Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Enir]

Hi Chris,

[snip]

Fabien says he has no problem.

Where did Fabien say it? This is of key importance in the whole issue.

Enrique

It's a bit convoluted, but the argument of the "Rybka 1.0 beta might be a clone camp" goes like this ...

Strelka is a reproduction of Rybka 1.0 beta.
Strelka resembles Fruit at a programming level
Therefore Rybka 1.0 resembles Fruit.

The "Rybka 1.0 beta protection society" argues:
Fabian has no worries with Strelka.
If other side wants to argue Strelka = Fruit
then Fabian by extension also has no problems with Rybka.


Bob wrote:
Didn't Vas clearly post "Strelka is a reproduction of Rybka 1.0 and I am claiming it as my own code now"??? I saw that specific comment (probably not those exact words, but semantically _identical_ posted by him when the Strelka / clone issue first broke.

Dan Corbit wrote:
This is what Fabian said about Strelka:
"No worries as far as I am concerned.
Ideas are not a legal property.
The code was rewritten so it's OK with me.
Tournament organisers might think differently.
I cannot say a definite yes or no ..."

Some programmers found code similarities between Strelka and Fruit; Vasik said that Strelka was R1 beta; Fabien told Corbit that he didn’t mind about Strelka. When was all that?

I’m asking because I would like to know why these accusations take place now and not in the old times of Rybka 1 beta. And whether they are related to other accusations here last week about Rybka giving R2 for free and not showing the true node count. I’m not saying it’s a campaign, but it might very well look like it, with these three simultaneous accusations against Rybka just before China 2008 and immediately after the huge lead of Rybka 3.

By the way, when Vasik said that Strelka was R1 beta, was he referring to the whole program or to parts of it? If to parts of it, the whole accusing syllogism (part of Str = Fr, part of Ry = Str, therefore Ry = Fr) is false, because Strelka could have copied parts of Rybka code different than Fruit. Possible? I'm asking you as programmer. I'm lay. :)

As for your "Tournament organizers might think differently", Rybka 3.x will play in China, not R1 beta, so I don’t see on which grounds the organizers could object.

Enrique

[GenoM]

I’m asking because I would like to know why these accusations take place now and not in the old times of Rybka 1 beta.

Simply because there was no answer to them at all.
In the old times of Rybka beta there was the same suspicions for some other programmers but to accuse the strongest engine is not an easy task. You have to got balls, you know, because everybody rises up against you and call your motives in question. So nobody wants to get on fire about such hardly provable matter. But the tension of these many unanswered questions remained.
I think, bringing China 2008 in this case is irrelevant. Rybka was and still is undisputed #1 in the chess engine field.

[edit]
I can understand very well the anger of other programmers: someone is changing the rules of the game by its own, without asking anyone in this field.

[TSP]

I agree Uri.

Since Fabian is the only one with legal standing, and HE has stated essentially that he doesn't have a problem with what Vas did with the original Rybka, then as Grahm pointed out, what is the real point of all of this hullabaloo ?

I respect Bob and loved Gambit Tiger, using it for several years, playing on ICC as Heatstroke, but all these accusations and continued innuendo's isn't going to change anything.

My two cents......

[GenoM]

Since Fabian is the only one with legal standing, and HE has stated essentially that he doesn't have a problem with what Vas did with the original Rybka, then as Grahm pointed out, what is the real point of all of this hullabaloo ?

This is simply not correct. Fabien didn't made any statement about Rybka. His statement was about Strelka.
Still his silence about Rybka can be interpreted as an approval and connivance with the current situation.

[tiger]

I agree Uri.

Since Fabian is the only one with legal standing, and HE has stated essentially that he doesn't have a problem with what Vas did with the original Rybka, then as Grahm pointed out, what is the real point of all of this hullabaloo ?

I respect Bob and loved Gambit Tiger, using it for several years, playing on ICC as Heatstroke, but all these accusations and continued innuendo's isn't going to change anything.

My two cents......

Please stay tuned.



// Christophe

[Enir]

(...) to accuse the strongest engine is not an easy task. You have to got balls,

You have to have proof.

I can understand very well the anger of other programmers: someone is changing the rules of the game by its own, without asking anyone in this field.

Is there proof that rules were changed by Vas? From http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/188091.htm
"... some people seem to argue like Strelka is 100% Rybka. To the contrary, we need to keep in mind that Strelka is just a strange mix of components which the cloner has reverse engineered, or simply copied, from Rybka, from Fruit, and I don't know from whatever else. These people are acting completely unscrupulous.

In other words, you cannot simply draw conclusions about Rybka from Strelka.

M.Scheidl"


Drawing conclusions about Rybka from Strelka is all I see as "proof".

Enrique

[Tony Thomas]

Drawing conclusions about Rybka from Strelka is all I see as "proof".

Enrique

May be you should read the first post from Zach, it compares reverse engineered code of Rybka with code from Fruit 2.1. I think you are misinformed.

[kranium]

I’m asking because I would like to know why these accusations take place now and not in the old times of Rybka 1 beta. And whether they are related to other accusations here last week about Rybka giving R2 for free and not showing the true node count. I’m not saying it’s a campaign, but it might very well look like it, with these three simultaneous accusations against Rybka just before China 2008 and immediately after the huge lead of Rybka 3.
Enrique

Hi Enrique,
Strelka was released in January of this year. Vas's statements came a bit later, ...concrete evidence has been presented just recently. why these events didn't happen in 2005, i don't think anyone can answer.

PS - the node count 'accusations' (i prefer questions) have been around for a long long time.

Norm

[bnemias]

Someone, GB I think, asked what we want to see happen. (Forgive me for not tracking down the actual post in this huge thread.) Also, it's been pointed out that the GPL only gives the right to sue to the original licensing party. I didn't know that, but it seems quite true. Ignoring for the moment, the possibility that we are dealing with violations on toga instead of fruit (which would open up that right to sue to several people), here's what I'd like to see happen:

If Fabian isn't going to deal with GPL violations (whatever his reason), then perhaps he can transfer the license to something more in line with commercial interests. In other words, allow others to use the code as a base for commercial products without infringing on a license. This simply levels the playing field.

Alternatively, transfer the license to someone who will deal with GPL violations, such as the FSF.

[Bill Rogers]

If you gentlemen, and I use the word loosely, don't start making accusazations about what you think Vas has done and asserting that it is true, you may find yourselves forever blocked from this site and many others. The moderators are responsible for what is allowed to be posted here and beyond that the owner of the site Your Move Chess & Games.
I am sure that a slander suit would put a lot of the wrong kind of pressure on everyone here. You can't not come back with 'he said, he proved bull stuff' because that does not take you off the hook for pressing the matter.
As you may have notice the original posters who may have thought Vas ccopied from someone else no longer post here. Ever wonder why?
Bill