Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Terry McCracken]

I was replying to a post regarding Rybka 3, not the non commercial R1 beta.

Enrique

i was under the impression that this thread was about 1.0, i wasn't aware the conversation shifted to 3.0.

To 3.0, even to Bach and Vivaldi.

Enrique

The ratio of noise to content in this thread is the problem. All good information/content could be compressed to a page!

Terry

P.S. I've gone through all 45 pages or 450 posts as we move to page 46...sigh...

Page 46!

[Graham Banks]

i was under the impression that this thread was about 1.0, i wasn't aware the conversation shifted to 3.0.

The implications are being made.

[Graham Banks]

The ratio of noise to content in this thread is the problem. All good information/content could be compressed to a page!

Terry

P.S. I've gone through all 45 pages or 450 posts as we move to page 46...sigh...

Page 46!

It's called discussion Terry. That's what members usually seem to want.

[bob]

It is well known fact. That is why those who knew it all the time are not worshipping Vas or rybka for that matter. However if you speak out loud you get silenced by the knights guarding the holy grail...

Cheers

"You must be motivated by jealousy or envy". That's the only counter argument. No wonder they are not silencing anybody with that.



// Christophe

You have to prove your case. The other side can remain silent in the meantime. In any case, how do they prove a negative? The onus is on you.

Proving they have no GPL code from Fruit (or any other program) is actually easy. But most likely not something they would want to do. If somebody accused me, I would just say "download the source from someone and compare with whatever you want...

[bob]

You have to prove your case. The other side can remain silent in the meantime. In any case, how do they prove a negative? The onus is on you.

actually this remaining silent on the part of team Rybka is proving to be quite an effective way to deal with this controversy
sooner or later the main questioners here will lose interest in talking just amongst themselves
Bob will Soon return to his teaching after the labour day weekend
Christopher i imagine will eventually stop posting the same evidence over and over..and eventually this issue could well just fade away

i cant recall the name of the GM that once quipped in a dead even game with equal chances..it is sometimes important to know how to do nothing .. but to do it well

seems team Rybka is doing just that here and now and doing it very well

Regards
Steve

It wasn't a GM, it was an IM. His name was David Levy.

[Terry McCracken]

The ratio of noise to content in this thread is the problem. All good information/content could be compressed to a page!

Terry

P.S. I've gone through all 45 pages or 450 posts as we move to page 46...sigh...

Page 46!

It's called discussion Terry. That's what members usually seem to want.

It's no more a discussion than an angry mob clashing with the police.

Pull the other one.

[Tony]

[snip]
No commercial company with half a brain will publish software claiming total rights over it if not true. That's the overpowering evidence one that R3 is clean. Chessbase won't licence it unless absolutely certain it's clean. That's overpowering evidence two. Say anything else and you play with fire. imo.

I think I have first hand experience on this and I know that you are wrong.

If you need examples, Verizon sued by BusyBox developers. Redhat v SCO, Sun v Microsoft. These occur all the time because major players push software that isn't "squeaky clean." So it's hard to use Chessbase's intelligence as proof of anything concerning Rybka 3.

Maybe. Reverse engineering Rybka 3 will prove whether or not it contains GPL code. Everything else is just speculative and damaging.

Enrique

No, not everything is speculative.
There's a mountain of evidence that strleka 2.0 has hundreds and hundreds of lines of code that are identical or equivilent to code found in fruit 2.1. (this comparison can be made even by a casual user...the two sets of source code are freely available). a detailed comparison was presented here:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php ... ht=strelka

There is also evidence that strelka 2.0 (both source code and binary) is identical to rybka 1.0 beta.

In addition Vas has confirmed that Strelka is indeed his.

? I think the conclusion is not difficult to ascertain...
rybka 1.0 beta is a derivative of fruit 2.1

i volunteer to stir the shit....

What if there's a completely innocent explanation?

Even if there was, it would not be credible anymore.

