I am feeling ill

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Tord, the author of open source Glaurung, is one who appears to have demonstrated that it is possible to make a cutting edge engine without resorting to excessive use of Fruit code. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the programmers of Fritz and Shredder are honest men. If that is the case, unless or until Vas comes up with a satisfactory explanation

This is not how ethical issues are resolved in the culture I come from. Guilty because of silence and not yet oneself proving innocence. Until that living under suspending honesty. That's more following a lynch court reasoning and madness.

However, you don't get to "break the silence" by saying "this is my code" but then offering _no_ evidence to support that. That's what I have been waiting for with respect to the robo* situation. If I claim something is a clone of Crafty, which I have done on multiple occasions (Le Petite and Voyager are but two that come to mine) I gave information that could be easily digested and understood to support my claim. If Robo* _is_ a clone, what can it _possibly_ hurt to take excerpts from Rybka's code and compare them to Robo* to prove the similarities? If it _is_ a clone, the code is already exposed, so what is there to lose??? You don't have to publish an entire source program to show parts were copied via reverse-engineering. But you should show _something_ it would seem?

Definitely my opinion Bob from the very begining,but unfortunately,the Rybka fans are mrotaly deaf as thier idol exept that they talk a lot of nonsense...
In my life time,I will never worship a piece of software even if it's Windows 7 itself,sorry Bob,I know that you're allergic to such operation systems
Dr.D

[bob]

Tord, the author of open source Glaurung, is one who appears to have demonstrated that it is possible to make a cutting edge engine without resorting to excessive use of Fruit code. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the programmers of Fritz and Shredder are honest men. If that is the case, unless or until Vas comes up with a satisfactory explanation

This is not how ethical issues are resolved in the culture I come from. Guilty because of silence and not yet oneself proving innocence. Until that living under suspending honesty. That's more following a lynch court reasoning and madness.

However, you don't get to "break the silence" by saying "this is my code" but then offering _no_ evidence to support that. That's what I have been waiting for with respect to the robo* situation. If I claim something is a clone of Crafty, which I have done on multiple occasions (Le Petite and Voyager are but two that come to mine) I gave information that could be easily digested and understood to support my claim. If Robo* _is_ a clone, what can it _possibly_ hurt to take excerpts from Rybka's code and compare them to Robo* to prove the similarities? If it _is_ a clone, the code is already exposed, so what is there to lose??? You don't have to publish an entire source program to show parts were copied via reverse-engineering. But you should show _something_ it would seem?

Definitely my opinion Bob from the very begining,but unfortunately,the Rybka fans are mrotaly deaf as thier idol exept that they talk a lot of nonsense...
In my life time,I will never worship a piece of software even if it's Windows 7 itself,sorry Bob,I know that you're allergic to such operation systems
Dr.D

I am just like the "housekeeping" people in my office building. "I don't do windows".

[bob]

There are major cases of plagiarism with distinguished faculty as well, so earning a degree from a prestigious university is no guarantee of ethical behaviour. It should plant the seeds for such, but there's no guarantee they will grow.

Did we ever disagree on this one? But again we are not talking about Ted Bundy like massmurder but instead this is here about a "sport" computerchess competition with commercial=professional players.

Bob, did you ever reflect what you are doing with the thousands of helpers on Crafty? Couldnt one call it tolerated "plagiarism" in teamwork? Or I am surprised what you recall from Hsu. Ken helped him and he copied almost all from Belle.

You can not "plagiarize" when you copy something _with_ permission, and then cite the original author's contribution. That's not plagiarism. Any more than the current "stockfish" project is using a plagiarized copy of Glaurung. So this doesn't apply to deep blue at all. If someone contributes something that I end up using in Crafty, you will find comments in main.c attributing the source of that change to the person that provided it. And they always give me permission to use their changes before I do so. A few have tried ideas they wanted to remain private, and I agreed and did not put them into Crafty. So no, there is no "plagiarism". The term implies "theft" and you can't steal what is given freely to you and you then credit the original source for the contribution rather than claiming the idea as your own.

