own source code (or code to generate this), how are they not "original" under your definition?

I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".

> Do these Rybka versions [the ones that were cloned] have any additional creative content beyond the source code?

Lots of brilliant ideas!

Vas

Houdini is the best!

"The whole point to computer chess, is the elevation and enlightment of artificial intelligence not what code or ideas belong to whom as the discoveries belong to all of mankind." -- foe

A nice idea, but clearly antiquated in an age in which the strongest implementation of such AI commands $50 to $100 per copy. Folk should be able to expect to harvest the fruit (no pun intended) of their labor.

(FWIW, my also-antiquated copy of Fritz 8 still serves to put me in my place.)

> The Free Software Foundation (who would oversee any dispute on licensing) have

> taken no action at all so far on this case.

The FSF is not the rightsholder of fruit, but Fabien Letouzey is.

The FSF can only enforce copyleft for software it was given copyright, I believe.

The whole point to computer chess, is the elevation and enlightenment of artificial intelligence not what code or ideas belong to whom as the discoveries belong to all of humanity.

i saw it in TV that rybka is fair(chess experts) and the only problem is that his opponents want to get rid of him..... 

The Free Software Foundation (who would oversee any dispute on licensing) have taken no action at all so far on this case.

It MIGHT be that they are still gathering evidence, but as no-one has the source of the copies of Rybka under dispute, it is highly unlikely they will ever be able to proceed anyway.

The correct course of action would be to leave it to the FSF to decide on the course of action.

This constant mud-raking in the Chess Press speaks volumes about the motives on those involved.

Having actually read Dr. Riis's outstanding articles and their even-handed, rational, scientific approach, (they're written in the same manner as a research paper), I had to laugh at Mark Watkins's statement. 

It's very clear that Mr. Watkins has never read the articles in question (perhaps he quickly glossed over them), becuase "it can't be proven" was never an argument that Dr. Riis made. 

In fact, Dr. Riis notes that Rajilch thanked and gave credit to Fruit and its creator in his first release of Rybka.  This is an objective fact one can find in the "credits" section of that program.  Rajilch has also pubicly admitted his inspiration from Fruit many times. 

Frankly, Mr. Watkins comes across as an aggressive idiot ignorant of the facts of the case.

In the computer world there is a dogma that states, "No problem should be solved twice."  That is the reason why we always have FAQs on websites, etc.  The challenge that I can see in this situation is the failure of giving credits to someone who worked very hard but the fruit of his labor was being claimed by others. Recognize the source please and there would be no problem.