GenoM wrote:this whole discussion is because of not clearing WHAT IS CLONE and what is DERRIVATIVE
Evgenii,
I agree. It appears to me that "clone" is the politically correct way of stating "pirated" instead of a derivitive. I don't know what is considered acceptable or legal to the experts in programming.
So is Strelka considered in part "pirated" (cloned?) or simply a derivative of someone else's idea? Is this a gray area or is it black and white? You would think that if someone's reputation is on the line, proving beyond a reasonable doubt wouldn't be too much to ask for. Instead, it turns into "Dirty Harry" regarding opinions, everybody has one.
My understanding of the situation:
I think that the main goal of Y.Osipov making Strelka was to try to reveal, to find the truth about Rybka' success.
Once he found out that Rybka derrivated from an open source program (Fruit) and the author did not credited this fact, he decided to make own engine -- in exactly the same way Vasik did.
So we can say that he succeeded in this task.
Is this a cloning? In my understanding -- no, it isnt a cloning, it is a derrivative.
Good or bad is this?
I can not judge it, really... The right to judge has to be in the author of Fruit, Fabien Letouzey. Once in the past he used to give a remission to a talented programmer of ToGa who also missed to give credits to him and his Fruit... Now Fabien still keep silence.
Personally I'll wait his statement about all this.
My understanding of the situation:
I think that the main goal of Y.Osipov making Strelka was to try to reveal, to find the truth about Rybka' success.
Once he found out that Rybka derrivated from an open source program (Fruit) and the author did not credited this fact, he decided to make own engine -- in exactly the same way Vasik did.
So we can say that he succeeded in this task.
Is this a cloning? In my understanding -- no, it isnt a cloning, it is a derrivative.
Good or bad is this?
I can not judge it, really... The right to judge has to be in the author of Fruit, Fabien Letouzey. Once in the past he used to give a remission to a talented programmer of ToGa who also missed to give credits to him and his Fruit... Now Fabien still keep silence.
Personally I'll wait his statement about all this.
Regards,
Geno
Evengii,
Thank you for your explanation and opinion, it's the clearest one given on this so far.
If that is the case and factual, and I realize there are always two sides to every argument, then not giving the proper credits to an open source author was in poor taste. While not necessarily a crime, it's "tacky" and it appears both authors are guilty of this, one belatedly and one entirely.
I am trying to sort this out as a ordinary layman non-programmer who is on the outside looking in. It's how I see it unfolding. I have no dog in this fight.
First you are trying to present the author of Strelka as a small hero who tried to help other programmers finding out the details behind Rybka's success.
I don't agree with that presentation.
Illegal is illegal no matter what our intention is.
GenoM wrote:
Once he found out that Rybka derrivated from an open source program (Fruit) and the author did not credited this fact, he decided to make own engine -- in exactly the same way Vasik did.
Even if we assume that Rybka is being derived from Fruit, Osipov hasn't made Strelka in exaclty the same way Vasik did. Because Osipov copied from Rybka those tables and also studied as he said Rybka's evaluation and search.
Vasik didn't had another Rybka to do that.
And of course our assumption is terrible since it is based only on an opinion and not on any real facts....
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
Matthias said, "It seems the 'experts' can't agree on anything. Who do you believe? Perhaps better 'experts' are needed. The human race put people on the moon but can't distinguish out a cloned chess engine from a paper doily."
Well put Matthias. When I hear the word "experts" I always get the impression that there are too many chiefs and not enoughs indians. Even the "experts" can be wrong and often are.
Just because someone is an expert in one area does NOT mean she or he is an expert in all areas. Additionally, just because they ARE experts doesn't mean they are always correct regarding every statement they make even in the area of their expertise. Experts can be WRONG.... but we continue to try and defend our arguments by appealing to one authority or another as if their agreement will make us right. Even when we're wrong or they have no idea what they're talking about.
hi George
that's just the way i am looking on the situation
i am not trying to present anyone as hero -- this is just my opinion about what's happend
i will not make a PR for free -- i assure you
ps:
about "the exactly same way" -- if we assume that Osipov is right -- Vasik made a huge work to make this tables that Osipov just take from Rybka
And only the fact that this idea (of pre-calculated material tables) flashed in Vasik mind is enough to recognize Vasik as a great programmer
for me it seems that exactly these tables are the main reason that Rybka is so much better than other engines -- but i am not a programmer so ...
1) First, Strelka is suspected of being a clone.
2) Second, clone unveilers start digging for the truth.
3) Third, source code "experts" inspect Strelka and declare: "not clone".
4) Fourth, some say: "Stop searching for the truth. Shut up. The experts have spoken".
5) Fifth, clone unveilers put pressure on Y.Osipov by stubbornly digging deeper.