Did you ever study something in the field of psychology of creativity, artists and the growth of ideas? And also this:

We have a clear statement from Vas of Dec, 1st. Where he states that all the code in Rybka is 100% original at the source code level, not counting public-domain snippets like population cnt, etc.

Now show up with your evidence or (how you like to pronounce it in the US) or shut up. Or sue Vas. But you cant continue endlessly in that sort of smear supposition, insinuation, activity in distributed roles. Here a bit moral attack by Theron, there a bit of "virtually" bla by Wegner, for all the support with the many anonymous helpers. What for? Why?

I suspect this is a matter of semantics. "is no fruit in Rybka." "which rybka"? We have _always_ talked about Rybka 1, where there _are_pieces of fruit present. Or do you believe two different programmers just happen to come up with the same function names, and the names are so bizarre that just seeing them would give you no clue as to what they do? I don't buy that, based on 40 years of looking for plagiarized code in student assignments, sorry.

When will you begin to X-ray the new Junior? I read of 100 Elo better in Bullet than the last version. When will you suppose that they had taken from Fruit and Rybka's stolen code? I know that Amir is a very talented programmer, he even played Kasparov (the old friend of yours) for almost 1 million dollars. But why not motivating the mob to examine his creation? I wanted to know on whose shoulders he is standing. Let Wegner do the laborous side of the job, he hasbt anything else of importance to do. If you at least could show a second case besides Rybka, I wouldnt have so many sleepless nights while reflecting about the possible reasons for your late fixation of Rybka. That you are a dedicated fisherman is known since long. BINGO - now I got it. I got it!! You are fishing after Rybka! Admit it.

I'm not x-raying anything. If someone reverse-engineers the new junior, someone else will probably compare that to existing programs. Whether that will show anything "interesting" or not is unknown. I don't have the time to disassemble every commercial program, nor do I care about how honest they are or are not. I have my own program to improve, and am steadily making progress. I can't force everyone to be moral in their behaviour. So there is no point in worrying about whether they are or not. I will continue to play in chess tournaments, and I end up playing the same program more than once because of an unknown clone, it won't be the first time. We have existing, active programs that are clones already. Nothing is new.

[Rolf]

I'm not x-raying anything. If someone reverse-engineers the new junior, someone else will probably compare that to existing programs. Whether that will show anything "interesting" or not is unknown. I don't have the time to disassemble every commercial program, nor do I care about how honest they are or are not. I have my own program to improve, and am steadily making progress. I can't force everyone to be moral in their behaviour. So there is no point in worrying about whether they are or not. I will continue to play in chess tournaments, and I end up playing the same program more than once because of an unknown clone, it won't be the first time. We have existing, active programs that are clones already. Nothing is new.

Bob please listen to me.

Here you gave a sound description of your essence, but would it then not be better not to be involved into such topics where suddenly some are scapegoating someone and you are engaged as expert, judge, moral watchman and media journalist?

Let me just try to lead this back to humanism away from cold positivism. Let's assume that you are correct on Rybka 1 and then everything has been corrected. If it were a mistake. Whatever. Just as a scenario now in theory. Why would that then cause lifelong scapegoat tyranny by you and your other three mousquetiers? Life is too short to be wasted with such negative streamings.

All that on the base thart Vas thereafter did now the best available piece of chess software for 4 years! And that if he were no good and could ONLY improve because of Fruit code???

Let's come back to normal life, Bob. Dont help those who kill the whole fun without knowing it and perhaps not wanting it.

Stop this hate campaign paradigma. Let's have fun and tension because of good competition but in peace.

Rolf

[Rolf]

However, you don't get to "break the silence" by saying "this is my code" but then offering _no_ evidence to support that. That's what I have been waiting for with respect to the robo* situation. If I claim something is a clone of Crafty, which I have done on multiple occasions (Le Petite and Voyager are but two that come to mine) I gave information that could be easily digested and understood to support my claim. If Robo* _is_ a clone, what can it _possibly_ hurt to take excerpts from Rybka's code and compare them to Robo* to prove the similarities? If it _is_ a clone, the code is already exposed, so what is there to lose??? You don't have to publish an entire source program to show parts were copied via reverse-engineering. But you should show _something_ it would seem?

