Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Steve B]

I hope they don't get into trouble. I hope that the issue gets settled once and for all.
Regards, Graham.

some asking these questions are highly respected programmers and they have presented evidence..hard evidence
its not as if they are making wild nonscensical accusations
"Whistle Blowers"..so to speak ..are always ostracized first until they are proven right
indeed whistle blowers usually need protection (such as laws protecting them from being fired or prosecuted) ..
its not an exact analogy as to what is happening here but it does illustrate the point
it is only making matters worse that there is really no one countering the evidence presented with opposing arguments and evidence showing Rybka is not derived from Fruit
all i am reading are posts questioning the motives of those doing the questioning
or legal niceties trying to show that even if Rybka was derived from Fruit there might be no legal recourse

these are hardly what i would call defenses of the program

who knows ,,perhaps the questioners(far more accurate a term then accuser's) ..will be called heroes one day?

let someone from the Rybka team defend the program already
whether here or on their own home site
we all know this thread is being read by the Rybka team or at least they are being informed by the Rybka faithful
their silence is getting them no where and has to be bad marketing for them

Let Them Stand and Defend regards
Steve

[trojanfoe]

You are hoping these doubters get into real trouble for asking the questions? Why?

Cheers,
Andy

Not at all Andy. I regard most, if not all of them highly.
I hope they don't get into trouble. I hope that the issue gets settled once and for all.
Although Rybka 3 is an exceptional engine and a pleasure to watch play, I wouldn't consider myself a Rybka zealot. I like all stable engines.

Regards, Graham.

Well if you don't hope they get into trouble, why say this:

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

That's kind of threatening Graham; it implies that any doubters need to be sure they are backed up by the law and free of any wrong doing, else they face heavy consequences. It's a way of stopping this 'investigation' and is zealot-like in attitude.

Cheers,
Andy

[Graham Banks]

let someone from the Rybka team defend the program already
whether here or on their own home site
we all know this thread is being read by the Rybka team or at least they are being informed by the Rybka faithful
their silence is getting them no where and has to be bad marketing for them

Let Them Stand and Defend regards
Steve

Yes - it would be good to hear something.

[Graham Banks]

Well if you don't hope they get into trouble, why say this:

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

That's kind of threatening Graham; it implies that any doubters need to be sure they are backed up by the law and free of any wrong doing, else they face heavy consequences. It's a way of stopping this 'investigation' and is zealot-like in attitude.

Cheers,
Andy

Commonsense Andy. Wouldn't you like to think they're safe with what they're doing?

[trojanfoe]

Well if you don't hope they get into trouble, why say this:

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

That's kind of threatening Graham; it implies that any doubters need to be sure they are backed up by the law and free of any wrong doing, else they face heavy consequences. It's a way of stopping this 'investigation' and is zealot-like in attitude.

Cheers,
Andy

Commonsense Andy. Wouldn't you like to think they're safe with what they're doing?

Yes I do. So you support this process Graham?

Cheers,
Andy

[Graham Banks]

Well if you don't hope they get into trouble, why say this:

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

That's kind of threatening Graham; it implies that any doubters need to be sure they are backed up by the law and free of any wrong doing, else they face heavy consequences. It's a way of stopping this 'investigation' and is zealot-like in attitude.

Cheers,
Andy

Commonsense Andy. Wouldn't you like to think they're safe with what they're doing?

Yes I do. So you support this process Graham?

Cheers,
Andy

I don't agree with the way it's been handled, but as I said, it would be good for the issue to be settled once and for all.
However, do you think that will happen?

Regards, Graham.

[GenoM]

Well if you don't hope they get into trouble, why say this:

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

That's kind of threatening Graham; it implies that any doubters need to be sure they are backed up by the law and free of any wrong doing, else they face heavy consequences. It's a way of stopping this 'investigation' and is zealot-like in attitude.

Cheers,
Andy

Commonsense Andy. Wouldn't you like to think they're safe with what they're doing?

Yes I do. So you support this process Graham?

Cheers,
Andy

I don't agree with the way it's been handled, but as I said, it would be good for the issue to be settled once and for all.
However, do you think that will happen?

Regards, Graham.

You're a Gemini, Graham, no way you aren't.

[Graham Banks]

You're a Gemini, Graham, no way you aren't.

Don't believe in that stuff, but I'm a Libra.

[trojanfoe]

I don't agree with the way it's been handled, but as I said, it would be good for the issue to be settled once and for all.
However, do you think that will happen?

Regards, Graham.

I don't think anything will happen if the original author was involved (i.e. the alleged injured party) as he seems to show no interest and so there cannot be any formal complaint. However if it's true that the license has been transferred to the FSF, then I think there is real hope - they have the motivation and experience to pursue GPL infringements and so it's possible something will actually happen over this.

Cheers,
Andy

[Gerd Isenberg]

Any speculative development project (for example developing a chess engine) by a competent developer, will include detailed analysis of the competition. Since some of the competition publishes source, any developer is going to take a good look at that too. All design process starts with analysis. Programmer looks at everything and thinks, "hmmm, I can do better".

Since published source also provides a testbed environment, the idea that it is not general for programmers (inexperienced at start, and in a huge, complex project such as chess engine) won't use such a generally available testbed environment to get up and running beggars belief. It is not illegal in any way to do so, all that matters is that the end result If any) has thrown away all the original published material.

Of course not _everybody_ develops this way. Some may well start from scratch, it used to be (pre 1990's) that everybody had to start from scratch - hence fewer programs then and lots now.

I wrote a quite strong Shogi program once. It took two months. My GUI programmer modified the CSTal user interface which mostly involved dealing with the change in board size, the artist gave him some shogi piece graphics, I gutted the CSTal engine, rewrote the move and genmove stuff, reused search with lots of the fancy stuff removed and wrote an evaluation function based on the Tal evaluation. If thatI'ld been done that within equivalent GPL code? Well the next task would be to take the Shogi specific engine modules, which by definition all work, and wrap them into an entirely new interface. Voila - an entirely squeaky clean product, all one's own work.

Anyway, quite why do you feel the need to describe this development mechanism as an "accusation". It's a sensible and entirely legal way to progress. It saves time, there'll be fewer bugs and the chances that the whole thing doesn't just fall apart through complexity is reduced. If the result is for release or publication then that's fine, as long as there is nothing of the original in place. my 2c.

That might be a plausible explanation of the mentioned assembly similarities. The scene has changed due to what happend in the past, and is more aware of cloning issues. For instance Ulrich Türke had no problem to state Comet was guided by GNU chess 3.0, and as far as I know nobody complained.

Personally I dislike open source of competitive computer chess programs and the sword of Damocles associated with it. Some friends of mine, Hans Secelle and Eugenio Castillo, crossed the boarder and were accused and proved their engines were clones, while I believe they were not really aware of their wrongdoing, but naive. I started in the beginning of the 90ties and had Levy's Computer Chess Compendium, and Bartel/Kraas/Schrüfer "Das grosse Computer Schach Buch" as a startup to clone ideas but to implement it all by my own in 386 assembly.