Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[tiger]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

No it is not.

We already have the source code.

It's about fair play, believe it or not.



// Christophe

Hi Christophe,

so what would you like to see happen?

Regards, Graham.

Asking what I would like to never see happen would be more to the point.

I would like computer chess to be "fair". So I would like to never see someone hijacking GPL source code against the spirit of the GPL, and against all others who respect the GPL.

When the game becomes such that you tell to yourself "what a fool I have been to respect the rules", then something is deeply wrong. At this point you either stop respecting the rules, or you try to help the rules to be respected.

What would you do?



// Christophe

I think we'd all like computer chess to be fair and for rules to be respected.
So the whole point of this thread is to just make people aware that some programmers believe that Vas has broken the rules and is therefore to be publicly vilified as an example to all?

Regards, Graham.

The whole point of the thread is to take steps in the direction of fair game.

Are we making steps in that direction or not?



// Christophe

[David Dahlem]

Clones are people two.



Regards
Dave

[Graham Banks]

The whole point of the thread is to take steps in the direction of fair game.

Are we making steps in that direction or not?



// Christophe

Apart from stating what you believe to be the case with Rybka 1.0 (and possibly later versions), and pointing out your understanding of the GPL, I'm not so sure.
You've got a lot of guts for stating your beliefs, but not all seem to agree that what is being posted constitutes absolute proof of any wrongdoing.
Under those circumstances, I guess it's easy to understand that some wonder if there are further motives behind this, even though you've stated that there aren't.
However, I'm not a programmer as I said, so I'm not qualified to give an expert opinion on the evidence.

Regards, Graham.

[Rolf]

3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.

Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?

Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.

Is this a matter of dark or bright?

What do we know Rolf? We're not programmers and therefore our opinion doesn't count.

What is your opinion?

You must have one I guess.



// Christophe

I'm not a programmer and so all this code being produced means little to me.
However, from what I've read, it seems that no matter what is said, there will still be disagreement amongst more knowledgeable people than myself over what constitutes absolute proof of anything untoward.
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

That could be looking ok at first glance. But then I have a different view and I really wished you could understand what I mean also if I'm not a programmer.

At first I want to confirm you that I think that you have a point to make. Now the problem side. You have a mind frame that looks like this: if you former World number one see something then it cant be wrong and for all no pea brainer like Rolf cant tell me this.

Now let's take a stand way higher up:

I dont buy what you state about cheating because what you call cheating isnt cheaing in my eyes. I also know the reasons why there is this paradoxon. It's because you have a professional view and cant be flexible anymore.

I dont know why you have been on the top. But you must have done something others have not this way. If you agree then I ask you why Christophe is now feeling so empty? Because others are cheating? I dont buy this. So here we are in a psychological sphere and I feel sorry for you that you cant activate your old talents. Because look, in all artsm, and CC is art for me, all concentrate on THEIR stuff but you are fixed by the possibility that others cheat.

My little unimportant advice. Forget the others and begin your own stuff again. If you cant try to seek help, perhaps you are blocked by private problems - but that doesnt belong here.

Again, please dont treat this sympa Chris so wrong. Let him be creative again. Let him fly again. All the best.

The same here with your attitude towards me. You dislike me as a nobody who dares to tell you something. But what doesnt it mean to you who I am if what I said could help you. Or do you say, never ever would I believe anything from this guy. Forget about me, just copy my messages with a false author name. But where could you get some ideas for free?

You think others cheat and therefore you stop programming?? What is this for an illogical wrong? Let Zach do the hard work. Be egotistic and do your own thing. And try to see you in the other with his program.

Monday morning you will start a new step with Tiger, ok, Chris?

Forget about Rolf. He's uninteresting. Just think about yourself. Do something to get back into the competition. You are not that stupid to say no, I torture myself as long the other guy is cheating? Let me smile.

Bye for now.

[geots]

Clones are people two.



Regards
Dave

Dave, are my emails not getting thru to you?


Best,

[tiger]

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

[Graham Banks]

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

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.

[tiger]

The whole point of the thread is to take steps in the direction of fair game.

Are we making steps in that direction or not?



// Christophe

Apart from stating what you believe to be the case with Rybka 1.0 (and possibly later versions), and pointing out your understanding of the GPL, I'm not so sure.
You've got a lot of guts for stating your beliefs, but not all seem to agree that what is being posted constitutes absolute proof of any wrongdoing.
Under those circumstances, I guess it's easy to understand that some wonder if there are further motives behind this, even though you've stated that there aren't.
However, I'm not a programmer as I said, so I'm not qualified to give an expert opinion on the evidence.

Regards, Graham.

I think you should believe more what people who have expertise say... What else?

Who are the most skilled people in the field and what do they say?

It requires a special skill however: being able to discern the experts.



// Christophe

[Terry McCracken]

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

Yes, I bet you could!

But I know you wouldn't.

Terry

[Rolf]

The whole point of the thread is to take steps in the direction of fair game.

Are we making steps in that direction or not?



// Christophe

Apart from stating what you believe to be the case with Rybka 1.0 (and possibly later versions), and pointing out your understanding of the GPL, I'm not so sure.
You've got a lot of guts for stating your beliefs, but not all seem to agree that what is being posted constitutes absolute proof of any wrongdoing.
Under those circumstances, I guess it's easy to understand that some wonder if there are further motives behind this, even though you've stated that there aren't.
However, I'm not a programmer as I said, so I'm not qualified to give an expert opinion on the evidence.

Regards, Graham.

I think you should believe more what people who have expertise say... What else?

Who are the most skilled people in the field and what do they say?

It requires a special skill however: being able to discern the experts.



// Christophe

It takes not much to become a victim of a mass or group hystery. In such cases one should listen to people who abstain the common hystery and one shouldnt become ridiculous by asking for more respect. Who defines who's wrong? What do you better than lays? Programming code or cheating code? So how could you talk about expertise?