Bob, this is quite easy. If you have a problem with Crafty and a clone then this is Crafty (a sober entity) from Bob (a sober programmer with real name, known address). However what you are talking about is scum plain scum.

I have a seventh sense, Bob. The way how you react here is understandable for someone who knows these guys behind the anonymity. And because they are possibly sober elsewhere without the smear activities against Vas, Bob completely losed out of view that what these jerks are doing is absolutely inacceptable.

Give us their names and we can start a new debate. Or tell them to come out of the closet.

[bob]

However, you don't get to "break the silence" by saying "this is my code" but then offering _no_ evidence to support that. That's what I have been waiting for with respect to the robo* situation. If I claim something is a clone of Crafty, which I have done on multiple occasions (Le Petite and Voyager are but two that come to mine) I gave information that could be easily digested and understood to support my claim. If Robo* _is_ a clone, what can it _possibly_ hurt to take excerpts from Rybka's code and compare them to Robo* to prove the similarities? If it _is_ a clone, the code is already exposed, so what is there to lose??? You don't have to publish an entire source program to show parts were copied via reverse-engineering. But you should show _something_ it would seem?

Bob, this is quite easy. If you have a problem with Crafty and a clone then this is Crafty (a sober entity) from Bob (a sober programmer with real name, known address). However what you are talking about is scum plain scum.

Is not Rybka a "sober entity" and Vas a "sober programmer with real name, known address"? When I claim a clone is based on Crafty, I offer proof. Can he not do the same so that this can be put to rest, rather than living a life of its own for a good while now? He could solve the Robo* issue instantly and terminate all the speculation, by providing proof. We, as moderators, took him at his word and tried to limit this by not allowing links to what we originally thought was pirated software. But one can only take that stand for so long with no proof of any kind being offered, which is where we are today.

I have a seventh sense, Bob. The way how you react here is understandable for someone who knows these guys behind the anonymity. And because they are possibly sober elsewhere without the smear activities against Vas, Bob completely losed out of view that what these jerks are doing is absolutely inacceptable.

What "guys" do I supposedly know? Certainly not the Robo* group. No idea who they are, never interacted with them that I am aware of, not on my to-do list either.

As to the "smear activities" exactly what are you talking about? I do know the group that looked at the fruit/strelka/rybka1 issue, and respect their opinions and moral values. I've not seen the Robo* guys say anything at all about Vas. If they did, I missed it, and really don't care about what they might have said anyway since I don't know who they are. The only issue hanging is "Is Robo* a clone of Rybka or is it not?" Surely the author of Rybka, who made this original claim, can respond with enough proof to convince me or others, and this dies quickly. Otherwise, the rumor mill continues to grind overtime in the absence of any real information to go on.


Give us their names and we can start a new debate. Or tell them to come out of the closet.

[bob]

I'm not x-raying anything. If someone reverse-engineers the new junior, someone else will probably compare that to existing programs. Whether that will show anything "interesting" or not is unknown. I don't have the time to disassemble every commercial program, nor do I care about how honest they are or are not. I have my own program to improve, and am steadily making progress. I can't force everyone to be moral in their behaviour. So there is no point in worrying about whether they are or not. I will continue to play in chess tournaments, and I end up playing the same program more than once because of an unknown clone, it won't be the first time. We have existing, active programs that are clones already. Nothing is new.

Bob please listen to me.

Here you gave a sound description of your essence, but would it then not be better not to be involved into such topics where suddenly some are scapegoating someone and you are engaged as expert, judge, moral watchman and media journalist?

Let me just try to lead this back to humanism away from cold positivism. Let's assume that you are correct on Rybka 1 and then everything has been corrected. If it were a mistake. Whatever. Just as a scenario now in theory. Why would that then cause lifelong scapegoat tyranny by you and your other three mousquetiers? Life is too short to be wasted with such negative streamings.

