Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[GenoM]

You've certainly not kept quiet about what you believe to be the case, but how much noise do yourself and others intend to make and until what point? That was what I was trying to get at.

Regards, Graham.

Until we get some answer. Some people have been asking the same question almost 3 years but without any success in getting an answer.

[Graham Banks]

Hyatt, Wegner, Schmidt, Donninger, Cozzie, Theron, Korshunov and other russian programmers are on the same side. Mehrmann and Benitez have had some suspicions too. Who's on the other, Graham? From these 'more knowledgeable people than yourself' people?
Are you expecting God come down and said the final truth?

I haven't seen Ryan say anything. Have you spoken to him?
Because he is the one who is probably closest to Fabien, his opinion would be interesting.

Regards, Graham.

[Graham Banks]

You've certainly not kept quiet about what you believe to be the case, but how much noise do yourself and others intend to make and until what point? That was what I was trying to get at.

Regards, Graham.

Until we get some answer. Some people have been asking the same question almost 3 years but without any success in getting an answer.

Hi Geno,

why should this time be any different though?

Regards, Graham.

[GenoM]

Sorry, I'm wrong. Put Diepeveen instead of Benitez.
My questions remain.

[geots]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.

That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.

Graham,

How do you propose moderation deals with this different to the way it is doing?

You were noderator last time, please inform us which posts you would have deleted out of this thread .......

Boy - that's the million dollar question!
The problem with CCC is that there's this thing called the charter which unfortunately severely inhibits this sort of discussion.

I would have thought that questioning the legality of an engine falls under the guise of a legally questionable post.

Also, by questioning the legality of an engine in such a manner, one is attacking the honesty and integrity of the engine author, so you're on the fringe with regards to the charter that prohibits personal or libellous attacks.

Unfortunately, if you enforce the charter, such discussions would therefore not be allowed. I'm not saying whether that's a good or bad thing, but that's the fact of the matter.

Hope that explains the predicament that faces the moderators in such situations.

The reason I didn't stand again was so that I no longer had to make such decisions, so I have to leave that to the current team.
Be warned though that you'll cop abuse no matter what you do, although I know that you're already aware of this.

Cheers, Graham.

PS - I think that your post on clones at the top of the page makes the position of the moderators clear.

Questionning the legality of an engine has been done several times in the recent past of CCC. How many times has it happened? 10 times? More?

I have never seen anybody standing up and saying it was against the charter.

Thanks to the discussions, a number of clones or illegal derived works have been discovered.

CCC is the place for these discussions to happen. The moderators' job is to let them happen, but under reasonable control.

// Christophe

Tres drole Christophe

What is exactly "under reasonable control"?

I was under the impression mods were trying to "reasonably control" the discussion, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this is not actually a moderatable discussion.

One man's "reasonable control" is another's "fascist dicatorship" and yet another's "anarchic disorder". When the petty gripes of those who feel their toes have been stepped on overspill into my private domain with threats pouring into my private email address (54 threatening and demanding and complaining emails from one person for example), I would say that moderation of the forums itself is under attack.

Chris W., even tho we have commercial programmers who are making money and possibly a living from computer chess- it still remains for most of us a hobby, and is supposed to be fun. Anyone sending you threatening emails over this Rybka issue is definitely operating a few bricks shy of a full load.

Best and Good Luck with this Mess,

[Terry McCracken]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.

That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.

Graham,

How do you propose moderation deals with this different to the way it is doing?

You were noderator last time, please inform us which posts you would have deleted out of this thread .......

Boy - that's the million dollar question!
The problem with CCC is that there's this thing called the charter which unfortunately severely inhibits this sort of discussion.

I would have thought that questioning the legality of an engine falls under the guise of a legally questionable post.

Also, by questioning the legality of an engine in such a manner, one is attacking the honesty and integrity of the engine author, so you're on the fringe with regards to the charter that prohibits personal or libellous attacks.

Unfortunately, if you enforce the charter, such discussions would therefore not be allowed. I'm not saying whether that's a good or bad thing, but that's the fact of the matter.

Hope that explains the predicament that faces the moderators in such situations.

The reason I didn't stand again was so that I no longer had to make such decisions, so I have to leave that to the current team.
Be warned though that you'll cop abuse no matter what you do, although I know that you're already aware of this.

Cheers, Graham.

PS - I think that your post on clones at the top of the page makes the position of the moderators clear.

Questionning the legality of an engine has been done several times in the recent past of CCC. How many times has it happened? 10 times? More?

I have never seen anybody standing up and saying it was against the charter.

Thanks to the discussions, a number of clones or illegal derived works have been discovered.

CCC is the place for these discussions to happen. The moderators' job is to let them happen, but under reasonable control.

// Christophe

Tres drole Christophe

What is exactly "under reasonable control"?

I was under the impression mods were trying to "reasonably control" the discussion, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this is not actually a moderatable discussion.

