I'm in doubt if RobboLito is a clone

[bob]

Do you realize how difficult it is to remove comments?

Given that C doesn't allow nesting them, I'd say it's trivial? Did I miss anything?

Isn't there an emacs macro to do that?

My point:

Don't know. Don't care. Concept makes no sense whatsoever, in the first place.

[bob]

There's a difference between meaning and final word. I got the impression all experts have expressed their meaning up to now since none of them knows Rybka intimately enough for a final word. And a voting based on meanings will not be accepted by the sceptics. So I believe not much would be won with this committee unless it explains thoroughly how it came to its conclusion.

Raimund, I totally agree with you. My intention is that committee members disassemble/decompile Rybka 3 and make their vote based on comparison of the two C 'sources'.

Hehe....

I'm saying nothing. I'll let some programmer tell you why what you are saying is nonsense.

Sorry Gabor, but that is very very funny. Disassemble it right? Compare the two C sources....right?

Hehe



Christopher

This is one of the many _serious_ problems we have here. The technical expertise of members is a wildly variable thing. If they don't see the problem with this issue now, then they will not be able to see the problem, ever. Plain "users" or plain "programmers" are just not going to "get" this.

[Zach Wegner]

I don't speculate. Zach has based a definitive conclusion based on the inconclusive. Even if he were right.......

What goes around comes around...

That does not make it right, to say the above statement. If he really feels that way, the victory of revenge is most often only piric.

Christopher

It's certainly not inconclusive to me. There is no question what took place to me, and several other people.

Vas has made what I would guess is quite a bit of money dishonestly by stealing from open source. Allowing open source to benefit from what he has done is only fair IMO. I suppose two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong doesn't either.

I think this whole situation would be a bit different if the atmosphere in the community were different. Nobody, minus a very select few, listened to the concerns that were made about Rybka 1. I don't want Vas to quit, I just want everyone to acknowledge what actually happened, Vas included.

Vas has not made any money by Rybka 1.0, it was free.

The people who is gonna benefit most are the other commersial program makers. They will be able to close the gap and sell more of their programs.

2 and 3 were _not_ free. Do you believe one rewrites every line from scratch for the next version? I don't. There is still code in Crafty (significant pieces in fact) dating back to version 1.0.

Actually, Rybka became commercial one day after Rybka 1.0 beta was released. Not too much time to do a complete rewrite.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

There's a difference between meaning and final word. I got the impression all experts have expressed their meaning up to now since none of them knows Rybka intimately enough for a final word. And a voting based on meanings will not be accepted by the sceptics. So I believe not much would be won with this committee unless it explains thoroughly how it came to its conclusion.

Raimund, I totally agree with you. My intention is that committee members disassemble/decompile Rybka 3 and make their vote based on comparison of the two C 'sources'.

Hehe....

I'm saying nothing. I'll let some programmer tell you why what you are saying is nonsense.

Sorry Gabor, but that is very very funny. Disassemble it right? Compare the two C sources....right?

Hehe



Christopher

Hehe. You said it's funny. It is not going to happen. So it is not going to happen that you'll have evidence. Q.E.D.

Gabor,don't get offended,but Christopher is absolutely right and he got some laugh,nothing wrong with that....

The idea of the expert's committee was yours and it's a damn good idea but you should have read carefuly what I wrote earlier in this thread....
The idea is these experts to get infragments or let us call them fingerprints from Rybka's source code with the assistance of Vasik Rajlich giving them detailed explanations what to search for and what to compare so that we get the proof we need....
Unfortunately,this will happen when NASA starts to employ urangotans as chief programmers and developers for it's spacships....
Dr.D

[bob]

Although back then I was suspicious that Vas broke the GPL or looked that way never reached a Final Verdict and even if he did breach the GPL I wouldn't go as far to say he's dishonest. Crooks are dishonest and the people behind Ippolit are just that.

The damage it seems has already been done.

The problem is that changing your code to not break the GPL is easy if one is willing to spend the time. The ideas in Fruit are not copyrighted, just the implementation.

So all that needs to be done is take code, change the implementation, but keep the same logic in your commercial code. This is not really violating GPL, though ethically there is a gray area. Zach is probably referring to this gray area in Rybka 1's implementation, which is a fair point.

This obviously does not condone the illegal release of reverse engineered code to the public (aka Ippolit style). The potential ethical (but not illegal) transgression is minor compared to the highly illegal reverse engineering of closed source code.

Here's a key point. There are definitely pieces of fruit in rybka 1. Which means it is quite likely they remain in 2 and 3. Legally the source for all 3 must be released under the GPL as well, since the thing has _already_ been sold. Which means that one could make the argument that if IPPOLIT is a reverse-engineered source for R3, it makes everything nice and legal in a twisted way.

This is a problem that should never have happened in the first place. But the genie was let out of the bottle a few years ago, and again now. There's more than enough wrongdoing here to go around...

Amen to that!

We have to erect a dam before computer chess as we know it is washed away.

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Although back then I was suspicious that Vas broke the GPL or looked that way never reached a Final Verdict and even if he did breach the GPL I wouldn't go as far to say he's dishonest. Crooks are dishonest and the people behind Ippolit are just that.