My only goal is "the truth". When someone posts a question, I do my best to give an honest answer, and provide the factual data to support those answers when possible / practical.

If Vas had simply said "Yes, I started with Fruit, just as others started with Gnuchess (or whatever) and then modified it so that it bears little if any resemblance to the original fruit source." then the story would have died, If he had a few pieces left, he could have corrected that as well. But he said "this is original code" and that's a bit difficult to swallow after looking at the results of the comparison effort.

And now, after claiming Robo* is a clone, he has clammed up on that as well. If I were guessing, I would suspect that he somehow wants all this discussion to continue. Why is beyond me. But since either discussion is so easy to terminate, not doing so defies logic.

All that on the base thart Vas thereafter did now the best available piece of chess software for 4 years! And that if he were no good and could ONLY improve because of Fruit code???

Stated simply, taking someone else's code and claiming it as your own is wrong. Hardly worthy of a death sentence or anything similar. But it's wrong. Even if you then modify it into something wonderfully effective. It'd be just as wrong if someone took the idea of using a magnetic field to produce a detailed image of the human body (MRI) and greatly improved it, and then proceeded to make money on it, even though the original MRI approach was patented and being sold also. He might legally license the original design and improve it, and pay royalties (and give credit) to the original inventor. But that's not where we are. And it is wrong, of course.

Let's come back to normal life, Bob. Dont help those who kill the whole fun without knowing it and perhaps not wanting it.

Stop this hate campaign paradigma. Let's have fun and tension because of good competition but in peace.

Rolf

There is absolutely zero "hate" on my part. A few years ago, Vincent accused me of fraud, for those that remember. I still consider him a friend today and we share emails frequently. I can get along with most anyone, so long as they are honest.

[Rolf]

My only goal is "the truth". When someone posts a question, I do my best to give an honest answer, and provide the factual data to support those answers when possible / practical.

If Vas had simply said "Yes, I started with Fruit, just as others started with Gnuchess (or whatever) and then modified it so that it bears little if any resemblance to the original fruit source." then the story would have died, If he had a few pieces left, he could have corrected that as well. But he said "this is original code" and that's a bit difficult to swallow after looking at the results of the comparison effort.

And now, after claiming Robo* is a clone, he has clammed up on that as well. If I were guessing, I would suspect that he somehow wants all this discussion to continue. Why is beyond me. But since either discussion is so easy to terminate, not doing so defies logic.

Stated simply, taking someone else's code and claiming it as your own is wrong. Hardly worthy of a death sentence or anything similar. But it's wrong. Even if you then modify it into something wonderfully effective. It'd be just as wrong if someone took the idea of using a magnetic field to produce a detailed image of the human body (MRI) and greatly improved it, and then proceeded to make money on it, even though the original MRI approach was patented and being sold also. He might legally license the original design and improve it, and pay royalties (and give credit) to the original inventor. But that's not where we are. And it is wrong, of course.


There is absolutely zero "hate" on my part. A few years ago, Vincent accused me of fraud, for those that remember. I still consider him a friend today and we share emails frequently. I can get along with most anyone, so long as they are honest.

Thanks for another in detail response. Let me gues. It took you more than 15 minutes what you have written today alone to me.

What is the TRUTH?

Is it a summary of many small truths? What is the truth for a businessman? What is the truth for a friend of guys who were paid by IBM? (Formerly you agreed with me and explained that IBM had the say and your friends couldnt do anything against it. Later you claimed that they had done everything in order with the scientific burdens. I simply disagreed because this isnt the truth.And I still mean it.) What is the truth? Too long chapter for today.

How this story would have DIED?

Is this about religion. Vas is in a business with others where nobody had to undertake a cleaning watering for saving their souls. He should have admitted what nobody is forced to do except Fritz Reul! Shouldnt we have learned from this evil witchhunting? My argument is this: if it's NOT a legal offense ready to go to the courts, why do you insist that he must show regret? I just dont get it when I see you in science working for the truth. Where is the truth of all the others in business. If there is anything the truth is needing then it's that it's impartially true for everybody. If you cant assure this for all then you simply keep out of it because you are in danger of becoming an exorcist.

