Fruit 2.1 vs Strelka 2.0

[Rolf]

I think when all is said and done, Chris Whittington's prior comment really stands out to me. He hit the nail on the head. Whether you like Chessbase or not, they did not get where they are today by making foolish decisions that could ruin them or by being stupid. They would have never touched Rybka with a 10 foot pole if there was ANY chance it could come back to haunt them. Enough said.

Best,

Methinks you forgot the LIST tragedy at Graz Wch. At that time ChessBase had this engine IMO 5.12 version. The same almost like now with Rybka. That alone wont tell you anything. The point will come when in China in a short pre-meeting vdHerigh will "ask" his participants if they allow Toga, and they will shout yeah. And then he will "ask", what is with Rybka, and the crowd will murmer, no, sorry, that is the one who's too strong for the mortals, Jaap, we dont want to see it... Or Vas shows us his source code NOW. Bye bye...

[Zach Wegner]

Zach,

Do you seriously imagine Frederik is going to take on publishing Rybka without cast-iron guarantees that it is squeaky clean?

Why risk it?

Do you imagine Vas, if Rybka was just maybe possibly under suspicion, didn't spend all the effort necessary to ensure no possible contamination from other software?

Business is business. Breaches of criminal and/or civil law, unnecessarily, woudl be just dumb. And why woudl it be necessary? Do you imply there isn't sufficient knowledge and capability in the Vas team to be unable to produce independent source code?

Come on.

Firstly, this issue is about Rybka 1.0. I have not looked at all at any subsequent versions. It is quite possible that later versions were cleared of any GPL code, if it was there in the first place. I am aware of the legal/business implications--but you must keep in mind that Rybka was initially released independently by Vas. Rybka 3 came over two and a half years later. Surely the fact that no "serious" evidence has come out during that time would be assurance enough. Vas has said before that no one besides him has ever seen the source code, so I can't imagine that he allowed it to be inspected.

But I make no judgment here. I don't think legal aspects, or the integrity of Chessbase, or the abilities of the Rybka team should make any part in any final ruling. I present the facts as facts, and I clearly note where my opinion comes in. George asked for an interpretation, and I gave the best one I am capable of. I urge you and the others to base your opinions on whatever facts are presented for either side, not on any emotions towards a given party.

[Zach Wegner]

Typical answer/view from a programmer, Zach.

Your answer is typical of a "psychologist". You present absolutely no arguments based in fact, but instead attempt in vain to discredit me.

You are young, you think you must bear no responsibilities and you are inexperienced in life issues.

- the legal aspect is the main point, Zach. But I doubt that you are legally to be held accountable. That's the most important, because in such a freedom granted by CCC you can do many things.

Please explain how anything I have said carries ANY legal ramifications. I have stated facts when there are facts, and opinions where there are opinions. I have not presented any of my opinions as fact. There is no libel involved whatsoever.

- Zach, you can even do harm to Vas. In the following way: you say you have questions and therefore you must analyse in public (!) what this is all about with Rybka. The point you miss out of lack of life experience is, that yes you have questions but if in the end after everything will be published, you will say no, that doesnt cut it, then there is no zero damage done but the total armageddon for Vas. Can you understand it? Your result could be nothing found but you have still published Rybka so that then all could take it. Of course you didnt want it, because you had only questions. And in the end you will say, ouch, but I didnt know it. I'm still so young and inexperienced.

- this isnt just a smear act as I said, it's also blackmail, after the known scheme: Vas, you can stop "us" at the instant, if you allow "us" to look into your source code, and if we havnt found something illegal then fine for you and for us because then we know at least your secrets.

- because of the almost criminal intent, there wont be commercial programmers in this here - openly. Because they could be held accountable for the mess. As I wrote to Bob, they will take a "10" y. old, well here the possibly youngest around with a minimum of knowledge, Zach. (Just to explain that Zach had given his private data for the moderation elections, therefore I know a bit.)

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. All I can see is just a bunch of garbage saying that I am not to be trusted because I am twenty years old. Come on, Rolf. This is the only "argument" you have, and it holds precisely _zero water_. Others here (particularly the programmers) can testify that I am anything but inexperienced, and most definitely not with a "minimum of knowledge". I'm not sure how you came to believe the things you say, but I am positive that such notions have an origin in a place where our sun refuses to shine.

I am very impressed, though, in your uncanny ability to use the search function in order to determine my age. Have you also found, Rolf, what city I live in? Were you also able to find out the name of the chess engine that I wrote?

At least I am glad that on the issue of credibility, chances are slim that anyone will take anything you write in your post seriously.

