Watchman wrote:What you don't get is that chess programmers (like any other group of specialists) have their own language use, they don't need long sentences to communicate, often half of a word is enough. Which was the case here.
"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."
Miguel got it, I received email from another programmer who got it.
Ed and Miguel at Talkchess.
They all got it except Bob, or did he get it after all?
"Sokath... his eyes uncovered."
Of course. Now think about why Bob took my (programmer language) the wrong way. It's not so hard if you claim to understand programmer language.
"Kiteo... his eyes closed. Shaka... when the walls fell."
And remember, it was not me who started that war 3 months back.
"The beast at Tanagra."
Were things ugly? Yes. Why? Because Bob turned an innocent remark into a false accusation because....... well that's for you to figure out.
"Zinda... his face black... his eyes red. Uzani... his army with fists open."
Also remember, it was not me who resurrected that old cow here on CCC.
"The river Temarc... in winter. Darmok on the ocean."
michiguel wrote: I found a table in Crafty that is identical in Fruit after a "challenge". That did not demonstrate copying, it was related to completely different issue, but people pass information in an imperfect way. You got the final result of a broken chain, which had sarcastic comments by some, hyperbolic amplifications, and all of the sudden you hear "crafty copied fruit".
Yep, new threads, if I remember well on CCC and also on open-chess, topic Crafty copied from Fruit. False journalism driven by a sensational scoop. Not understanding, yet posting. Ridiculous of course and when Bob sorted things out, explained it, every chess programmer involved in that discussion accepted his explanation. And then as always the open poster leaves the building as first one.
mhull wrote: You don't get it. I'm talking about how you were wrong to claim the source of the branching factor improvement was from rybka, insisting Bob could not possibly have found that resource on his own. That is highly insulting, implying "It came from anywhere but Bob (since he's not smart enough)".
What you don't get is that chess programmers (like any other group of specialists) have their own language use, they don't need long sentences to communicate, often half of a word is enough. Which was the case here.
Miguel got it, I received email from another programmer who got it. They all got it except Bob, or did he get it after all? Of course. Now think about why Bob took my (programmer language) the wrong way. It's not so hard if you claim to understand programmer language.
And remember, it was not me who started that war 3 months back.
Were things ugly? Yes. Why? Because Bob turned an innocent remark into a false accusation because....... well that's for you to figure out.
Also remember, it was not me who resurrected that old cow here on CCC.
Did you, or did you not give offense (either on purpose or by accident)? If you're going to stretch out your hand to Bob, why not apologize? Why not retract your "innocent joke" claiming the branching factor improvement came from Rybka?
If your reply is "Because it DID come from Rybka (because I just know)", then I give up.
Watchman wrote:What you don't get is that chess programmers (like any other group of specialists) have their own language use, they don't need long sentences to communicate, often half of a word is enough. Which was the case here.
"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."
Ed and Miguel at Talkchess.
"Sokath... his eyes uncovered."
"Kiteo... his eyes closed. Shaka... when the walls fell."
"The beast at Tanagra."
"Zinda... his face black... his eyes red. Uzani... his army with fists open."
"The river Temarc... in winter. Darmok on the ocean."
And by the way, Ed was completely right about the "legacy point" and how it was completely ignored in the press, when they released the news.
Miguel
No rational person discusses legacy when discussing a criminal act. "This guy donated millions to various charity organizations. Unfortunately, the ponzi scheme he was running caused WorldCom to fail and millions lost a big part of their retirement in the aftermath?" What a legacy. Would Vas have even had a "legacy" if he had not copied the code of others? Impossible to say.
The question should be IMO if a rational person would adopt the vocabulary "criminal act" at all in context of computerchess where many (almost all?) parts from other programmers had been integrated with due mention (and I thought that Vas had done so in his very first official release, also thanking Bob and Fabien BTW). Talking about GPL it should be carefully researched when exactly Vas took from Fruit without going GPL in the aftermath. IMO, and I mentioned it years ago, there was a period of no GPL or other protection of the code in 2004/2005, so that any accusation against Vas remains fruitless (inefficacious).
Talking about legacy in a historical context it looks strange e.g. if the whole Kennedy clan allegedly started his financial fortune during the prohibition era. But pecunia non olet.
For us in CC we should respect what GM Larry had testified. And it's not interesting if Vas saved two weeks of work or 2 months, the increase in strength originated from Vas' own genius. That should be respected.
Talking about ethics it would be nice if critics could take a look at other programs whose strength exploded after Strelka and the Hippo family had been distributed.
All this together a rational mind should consider too. Let's not lose ourselves in exaggerations.
(Sorry for adding this but I had missed the legacy topic when I wrote my first comment above.)
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:Talking about GPL it should be carefully researched when exactly Vas took from Fruit without going GPL in the aftermath. IMO, and I mentioned it years ago, there was a period of no GPL or other protection of the code in 2004/2005, so that any accusation against Vas remains fruitless (inefficacious).