One man's "reasonable control" is another's "fascist dicatorship" and yet another's "anarchic disorder". When the petty gripes of those who feel their toes have been stepped on overspill into my private domain with threats pouring into my private email address (54 threatening and demanding and complaining emails from one person for example), I would say that moderation of the forums itself is under attack.

Chris W., even tho we have commercial programmers who are making money and possibly a living from computer chess- it still remains for most of us a hobby, and is supposed to be fun. Anyone sending you threatening emails over this Rybka issue is definitely operating a few bricks shy of a full load.

Best and Good Luck with this Mess,

No one is. It's an unrelated matter altogether.

[geots]

Uri,

who are you defending ? Vasik or yourself ?

Tony

Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?

Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.

That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.

Graham,

How do you propose moderation deals with this different to the way it is doing?

You were noderator last time, please inform us which posts you would have deleted out of this thread .......

Boy - that's the million dollar question!
The problem with CCC is that there's this thing called the charter which unfortunately severely inhibits this sort of discussion.

I would have thought that questioning the legality of an engine falls under the guise of a legally questionable post.

Also, by questioning the legality of an engine in such a manner, one is attacking the honesty and integrity of the engine author, so you're on the fringe with regards to the charter that prohibits personal or libellous attacks.

Unfortunately, if you enforce the charter, such discussions would therefore not be allowed. I'm not saying whether that's a good or bad thing, but that's the fact of the matter.

Hope that explains the predicament that faces the moderators in such situations.

The reason I didn't stand again was so that I no longer had to make such decisions, so I have to leave that to the current team.
Be warned though that you'll cop abuse no matter what you do, although I know that you're already aware of this.

Cheers, Graham.

PS - I think that your post on clones at the top of the page makes the position of the moderators clear.

Questionning the legality of an engine has been done several times in the recent past of CCC. How many times has it happened? 10 times? More?

I have never seen anybody standing up and saying it was against the charter.

Thanks to the discussions, a number of clones or illegal derived works have been discovered.

CCC is the place for these discussions to happen. The moderators' job is to let them happen, but under reasonable control.

// Christophe

Tres drole Christophe

What is exactly "under reasonable control"?

I was under the impression mods were trying to "reasonably control" the discussion, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion this is not actually a moderatable discussion.

One man's "reasonable control" is another's "fascist dicatorship" and yet another's "anarchic disorder". When the petty gripes of those who feel their toes have been stepped on overspill into my private domain with threats pouring into my private email address (54 threatening and demanding and complaining emails from one person for example), I would say that moderation of the forums itself is under attack.

Chris W., even tho we have commercial programmers who are making money and possibly a living from computer chess- it still remains for most of us a hobby, and is supposed to be fun. Anyone sending you threatening emails over this Rybka issue is definitely operating a few bricks shy of a full load.

Best and Good Luck with this Mess,

No one is. It's an unrelated matter altogether.

Thank you for your help, Terry.

Best,

[Uri Blass]

What I would be interested in is what those like yourself, Bob and Zach are therefore trying to achieve. What exactly is it that you want as the end outcome?

Regards, Graham.

Fair play. So that cheating does not become the forced entry point of chess programming at the top level.



// Christophe

Okay. You guys basically believe that Vas has "cheated".

Nobody is allowed to take open source GPL'ed code, make this code "his own", and use it in a commercial closed source program.

I'm not allowed to do it. You are not.

If someone does it, I say it's a violation of the licence intended by the original author, I say it's unfair to those who have respected this licence, and don't expect me to keep quiet about it.

Either the game is fair and the rules are respected, or the field is turned into a mess.

Think about it: what's the point in a rating list if the rules are not respected? Find out who is the biggest shark? If there are no rules I can think about a couple of ways to become number one that you are probably not going to like.



// Christophe

It is clear that there are rules but based on my understanding the rules are that only if Fabien complains against Vas you can do something against Vas and it did not happen(I do not know what happens if the programmer of the original program is dead and if another person can complain).

I think that if you take Fruit2.1 and make significant improvements and convince Fabien to let you sell the program(when Fabien get part of the money) then it is clearly fair.

Uri

[Torstein]

If I understand this thread correctly, large part of Rybka 1 is based on the program Fruit 2.1, and make Rybka 1 fall under GPL lisence!?

Lets just for arguments sake say that it is true.
What does this implie?
That Vas has to publish the source code of R1?
Do it mean anything for later Rybkas?

Or is this simply a case of programmers envy? (He is so much better than us, lets get at him and make him reveal his secrets!)

[Dirt]

It is clear that there are rules but based on my understanding the rules are that only if Fabien complains against Vas you can do something against Vas and it did not happen(I do not know what happens if the programmer of the original program is dead and if another person can complain).

The code would become part of the estate, and it would be up to the heirs to enforce the copyright.

I think that if you take Fruit2.1 and make significant improvements and convince Fabien to let you sell the program(when Fabien get part of the money) then it is clearly fair.

I think that would be fair, but perhaps some wouldn't. If it was done right it would at least be legal.