Where to get IPPOLIT the Rybka killer?
Peter C. Meyer
Peter
NoBodyYouKnow
> Where to get IPPOLIT the Rybka killer?
>
> Peter
1) That's a very stupid question because you should be able to find it
yourself fairly easily.
2) Why would you really want it?
It's a known partial clone (Meaning it's incomplete.) It's been banned
from discussion in most comp chess forums. And often the discussions
are actually deleted, too. Only the occasional clone discussion about
it is still found.
It's reported as being highly unstable. (Meaning crashes, time losses,
and the occasional illegal move.) (Although programs can always be
updated to fix problems, I can't guarantee that will happen with a
clone. After all, if an 'author' is so lazy he clones a program, then
why bother fixing his own cloning bugs?)
And it's not as strong as what it claims. (Just because an author etc.
claims it plays at such & such strength doesn't mean it really does.
Claims by cloners are always highly questionable.) If it's a clone,
then its not going to be stronger than the original, and he's certainly
not going to be willing to put the time & effort into making legitimate
improvements if wasn't willing to start his own program but resorted to
cloning.
3) Why would you *WANT* a cloned, buggy chess program that doesn't play
well / reliably when you can get dozens of free, open source, legitimate
programs that will beat you just as easily?
Losing is losing.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Olithink could beat you, and that's
a rather simple chess program with little more than mobility for an
eval. (I just mention Olithink because I'm a big fan of how strong it
is considering how simple the eval is. Even simpler than MicroMax.)
Peter C. Meyer
>
> It's a known partial clone (Meaning it's incomplete.) It's been banned
> from discussion in most comp chess forums. And often the discussions
> are actually deleted, too. Only the occasional clone discussion about
> it is still found.
>
You are right.
I've deleted my posting.
PCM
DragonRU
> Peter C. Meyer wrote:
> > Where to get IPPOLIT the Rybka killer?
> It's a known partial clone (Meaning it's incomplete.) It's been banned
> from discussion in most comp chess forums. And often the discussions
> are actually deleted, too. Only the occasional clone discussion about
> it is still found.
You are only partially right. Yes, Vasik Rajlich (author of Rybka)
claims that it is Rybka clone, but he did not show any reasons for
this claim. Also, there are some reasons which are making highly
unlikely that it is Rybka clone.
1) Memory which used by engine (without hash tables) differs in 6
times: 10 mb for IPPOLIT ws. 60 mb for Rybka.
2) In comparable settings (single-processor using with 64MB hash)
IPPOLIT gets 60-70% in matches with Rybka. It extremely unlikely to
see clone stronger than original program.
3) By tester's impressions, Rybka looks stronger than IPPOLIT in mid-
game, but IPPOLIT looks much stronger in endgame. Can you imagine
clone which have different strengths and weaknesses than original
program? I can't.
Why Chessbase and Vasik call it a clone? Most likely because they
don't want to have very dangerous competitor. For example, IPPOLIT
could easily drop sales of Fritz12 almost to zero.
> It's reported as being highly unstable. (Meaning crashes, time losses,
> and the occasional illegal move.) (Although programs can always be
> updated to fix problems, I can't guarantee that will happen with a
> clone. After all, if an 'author' is so lazy he clones a program, then
> why bother fixing his own cloning bugs?)
Yes, those bugs are exists, but it only proves that IPPOLIT now in pre-
alpha stage.
> And it's not as strong as what it claims. (Just because an author etc.
> claims it plays at such & such strength doesn't mean it really does.
> Claims by cloners are always highly questionable.) If it's a clone,
> then its not going to be stronger than the original, and he's certainly
> not going to be willing to put the time & effort into making legitimate
> improvements if wasn't willing to start his own program but resorted to
> cloning.
However, independent testing confirms this claims, at least
partially.
http://kasparovchess.crestbook.com/viewtopic.php?id=4353
(sorry, Russian language)
>
> 3) Why would you *WANT* a cloned, buggy chess program that doesn't play
> well / reliably when you can get dozens of free, open source, legitimate
> programs that will beat you just as easily?
>
> Losing is losing.
>
> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Olithink could beat you, and that's
> a rather simple chess program with little more than mobility for an
> eval. (I just mention Olithink because I'm a big fan of how strong it
> is considering how simple the eval is. Even simpler than MicroMax.)