- BTW it was George who detailed the aspects of such a situation. He said either there is proof for some wrong then sue Vas, but id this about libel, then shut up because in that case you only pretend you want to collect data for aproof but in real it's libel. Of course we wont see programmers with a business, no Europeans and no establishe guys with a career to defend. All that points at the truth that there is no proof. Only libel.

I will also note that it was George who just thanked me for my "expert" opinion. His words, not mine.

[tiger]

Zach,

Do you seriously imagine Frederik is going to take on publishing Rybka without cast-iron guarantees that it is squeaky clean?

Why risk it?

Do you imagine Vas, if Rybka was just maybe possibly under suspicion, didn't spend all the effort necessary to ensure no possible contamination from other software?

Business is business. Breaches of criminal and/or civil law, unnecessarily, woudl be just dumb. And why woudl it be necessary? Do you imply there isn't sufficient knowledge and capability in the Vas team to be unable to produce independent source code?

Come on.

The analysis that have been shown are comparing Rybka 1.0 and Fruit 2.1.

Just Rybka 1.0.

I have not heard from anybody about the more recent versions of Rybka.

So it's just about Rybka 1.0.



// Christophe

[tiger]

I think when all is said and done, Chris Whittington's prior comment really stands out to me. He hit the nail on the head. Whether you like Chessbase or not, they did not get where they are today by making foolish decisions that could ruin them or by being stupid. They would have never touched Rybka with a 10 foot pole if there was ANY chance it could come back to haunt them. Enough said.

Best,

George, the analysis shown is about Rybka 1.0.

As far as I know ChessBase is not selling it or involved in any way with it.



// Christophe

[tiger]

OK, I'm not one of the mentioned persons, but I feel I am enough of an "expert" in this matter...

What IS IMPORTANT for me would be fi Bob, Ingo, Uri, Theron, etc. would tell me where we exactly stand now with the Strelka-Fruit- Rybka issue. IOW, is it still more or less agreed the Strelka is a clone- and i guess im asking "illegal" clone of something- to the point where CCRL should still not be testing it- as we did stop?

In my completely honest opinion, I would say that Rybka is under serious doubt with regards to its origin. There are some similarities that have been discovered, beyond just the simple protocol parsing code, that are just way too much to be a coincidence IMO. I will note that though I have reverse engineered a relatively small amount of Rybka, but everything that I have has matched with Strelka and had remarkable similarities to Fruit. Some have said that we are running a smear campaign without any evidence, but it is coming out. More and more will gather. There is still not proof (and it is of course debatable whether we would be able to prove anything), but there are questions that IMO demand an official response.

I'm not sure about the legalities of the issue, but I'm inclined to believe that Strelka is more legitimate than Rybka (1.0 at least).

I don't know what to think about Rolf's comments. They make no sense at all really. We have tried to present as much and and as solid evidence as possible. Of course, the type of evidence is such that it is not easily understood by a "lay". But we're not simply creating things in order to confuse the non-programmers. Not one programmer has spoken up against the evidence I posted a bit earlier, nor any in this thread

I think that those that know me here can tell that I'm not doing this out of envy--nothing could be further from the truth. I feel that an injustice is being committed, and that since it is against an open source program (I am a big open source advocate, for those that don't know), I feel a personal responsibility to try to get to the bottom of this--not to simply defame someone.

I do not know why do you think that strelka is more legitimate than rybka1

Strelka2 is more similiar to fruit than rybka1

There are some things that both strelka and fruit has when rybka does not have them like null move verification and if we talk about strelka2.0 unlike strelka1.8 I can say that strelka2 use more simple average of opening evaluation and endgame evaluation based on the stage of the game that is an improvement relative to rybka or strelka1.8 code.

I think also that it is not clear if the similiarity between strelka and fruit is enough to make strelka illegal because of the fruit case(it can be illegal because of rybka but this is a different story).

Strelka is not a clear derivative of fruit like toga when almost everything is the same.

Uri

Wouldn't it be more accurate in this context to say that Strelka is a less clear derivative of Fruit than Toga?

The problem is: is Strelka a derivative or Fruit, or not at all?

After reading the comparative analysis of Strelka and Fruit were dozens of source code lines were exactly the same, one can start to answer this question.

But I think more comparative analysis will be published.

I'm not sure you have the right question in mind. We are not talking about cloning here (an almost exact copy, line by line).

The question is about one being a derivative of the other. Is one a modified (maybe deeply modified) version of the other? If it is not the case, it is highly unlikely to find vast portions of code that are the same in both, don't you think?



// Christophe

[Rolf]

Typical answer/view from a programmer, Zach.

Your answer is typical of a "psychologist". You present absolutely no arguments based in fact, but instead attempt in vain to discredit me.

You are young, you think you must bear no responsibilities and you are inexperienced in life issues.