What is LOGIC?

For you as scientist logic is a scientific term. But for a businessman it's a political term that should control the power of his business. For you is the question where is the proof for the clone claim, for Vas IMO the question is where is security for my business. And clearly his claim finished any clone existence in the respected institutions. For IBM you accepted the special logic. But in case of Vas not.

What is HONEST?

In computerchess it would be honest to admit that it's a little niche where you cant make millions. In all other districts you can make more money than in computerchess. So if you accuse him then it would be honest to say that money greed is not the key. Vas said honestly that his source is different to anything in Fruit. In fact totally original. You, Wegner, Theron and Schmidt are now over two years witchhunting Vas and they couldnt prove anything. Not in your opinion but you were biased from the start. What could you four have performed if you had instead worked on an own chess machine?? I would honestly say that you four wasted too much of your short lives.

VINCENT?

Please Bob, you cant compare Vincent with Vas. a) Vas is the better chessplayer and b) he has the better program. Still you are very nice that you let Vince play on one of the horses (computer biggies)there. I read it in one of his messages and thought: Bob is a really nice guy! And I mean it.


Bob if you have still doubts that Vas is kosher then make a clear statement. He says his code in Rybka is totally original except public domain stuff. Make your statement if you think he lied. If you dont want to do this then please let's close the chapter.

I lose much more than you four mousquetiers. Because you all have still computerchess programming. But I have lost a whole topic where I could show my interest. So for my logic, Bob, truth and honesty I would be sad if the topic would die. Therefore I'm totally split. Once I say stop it and then I say Go on with it.

All the best to all, Rolf

Perhaps we'll have the debate between Bob and Vas at mid December. 2009!!

[M ANSARI]

Actually Windows 7 64bit is very good and I must say I am pleasantly surprised. After playing around with Vista I decided to go back to XP, but Win 7 is a keeper.

[Zach Wegner]

Sorry Zach. Guess that I am just too exhausted to read with
comprehension. Taking care of a parent with Alzheimer's will do that
to a person.

1) So there is a lot of Fruit in both engines that is the same between them.

2) There are some small amount of things that Rybka and Strelka do
differently that are not in fruit.

3) And there are only a few things that Strelka takes from Fruit that
are not to be found in Rybka.

4) There are things in Strelka besides the material tables that are
also in Rybka, but are not in Fruit.

Are all these statements true? If so then please elaborate on point 4
as this would be the proof that Osipov took more from Rybka than just
the material tables. Are the move generators nearly identical? I read
that they are not the same.

Anyway, I am going on vacation from this madness for a while. Though I
am still interested in an answer.

Hey Mike, sorry for the late response. I wanted to be thorough on this, plus school is getting pretty hectic right now. Anyways...

Every one of 1-4 is true to some extent. I'd estimate the rough percentages like this:

1) Rybka/Strelka, in terms of algorithms (not implementation), is
maybe 80-90% Fruit. Of course the code is fairly different in a lot of
cases, because Rybka is bitboard, but the chess-playing logic is very
similar. I guess I'd say that the Rybka 1 eval is 90% Fruit, and the
Rybka 1 search is 80% Fruit.

2) There are very few differences between Rybka and Strelka, maybe a
few percent. These are very small details too. Maybe 1-2% of Strelka is different than Rybka, and about 3/4 of that is not from Fruit.

3) Of the 1-2% mentioned in 2, this is maybe a quarter.

4) This is rather large, about the opposite of 1). In virtually all of the places where Rybka and Fruit differ, Strelka is the same as Rybka. While Rybka 1's eval is semantically very close to Fruit's, the implementation is translated to bitboards, and here, Strelka is the same. Same with the search, Strelka's futility pruning is like Rybka's, etc.

There is more to the analysis, of course. I'm trying to finish up my webpages (slowly), so I can have some more detailed info. Feel free to ask any other questions about this, though...