bob wrote:
Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff).
How do you know? Up to now only versions up to 2.3.2a have been examined.
Because Vas stated that version 4 moved from rotated bitboards to magic multiply. How easy was that to answer???
Bob - I'd heard that a couple of members of the panel examined Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 and found them clean?
Graham, why do you think it would change a thing in this case?
After so many years of refactoring and changing the code it would be completely normal that eventually you won't easily find exact matches when comparing the code of the derivative with the original one. It doesn't mean necessarily the program is "clean", but that it may have changed so much that it would be virtually impossible to compare it with the original program. Take Glaurung 2.1 and Stockfish 2.1.1 for example. I'd bet if you RE both programs you won't find much similarities. But it doesn't change the fact Stockfish is derived from Glaurung, and the name of Tord must keep among the authors...
If you change program enough then it is clearly clean and it is possible to change fruit to every possible program simply by deleting everything and writing the code of the new program.
The main criticism on [a] is that the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict.
Ed,
This is something I want to challenge. We have heard this over and over again and I find it incredibly offensive. It's used as the primary explanation for why Rybka has been removed from ICGA tournaments, and yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.
There has been talk of slander and ruining the reputation of others, but this is the most incredible piece of nonsense I have heard in this affair. And in all the talk about "facts" and "getting proof" and so on, why is this not challenged? Do you have some facts here? Do you have statements from his "jealous competitors" that prove this was the clear motive? Perhaps an email or something where one of Rybka's primary competitors said we must get rid of Rybka because it is too strong?
Otherwise, what right do you have for impugning the character of so many good people? If you don't agree with the decision, is the only recourse to impugn the character of a number of well respected computer scientists and program authors? Don't you have any compassion at all for people that you would resort to ad hominem assaults on good people in order attack the facts that they present?
Don
Hi Don,
You have my sympathy here of course. These allegations are totally uncalled for in my personal judgement. But realize what I saying, I don't accuse the voters. I accuse the system that allowed it.
It makes people doubt the procedure and portray the ones that voted guilty having an agenda. You and others became the victim of a wrong procedure.
Such pretence should have been avoided by all means, don't you think?
Best to you.
Ed
I don't feel that I'm a victim of anything here. Your argument should be with the ICGA not talkchess forum members who had nothing to do with the decision. There were no "voters", except perhaps the ICGA board members themselves. The only thing we can get from talking about it here is a bunch of opinions, a lot of hurt feelings and a lot of time wasted.
Even if the discussion remains civilized there is not much to be gained unless it actually promotes some kind of positive action. But the vast majority of us do not believe that there is a problem to be solved.
but we can avoid future ones?
What is the problem to be solved here? Is it how to get the ICGA to not make rulings that we disagree with? If the decision had gone differently would you have perceived that there was a big problem with the "process?"
I complained about the process before even started. 2/3 of the Secretariat, at least, should have recused themselves.
I don't know what else to say here, it's all been said. Vas has not responded, but those who sympathize with him have served as his puppet and use all the tactics commonly used by people caught red-handed. Justify, minimize, shift the blame and attack the accuser.
Ed (as far as I understand) is not blaming the accuser in this thread, he is blaming a procedure. I said this before, this process was flawed beyond repair.
mark young wrote:
But this has nothing to do with Robert Houdart. Robert never signed anything that said his program is original. Robert Houdart never played in tournament and took money saying is programs is 100% his own. I understand your problem with Vas.
But your problem Don Quixote even if all you say is true, Robert Houdart did not commit a crime. His product is legal.
If I am wrong, I will ask you give us the name(s) of the person who Robert Houdart stole code from.
And why those person(s) have not made a charge against Robert Houdart.
Bob "Don Quixote" Hyatt tell the CCC community why you are not taking Robert Hourdart to court. Since you have all the goods on him as you claim. You know he has money from Houdini.......so tell us why.
Robert Houdart has REPEATEDLY stated that houdini is 100% original code. Just like Vas. Yet that is false. I DO have a problem with liars. And he is clearly a liar, because he has made provably false statements, REPEATEDLY.
The most likely names are Fabien and Vas. Give everyone time to process the evidence, perhaps you will get what you don't want here...
Then Bob if Fabien or Vas make a claim against Robert Houdart. Then you can start talking about crimes, until that time stop suggesting Robert Houdart is guilty of a crime.
