Should downloadlinks for Ippo/Robbo be allowed again?

[Matthias Gemuh]

O.T.

Take this time to thank you for a book you wrote.
Its for Shredder but i use it for a special engine.

Best.

Gerold.

.

[Michael Sherwin]

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

Rybka 3 does have separate search functions for white and black. No need to reverse engineer anything. You can find this trivially with a disassembler that gives stack dumps.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea but very clearly both Rybka 3 and Ippolit have this, and I know in fact of no other program that does.

My engine, Carnivor, does it this way and it is way older than Rybka. And it is open source! Maybe ...

[Michael Sherwin]

Even without any evidence I am sure that Ippo/Robbo is clone: why publish superstrong engine without getting any money or at least fame for
your real name? Additionally if your first engine is 3100 rated it is not
credible at all!

Jouni

Someone that believes in a Marxist philosophy would do what the author of Ippolit--according to the Ippolit website--has allegedly done. It makes perfect sense. As far as the strength is concerned, well that is not proof.

Evidence:

1.) Vas says that it is a Rybka 3 clone.

2.) Jury says that it is not Rybka 3 but rather it is Rybka 4.

1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

3.) There is strong evidence that it was developed from many sources and MAY have some reversed engineered ideas from Rybka.

1 and 2 are greatly discounted by 3.

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

5.) There are some differences and some similarities in its play compared to Rybka, but the differences are much more prominent.

...

How many versions of Fruit was there before it became the strongest program in the world 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1? What if there were several versions of Ippolit, in "chess language b", before it was translated into C to make it available to the west?

Bottom line is that the evidence for cloning is rather thin and the evidence for a lot of originality is rather high. So, unless someone that is trusted disassembles Rybka 3 and finds a nearly 1 to 1 correlation in search functions, evaluation functions or evaluation constants then I for one choose to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty rather than joining in on a witch hunt.

Miguel

What you emphasized is more the definition of a derivation than it is of cloning.

[michiguel]

Even without any evidence I am sure that Ippo/Robbo is clone: why publish superstrong engine without getting any money or at least fame for
your real name? Additionally if your first engine is 3100 rated it is not
credible at all!

Jouni

Someone that believes in a Marxist philosophy would do what the author of Ippolit--according to the Ippolit website--has allegedly done. It makes perfect sense. As far as the strength is concerned, well that is not proof.

Evidence:

1.) Vas says that it is a Rybka 3 clone.

2.) Jury says that it is not Rybka 3 but rather it is Rybka 4.

1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

3.) There is strong evidence that it was developed from many sources and MAY have some reversed engineered ideas from Rybka.

1 and 2 are greatly discounted by 3.

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

5.) There are some differences and some similarities in its play compared to Rybka, but the differences are much more prominent.

...

How many versions of Fruit was there before it became the strongest program in the world 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1? What if there were several versions of Ippolit, in "chess language b", before it was translated into C to make it available to the west?

Bottom line is that the evidence for cloning is rather thin and the evidence for a lot of originality is rather high. So, unless someone that is trusted disassembles Rybka 3 and finds a nearly 1 to 1 correlation in search functions, evaluation functions or evaluation constants then I for one choose to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty rather than joining in on a witch hunt.

Miguel

What you emphasized is more the definition of a derivation than it is of cloning.

Are they acknowledging the original sources and authors? are those original sources open? Do they follow the agreement of the original licenses if there is any that permit what they are doing?

Miguel

[bob]

So far you both are a minority

Based on what? Surely not the "poll results" where it is an almost certainty that the ones replying to the poll are a small minority of CCC members.

Yes, based on the poll.

I guess the people who are much interested in the question will answer. Many will not. It is likely that they don't care.

Of course I don't take that poll too serious.

So a majority of a small minority should cause us to change our minds on this issue???

So far, the same happened in almost all American elections for president.

Do you think the CCC is so much better place than the USA?

how many members in CCC and how many responded to the poll? We get a better vote turnout than that, because electing a president gets most everyone's attention. A poll about an already decided issue is a bit moot.

[Michael Sherwin]

Even without any evidence I am sure that Ippo/Robbo is clone: why publish superstrong engine without getting any money or at least fame for
your real name? Additionally if your first engine is 3100 rated it is not
credible at all!

Jouni

Someone that believes in a Marxist philosophy would do what the author of Ippolit--according to the Ippolit website--has allegedly done. It makes perfect sense. As far as the strength is concerned, well that is not proof.

Evidence:

1.) Vas says that it is a Rybka 3 clone.

2.) Jury says that it is not Rybka 3 but rather it is Rybka 4.

1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

3.) There is strong evidence that it was developed from many sources and MAY have some reversed engineered ideas from Rybka.

1 and 2 are greatly discounted by 3.

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

5.) There are some differences and some similarities in its play compared to Rybka, but the differences are much more prominent.

...

How many versions of Fruit was there before it became the strongest program in the world 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1? What if there were several versions of Ippolit, in "chess language b", before it was translated into C to make it available to the west?