The Fruit 1 package includes the GPL licence document. Right-clicking on the Fruit1 executable, in that package, will bring up the information that the executable was “last modified on 16th March 2004.” You could have found the download on the WBEC site. http://wbec-ridderkerk.nl/html/details1/Fruit.html
Have you considered the possibility that you should do some basic research before posting?
Incidentally, in the same way as the writers of email hold copyright on any worthwhile content contained in those emails, the writers of chess engines will hold copyright on the program, even without GPL protection.
JuLieN wrote: Yes, Ed, I got that point: having signed a bit too fast the ICGA letter and then having second thoughts make you feel responsible for Vas.
Absolutely not my friend. I would do it for Bob in a similar situation.
Best to you,
Ed
Hmm from the SAME person that accused me of copying code from ippolit/robolito??? I didn't notice you defending me there. I noticed you making false statements and then being unable to back them up. I even gave you the diff output for the search code you said contained robo* code.
There's more to this story than just "I believe (now) that he didn't copy anything."
I witness the discussion, and he did NOT accused you of copying CODE.
Miguel
You see Miguel, the kind of roadblocks thrown up. I was right there the night you repeatedly asked Bob to show you proof of "A and B". Since obviously HE COULD NOT, he played the game of ignoring what you said, giving an answer to something entirely different. Then answering the same request with a question. Never did he take it on directly. Couldn't have been a communication failure- not as long as you stayed with it. Over and over you tried to pin him down- and he NEVER faced you directly. Does that sound to you like someone who sees the truth as important?
Then, I will be damn if a few days later, on another issue of the case, he did not pull the EXACT PLOY with Sven. He just could not follow the point Sven was trying to make. And he never took that issue on directly.
Look, I admit I don't know a grain of computer science. I have college degrees in 2 different majors. But I imagine both combined with a dollar bill might buy me a coke, if I'm lucky. But I could have stopped after elementary school and still understood what was going on both times.
Now he says Ed accused him of copying code. Must have slipped his mind that you were there, because you witnessed the discussion and said it never happened. Lo and behold- he's caught again.
I remember very well when a day or so later you had had enough, and told him you were not one of his students, and this was the 2nd time you had asked him to stop talking down to you.
Is this the stuff you should have to fight when simply looking for the truth?
gts
gts wrote:
I was right there the night you repeatedly asked Bob to show you proof of "A and B".
What on earth are you talking about. What is "proof of A and B?"
Surely you are smart enough to understand "A and B" only referred to the fact I did not go back to Rybka forum and find the correct wording to use. Since that was irrelevant and had nothing to do with the point I was making.
No, because with You, Chris and Ed, if someone "assumes" something about your post, you cry foul and invoke theories about conspiracies and such. Just write clearly and cite what you mean, not some vague A and B stuff...
Dave Mitchell wrote:I knew that Fruit 2.1 was released under the GPL, but thought that the first Fruit program, was just released into the public domain, without license.
One of the forum members was kind enough to show that it was also released under the GPL.
Sad to see that Rybka's author didn't just take ideas from Fruit, but appears to have taken plenty of code directly, in a cut and paste manner.
Has FSF launched a suit against him, yet?
All we know is that they are looking into the issue, nothing specific, but then again, I doubt there will be anything specific until they start contacting distributors as the first public step.
Sure. Years ago when I read of the somewhat foggy period when F.L. didnt really know what to do and then left for good before he came back with new ideas, I asked if someone could have taken something from Fruit. But excuse me, I am not like others who behave as if they would be the legal court, the legal judge and even the legal prosecution. I always thought that we should leave this to legal justice experts.
Keith, it would contradict legal justice if the status of a code would be defined because it was *later* be claimed to be GPL or whatever. Justice is always depending on the definitions that were valid at the time in question. If there were none and someone intentiously left the building, lleaving behind his open source without restrictions, why shouldnt peers have taken something? This is what a legal court should investigate (talking about computerchess, closed source competition, and the right to look and take something).
Sure. Years ago when I read of the somewhat foggy period when F.L. didnt really know what to do and then left for good before he came back with new ideas,......................................
Keith, it would contradict legal justice if the status of a code would be defined because it was *later* be claimed to be GPL or whatever. Justice is always depending on the definitions that were valid at the time in question. If there were none and someone intentiously left the building, lleaving behind his open source without restrictions, why shouldnt peers have taken something? This is what a legal court should investigate (talking about computerchess, closed source competition, and the right to look and take something).
Focus on the information in my last post. There is no realistic chance of a “foggy period” or "later" or "leaving behind his open source without restrictions" The information in my last post indicates that:
# the first ever Fruit release was in March 2004.
# the version released in March 2004 was released under a GPL licence.
In addition, Fabien held copyright whether or not he had a GPL licence. Either way, if there is Fruit code in Rybka, Rajlich infringed Fabien’s copyright and then by his actions compounded the crime. There is no other interpretation possible.
It was not the first time that he had done it. Absolutely nobody is still maintaining that the earlier version of Rybka, (Rybka 1.61) doesn’t contain Crafty code. Bob holds the copyright for Crafty and as Rybka 1.61 was entered into tournaments, the evidence that Rajlich had previously pulled the same stunt on Bob seems impossible to dispute.
