Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:26:04 02/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2006 at 00:25:50, Uri Blass wrote:
>On February 16, 2006 at 17:51:53, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On February 16, 2006 at 15:06:41, Zappa wrote:
>>
>>>On February 16, 2006 at 14:39:34, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 16, 2006 at 13:17:10, Zappa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 16, 2006 at 06:21:57, Djordje Vidanovic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On February 15, 2006 at 10:20:18, Zappa wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So I dropped by to see how my old buddies in CCC were doing, and found a massive
>>>>>>>flamewar :) This is far more to my liking than dry test results, so I thought
>>>>>>>I'd weigh in with a few comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The majority of members in CCC seem to be unable to think rationally about
>>>>>>>Rybka. I saw the following argument about 500X: "Vasik is violating the
>>>>>>>charter" "But Rybka is so awesome". Clearly this is complete idiocy. The law
>>>>>>>is intended to apply to everyone equally, regardless of whether or not they have
>>>>>>>an awesome engine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I left (and this is not a coming back post) because I didn't like reading tons
>>>>>>>of testing posts. However, the majority of people here appear to like it here.
>>>>>>> From what I read in the flamewar Skinner seems correct that Vasik violated the
>>>>>>>charter, but perhaps rather than crucifying Vasik (or Skinner), the charter
>>>>>>>should be amended so the club serves the interest of the majority. It really
>>>>>>>seems like the majority of people don't mind his "commerical posts" - so what's
>>>>>>>the problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I also read Enrico's post on Rybka's nodecount. Vasik claimed it was the result
>>>>>>>of a bug. I read that as "my node count obfuscation algorithm has a bug and
>>>>>>>will be fixed posthaste". If you look at Enrico's numbers, its obvious that
>>>>>>>Rybka is really searching at 2-3M+ nps on big hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, Vasik, please tell me: why would you would want to hide the node count of
>>>>>>>Rybka?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>anthony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting post. And very telling. Demands some kind of reply, at least from
>>>>>>a curious member of the CCC (but surely not from Vasik, as the question you ask
>>>>>>is rather impertinent and irrelevant for the masses): why wouldn't you,
>>>>>>Anthony, want to release your program so that Chrilly Donninger might try his
>>>>>>disassembling skills on Zappa as he did with Rybka? A reminder for you: the
>>>>>>verdict was that Rybka had no other program's code in it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If Rybka's code is messy and obfuscated, so be it. What's your code like remains
>>>>>>to be seen, of course :-). LOL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Djordje
>>>>>
>>>>>I really don't understand your post at all. I am not saying that Rybka is a
>>>>>clone. Nor am I saying that his source code is messy. I am just curious why he
>>>>>deliberately modifies his node count/nps. No one else does this. Sure, some
>>>>>people have different styles of counting. But no one does printf("nps / 20"),
>>>>>and that appears to be what Vasik is doing.
>>>>>
>>>>>anthony
>>>>
>>>>It's not what I'm doing. I really don't know how you came to that conclusion.
>>>>Although it's true that my node counting is a bit unusual, with a little bit of
>>>>effort I could make it more conventional.
>>>>
>>>>Vas
>>>
>>>I didn't save Enrico's post, but Rybka's total nodes went something like this:
>>>
>>>50,000
>>>100,000
>>>150,000
>>>200,000
>>>10,000
>>>12,000
>>>14,000
>>>
>>>I would think that no matter how creative your counting scheme is, it should
>>>still increase monotonically.
>>>
>>>anthony
>>
>>Yes and it proves that vasik does not divide the number of nodes by 20(otherwise
>>it could increase monotonically).
>>
>>Uri
>
>It is possible that the reason for the creative count of nodes by rybka is that
>this may be a trick of advertisement.
>Vasik is not allowed to do advertisement for rybka directly so it is possible
>that he decided to be creative in counting nodes and knew people are going to
>find it and he get additional advertisement for rybka by that way.
>
>Uri
It didn't start out that way, but you're partly right - I am not going to change
this. :)
Vas
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.