Copying code that is copyrighted IS a crime. You can't use the argument that Robo* is public domain, if IT contains copied code. It would also be an illegal copy that violates copyright.
If you violate copyright law (of which the GPL is a part) then that is a criminal act with potential criminal punishment if it is pursued.
Bob no one has come forward to say there was a copyright violation. You have no standing to make such a claim, and can not. It is not your copyright.
Bob you do have a hard on for Robert Houdart and Houdini, and you need to get over it.
You can not be judge and jury here Bob, Robert Houdart is not subject to ICGA rules.
Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff). Are you CERTAIN no versions of robo* nor Houdini copied THAT code when Rybka was RE'ed???
I read that you let other programs to use the same rotated bitboard stuff so you did not include this information in the document that blame rybka in copying from fruit and Crafty.
I think that it is double standard if you allow some programs to use it and claim that another program is illegal in case that it is using it(note that houdini does not use it based on Robert Houdart but my point is that
the question if a program is using it is clearly irrelevant also for the Rybka)
Terry McCracken wrote:You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.
Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.
Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.
Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.
You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.
I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.
Terry McCracken wrote:You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.
Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.
Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.
Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.
You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.
I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.
I do not have to accept the ICGA
FSF is the only organization that may take legal steps against Vas and I assume innocent unless proven quilty by court and the ICGA is not court.
It is possible that I am going to buy Rybka5(dependent on the playing strength of Rybka5) and
I do not think that I risk something if I buy a new version of rybka.
Even if Rybka is illegal then there is no rule that I am supposed to know it
and even if I know that it is illegal then the question is who is the victim
of my actions.
Fabien does not sell Fruit for years so he does not lose money in case that I buy Rybka.
Bob Hyatt also does not lose money so who is going to lose money from it?
It is not the same as buying a stolen car when if I have it the owner of the car does not have it.
Terry McCracken wrote:You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.
Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.
Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.
Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.
You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.
I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.
I do not have to accept the ICGA
FSF is the only organization that may take legal steps against Vas and I assume innocent unless proven quilty by court and the ICGA is not court.
It is possible that I am going to buy Rybka5(dependent on the playing strength of Rybka5) and
I do not think that I risk something if I buy a new version of rybka.
Even if Rybka is illegal then there is no rule that I am supposed to know it
and even if I know that it is illegal then the question is who is the victim
of my actions.
Fabien does not sell Fruit for years so he does not lose money in case that I buy Rybka.
Bob Hyatt also does not lose money so who is going to lose money from it?
It is not the same as buying a stolen car when if I have it the owner of the car does not have it.
I wasn't addressing you but the same applies! If the FSF goes for the throat Vas will be found guilty. Get use to it. I don't care if you buy it or not but it's a tainted product. Don't worry, you can't be held accountable for buying it.
Last edited by Terry McCracken on Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bob wrote:
Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff).
How do you know? Up to now only versions up to 2.3.2a have been examined.
Because Vas stated that version 4 moved from rotated bitboards to magic multiply. How easy was that to answer???
Bob - I'd heard that a couple of members of the panel examined Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 and found them clean?
Totally false. What was looked for was for a big eval change to figure out where Larry Kaufman's influence entered the equation. Mark found it to be in version 3...
To the best of MY knowledge, no one has done the detailed RE comparison between Rybka 3 and Fruit that was done with the pre-3.0 versions... I am not sure this will be done unless Vas asks for it and provides source to prove that the later ones actually are original...
These words seem to represent a way out for Vas. "To prove that the later ones actually are ORIGINAL", I mean. Could they really be considered original?
All he has to do is to agree on a 3rd party to look at his source and compare it to fruit / crafty to see if it is now fully original. If so, I'd consider those programs OK. And I'd suspect the ICGA would allow him to return to competition if they are proven to be clean.
Terry McCracken wrote:You're hopeless. You don't give a damn what the ICGA has ruled.
You won't stop defending this idiot until a court decides. You've told me this countless times. You hate Houdini or so you say but continue to test it along with Rybka and you say you're not taking sides, give me a break.
Which programs the ICGA decides to exclude from their tournaments is none of my business. I am not a programmer, so I'm not in a position to question their findings.
Yes, I'd like to see an FSF ruling on Rybka because they are seen as being independent of the computer chess scene. I am hopeful that such a ruling would bring some finality to the issue for those who are still uneasy or unhappy what's happened. After all, look at the mess that our hobby is currently in.
