I'm in doubt if RobboLito is a clone

[Graham Banks]

It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

It really doesn't matter if it's legal to use it, it's unethical.

That's the real issue. Don't support highly suspicious software, more than suspicious.

I see nothing ethically wrong with it, personally. Sorry.

Yes, it's always legal to receive and use stolen goods.

[bob]

What if there actually are comments in the original code, but the programmer simply has chosen to remove them from the public version? I mean, concluding it cannot have been written by a human just because there are no comments?! No sorry, I don't buy that.

Don't give me those "Uri explanations". Yes, a room full of monkeys _could_ have produced this program too. Or a room full of monkeys _could_ have deleted all the comments from an existing program, without damaging the program. No I can't prove that did not happen, because it is impossible to prove something did _not_ happen somewhere.

If someone releases the source, there is but _one_ reason for doing so, to make the code public so that others can look at it to see what it is doing and how it is doing it. Removing comments makes that quite difficult. Your suggestion has zero merit, whether you buy it or not doesn't matter.

No comments in this particular version doesn't mean that there never were comments at all. The idea that someone removes comments from the source code of an engine with that performance, for publishing, makes sense to me in case he doesn't want to make it too easy for other programmers to read and understand it. Publishing source doesn't mean someone is not competitive at all.


I don't know if other elements will be found which can suit as evidence or not, but "no comments" is something just to be noticed, but without clear conclusion IMO.

That is simply bogus reasoning. Someone releases the source, so that others can see what is being done, but they remove the comments to make it harder? That won't pass any sort of "reasonableness" test. I looked at the code when it first came out. It was pretty clear how it was derived initially, because it looks exactly like what a highly optimized program would look like once compiler has finished optimizing.

I've been teaching computer science for 39 years now, first class I taught was in fall of 1970. I have a pretty good idea of what human-written code looks like, both from students and from professional programmers. It doesn't look like that mess.

[tvrzsky]

If we assume that author of this code is Russian then comments could be in Russian as well. So it could be easier to remove them then to translate them especially if his English langauge skills are on the level of their wiki site.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

Vas said that it's a clone of Rybka....period....so bow out and say the holly words as much as you could:

I believe in Vas,I believe in Vas....

I believe a man who puts his name and reputation behind it, yes!

Can the people of Ippolit/Robolit annouce who they are and stand behind it? No they can't. Moreover, this work has been observed by several programmers and know it's stolen intellectual property.

It has no future.

Don't get me wrong Terry,I am not taking any sides here....
In fact Vas is my friend and I've purchased every single piece of software he released....

My irony here is for the fact that I hear the same words again and again whenever something appears around the corner which could threaten Rybka's dominancy in the computer chess scene without any proof at all....

We start a real war here who's right and who's wrong,who's honest and who's a thug and Vas just remains silent....

Even the moderators suffered from this affair and I am totaly supporting them by the way....they have the least guilty of what is happening here....

Then again....Yes,Vas said it was a clone of Rybka....

Kinda of Cliche,don't you think?
That's what makes me nervous about all this event....

Regards,
Dr.D

[Zach Wegner]

It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

It really doesn't matter if it's legal to use it, it's unethical.

That's the real issue. Don't support highly suspicious software, more than suspicious.

I see nothing ethically wrong with it, personally. Sorry.

Yes, it's always legal to receive and use stolen goods.

I'm not talking about legality. I'm really not sure if Ippolit is legal to distribute or not. I'm talking about ethics.

I just don't see anything wrong with using this code, and for that matter, with publishing it in the first place. What goes around comes around...

[Christopher Conkie]

It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

It really doesn't matter if it's legal to use it, it's unethical.

That's the real issue. Don't support highly suspicious software, more than suspicious.

I see nothing ethically wrong with it, personally. Sorry.

Yes, it's always legal to receive and use stolen goods.

I'm not talking about legality. I'm really not sure if Ippolit is legal to distribute or not. I'm talking about ethics.

I just don't see anything wrong with using this code, and for that matter, with publishing it in the first place. What goes around comes around...

By the same token (if that is what has happened), two wrongs do not make a right.

Christopher

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

It really doesn't matter if it's legal to use it, it's unethical.

That's the real issue. Don't support highly suspicious software, more than suspicious.

I see nothing ethically wrong with it, personally. Sorry.

Yes, it's always legal to receive and use stolen goods.

I'm not talking about legality. I'm really not sure if Ippolit is legal to distribute or not. I'm talking about ethics.

I just don't see anything wrong with using this code, and for that matter, with publishing it in the first place. What goes around comes around...

By the same token (if that is what has happened), two wrongs do not make a right.

Christopher

The thing is Christopher is that we don't know if that is what has happened....we are speculating,guessing,semi-investigating & building all kinds of possible theories but nothing to bring us the naked truth....

Whare is Vasik Rajlich at least for the sake of respect toward his fans/clients,sect followers,call them whatever you like,he must appear and explain to us what is happening....

Naked words and imaginable updates from the russian bandits via e-mails keeping him informed won't do the trick....at least I am not biting this bait....no more,sorry....

Dr.D

[Graham Banks]

It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

It really doesn't matter if it's legal to use it, it's unethical.

That's the real issue. Don't support highly suspicious software, more than suspicious.

I see nothing ethically wrong with it, personally. Sorry.

Yes, it's always legal to receive and use stolen goods.

I'm not talking about legality. I'm really not sure if Ippolit is legal to distribute or not. I'm talking about ethics.

I just don't see anything wrong with using this code, and for that matter, with publishing it in the first place. What goes around comes around...

By the same token (if that is what has happened), two wrongs do not make a right.

Christopher

Exactly.

[mcostalba]

What if there actually are comments in the original code, but the programmer simply has chosen to remove them from the public version? I mean, concluding it cannot have been written by a human just because there are no comments?! No sorry, I don't buy that.

Don't give me those "Uri explanations". Yes, a room full of monkeys _could_ have produced this program too. Or a room full of monkeys _could_ have deleted all the comments from an existing program, without damaging the program. No I can't prove that did not happen, because it is impossible to prove something did _not_ happen somewhere.

I think monkeys are not needed. Just run

Code: Select all

gcc -E original_source.cpp

And the gcc preprocessor does exactly what we can see in the published source (stripped comments included).

I am very confident that what is published is the preprocessed file, i.e. the output of gcc -E on the original source file (with comments).

The reason for publishing this instead of the original I really don't know. But the fact that I don't know the reason it doesn't mean that it does not exsist

[Christopher Conkie]

It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

It really doesn't matter if it's legal to use it, it's unethical.

That's the real issue. Don't support highly suspicious software, more than suspicious.

I see nothing ethically wrong with it, personally. Sorry.

Yes, it's always legal to receive and use stolen goods.

I'm not talking about legality. I'm really not sure if Ippolit is legal to distribute or not. I'm talking about ethics.

I just don't see anything wrong with using this code, and for that matter, with publishing it in the first place. What goes around comes around...

By the same token (if that is what has happened), two wrongs do not make a right.

Christopher

The thing is Christopher is that we don't know if that is what has happened....we are speculating,guessing,semi-investigating & building all kinds of possible theories but nothing to bring us the naked truth....

Whare is Vasik Rajlich at least for the sake of respect toward his fans/clients,sect followers,call them whatever you like,he must appear and explain to us what is happening....

Naked words and imaginable updates from the russian huligans via e-mails keeping him informed won't do the trick....at least I am not biting this bait....no more,sorry....

Dr.D

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 pyrrhic.

Christopher