The damage it seems has already been done.

The problem is that changing your code to not break the GPL is easy if one is willing to spend the time. The ideas in Fruit are not copyrighted, just the implementation.

So all that needs to be done is take code, change the implementation, but keep the same logic in your commercial code. This is not really violating GPL, though ethically there is a gray area. Zach is probably referring to this gray area in Rybka 1's implementation, which is a fair point.

This obviously does not condone the illegal release of reverse engineered code to the public (aka Ippolit style). The potential ethical (but not illegal) transgression is minor compared to the highly illegal reverse engineering of closed source code.

Here's a key point. There are definitely pieces of fruit in rybka 1. Which means it is quite likely they remain in 2 and 3. Legally the source for all 3 must be released under the GPL as well, since the thing has _already_ been sold. Which means that one could make the argument that if IPPOLIT is a reverse-engineered source for R3, it makes everything nice and legal in a twisted way.

This is a problem that should never have happened in the first place. But the genie was let out of the bottle a few years ago, and again now. There's more than enough wrongdoing here to go around...

Amen to that!

We have to erect a dam before computer chess as we know it is washed away.

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

I can add that the doninancy of Rybka is over....I predicted this to happen in the summer of 2010,but it's already happening....
The Happening regards,
Dr.D

[slobo]

I don't speculate. Zach has based a definitive conclusion based on the inconclusive. Even if he were right.......

What goes around comes around...

That does not make it right, to say the above statement. If he really feels that way, the victory of revenge is most often only piric.

Christopher

It's certainly not inconclusive to me. There is no question what took place to me, and several other people.

Vas has made what I would guess is quite a bit of money dishonestly by stealing from open source. Allowing open source to benefit from what he has done is only fair IMO. I suppose two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong doesn't either.

I think this whole situation would be a bit different if the atmosphere in the community were different. Nobody, minus a very select few, listened to the concerns that were made about Rybka 1. I don't want Vas to quit, I just want everyone to acknowledge what actually happened, Vas included.

Vas has not made any money by Rybka 1.0, it was free.

The people who is gonna benefit most are the other commersial program makers. They will be able to close the gap and sell more of their programs.

2 and 3 were _not_ free. Do you believe one rewrites every line from scratch for the next version? I don't. There is still code in Crafty (significant pieces in fact) dating back to version 1.0.

Actually, Rybka became commercial one day after Rybka 1.0 beta was released. Not too much time to do a complete rewrite.

It´s really getting funny!

[Christopher Conkie]

There's a difference between meaning and final word. I got the impression all experts have expressed their meaning up to now since none of them knows Rybka intimately enough for a final word. And a voting based on meanings will not be accepted by the sceptics. So I believe not much would be won with this committee unless it explains thoroughly how it came to its conclusion.

Raimund, I totally agree with you. My intention is that committee members disassemble/decompile Rybka 3 and make their vote based on comparison of the two C 'sources'.

Hehe....

I'm saying nothing. I'll let some programmer tell you why what you are saying is nonsense.

Sorry Gabor, but that is very very funny. Disassemble it right? Compare the two C sources....right?

Hehe



Christopher

Hehe. You said it's funny. It is not going to happen. So it is not going to happen that you'll have evidence. Q.E.D.

It's not going to happen. I'll try not to laugh in future.

disassemble/decompile Rybka 3 and make their vote based on comparison of the two C 'sources

You are right. It's not going to happen at all.



Christopher

[slobo]

Although back then I was suspicious that Vas broke the GPL or looked that way never reached a Final Verdict and even if he did breach the GPL I wouldn't go as far to say he's dishonest. Crooks are dishonest and the people behind Ippolit are just that.

The damage it seems has already been done.

The problem is that changing your code to not break the GPL is easy if one is willing to spend the time. The ideas in Fruit are not copyrighted, just the implementation.

So all that needs to be done is take code, change the implementation, but keep the same logic in your commercial code. This is not really violating GPL, though ethically there is a gray area. Zach is probably referring to this gray area in Rybka 1's implementation, which is a fair point.

This obviously does not condone the illegal release of reverse engineered code to the public (aka Ippolit style). The potential ethical (but not illegal) transgression is minor compared to the highly illegal reverse engineering of closed source code.

Here's a key point. There are definitely pieces of fruit in rybka 1. Which means it is quite likely they remain in 2 and 3. Legally the source for all 3 must be released under the GPL as well, since the thing has _already_ been sold. Which means that one could make the argument that if IPPOLIT is a reverse-engineered source for R3, it makes everything nice and legal in a twisted way.

This is a problem that should never have happened in the first place. But the genie was let out of the bottle a few years ago, and again now. There's more than enough wrongdoing here to go around...

Amen to that!

We have to erect a dam before computer chess as we know it is washed away.

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

The "Fosbury flop"

Excellent comarison.

[Osipov Jury]

And how do you propose to compare the source of Ippolit with source code of Rybka.
Christopher

I can help. I have the sources of Rybka 3, which displays the same results as Rybka (nodes, PV, scores).