My recent correspondence with Vasik Rajlich

[Albert Silver]

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,
Vas

Vas says he doesn't have the source code for Rybka 3. Surely he doesn't mean he lost it. Did he just sell it to Chessbase or something? Is that what he means? Even so, why would he be so "careless"? What does that mean? Careless in losing the source code? Careless to sell it to someone?

He says he's keeping the source for Rybka 4, but doesn't have the source for Rybka 3. Therefore, Rybka 4 must have hardly any code from Rybka 3.

I think it is a clever use of words. He does not have the exact source from R3 that may be true. I bet he has source from a version very close to R3. It is not uncommon to produce several versions every week.

If he doesn't have the exact source of the released version of Rybka 3, which presumably is what the Ippos stem from, then how is that a clever use of words?

[Harvey Williamson]

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,
Vas

Vas says he doesn't have the source code for Rybka 3. Surely he doesn't mean he lost it. Did he just sell it to Chessbase or something? Is that what he means? Even so, why would he be so "careless"? What does that mean? Careless in losing the source code? Careless to sell it to someone?

He says he's keeping the source for Rybka 4, but doesn't have the source for Rybka 3. Therefore, Rybka 4 must have hardly any code from Rybka 3.

I think it is a clever use of words. He does not have the exact source from R3 that may be true. I bet he has source from a version very close to R3. It is not uncommon to produce several versions every week.

If he doesn't have the exact source of the released version of Rybka 3, which presumably is what the Ippos stem from, then how is that a clever use of words?

Because many will misunderstand as Ben did. Maybe splitting hairs is a better description. The version may have been called Rybka 2.xxx that was compiled as R3 for release. He may have the 2.xxx code but not the R3!? Does he need the exact source code to prove anything?! I think a source with a few minor differences would be fine.

Should he publish it here to keep the few happy - lol

[Albert Silver]

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,
Vas

Vas says he doesn't have the source code for Rybka 3. Surely he doesn't mean he lost it. Did he just sell it to Chessbase or something? Is that what he means? Even so, why would he be so "careless"? What does that mean? Careless in losing the source code? Careless to sell it to someone?

He says he's keeping the source for Rybka 4, but doesn't have the source for Rybka 3. Therefore, Rybka 4 must have hardly any code from Rybka 3.

I think it is a clever use of words. He does not have the exact source from R3 that may be true. I bet he has source from a version very close to R3. It is not uncommon to produce several versions every week.

If he doesn't have the exact source of the released version of Rybka 3, which presumably is what the Ippos stem from, then how is that a clever use of words?

Because many will misunderstand as Ben did. Maybe splitting hairs is a better description. The version may have been called Rybka 2.xxx that was compiled as R3 for release. He may have the 2.xxx code but not the R3!? Does he need the exact source code to prove anything?! I think a source with a few minor differences would be fine.

Sure, but I think his point was that if he tries to prove his case, someone may argue that he is trying to prove the IPPOs came from Rybka 3, but is using a twin instead of the original. That is how I read it in any case.

[Harvey Williamson]

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,
Vas

Vas says he doesn't have the source code for Rybka 3. Surely he doesn't mean he lost it. Did he just sell it to Chessbase or something? Is that what he means? Even so, why would he be so "careless"? What does that mean? Careless in losing the source code? Careless to sell it to someone?

He says he's keeping the source for Rybka 4, but doesn't have the source for Rybka 3. Therefore, Rybka 4 must have hardly any code from Rybka 3.

I think it is a clever use of words. He does not have the exact source from R3 that may be true. I bet he has source from a version very close to R3. It is not uncommon to produce several versions every week.

If he doesn't have the exact source of the released version of Rybka 3, which presumably is what the Ippos stem from, then how is that a clever use of words?

Because many will misunderstand as Ben did. Maybe splitting hairs is a better description. The version may have been called Rybka 2.xxx that was compiled as R3 for release. He may have the 2.xxx code but not the R3!? Does he need the exact source code to prove anything?! I think a source with a few minor differences would be fine.

Sure, but I think his point was that if he tries to prove his case, someone may argue that he is trying to prove the IPPOs came from Rybka 3, but is using a twin instead of the original. That is how I read it in any case.

I read it as, " I am lo lazy and can't be bothered to prove it and I do not care what a few on CCC think."

[Albert Silver]

I think it is a clever use of words. He does not have the exact source from R3 that may be true. I bet he has source from a version very close to R3. It is not uncommon to produce several versions every week.

