Equal Treatment 2

[Nid Hogge]

Now that most dust has settled .. everything else seems to have turned upside down.

Remember how everyone defended Osipov(?) after the first Strelka release? what about equal treatment now, When he admits to have cloned parts of Rybka and Fruit?

Well, OK, I could live with that.

But that's doesnt end here.
I mean, let's see how things fold:

In the beginning, Suspicion arises over Strelka's originality -

Evidence is presented, Similarities are widely detected, but the experts determine : Strelka is Kosher.

Later the author decides in a peculiar way to admit he has Cloned parts of Rybka and Fruit(Beowulf as well actually - now that's a heck of hybrid).

He then proceeds and claims Rybka has cloned Fruit code.

Now you have a very burdensome choice:

Hard Evidence Vs. Dishonest Cloner? Solid Proofs Vs. Deceitful source code thief?

Obviously, the choice is very simple, and Dishonest Cloner's word counts much more than Hard evidence.

When all of the evidence of Strelka being a clone counted nothing, The cloners sentence ultimately is considered True and honest.
He surely knows best.
Now Rybka is surely a Fruit clone and some programmers are already suspicious.

And there you have it .. The perfect plot.. a wild twist at the end of the story and all of a sudden it turns out Rybka is the real clone ..

What a bad, bad joke...

[hgm]

I don't see that as a burdensome choice at all. You don't have to believe anyone. Facts are facts, and can be independently verified. If Rybka contains Fruit code, comparing the assembly code of the two produced by the same compiler (after verifying that Rybka doesn't use any tricks to encrypt its code, and if it does, decrypt it) will easily reveal it. Anyone can do that for himself.

You might have to devote substantial time to analyzing the Rybka executable, of course.

[Terry McCracken]

Now that most dust has settled .. everything else seems to have turned upside down.

Remember how everyone defended Osipov(?) after the first Strelka release? what about equal treatment now, When he admits to have cloned parts of Rybka and Fruit?

Well, OK, I could live with that.

But that's doesnt end here.
I mean, let's see how things fold:

In the beginning, Suspicion arises over Strelka's originality -

Evidence is presented, Similarities are widely detected, but the experts determine : Strelka is Kosher.

Later the author decides in a peculiar way to admit he has Cloned parts of Rybka and Fruit(Beowulf as well actually - now that's a heck of hybrid).

He then proceeds and claims Rybka has cloned Fruit code.

Now you have a very burdensome choice:

Hard Evidence Vs. Dishonest Cloner? Solid Proofs Vs. Deceitful source code thief?

Obviously, the choice is very simple, and Dishonest Cloner's word counts much more than Hard evidence.

When all of the evidence of Strelka being a clone counted nothing, The cloners sentence ultimately is considered True and honest.
He surely knows best.
Now Rybka is surely a Fruit clone and some programmers are already suspicious.

And there you have it .. The perfect plot.. a wild twist at the end of the story and all of a sudden it turns out Rybka is the real clone ..

What a bad, bad joke...

It's crazy...decompile these programs and put them under the microscope if you want to get at the truth.

Terry

[Nid Hogge]

I just wanna clarify that my

Now you have a very burdensome choice: Obviously, the choice is very simple, and Dishonest Cloner's word counts much more than Hard evidence.

cooments wer'e obviously sarcastic. My apologies if it wasn't written clear enough. Ofcourse that his word doesn't count more, it was written in order to show the absurd of taking his word for granted already despite his 'record'.
I agree completely that no one has to believe anyone and I strongly encourage everyone to examine all available evidence and make up their own mind.

P.S. Here's Vas comments on Osipov claims (Re:Fruit) :

Note that this explanation is itself bogus:

a) 'Osipov' claims that he changed the Fruit board representation from mailbox to bitboard and got a 2x speedup in performance. This is simply a clueless comment, there would be no speedup of anywhere near this magnitude.
b) 'Osipov' claims to take only Rybka's eval and search, yet Strelka 1.8 uses Rybka's exact UCI output strings.
c) 'Osipov' claims that he added a Winboard parser (after date of Fruit 2.1 release) so that Strelka could play in Ridderkerk - another clueless comment.
d) ...

I will think a little bit about this. Maybe what I should do is get the Strelka 1.8 source code, claim it as my own, and release it under GPL.

With these anonymous cloners who risk nothing, and with current Rybka level, computer chess may be headed for some turbulence.

Vas

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... 9#pid18939

[Dariusz Orzechowski]

I find this "simply a clueless comment" this time from Vasik. Moreover, as someone already pointed out "Rybka's exact UCI output strings" are nothing more than strings taken from Fruit.

[Terry McCracken]

I find this "simply a clueless comment" this time from Vasik. Moreover, as someone already pointed out "Rybka's exact UCI output strings" are nothing more than strings taken from Fruit.

Easy does it...we've been swamped since Moday with all this

Time for R&R Regards,
Terry