Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

[Milos]

Just like Fruit, the license info is in the copying.txt file in the directory above.

You are obviously unaware of the fact that original Robbo code (including all file names) is not in english.

[Milos]

I had problems finding enough code that is a straight copy for it to be an easy case, which is why I stopped stating that

I bet you have found zero code, otherwise you would already go around and ring bells like crazy.
The funny thing is that code you've looked (if you even looked any code seriously which I highly doubt since you've already proven you don't understand it) is not even original Robbo...

[Dann Corbit]

It's ugly code anyway (and full of awful gaffes). There is a greatly cleaned up version of it that is much easier to understand in SourceForge called gullchess that will teach anyone who wants to learn everything that is useful about the Robbolito/Ippolit etc. chess clump of stuff:
http://gullchess.sourceforge.net/

Gullchess is not SMP, but that is not important. Everything that is actually worthwhile from that tree of things is found in Gullchess.

There is no license information stated anywhere in Gullchess, so we should assume that it is copyright of Vadim Demichev (aka: thinkingalot).

Vadim Demichev should sue you for libel. I don't know if he's a member of this forum. If he is, then you've violated the charter in point 3, since your post in nothing but libelous.

Everything I have said is abosolutely true. In order for it to be libel it should be false and designed to harm.

And the readme file for gull 1.1 says this:

Contact:
thinkingalot.chess@gmail.com, Vadim Demichev

so he is clearly the author.

[Milos]

Everything I have said is abosolutely true. In order for it to be libel it should be false and designed to harm.

You effectively claim Gull chess is cleaned-up clone/derivative of Ippo/Robbo.
This is designed to harm and is clearly false. Therefore, it is a libel.

[Don]

I'm not so sure action against Ippolit is hopeless, because there is no question it is a "derivative" Even BB has clearly shown this.

This is a clear lie. It not only your interpretation it's manipulation and libel. Luckily for you authors of Ippo are unknown so there is noone to sue you for libel. You have no proofs. Moreover, you didn't even read BB's report. You've proven this at least three times so far.

Sorry, I did not mean to offend you.

I read the BB report and it was extremely obvious that Ippolit is a derivative of Rybka 3 to me and think his report clearly showed that. In the report he did give any kind of clear opinion, but feature for feature there was almost always a clearly identifiable counterpart that looked like a reworked version of what Rybka does. What was clear is that it was heavily reworked, so it's not close to being a clone, but it is clear that it is a derivative work. Of course if you focus on the differences only, you can pretend that it's totally original with nothing whatsoever in common - but that would be your own fantasy.

There is a section where BB identifies a silly piece of code in Rybka, where it checks for a capture needlessly which is a performance bug. Ippolit has the same bug in the same piece of code.

BB speculates that it could have been left over from trying other ideas at that point. Of course not matter how much you actually see, people will try to explain it away if they don't want to believe it. I'm not totally convinced he was being as objective as he thought he was because he apologized a lot for Ippolit, such as in cases like this. But still he remained objective enough that truth came through pretty clearly. He set out to prove it was not a clone and I think he ended up proving that it was derivative, and not a clone.

You can get cirmustantial evidence also from the web site. Ippolitto is joined at the hip to Rybka because Rybka gets a lot of press. The web site reads as if it middle finger extended against Vas. To me that is revealing and it's shameful childish behavior. Right now on that site Fabian is being treated as hero comrade to the cause against Rybka and great deal of the site is about Rybka. I know that is truly only circumstantial, but when so much space is devoted to denying you are clone, you have to wonder. The guilty ones are usually the ones that cry the loudest that they are innocent.

So in my opinion it's easy to make the case that it's a derivate of Rybka 3, but I don't know if that is enough.

In my opinion it is so easy to make an engine that can destroy any chess engine that Don Dailey is capable of producing in his life, including the engine where he would copy & paste all of Robbo code (contrary to Komodo where only 30% of Robbo code has been copied so far).