If you play against computer, it does not matter what program you
using, but if you play advanced chess, you need to use strongest
possible program or programs. And IPPOLIT looks as viable option to be
one of those programs.
NoBodyYouKnow
> On Oct 24, 3:06 pm, NoBodyYouKnow <NoBodyYouK...@example.com> wrote:
>> Peter C. Meyer wrote:
>>> Where to get IPPOLIT the Rybka killer?
>
>> It's a known partial clone (Meaning it's incomplete.) It's been banned
>> from discussion in most comp chess forums. And often the discussions
>> are actually deleted, too. Only the occasional clone discussion about
>> it is still found.
>
> You are only partially right. Yes, Vasik Rajlich (author of Rybka)
> claims that it is Rybka clone, but he did not show any reasons for
A lot of others are saying the same thing. And not based on Vasik's word.
I admit I have not examined the source. Nor am I such an expert in
other people's programs that I could look at it and say that it is a clone.
But there are a lot of people in computer chess who are that good and
for whom detecting & exposing clones is a passion. They can play games
and say that two programs play similarly and are related. They can look
at the source of a program and say why a program has a tendency to do
some particular playing quirk.
One or two people calling it a clone is easy to ignore. That happens
regularly with many programs. Even Bob Hyatt's Crafty has been accused
of being a clone, in spite of it being open source and available for
many years.
But when you start getting the same thing in lots of chess forums, the
odds rapidly decrease that they are wrong.
> this claim. Also, there are some reasons which are making highly
> unlikely that it is Rybka clone.
> 1) Memory which used by engine (without hash tables) differs in 6
> times: 10 mb for IPPOLIT ws. 60 mb for Rybka.
Not really relevant.
There are lots of ways to change minor things that will effect the
memory usage.
Have a table with some eval factors, change it to a function instead.
You can save half a meg that way, depending on the table size & complexity.
Have a small hash table for pawn evals, its trivial to change that size
to better suit your own preference. (Pawn hash tables are not always
reported as being hash tables, since they are an eval table rather than
a transposition table.)
Allot a few meg for tree search data etc., just change that and limit
the search depth a bit more.
Etc.
And I did say it was an incomplete clone. Nor did I say it was 100%
identical.
> 2) In comparable settings (single-processor using with 64MB hash)
> IPPOLIT gets 60-70% in matches with Rybka. It extremely unlikely to
> see clone stronger than original program.
> 3) By tester's impressions, Rybka looks stronger than IPPOLIT in mid-
> game, but IPPOLIT looks much stronger in endgame. Can you imagine
> clone which have different strengths and weaknesses than original
> program? I can't.
If it's incomplete, yes.
Leave out parts of an eval you don't understand (a common comment about
ippolit) and that will change the behavior.
Probably faster, since you have less eval, but it hurts in overall
performance.
And maybe he did make some other changes. A little hard to believe he
would have been able to really improve a quality program yet unable to
write his own. (I will admit that the various computer chess forums do
occasionally produce ideas that are provably good and that he could take
some of those and possibly add them to an existing program and produce
something that was a little stronger.)
> Why Chessbase and Vasik call it a clone? Most likely because they
> don't want to have very dangerous competitor. For example, IPPOLIT
> could easily drop sales of Fritz12 almost to zero.
ROFL.
That is utterly absurd.
I mean... Really!!! Sheesh.
I can't believe you said that.
That is so absurd I shouldn't even bother responding to any other part
of your message.
That's like saying if you could find a copy of Fritz12 for free on the
warez sites, then absolutely nobody would buy it either. But yet it's
still being sold.
>
>> It's reported as being highly unstable. (Meaning crashes, time losses,
>> and the occasional illegal move.) (Although programs can always be
>> updated to fix problems, I can't guarantee that will happen with a
>> clone. After all, if an 'author' is so lazy he clones a program, then
>> why bother fixing his own cloning bugs?)
>
> Yes, those bugs are exists, but it only proves that IPPOLIT now in pre-
> alpha stage.
Odd that, according to you, that a PRE-ALPHA program would be so
strong.... Almost makes you wonder what it was based on....
