Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Discussion of computer chess matches and engine tournaments.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
Osipov Jury
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:07 pm
Location: Russia

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Osipov Jury » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:09 pm

My letter to Vas in response to his questions (translate by V.Zakharov):

Code: Select all

Hi Vas,
 
 First of all I would like to excuse for my public pronouncements, that
 Rybka was developed on the basis of Fruit. There were only subjective
 guesses and I didn't have right to share unchecked thoughts publicly.
 
 Unfortunatelly sometimes I am able to perform unadequite actions, that
 can be approved only by my current heavy psychologic state.
 
 Beleive me I am sincere fan of your talants. For future I promise not
 to do any steps that can be bring any damage to you.
 
 Now the answers on your questions:
 
 1) I started Rybka code research at January, 2007. I did this time to
 time till April. I can't calculate exactly how much time I spent.
 I consider myself as amateur in dissassembly, so my experience can't be
 considered as representative. I guess that Dark Avenger from Brasil -
 most serious professional in this domain. I think he will not have
 problems FULLY to reverse Rybka code and to understand the algorithms.
 But this is only about Rybka 1.0.beta. I am sure that similar work
 concerning latest Rybka versions is practically impossible. They
 contains much more code, so to understand the algorithms it will take
 a few years of heavy work. I am amazed how you was able to write so
 much in a short period. ?!!!
 
 2) I always worked alone. There was no team. Even there were no people
 to discuss my ideas with somebody.
 
 3) I researched the code of another chess programs. But it was long
 time ago (7 years or so). These were old by today measuring versions
 of Hiarcs and Fritz. Fritz is most sophisticated. I saw that it was
 written on assembly language, and some tricks were used that were
 hardly to transform to high-level language (sometimes impossibly).
 
 4) I am not going to clone Rybka or any other chess program in future.
 It is not interesting to me. I have a lot of my own ideas that I would
 like to implement. The trial to write the program on Rybka basis was
 only an experiment and may be a bad joke. I think it was a silly action.
 
 5) I am going to develop my own original ideas in future. But I
 am not going to release any commercial product. I am not going to
 compete with you or other chess programmers. It is just interesting to
 me to solve difficult tasks and to have pleasure from this exploration
 process.
 
 6) I didn't give to anybody source code of latest Strelka version. But
 this code doesn't differ much from the first version. Changes in
 algorithm are minimal. So I can say that source code of first Strelka
 have Sergey Markov, Dan Corbit and Bryan Hoffmann. I would like to ask
 your advice can I have moral right (first of all before you) to present
 Strelka source code to a few more programmers? If you say that it is
 wrong, I will follow your advice. No need to describe reasons for this.
 Just agree or no.
 
 Best regards, Jury
Reply of Vas:

Code: Select all

Hi Yury,

thanks very much for your interesting comments.

In my view, it would be good if you continued working and released an
engine with all components in your own hand. Studying Rybka and using what
you have learned is perfectly normal. Selling your engine is also normal -
you can find a distributor to handle all details and most users will use
it for free anyway  

If you prefer to work only on selected aspects, I can consider to give you
public permission to use selected Rybka 1.0 components such as some of my
eval tables. Please ask me and I will think about it.

I would discourage any of the following:

1) Working in secret with no public releases.
2) Releasing partly-cloned engine without original author permission.
3) Releasing current source code.

Of course, these issues are all your business. I can only give my personal
opinion.

Anyway, good luck. If there are any things in Rybka which you found
interesting, please don't hesitate to ask me about them.

Best regards,
Vas
I went through the Rybka code forwards and backwards and took many things.

Albert Silver
Posts: 2746
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Albert Silver » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:50 pm

Osipov Jury wrote:My letter to Vas
One of them you mean.