Is that really necessary? I have not attacked you in this thread and I think we can talk about this with some respect for each other.

For some reason I have noticed that you get more upset than almost anyone on this group when anything negative about Ippolitt is said. There is no reason for you to take is so personally when it has nothing to do with you.

Here is an interesting question: Robbo is GPL licensed, which means it's illegal to create a derivative work without also carrying the same licence. So is anything that is not open source but based on Robbo illegal? This is almost like dominoes.

Another lie. Robbo is public domain. You cannot create GPL by attaching it to public domain code. If you don't know that, maybe you should try to contact some lawyer who is certainly more knowledgeable than you in these matters.

You are accusing me of being a liar, but I have the Robbo sources and I did this in the /src subdirectory:

grep GNU *.c *.h | wc
129 1334 9075

The characters GNU appear in the source code 129 times. Here are the first 10 lines of examples they appear in:

exclude.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
exclude.c:GNU General Public License for more details.
exclude.c:You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
main.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
main.c:GNU General Public License for more details.
main.c:You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
move_cancel.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
move_cancel.c:GNU General Public License for more details.
move_cancel.c:You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
move_gen.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published

Before you call someone a liar you should check your facts. For someone who is so protective of Robbolitto you don't know anything about it which calls into question your ability to discern what is true and false.

It has come to my attention that the web site itself seems to imply that the program is public domain, but nobody knows who wrote the web site or who wrote the program or even if they are just using the term public domain loosely (there are people who use the term interchangeably.) However a clear statement in the source code itself trumps an ambiguous statement by some web site author who may not have even written the program.

P.S. I've just sent an email to Comodo is Creating Trust Online. I really hate the fact that my favorite firewall is called like some lousy peace of chess software, so it's about time to change this...

[Dann Corbit]

Everything I have said is abosolutely true. In order for it to be libel it should be false and designed to harm.

You effectively claim Gull chess is cleaned-up clone/derivative of Ippo/Robbo.
This is designed to harm and is clearly false. Therefore, it is a libel.

I said that Gull chess has every good idea from Robbolito in it.
This is clearly true.
Your claim is reading between the lines and not what I said. However, the implication is very interesting.

[Don]

Everything I have said is abosolutely true. In order for it to be libel it should be false and designed to harm.

You effectively claim Gull chess is cleaned-up clone/derivative of Ippo/Robbo.
This is designed to harm and is clearly false. Therefore, it is a libel.

I said that Gull chess has every good idea from Robbolito in it.
This is clearly true.
Your claim is reading between the lines and not what I said. However, the implication is very interesting.

Gull is interesting, but here is what I noticed about Ippolitto:

My very first impression when seeing the Ippolitto source was that is written by a complete amateur. It was just awful crap from a programming style point of view, and hardly any comments whatsoever. And yet it really played quite strong, bugs aside. That initial code-base which eventually was improved and cleaned up in Robbo and others, almost convinced me that it was a brainless translation of something. It read as if the author himself didn't know what it did. I don't know how something that plays so strong can be written in such a ridiculous manner.

[UncombedCoconut]

There is no license information stated anywhere in Gullchess, so we should assume that it is copyright of Vadim Demichev (aka: thinkingalot).

The author has indicated that it is public domain.

As for Robbo's license: I know that 0.85g3 from Norman's site says it is GPL in its source, and 0.085f1a (from the Ippo site) only has the usual string "id owners PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)". Perhaps Norman relicensed certain versions. (I'm not sure.) If so, the GPL would cover code unique to that branch of Robbo.

[Dann Corbit]

There is no license information stated anywhere in Gullchess, so we should assume that it is copyright of Vadim Demichev (aka: thinkingalot).

The author has indicated that it is public domain.