Speaking as somebody who has done chess programming as a mild hobby for
20+ years, I would have thought you'd get the basic bugs worked out very
early in the life of the program, and that by the time you managed to do
enough testing and tweaking and tuning of the eval & search to be the
best in the world, the program would be tested enough to be fairly reliable.
>
>> And it's not as strong as what it claims. (Just because an author etc.
>> claims it plays at such & such strength doesn't mean it really does.
>> Claims by cloners are always highly questionable.) If it's a clone,
>> then its not going to be stronger than the original, and he's certainly
>> not going to be willing to put the time & effort into making legitimate
>> improvements if wasn't willing to start his own program but resorted to
>> cloning.
>
> However, independent testing confirms this claims, at least
> partially.
> http://kasparovchess.crestbook.com/viewtopic.php?id=4353
> (sorry, Russian language)
I don't read russian.
Looking through the thread though, I don't see anything that can be
interpreted as proof that it is stronger.
A few games isn't enough. Give me enough time and I can show that
Sargon 3 is stronger than Rybka, too. True, it might take me a thousand
10 game matches to find a match that Sargon 3 won, but it can be done.
If you are going to make a real claim and say that program #1 is 50
points stronger than program #2, then that is going to involve a wide
range of opponents and a wide range of time controls. Maybe a dozen or
even two dozen opponents playing time controls from blitz to full
tournament, and each match being hundreds of games.
(This means genuine strength and not testing of two versions of the same
program to determine if a change is good or not. Testing program
changes is much easier.)
Anything less is just hot air. (And I am *NOT* talking about just
ippolit's claims here. Computer chess has a nasty history of somebody
playing a 10 game match and claiming that program #1 is better than some
other program. Or play 8 games and be declared world champion. Bull crap.)
Maybe he has made a few changes, but I haven't seen any serious
discussion yet where the very knowledgeable and experienced chess
programmers feel that it wasn't reverse engineered.
>
>> 3) Why would you *WANT* a cloned, buggy chess program that doesn't play
>> well / reliably when you can get dozens of free, open source, legitimate
>> programs that will beat you just as easily?
>>
>> Losing is losing.
>>
>> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Olithink could beat you, and that's
>> a rather simple chess program with little more than mobility for an
>> eval. (I just mention Olithink because I'm a big fan of how strong it
>> is considering how simple the eval is. Even simpler than MicroMax.)
>
> If you play against computer, it does not matter what program you
> using, but if you play advanced chess, you need to use strongest
> possible program or programs. And IPPOLIT looks as viable option to be
> one of those programs.
And what are the odds that somebody coming to this newsgroup is so
stupid as to be unable to use a search engine to find the program, but
yet so strong that he actually needs such an opponent / aid?
Go on... try to calculate the odds. Betcha it comes out pretty darn
close to zero.
NoBodyYouKnow
Fair enough.
I've got nothing against strong programs.
I even kind of like the idea of reverse engineering a program to see how
it works.
But I don't like the idea of reverse engineering a program and basing
your program on that and then claiming it as your own.
DragonRU
> A lot of others are saying the same thing. And not based on Vasik's word.
At least once we already had similar story, when Vasik's claim about
clone was wrong - about Strelka engine. And also - lots of others did
say same thing.
>
> I admit I have not examined the source. Nor am I such an expert in
> other people's programs that I could look at it and say that it is a clone.
I did not examined code deeply too. And even deep examination without
Rybka source code won't allow you to find if they are similar.
However, even quick look is enough to find out that it is not
disassembled code. So only way how it can be Rubka's clone - if
hackers somehow got it's source code. Moreover, they had to remove MP
support and other functions. Do you belive in this version? I don't.
> But there are a lot of people in computer chess who are that good and
> for whom detecting & exposing clones is a passion. They can play games
> and say that two programs play similarly and are related. They can look
> at the source of a program and say why a program has a tendency to do
> some particular playing quirk.
Yes, it calls ponderhit. But at this moment we don't have any
information about Rubka and IPPOLIT ponderhit, so we had to use visual
impressions.
> But when you start getting the same thing in lots of chess forums, the
> odds rapidly decrease that they are wrong.
There is many examples when wrong information rapidly spreads between
different sources, because people prefer to copy other's arguments
rather than do independent research.