Bottom line is that the evidence for cloning is rather thin and the evidence for a lot of originality is rather high. So, unless someone that is trusted disassembles Rybka 3 and finds a nearly 1 to 1 correlation in search functions, evaluation functions or evaluation constants then I for one choose to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty rather than joining in on a witch hunt.

Miguel

What you emphasized is more the definition of a derivation than it is of cloning.

Are they acknowledging the original sources and authors? are those original sources open? Do they follow the agreement of the original licenses if there is any that permit what they are doing?

Miguel

They claim that Ippolit was derived from the engines listed in the following text, taken from the Ippolit website.

Q. IPPOLIT pursues previous ships?
A. True, with KAISSA, Crafty, Fruit/Toga/Rybka/Strelka, etc. Yet beyond solely saponification from predescendants.

All are open source except Rybka. But, if something was garnered from Rybka it does not mean that it was copied. They claim that it is not. Now I need real proof that they are not telling the truth for me to make a condemnation. If no one is willing to do that or until someone does provide the proof then it is legit as far as I am concerned. However, it does seem that they are allowed to be burned at the stake by an angry mob, while the constables do nothing.

[michiguel]

Even without any evidence I am sure that Ippo/Robbo is clone: why publish superstrong engine without getting any money or at least fame for
your real name? Additionally if your first engine is 3100 rated it is not
credible at all!

Jouni

Someone that believes in a Marxist philosophy would do what the author of Ippolit--according to the Ippolit website--has allegedly done. It makes perfect sense. As far as the strength is concerned, well that is not proof.

Evidence:

1.) Vas says that it is a Rybka 3 clone.

2.) Jury says that it is not Rybka 3 but rather it is Rybka 4.

1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

3.) There is strong evidence that it was developed from many sources and MAY have some reversed engineered ideas from Rybka.

1 and 2 are greatly discounted by 3.

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

5.) There are some differences and some similarities in its play compared to Rybka, but the differences are much more prominent.

...

How many versions of Fruit was there before it became the strongest program in the world 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1? What if there were several versions of Ippolit, in "chess language b", before it was translated into C to make it available to the west?

Bottom line is that the evidence for cloning is rather thin and the evidence for a lot of originality is rather high. So, unless someone that is trusted disassembles Rybka 3 and finds a nearly 1 to 1 correlation in search functions, evaluation functions or evaluation constants then I for one choose to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty rather than joining in on a witch hunt.

Miguel

What you emphasized is more the definition of a derivation than it is of cloning.

Are they acknowledging the original sources and authors? are those original sources open? Do they follow the agreement of the original licenses if there is any that permit what they are doing?

Miguel

They claim that Ippolit was derived from the engines listed in the following text, taken from the Ippolit website.

Q. IPPOLIT pursues previous ships?
A. True, with KAISSA, Crafty, Fruit/Toga/Rybka/Strelka, etc. Yet beyond solely saponification from predescendants.

All are open source except Rybka. But, if something was garnered from Rybka it does not mean that it was copied. They claim that it is not. Now I need real proof that they are not telling the truth for me to make a condemnation. If no one is willing to do that or until someone does provide the proof then it is legit as far as I am concerned. However, it does seem that they are allowed to be burned at the stake by an angry mob, while the constables do nothing.

I was asking what you found out, not what they claim. You claimed that there is evidence that it was derived from other engines. You made me believe that you found something.

Anyway, was not KAISSA a clone? Then what other proof do you need?
What kind of acknowledge is "was based on x, y etc." What is etc.? is that a series of open source engines? which ones?

Miguel

[Rolf]

I was asking what you found out, not what they claim. You claimed that there is evidence that it was derived from other engines. You made me believe that you found something.

Miguel, please let me tell you something. You, the entry into the computerchess programs. With all respect. Look, often experts dont see something that can be quickly be see from outside. This is such a case.

Vas has claimed that so and so is a Rybka clone. Normally I would understand that in a community of collegues who are trusting each other, because how else should they communicate,will trust such a statement too. End of the debate.

Because the popint is, you cant prove it.Vas cant prove it because then he had to show his own code. So, his statement had the idea that debates would not even begin.

But this is not what happened.

We have certain people here who simply ignore what Vas said. Who also doubt what he said. But again he cannot defend himself because then he would have to show his code.

So, on that background we have friends of the cloners or hackers or whatever, among them someone who is a proven several time cloner who was already selling the clones. These friends are here to re-open every couple of hours a new topic to basically insult Rybka and Vas. So, not the cloners are wrong but the accused Vas. Although he told us that he was informed per email how far the robbery had gone. So, I'm a lay, but experts do know that there is a leak that cant be closed. Clever cloners will use it.

And the scandal is that users download this. And talk about it.

A.Schmidt is a special case now because he the expert on human rights. He asks you to respect that nothing has been proved (again it cant be proved without code etc. see above) and therefore the cloners have earned as much respect as all people because nothing has been proven. Former guilt is no topic in such a scenario.