If he doesn't have the exact source of the released version of Rybka 3, which presumably is what the Ippos stem from, then how is that a clever use of words?

Because many will misunderstand as Ben did. Maybe splitting hairs is a better description. The version may have been called Rybka 2.xxx that was compiled as R3 for release. He may have the 2.xxx code but not the R3!? Does he need the exact source code to prove anything?! I think a source with a few minor differences would be fine.

Sure, but I think his point was that if he tries to prove his case, someone may argue that he is trying to prove the IPPOs came from Rybka 3, but is using a twin instead of the original. That is how I read it in any case.

I read it as, " I am lo lazy and can't be bothered to prove it and I do not care what a few on CCC think."

Well, I read the phrase:

"Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult."

a bit differently.

[benstoker]

It's just plain weird that Vas says he was careless for not keeping the rybka 3 source code. Why would you not keep the source?

I think it is a clever use of words. He does not have the exact source from R3 that may be true. I bet he has source from a version very close to R3. It is not uncommon to produce several versions every week.

If he doesn't have the exact source of the released version of Rybka 3, which presumably is what the Ippos stem from, then how is that a clever use of words?

Because many will misunderstand as Ben did. Maybe splitting hairs is a better description. The version may have been called Rybka 2.xxx that was compiled as R3 for release. He may have the 2.xxx code but not the R3!? Does he need the exact source code to prove anything?! I think a source with a few minor differences would be fine.

Sure, but I think his point was that if he tries to prove his case, someone may argue that he is trying to prove the IPPOs came from Rybka 3, but is using a twin instead of the original. That is how I read it in any case.

I read it as, " I am lo lazy and can't be bothered to prove it and I do not care what a few on CCC think."

Well, I read the phrase:

"Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult."

a bit differently.

[Highendman]

Thanks for posting this. I like Vas, and I appreciate his attitude towards this. He has got his priorities right and he spends his energy where it matters to him. He also obviously has very thick skin. All admirable qualities.
Those who will choose to keep saying "it's just his word vs. the anonymous Ippo* authors word" I must say - come on... You're not even fooling yourselves any more.

[Alexander Schmidt]

To the CCC mods: I suggest to leave this article here in the "General Topics" subforum as I think it might be of long-term general interest for everyone interested in computer chess, although I would also accept a different decision if that fits the current policy better.

I did not expect this post to stay in the general forum. But it looks like VR can accuse others of cloning without proof here, while discussions and defending opinions are moved to the private forum as well as founded accusations against Rybka.

Why don't you guys make VR's opinions sticky?

And why don't we place a Rybka banner at the top?

[mariaclara]

Does it really matter that much

Dear readers,

in case someone is interested, please find below the full contents of an email dialogue I had with Vasik Rajlich during the past two days. I did not remove or edit any part of the original emails except mail addresses, line break issues, and presentation of URLs. Both involved parties explicitly allow publishing of these emails in the TalkChess forum.

To the CCC mods: I suggest to leave this article here in the "General Topics" subforum as I think it might be of long-term general interest for everyone interested in computer chess, although I would also accept a different decision if that fits the current policy better.

As always, rational and civilized comments are welcome. I propose to concentrate on Vasik's statements mainly, not on the contents of my first email which does also contain my personal opinions and had the intention to introduce myself since I had to assume that Vasik did not know me until then.

Best regards,
Vas

[/quote]

[Uri Blass]

Re. Rybka 3 source code: Unfortunately, I don't have it. (Yes, it was careless. I'm keeping the Rybka 4 source code.) It's not necessary for writing up the Ippolit case, but it would probably make a court case more difficult.

Best regards,
Vas

Vas says he doesn't have the source code for Rybka 3. Surely he doesn't mean he lost it. Did he just sell it to Chessbase or something? Is that what he means? Even so, why would he be so "careless"? What does that mean? Careless in losing the source code? Careless to sell it to someone?

He says he's keeping the source for Rybka 4, but doesn't have the source for Rybka 3. Therefore, Rybka 4 must have hardly any code from Rybka 3.

How do you know that Vas did not lose the source of Rybka3?

I think that it is more logical to think that he lost it and not that he sold it to chessbase.

Edit:
I think that your conclusion about rybka4 does not have to be correct.

It is possible that rybka4 has 90% of rybka3 code but Vas did not save the original rybka3.

Uri