Also, look on some examples of argumentation of forums:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=297132&t=30192
(from moderator!)
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=297152&t=30192
They are not convince me. Any idea, why? ;-)
> > 1) Memory which used by engine (without hash tables) differs in 6
> > times: 10 mb for IPPOLIT ws. 60 mb for Rybka.
>
> Not really relevant.
>
> There are lots of ways to change minor things that will effect the
> memory usage.
Yes, there is many ways to do so - but do you think it possible to
decrease memory usage in 6 times without affecting strength? It does
not seems likely.
> And maybe he did make some other changes. A little hard to believe he
> would have been able to really improve a quality program yet unable to
> write his own. (I will admit that the various computer chess forums do
> occasionally produce ideas that are provably good and that he could take
> some of those and possibly add them to an existing program and produce
> something that was a little stronger.)
I completely agree with this point. That's main reason why I think
IPPOLIT is not clone of Rybka.
> That's like saying if you could find a copy of Fritz12 for free on the
> warez sites, then absolutely nobody would buy it either. But yet it's
> still being sold.
There is a big difference. You won't get same program, but without
support and access to Playchess - you will get stronger program. Also.
don't forget that IPPOLIT is open-source, so Chessbase have all
reasons to try to make illegal usage of it's code. In other case very
likely they will have to oppose tens or even hundreds of other
programs in few months. (IMO, it will happens anyway - but they at
least try to prevent it)
> Odd that, according to you, that a PRE-ALPHA program would be so
> strong.... Almost makes you wonder what it was based on....
I know at least one program with similar situation - early versions of
Rybka. They had very specific interpretation of positional values.
> Speaking as somebody who has done chess programming as a mild hobby for
> 20+ years, I would have thought you'd get the basic bugs worked out very
> early in the life of the program, and that by the time you managed to do
> enough testing and tweaking and tuning of the eval & search to be the
> best in the world, the program would be tested enough to be fairly reliable.
Good point. At least one possible explanation is that strength of
IPPOLIT is based mostly on good new ideas in algorithms rather than on
fine tuning of eval.
> I don't read russian.
>
>
> A few games isn't enough. Give me enough time and I can show that
> Sargon 3 is stronger than Rybka, too. True, it might take me a thousand
> 10 game matches to find a match that Sargon 3 won, but it can be done.
>
> If you are going to make a real claim and say that program #1 is 50
> points stronger than program #2, then that is going to involve a wide
> range of opponents and a wide range of time controls. Maybe a dozen or
> even two dozen opponents playing time controls from blitz to full
> tournament, and each match being hundreds of games.
Is 1520 games for each program enough?
http://immortal223.borda.ru/?1-5-0-00000159-000-0-1-1255964102
Yes, that's Russian again, but i will translate all Russian text there
for you :)
Testing Parameters:
Fritz GUI, Hash - 64Mb, TB= 3-4-5, 40 positions, 80 games each with
each, 1520 games for each engine.
Hardware: Acer Aspire 5920G, Core2DUO - T7500 - 2.2GHz, memory - 3Gb.
Also, you can find many and many shorter tests where IPPOLIT also
shines.
Even is same thread i can see at least 2 such tests:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=297344&t=30192
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=297276&t=30192
Yes, it easily could be 1 of 1000 such results for weak program - but
it clearly looks that probability of this situation is much higher.
>
> And what are the odds that somebody coming to this newsgroup is so
> stupid as to be unable to use a search engine to find the program, but
> yet so strong that he actually needs such an opponent / aid?
>
> Go on... try to calculate the odds. Betcha it comes out pretty darn
> close to zero.
I agree with it. Most likely he can use any free engine, even Crafty,
without any necessity in stronger one.
DragonRU
> However, even quick look is enough to find out that it is not
> disassembled code.
Small correction. I did check Robbolito (next version of IPPOLIT)
code, rather than IPPOLIT itself. I not sure if it even matters, but I
heard that their code is quite different.
NoBodyYouKnow
> On Oct 26, 4:21 am, DragonRU <max.krup...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> However, even quick look is enough to find out that it is not
>> disassembled code.
No time to go through your whole other message. Got too many other
things on my mind right now.