6) Sixth, Y.Osipov steps forward and declares: "The experts are wrong. Strelka is a sophisticated clone of Fruit and Rybka".
Question: Should efforts to unveil a clone be stopped in future because "experts" have seen source code ?
Regards,
Matthias.
Hi Matthias,
[General statement for all people which attacking Dann and Bryan]
"Nobody is perfect"
Dann and Bryan are only humans and humans making mistakes. That's absolut normal. Both guys did a great job in the past and having an very good background knowledge.
If you don't know what do you must search for, because it never happend before, and you see "self-written" code in your view, you're not looking at details to find other engines. Also we don't know how much code was changed. I suppose it's near 99% anyway.
It's just unfair to say now these guys are incompetent. They are not and i hope they learned a lot now and doing it better in the future. There is no need to attack Dann or Bryan. I guess they are disapointed about themself already. I think we should support Dann and Bryan now.
They have my support.
Best,
Daniel
Daniel, i agree with you 100%. And Dann and Bryan certainly have my support. Those 2 guys are about as competent as you can get. But i have asked repeatedly how anyone can state that one engine is not a clone of the other, when he only has access to the source code of one of the 2 engines. And as yet no one has stepped forward to enlighten me on that.
My understanding of the situation:
I think that the main goal of Y.Osipov making Strelka was to try to reveal, to find the truth about Rybka' success.
Once he found out that Rybka derrivated from an open source program (Fruit) and the author did not credited this fact, he decided to make own engine -- in exactly the same way Vasik did.
So we can say that he succeeded in this task.
Is this a cloning? In my understanding -- no, it isnt a cloning, it is a derrivative.
Good or bad is this?
I can not judge it, really... The right to judge has to be in the author of Fruit, Fabien Letouzey. Once in the past he used to give a remission to a talented programmer of ToGa who also missed to give credits to him and his Fruit... Now Fabien still keep silence.
Personally I'll wait his statement about all this.
Regards,
Geno
Dont buy this sort of explanation. Look, we have a looong tradition of science in computerchess (with weaker results considering the sportive (money) events and also shows, just take a look by comparing CRAFTY and SHREDDER or JUNIOR or even GENIUS) and nobody (?) ever published his interpretation of the reasons for this apparent superiority or its aspects in connection with the factors of the competitions or shows. Isnt it crazy that we dont discuss why the actual strongest RYBKA isnt getting the usual recompensation (see Elista!) but we want to know exactly the secret of RYBKA's superiority? Was that the main purpose of Osipov? Why didnt he analyse FRITZ or JUNIOR out of actual reasons? Because we all would lose our belief in the myths of commercial computerchess programming?
Who one would "normally" suppose standing behind Osipov? Surely not friends of RYBKA all IMO.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:<...>Was that the main purpose of Osipov? Why didnt he analyse FRITZ or JUNIOR out of actual reasons? Because we all would lose our belief in the myths of commercial computerchess programming?
Who one would "normally" suppose standing behind Osipov? Surely not friends of RYBKA all IMO.
Hi Rolf
what is the main purpose of Osipov knows noone but (may be) him. I was trying to explain how I see the situation regarding the facts and statements I knew at this moment. No much no less.
Why he didnt analyze Fritz or Junior? I can only speculate about this. May be they are more original works in his eyes than Rybka is. May be he cant write a copy of Fritz or Junior rewriting to bitboards some program with open source. I really don't know.
And finally I don't buy your "friends of Rybka" Are you a friend of cheesburgers you eat? are you a friend of Coca-Cola you drink? are you a friend of the car you drive? I haven't such a friends, Rolf
Rolf wrote:<...>Was that the main purpose of Osipov? Why didnt he analyse FRITZ or JUNIOR out of actual reasons? Because we all would lose our belief in the myths of commercial computerchess programming?
Who one would "normally" suppose standing behind Osipov? Surely not friends of RYBKA all IMO.
Hi Rolf
what is the main purpose of Osipov knows noone but (may be) him. I was trying to explain how I see the situation regarding the facts and statements I knew at this moment. No much no less.
Why he didnt analyze Fritz or Junior? I can only speculate about this. May be they are more original works in his eyes than Rybka is. May be he cant write a copy of Fritz or Junior rewriting to bitboards some program with open source. I really don't know.
And finally I don't buy your "friends of Rybka" Are you a friend of cheesburgers you eat? are you a friend of Coca-Cola you drink? are you a friend of the car you drive? I haven't such a friends, Rolf
We have a basic misunderstanding. If I follow the associations you made I cant see Vas Rajlich in the COCA COLA line, since that one is actually in Hamburg, Germany. Therefore I dont get all this hype of the discussion. I didnt ask why in particular Ossipov didnt doctor FRITZ or JUNIOR, I asked for the motivation to chase RYBKA and its author Vas! Everything else makes no sense to me.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