There are only 2 solutions for this kind of accusations. You either react immediately (damage controle) or you keep silent and hope it blows over.

There is no (credible) middleway.

Tony

[chrisw]

It is well known fact. That is why those who knew it all the time are not worshipping Vas or rybka for that matter. However if you speak out loud you get silenced by the knights guarding the holy grail...

Cheers

"You must be motivated by jealousy or envy". That's the only counter argument. No wonder they are not silencing anybody with that.



// Christophe

You have to prove your case. The other side can remain silent in the meantime. In any case, how do they prove a negative? The onus is on you.

Proving they have no GPL code from Fruit (or any other program) is actually easy. But most likely not something they would want to do. If somebody accused me, I would just say "download the source from someone and compare with whatever you want...

Sounds like witchhunting method. See if she floats. If she does, burn her for witchcraft, if she sinks, she drowns anyway.

See the source, if innocent, you get to see the source, if guilty you get to see the source. Commercial programmer loses either way, like the witch.

The onus of proof remains on the accusers. Period.

[chrisw]

[snip]
No commercial company with half a brain will publish software claiming total rights over it if not true. That's the overpowering evidence one that R3 is clean. Chessbase won't licence it unless absolutely certain it's clean. That's overpowering evidence two. Say anything else and you play with fire. imo.

I think I have first hand experience on this and I know that you are wrong.

If you need examples, Verizon sued by BusyBox developers. Redhat v SCO, Sun v Microsoft. These occur all the time because major players push software that isn't "squeaky clean." So it's hard to use Chessbase's intelligence as proof of anything concerning Rybka 3.

Maybe. Reverse engineering Rybka 3 will prove whether or not it contains GPL code. Everything else is just speculative and damaging.

Enrique

No, not everything is speculative.
There's a mountain of evidence that strleka 2.0 has hundreds and hundreds of lines of code that are identical or equivilent to code found in fruit 2.1. (this comparison can be made even by a casual user...the two sets of source code are freely available). a detailed comparison was presented here:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php ... ht=strelka

There is also evidence that strelka 2.0 (both source code and binary) is identical to rybka 1.0 beta.

In addition Vas has confirmed that Strelka is indeed his.

? I think the conclusion is not difficult to ascertain...
rybka 1.0 beta is a derivative of fruit 2.1

i volunteer to stir the shit....

What if there's a completely innocent explanation?

Even if there was, it would not be credible anymore.

There are only 2 solutions for this kind of accusations. You either react immediately (damage controle) or you keep silent and hope it blows over.

There is no (credible) middleway.

Tony

Deal done that you don't know about?

Team of programmers secretly working together on the project that you don't know about?

Key programmer working on the project who writes in his own style, that you don't know about?

Use your imagination, there's all manner of possibilities. Some perfectly benign. Before launching into condemnation.

[kranium]

It is well known fact. That is why those who knew it all the time are not worshipping Vas or rybka for that matter. However if you speak out loud you get silenced by the knights guarding the holy grail...

Cheers

"You must be motivated by jealousy or envy". That's the only counter argument. No wonder they are not silencing anybody with that.

// Christophe

You have to prove your case. The other side can remain silent in the meantime. In any case, how do they prove a negative? The onus is on you.

Proving they have no GPL code from Fruit (or any other program) is actually easy. But most likely not something they would want to do. If somebody accused me, I would just say "download the source from someone and compare with whatever you want...

Sounds like witchhunting method. See if she floats. If she does, burn her for witchcraft, if she sinks, she drowns anyway.

See the source, if innocent, you get to see the source, if guilty you get to see the source. Commercial programmer loses either way, like the witch.

The onus of proof remains on the accusers. Period.

i would expect and hope that the source wouldn't be made public for everyone to see, but simply presented to ... for ex: the FSF, or a expert for inspection.

almost every tournament has such a rule... i.e. if requested, the source code must be made available to the tournament director. i have no idea if this ever actually happens though.