I just want to point out I never said it was disassembled code.
I used terms like cloned & reverse engineered.
Nothing was said or implied about it being byte for byte identical
disassembly.
Just take the original, analyze what each section does (& why) and write
comparable code.
You get the same functionality but with different code.
Consider, just as an example, a bitboard program that used rotated
bitboards. Change that to magic bitboards and the code would look very
differently even if the rest of the algorithms are the same. (I'm not
saying ippolit does that. Just that is part of cloning & reverse
engineering a program.)
>
> Small correction. I did check Robbolito (next version of IPPOLIT)
> code, rather than IPPOLIT itself. I not sure if it even matters, but I
> heard that their code is quite different.
Doesn't matter at all. Once a cloner always a cloner.
And if you've already examined & reverse engineered a program and
learned its secrets, it doesn't matter if you later write 'your own'
because you'll still be using what you learned from the clone in writing
your own.
Just because you write the C code (or whatever language suits your
fancy) doesn't mean it's not going to be heavily influenced by the
previous cloning process.
Milos Stanisavljevic
> Doesn't matter at all. Once a cloner always a cloner.
That's all what Vas and his puppets like you can say. Ribbolito is
destroying everything, Rybka 3 included, and you and your employers
are deeply aware of this, and more funnier, you can't do anything
about it, just sit and cry :). Clone allegations are just grotesque.
And talks about thousands of games necessary to confirm which engine
is better makes you immensely ridiculous in the eyes of anyone who
knows at least a bit of undergrad statistics.
> And if you've already examined & reverse engineered a program and
> learned its secrets, it doesn't matter if you later write 'your own'
> because you'll still be using what you learned from the clone in writing
> your own.
Haha, group of "stupid" hackers, reverse engineer Rybka 3 and make a
program that on a single core is of an equal strength as Rybka 3 on
quad cores. Some funny hackers, aren't they? :P
DragonRU
Rybka ideas, even although it added new ideas. In this case we also
should ban Rybka because it uses ideas from Fruit, ban Fruit, because
it uses ideas of programs before it, and finally ban ourselves,
because we using other's ideas too. At least, idea how to speak
English. On my opinion, if program brought new good ideas - it is not
a clone for sure, does not matter how many old ideas it uses. That's
way how progress is going.
Also, for your information, algorithms are not copyrightable. Guess,
why? :P
Dieter Kraft
> Peter C. Meyer wrote:
>> Where to get IPPOLIT the Rybka killer?
>>
>> Peter
>
Hi,
Has anyone a compiled version of RobboLito
or what is needed to make it
with Visual Studio and Intel's C++
Thanks
Dieter
Milos Stanisavljevic
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone a compiled version of RobboLito
> or what is needed to make it
> with Visual Studio and Intel's C++
>
> Thanks
> Dieter
The newest and the strongest version (from this evening) 0.085d2:
http://rapidshare.de/files/48602962/Robbo085d2_all.ZIP.html
It's really a monster, it's destroying quad core Rybka 3 while running
on a single core!
Milos
Dieter Kraft
Thanks,
but I get an
Engine load error
Dieter
Milos Stanisavljevic
> Thanks,
> but I get an
> Engine load error
>
> Dieter
Depends on GUI you are using, with Arena it works fine.
VC++ 2008 compatible source (for a little earlier version):
http://www.chesslogik.com/RobboLite_0085c5.rar
Newest source: http://rapidshare.de/files/48603890/D2_SRC.zip.html
Milos
Dieter Kraft
Yes, I used Fritz 11,
but under Arena it works great and
(first impressions) comparably strong as Rybka 3 on a quadcore.
Is a multiprocessor version of RobboLite under development?
Thanks again for your advice
Dieter
Milos Stanisavljevic
> Is a multiprocessor version of RobboLite under development?
It is under development, but it takes time, maybe in a month or so.
Milos
NoBodyYouKnow
in the hospital and I haven't been doing my mail too regularly and I
forgot about posting this.
Milos Stanisavljevic wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:13 am, NoBodyYouKnow <NoBodyYouK...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter at all. Once a cloner always a cloner.
> That's all what Vas and his puppets like you can say. Ribbolito is
That's a surprise.
I honestly didn't expect to be called a puppet.