Yes, both Rybka and Houdini (along with a few other "controversial" engines marked as such) are in the CCRL rating lists, so I include them in my testing. I can see how you might perceive this to be my defending Vas, but the group's stance is made clear in the notes at the start of each update report that gets posted.
You may have to accept the ICGA as the FSF may or may not pursue this with diligence and even if they do it might take years.
I can see this dragging well into this decade. I hope not.
ICGA rules are only obligatory for members and tourney participians.
Month by month passes by, the proves of copyright infringement are allegedly overwhelming, but still nothing has changed. Rybka still being sold as closed source, Rybka 5 commercial being in the pipeline.
The interesting question to me is what if the FSF will not take any action at all?
mark young wrote:
But this has nothing to do with Robert Houdart. Robert never signed anything that said his program is original. Robert Houdart never played in tournament and took money saying is programs is 100% his own. I understand your problem with Vas.
But your problem Don Quixote even if all you say is true, Robert Houdart did not commit a crime. His product is legal.
If I am wrong, I will ask you give us the name(s) of the person who Robert Houdart stole code from.
And why those person(s) have not made a charge against Robert Houdart.
Bob "Don Quixote" Hyatt tell the CCC community why you are not taking Robert Hourdart to court. Since you have all the goods on him as you claim. You know he has money from Houdini.......so tell us why.
Robert Houdart has REPEATEDLY stated that houdini is 100% original code. Just like Vas. Yet that is false. I DO have a problem with liars. And he is clearly a liar, because he has made provably false statements, REPEATEDLY.
The most likely names are Fabien and Vas. Give everyone time to process the evidence, perhaps you will get what you don't want here...
Then Bob if Fabien or Vas make a claim against Robert Houdart. Then you can start talking about crimes, until that time stop suggesting Robert Houdart is guilty of a crime.
Copying code that is copyrighted IS a crime. You can't use the argument that Robo* is public domain, if IT contains copied code. It would also be an illegal copy that violates copyright.
If you violate copyright law (of which the GPL is a part) then that is a criminal act with potential criminal punishment if it is pursued.
Bob no one has come forward to say there was a copyright violation. You have no standing to make such a claim, and can not. It is not your copyright.
Bob you do have a hard on for Robert Houdart and Houdini, and you need to get over it.
You can not be judge and jury here Bob, Robert Houdart is not subject to ICGA rules.
Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff). Are you CERTAIN no versions of robo* nor Houdini copied THAT code when Rybka was RE'ed???
I read that you let other programs to use the same rotated bitboard stuff so you did not include this information in the document that blame rybka in copying from fruit and Crafty.
I think that it is double standard if you allow some programs to use it and claim that another program is illegal in case that it is using it(note that houdini does not use it based on Robert Houdart but my point is that
the question if a program is using it is clearly irrelevant also for the Rybka)
I have not claimed Rybka is illegal because it used rotated bitboards. Rybka 1.6.1 didn't just use rotated bitboards. It was a full copy of Crafty. Search. Move ordering. hashing. Search. Move generation (which goes well beyond just using rotated bitboards to generate the bit vectors for sliding pieces only) and so forth. If Rybka 3 only has rotated bitboard code, I don't consider that a problem, as previously explained, because I have given many permission to copy that code. That does not mean "permission to copy movgen.c" however. JUST rotated bitboard code....
Don wrote:Trying to find a perfect definition for what a derivative is, is a fools errand. It is always going to come down to human judgement. If such a document is created it will be just as highly subject to argumentation as we are currently experiencing.
And as soon as a decision is rendered that someone does not agree with, the document will come under question as being biased, or wrongly interpreted. It will face the usual criticism for not conforming to the standard of making the decision come out the way someone wanted it to.
The truth is that it would take a really poorly constructed document to exonerate Rybka or Houdini/Robbo, but I don't believe that is really what people here care about. It's just a smokescreen. To me this talk is the same as O.J. Simpson's offer of $500,000.00 reward for information leading to arrest of the "real killer or killers."
Some might study the reasoning behind the US constitution, which does NOT spell out every possible law, and interpretation of that law. In fact, the laws are expressly written with some vagueness which allows the court to use some human judgement in interpreting the law. It also allows the US constitution to avoid being a 4,000 page long document that tries to spell out everything to avoid technical escapes.