As for Robbo's license: I know that 0.85g3 from Norman's site says it is GPL in its source, and 0.085f1a (from the Ippo site) only has the usual string "id owners PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)". Perhaps Norman relicensed certain versions. (I'm not sure.) If so, the GPL would cover code unique to that branch of Robbo.

The first releases of their project were public domain. Their current code is licensed as GPL. In either case, the code is interesting to learn from but I would not use any of it as a starting point for a new project.

[Milos]

I read the BB report and it was extremely obvious that Ippolit is a derivative of Rybka 3 to me and think his report clearly showed that. In the report he did give any kind of clear opinion, but feature for feature there was almost always a clearly identifiable counterpart that looked like a reworked version of what Rybka does. What was clear is that it was heavily reworked, so it's not close to being a clone, but it is clear that it is a derivative work. Of course if you focus on the differences only, you can pretend that it's totally original with nothing whatsoever in common - but that would be your own fantasy.

I could make the same document for Ippo vs. Komodo and similarities would be larger. So in your place I would really be quiet, especially when talking about fantasies.

There is a section where BB identifies a silly piece of code in Rybka, where it checks for a capture needlessly which is a performance bug. Ippolit has the same bug in the same piece of code.

Another proof that you hardly read the document, and even if you did it, it was through heavy polarized glasses.
BB in the report says I quote:
"IPPOLIT peculiarly has a leftover condition in the updating of positional gain, in that it first checks whether a move is a capture, and if not, it then checks whether it is a capture (again!) and the captured piece is a pawn; the latter is exactly a condition (among many) in Rybka’s code, though it does appear in the same place (at the start). Also, Rybka does (many) other things here when a move is a capture, whereas IPPOLIT does nothing in this case."
Rybka does not have the first condition only the latter, therefore Rybka does not have the bug.
Obviously your didn't even understand what BB wrote, and it's hard to believe that you seriously read the report.

You can get cirmustantial evidence also from the web site. Ippolitto is joined at the hip to Rybka because Rybka gets a lot of press. The web site reads as if it middle finger extended against Vas. To me that is revealing and it's shameful childish behavior. Right now on that site Fabian is being treated as hero comrade to the cause against Rybka and great deal of the site is about Rybka. I know that is truly only circumstantial, but when so much space is devoted to denying you are clone, you have to wonder. The guilty ones are usually the ones that cry the loudest that they are innocent.

Well, sorry to disappoint you but the only circumstantial evidence here is your behavior with obvious animosity towards Ippo ppl and supporters which reflects nothing but envy coz some ppl (that you didn't hear of) are far more successful in chess programming than what you were during your whole CC career and what you will ever be.

You are accusing me of being a liar, but I have the Robbo sources and I did this in the /src subdirectory:

grep GNU *.c *.h | wc
129 1334 9075

The characters GNU appear in the source code 129 times. Here are the first 10 lines of examples they appear in:

exclude.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
exclude.c:GNU General Public License for more details.
exclude.c:You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
main.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
main.c:GNU General Public License for more details.
main.c:You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
move_cancel.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
move_cancel.c:GNU General Public License for more details.
move_cancel.c:You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
move_gen.c:it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published

Before you call someone a liar you should check your facts. For someone who is so protective of Robbolitto you don't know anything about it which calls into question your ability to discern what is true and false.

It has come to my attention that the web site itself seems to imply that the program is public domain, but nobody knows who wrote the web site or who wrote the program or even if they are just using the term public domain loosely (there are people who use the term interchangeably.) However a clear statement in the source code itself trumps an ambiguous statement by some web site author who may not have even written the program.

I seriously don't believe that you are just misinformed since you obviously have an agenda concerning Ippo. However, there is a small chance that you just simply don't know what you are talking about and in that case I'll change the qualification from lie to misinformation.

So, the same info for you as for GCP: original Robbo (and none of the source files) is not in English.
Therefore anything you mention up there is simply irrelevant.
Somebody that makes such strong qualification should at least be sure to have correct source files in the first place...