- the legal aspect is the main point, Zach. But I doubt that you are legally to be held accountable. That's the most important, because in such a freedom granted by CCC you can do many things.

Please explain how anything I have said carries ANY legal ramifications. I have stated facts when there are facts, and opinions where there are opinions. I have not presented any of my opinions as fact. There is no libel involved whatsoever.

- Zach, you can even do harm to Vas. In the following way: you say you have questions and therefore you must analyse in public (!) what this is all about with Rybka. The point you miss out of lack of life experience is, that yes you have questions but if in the end after everything will be published, you will say no, that doesnt cut it, then there is no zero damage done but the total armageddon for Vas. Can you understand it? Your result could be nothing found but you have still published Rybka so that then all could take it. Of course you didnt want it, because you had only questions. And in the end you will say, ouch, but I didnt know it. I'm still so young and inexperienced.

- this isnt just a smear act as I said, it's also blackmail, after the known scheme: Vas, you can stop "us" at the instant, if you allow "us" to look into your source code, and if we havnt found something illegal then fine for you and for us because then we know at least your secrets.

- because of the almost criminal intent, there wont be commercial programmers in this here - openly. Because they could be held accountable for the mess. As I wrote to Bob, they will take a "10" y. old, well here the possibly youngest around with a minimum of knowledge, Zach. (Just to explain that Zach had given his private data for the moderation elections, therefore I know a bit.)

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. All I can see is just a bunch of garbage saying that I am not to be trusted because I am twenty years old. Come on, Rolf. This is the only "argument" you have, and it holds precisely _zero water_. Others here (particularly the programmers) can testify that I am anything but inexperienced, and most definitely not with a "minimum of knowledge". I'm not sure how you came to believe the things you say, but I am positive that such notions have an origin in a place where our sun refuses to shine.

I am very impressed, though, in your uncanny ability to use the search function in order to determine my age. Have you also found, Rolf, what city I live in? Were you also able to find out the name of the chess engine that I wrote?

At least I am glad that on the issue of credibility, chances are slim that anyone will take anything you write in your post seriously.

- BTW it was George who detailed the aspects of such a situation. He said either there is proof for some wrong then sue Vas, but id this about libel, then shut up because in that case you only pretend you want to collect data for aproof but in real it's libel. Of course we wont see programmers with a business, no Europeans and no establishe guys with a career to defend. All that points at the truth that there is no proof. Only libel.

I will also note that it was George who just thanked me for my "expert" opinion. His words, not mine.

Zach, we can make this short. Your answer proves what I had supposed. And you dont even read properly, what could be caused by a possible non-native speech.

Let me shortly refutate what you are saying.

- 20 or 10 means that you are NOT legally accountable, the expression just means that you cant be sued for a financial recompensation because you wont have something to lose. That's not your FAULT, it's just the age.

- then I didnt say you are just inexperienced, I wrote you had no life experience. In programming you could well be the new genius, stronger than Bob, but you are still inexperienced in life. Also not your FAULT because you cant change that you are still 20.

- then you want to know what you had already said what could imply something legally relevant. Not the point because I made a much broader claim, that you cant be held responsible for whatever you might say in future here. see above. You are talking here as best as you can and therefore it's ok, but the forum should see who is talking.

- psycho stuff. You got it. I can question, I can conclude, I can analyse, but I know nothing about a code. It would be true if you said I just talk. Because I try to reverse engineer what people said so that I can better understand whatr they think and what their motives are. Just learn, psycho stuff is foolish and uninteresting, nothing for your interest. <g>

If I forgot a point or question please remind me of it.

[GenoM]

Hi Chris

Do you really believe that Rajlich could let Frederik or any of Frederik' experts to see the source code of Rybka?

Come on.

And second: here we're not talking about Rybka 3, Chris, but we're talking about Rybka 1 beta and its origins.

Regards,
Geno

Zach,

Do you seriously imagine Frederik is going to take on publishing Rybka without cast-iron guarantees that it is squeaky clean?

Why risk it?

Do you imagine Vas, if Rybka was just maybe possibly under suspicion, didn't spend all the effort necessary to ensure no possible contamination from other software?

Business is business. Breaches of criminal and/or civil law, unnecessarily, woudl be just dumb. And why woudl it be necessary? Do you imply there isn't sufficient knowledge and capability in the Vas team to be unable to produce independent source code?

Come on.

[GenoM]

Rolf,
what you're trying to make with your posts here is called psycho-attack. I'm glad Zach did not let himself down by it.

[Tony Thomas]

Rolf,
what you're trying to make with your posts here is called psycho-attack. I'm glad Zach did not let himself down by it.

Bang! I should introduce rolf to my picture buddies from google..