Here is another excerpt:

> > Although at summer you didn t limit me in Strelka developing and even
> > having it commercial (the limit was only no more do decode in secret
> > Rybka
> > executables and not to distribute source code) I would like to ask
> > once more clearly for your agree for the right for commercial
> > distribution of Strelka


It would seem to me that by asking multiple times for his permission to commercialize Strelka, that you clearly felt he had this authority. I never heard mention that you asked Fabien permission, or some other author.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

Osipov Jury
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:07 pm
Location: Russia

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Osipov Jury » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:15 pm

Albert Silver wrote: It would seem to me that by asking multiple times for his permission to commercialize Strelka, that you clearly felt he had this authority.
I asked permission of Vasik only once. This was done for two reasons:
1. Vasik promised to make a mobile version of Rybka.
2. Strelka was partly based on Rybka.
Albert Silver wrote: I never heard mention that you asked Fabien permission, or some other author.
Yes, earlier I did not know what to use the source code needed to ask permission from the author. I thought that if the original texts are published, it is done in order to use them. My sources I publish without any restrictions. Maybe it's just naive, but I feel so comfortable.
I went through the Rybka code forwards and backwards and took many things.

Albert Silver
Posts: 2746
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Albert Silver » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:00 am

Osipov Jury wrote:
Albert Silver wrote: It would seem to me that by asking multiple times for his permission to commercialize Strelka, that you clearly felt he had this authority.
I asked permission of Vasik only once.
Hmm....

"...I would like to ask once more..."
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

Ryan Benitez
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Ryan Benitez » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:18 am

Albert Silver wrote:
Osipov Jury wrote:
Albert Silver wrote: It would seem to me that by asking multiple times for his permission to commercialize Strelka, that you clearly felt he had this authority.
I asked permission of Vasik only once.
Hmm....

"...I would like to ask once more..."


In CCC math 1 + 1 = 1;

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Don » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:33 am

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
IWB wrote: Btw: I wrote it already here, GPL is dead, at least for comp chess, as it is impossible to finaly prove something.
Oh, it's certainly possible to prove something. It's just that almost noone seems to want to go to court over it.
Yes, the only ones that might be motivated to do this is people making income from chess but we are talking about open source programs. If I produced an open source program of some kind and someone cloned it, then why would I want to hire a lawyer to "protect" my interests? I HAVE no financial interests to protect.

I suppose you could argue that you were planning to market the program and try to sue for future income, but this would be dishonest. Someone with the mentality/generosity to release software for free is not likely to be litigation happy as they are not in it for the money anyway.

That leaves suing for the principle of it - to right a wrong. Not many people are going to do that when it requires them to reach into their own pockets to hire lawyers for a case that they may or may not win based on the whims of the court and skill of the lawyers.

The only one who might have been motivated enough to sue was Vas as I see it because it was clearly a threat to his financial interests and he did cried foul. But he didn't sue. It's not right to impute motives to this but the fact that he didn't sure stirred up a lot of controversy. Personally I don't weigh this factor very heavily because I probably would not sue in the same situation even if my conscience was clear. But I don't know the facts either, how much did Vas earn from sales of Rybka, how much did he estimate he lost from the clones, what would be the cost of a lawsuit and what are the odds of winning in court and what would you get if you did win? (answer: hardly anything.) In his position it seems like suing would be a stupid decision financially even if he was in the right, and that appears to be far from clear.

Don

Osipov Jury
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:07 pm
Location: Russia

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Osipov Jury » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:23 am

Albert Silver wrote:
Osipov Jury wrote:
Albert Silver wrote: It would seem to me that by asking multiple times for his permission to commercialize Strelka, that you clearly felt he had this authority.
I asked permission of Vasik only once.
Hmm....

"...I would like to ask once more..."
Vas previously not objected to the commercialization of Strelka:

"Selling your engine is also normal -
you can find a distributor to handle all details and most users will use
it for free anyway"

But I and Victor decided to once again clarify his opinion:

"Although at summer you didn t limit me in Strelka developing and even
having it commercial (the limit was only no more do decode in secret Rybka
executables and not to distribute source code) I would like to ask
once more clearly for your agree for the right for commercial
distribution of Strelka with Convekta GUI. I don t think it can be any
competition with Rybka. Rybka developing goes forward much faster. As
Victor said this even will help to polish Mobile GUIs that will be
used with Rybka then."
I went through the Rybka code forwards and backwards and took many things.

Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Gian-Carlo Pascutto » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:08 am

Yes, the only ones that might be motivated to do this is people making income from chess but we are talking about open source programs. If I produced an open source program of some kind and someone cloned it, then why would I want to hire a lawyer to "protect" my interests? I HAVE no financial interests to protect.
You could have tried to commit an obvious GPL violation on something like Qt (before Nokia bought it) or MySQL, and see how quickly the lawyers were knocking on your door. Clearly, some peope do believe, and rightly so, that free software does not exclude financial interests.
Don wrote: Not many people are going to do that when it requires them to reach into their own pockets to hire lawyers for a case that they may or may not win based on the whims of the court and skill of the lawyers.
For Free Software alternative routes are available. There are many for-profit companies that build their business on Free Software, and some of them are, together with non-profits, funding resources that make it possible to enforce Free Software licenses for people without deep pockets. This is necessary, because if Free Software licenses are toothless, there will be little reason to use them, and the for-profit business dies too.
The only one who might have been motivated enough to sue was Vas[...]In his position it seems like suing would be a stupid decision financially even if he was in the right, and that appears to be far from clear.
I agree that attempting legal action against Ippolit itself was essentially hopeless and that from the lack thereof one couldn't infer anything about the legal status of Rybka or the derivatives.

User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9635
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:43 am

Osipov Jury wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:Are you claiming that you did not suggest Strelka be packaged with Rybka as a variant/flavor of it? That was the reason I was even brought in. As a variant of his program, his permission was required, and frankly, the idea wasn't a happy one since it wasn't just a variant, it was a variant in which the source code was widespread. This was actually the Pandora's Box you really opened. Clones and derivatives had existed before, but this was the first time someone decided to spam the source code everywhere ALSO.
Convekta, i.e. Viktor Zakharov, made me an offer to release the Strelka for mobile systems. Convekta created a graphical interface, but the engine was missing. Vas has promised to make a mobile version of the Rybka, but did not. Convekta turned to me and several other programmers to use their engines. Not together with Rybka or as a variant of Rybka, but instead of it.
I accepted this offer and sent the source code for porting.
But then Vas inexplicably vetoed the project. And that surprised not only me, but Viktor too.
And then people get mad when I say that Vasik is a manipulater & crook.....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

Post by Don » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:29 pm

Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Yes, the only ones that might be motivated to do this is people making income from chess but we are talking about open source programs. If I produced an open source program of some kind and someone cloned it, then why would I want to hire a lawyer to "protect" my interests? I HAVE no financial interests to protect.
You could have tried to commit an obvious GPL violation on something like Qt (before Nokia bought it) or MySQL, and see how quickly the lawyers were knocking on your door. Clearly, some peope do believe, and rightly so, that free software does not exclude financial interests.
Don wrote: Not many people are going to do that when it requires them to reach into their own pockets to hire lawyers for a case that they may or may not win based on the whims of the court and skill of the lawyers.
For Free Software alternative routes are available. There are many for-profit companies that build their business on Free Software, and some of them are, together with non-profits, funding resources that make it possible to enforce Free Software licenses for people without deep pockets. This is necessary, because if Free Software licenses are toothless, there will be little reason to use them, and the for-profit business dies too.
The only one who might have been motivated enough to sue was Vas[...]In his position it seems like suing would be a stupid decision financially even if he was in the right, and that appears to be far from clear.
I agree that attempting legal action against Ippolit itself was essentially hopeless and that from the lack thereof one couldn't infer anything about the legal status of Rybka or the derivatives.
I'm not so sure action against Ippolit is hopeless, because there is no question it is a "derivative" Even BB has clearly shown this. The question might be whether it's illegal to produce a close derivative of a commercial program which itself is illegal. So in my opinion it's easy to make the case that it's a derivate of Rybka 3, but I don't know if that is enough.

Here is an interesting question: Robbo is GPL licensed, which means it's illegal to create a derivative work without also carrying the same licence. So is anything that is not open source but based on Robbo illegal? This is almost like dominoes.

Post Reply