My main argument in such a debate is that the cloners are guilty alone because they dont appear under concrete real names with addresses where the police could find them. So topic closed at that moment. Because you cant successfully debate with hidden people who hide intentiously to do harm to other experts. Next time you become their victim and then?

So please I would say you should be careful. Basically you assist in their comedy which is sad for Vas and computerchess as such.

In the Rybkaforum these people openly ask for the following. Since decent science is also opening its secrets to the scientists it should be done likewise in the sports of computerchess so that someone like Vas with tricks that made him number one, should tell his tricks or it's robbed.

This is combined with a foolish communism debate that all goods belong to the people.

Unbelievable. This is shortsighted and will destroy computerchess as such. IMO

In his new project Vas IMO is trying to collect thieves and programmers to work on an online Rybka, so that also the jobless talents get a job. To me it looks like a fantastic idea. Very democratic and socially valuable.

[Michael Sherwin]

Even without any evidence I am sure that Ippo/Robbo is clone: why publish superstrong engine without getting any money or at least fame for
your real name? Additionally if your first engine is 3100 rated it is not
credible at all!

Jouni

Someone that believes in a Marxist philosophy would do what the author of Ippolit--according to the Ippolit website--has allegedly done. It makes perfect sense. As far as the strength is concerned, well that is not proof.

Evidence:

1.) Vas says that it is a Rybka 3 clone.

2.) Jury says that it is not Rybka 3 but rather it is Rybka 4.

1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

3.) There is strong evidence that it was developed from many sources and MAY have some reversed engineered ideas from Rybka.

1 and 2 are greatly discounted by 3.

4.) The programming style is very different and rather amateurish. I doubt that Vas would start from an example like that of Fruit and devolve the code into separate search functions for white and black. It would be naive to think that it would be faster.

5.) There are some differences and some similarities in its play compared to Rybka, but the differences are much more prominent.

...

How many versions of Fruit was there before it became the strongest program in the world 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1? What if there were several versions of Ippolit, in "chess language b", before it was translated into C to make it available to the west?

Bottom line is that the evidence for cloning is rather thin and the evidence for a lot of originality is rather high. So, unless someone that is trusted disassembles Rybka 3 and finds a nearly 1 to 1 correlation in search functions, evaluation functions or evaluation constants then I for one choose to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty rather than joining in on a witch hunt.

Miguel

What you emphasized is more the definition of a derivation than it is of cloning.

Are they acknowledging the original sources and authors? are those original sources open? Do they follow the agreement of the original licenses if there is any that permit what they are doing?

Miguel

They claim that Ippolit was derived from the engines listed in the following text, taken from the Ippolit website.

Q. IPPOLIT pursues previous ships?
A. True, with KAISSA, Crafty, Fruit/Toga/Rybka/Strelka, etc. Yet beyond solely saponification from predescendants.

All are open source except Rybka. But, if something was garnered from Rybka it does not mean that it was copied. They claim that it is not. Now I need real proof that they are not telling the truth for me to make a condemnation. If no one is willing to do that or until someone does provide the proof then it is legit as far as I am concerned. However, it does seem that they are allowed to be burned at the stake by an angry mob, while the constables do nothing.

I was asking what you found out, not what they claim. You claimed that there is evidence that it was derived from other engines. You made me believe that you found something.

Anyway, was not KAISSA a clone? Then what other proof do you need?
What kind of acknowledge is "was based on x, y etc." What is etc.? is that a series of open source engines? which ones?

Miguel

When I scanned Ippolit's code I noticed vauge similarities to Crafty as well as Fruit. Others noticed similarities to Kaissa. Maybe Kaissa is a clone of Crafty as I have herd before. However, Kaissa is open source and therefore it is just as valid to take ideas from Kaissa as it is from Crafty. Taking ideas is not the same as copying code. I looked at many sources before writing RomiChess. I did not copy anything and the only thing I took away from them was an understanding of how to approach writing a chess program. Still, I did not write RomiChess from totally inside myself. Should I have listed every source code that I have looked at? The Ippolit site listed more than I did!

[Rolf]

When I scanned Ippolit's code I noticed vauge similarities to Crafty as well as Fruit. Others noticed similarities to Kaissa. Maybe Kaissa is a clone of Crafty as I have herd before. However, Kaissa is open source and therefore it is just as valid to take ideas from Kaissa as it is from Crafty. Taking ideas is not the same as copying code. I looked at many sources before writing RomiChess. I did not copy anything and the only thing I took away from them was an understanding of how to approach writing a chess program. Still, I did not write RomiChess from totally inside myself. Should I have listed every source code that I have looked at? The Ippolit site listed more than I did!

Fine, so you say you didnt do something dirty. But Vas never mentioned IMO RomiChess. And you didnt threaten Vas in emails saying that you were building a copy of his Rybka. Correct? - So, please what has that from you to do with anything? Or do you argue that because you are sober nobody who threatens Vas is allowed to be called a cloner because he's also sober? With the little disadvantage that he has no address or concrete name?