I don't give an expletive about Vas, Rybka, Fruit, Glarung, Toga, Fritz,
Stockfish or any of the top programs.
My own chess playing ability is significantly under 2000, so most any
chess program can easily beat me. A material only program could
probably beat me (after all, look at Olithink). TSCP could beat me.
MicroMax 4.8 could beat me.
So I don't give a rats ass about the top programs. I don't even own any
of the top commercial programs.
What I do find annoying are programs that are cloned and authors who
think it's alright to do so and claim them as their own.
> destroying everything, Rybka 3 included, and you and your employers
> are deeply aware of this, and more funnier, you can't do anything
> about it, just sit and cry :). Clone allegations are just grotesque.
> And talks about thousands of games necessary to confirm which engine
> is better makes you immensely ridiculous in the eyes of anyone who
> knows at least a bit of undergrad statistics.
Rather than talking with an undergrad, you might want to talk with
somebody who actually has a degree in statistics, then.
Because that's already been repeatedly tested and proven to be true.
Hyatt got into some very heated arguments on that, including with a
professional mathematician. A real one who had actually graduated and
had a degree.
You want to do proper testing, it does take lots of games, and you do
have to be very careful of the conditions you do it under. (Hyatt
wasn't. He got firmly corrected. His testing was originally flawed due
to too few starting positions causing a correlation of the testing results.)
You might also want to run a few tests on just how variable a game can
be with just an extra millisecond or two to think. Just a few hundred
nodes can literally change the direction of a game. It's a random
fluctuation and the only way to smooth out the error is to play lots of
games so that the randomness tends toward zero.
(You may ask why a few hundred nodes or an extra millisecond or two...
Simple... Today's OS's are multi-tasking and your program is not going
to get an exact, consistent amount of time to think. There is some
inherent randomness in actually playing a game of computer chess.)
You might also want to do what Hyatt originally showed (and others have
repeated). Play a lot of games. Thousands or tens of thousands. Look
for long sequences of wins (or losses.) They will be there, guaranteed.
What kind of conclusion could you reach about your program if, by
chance, the few games you played just happened to show one of those
sequences of wins or losses?
You play enough games and you could find cases where Sargon 3 would win
10 games in a row against Rybka. True, it would take a massive number
of games for that to show up, but it is actually possible.
That's why lots of games are absolutely needed.
And hey, feel free to try an elo program such as Bayeselo. Play a
hundred games, plug the results into it and see what the error bars are.
Play a few more hundred games and see how little the error bars shrink.
And it also doesn't take too much common sense to see that if you want
to make a nice general statement that your program is truly stronger in
a general way, then you have to play against a variety of opponents, and
at a variety of time controls.
>
>> And if you've already examined & reverse engineered a program and
>> learned its secrets, it doesn't matter if you later write 'your own'
>> because you'll still be using what you learned from the clone in writing
>> your own.
> Haha, group of "stupid" hackers, reverse engineer Rybka 3 and make a
> program that on a single core is of an equal strength as Rybka 3 on
> quad cores. Some funny hackers, aren't they? :P
>
Regardless of the strength (which would be determined by proper
testing), you do apparently admit that it was reverse engineered.
NoBodyYouKnow
in the hospital and I haven't been doing my mail too regularly and I
forgot about posting this.
DragonRU wrote:
> Well, let's assume that we should ban IPPOLITO because it uses some of
> Rybka ideas, even although it added new ideas. In this case we also
> should ban Rybka because it uses ideas from Fruit, ban Fruit, because
Did Fruit's author reverse engineer some commercial program and use
ideas from there, or did the ideas come from open programs and open
discussions and personal research?
> it uses ideas of programs before it, and finally ban ourselves,
> because we using other's ideas too. At least, idea how to speak
> English. On my opinion, if program brought new good ideas - it is not
> a clone for sure, does not matter how many old ideas it uses. That's
> way how progress is going.
Progress is made from research, investigation, public ideas, etc.
It should not be made from disassembling or reverse engineering your
competitors.
>
> Also, for your information, algorithms are not copyrightable. Guess,
> why? :P
I don't remember ever saying that algorithms were or were not. We could
get into a discussion about that, but that's not at all relevant to cloning.