Dann Corbit wrote:I also have the sources (as have several others). I do not think that Strelka is a clone of anything.
Of course, it is possible that the Strelka author has examined the assembly of Rybka and written code based on what he has learned. That is not illegal, and I also doubt that Strelka has any Rybka code ideas implemented directly.
I think that it is too bad that chess authors constantly have to face witch hunts. I suppose that the bad actions of others have made life difficult for everyone. Sort of like suicide bombers causing all of us to spend hours in the airport lines more than we should.
By the way, the new Strelka is quite different from the old one. The 1.0 version had a 4 MB material table that the 1.8 version does not carry.
There's no witch hunt. The author has already stated what he did and how.
He also said he had worked on it for 18 years.
.....which is the biggest, fattest and juiciest of lies but I can forgive that if you can.........
You have the 4mb material table from Srelka 1.0....thats all i would need.
Send it to me.
chris at playwitharena dot com
With regard to bad actions you were the one who did not see that the values in there were Rybka albeit because you have never seen those values to compare.
I have.
Even upon disassembly and catagorical proof that those values were exactly the same (you remember the Dark Avenger guy) you say "there is no Rybka in there".
So send it....free yourself from this poisoned chalice once and for all and have done with it. It's no use to me other than to perform this meritorious action on behave of those who suspect.
I don't want the whole thing....just that 4 mb table.
Simple, easy....conclusive.
Regards
Christopher
I think that the discussion is about 1.8 and not about 1.0
Uri
Not for me Uri....the discussion is about Strelka.
I prefer to see the unadulterated 1.0 version.
That's why you wrote the thread to justify it...or am I wrong?
If not then why?
Anyway...I have given you a way to definatively know.
The rest is up to you, Dann, Yuri, Sergei or Bryan.
Sergei Markoff wrote:I'll speak with Yury to got the permission.
Looks like Yury registered account in this forum, may be he will ask you himself.
Yes Sergei.....if I see that table.....just that.
To be specific I'd like the table that was in Strelka 1.0 not the one in Strelka 1.8 uci.
Christopher
Note that I got only 1.8 and not 1.0
1.8 also has a big table of 2^14 numbers that is 2048 lines because every line has only 2^3 numbers(every number is 64 bit number) and I thought that you meant to that table.
Uri
You could help with 1.8 and that table then. 1.0 is the better choice although.
The table I speak of are the weights. I care not if they are 64 bit numbers or base 10.
Sergei Markoff wrote:I'll speak with Yury to got the permission.
Looks like Yury registered account in this forum, may be he will ask you himself.
Yes Sergei.....if I see that table.....just that.
To be specific I'd like the table that was in Strelka 1.0 not the one in Strelka 1.8 uci.
Christopher
Note that I got only 1.8 and not 1.0
1.8 also has a big table of 2^14 numbers that is 2048 lines because every line has only 2^3 numbers(every number is 64 bit number) and I thought that you meant to that table.
Uri
You could help with 1.8 and that table then. 1.0 is the better choice although.
The table I speak of are the weights. I care not if they are 64 bit numbers or base 10.
I have a calculator you see....
Christopher
I hope I'm wrong, but the longer you have to wait, the more suspicious I become.
Am I right in thinking that if Strelka 1.0 is proven to be a clone, then Strelka 1.8 will be tarred as well, or should they be treated separately?
Sergei Markoff wrote:I'll speak with Yury to got the permission.
Looks like Yury registered account in this forum, may be he will ask you himself.
Yes Sergei.....if I see that table.....just that.
To be specific I'd like the table that was in Strelka 1.0 not the one in Strelka 1.8 uci.
Christopher
Note that I got only 1.8 and not 1.0
1.8 also has a big table of 2^14 numbers that is 2048 lines because every line has only 2^3 numbers(every number is 64 bit number) and I thought that you meant to that table.
Uri
You could help with 1.8 and that table then. 1.0 is the better choice although.
The table I speak of are the weights. I care not if they are 64 bit numbers or base 10.
I have a calculator you see....
Christopher
I hope I'm wrong, but the longer you have to wait, the more suspicious I become..
No doubt they are discussing it. I should have thought there would be no problem whatsoever if everything were legit.
Of course I will know if what i'm given really is the correct thing.
Graham Banks wrote:[Am I right in thinking that if Strelka 1.0 is proven to be a clone, then Strelka 1.8 will be tarred as well, or should they be treated separately?
Regards, Graham.
That would be logical but it is not impossible. Many engines have been completely rewitten from time to time. It is already known that there is disassembled Rybka in Strelka.
The author himself admitted as much.
I'd like to see 1.0 mainly. I think that it is logical to assume that 1.1 through 1.7 should show progression but like I say....you cannot say it is a fact.
Speaking of which.....it would be nice to see 1.1 to 1.7 also.
Graham Banks wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but the longer you have to wait, the more suspicious I become.
Am I right in thinking that if Strelka 1.0 is proven to be a clone, then Strelka 1.8 will be tarred as well, or should they be treated separately?
It seems to me that the thread talks about Strelka 1.8 only (though version 1.0 has been forcedly pushed in) and that based on source code analysis from several different people it is not a clone... what do we need? It is also known that it contains information (a data table) that has been reverse engineered from Rybka, which can be seen also from the executable. This also seems to be true, is there really need to prove it once again?!
I think Uri should not give away any part of the source code, the author can easily send it to anyone if he likes so.
Graham Banks wrote:I hope I'm wrong, but the longer you have to wait, the more suspicious I become.
Am I right in thinking that if Strelka 1.0 is proven to be a clone, then Strelka 1.8 will be tarred as well, or should they be treated separately?
It seems to me that the thread talks about Strelka 1.8 only (though version 1.0 has been forcedly pushed in) and that based on source code analysis from several different people it is not a clone...
Like who Alessandro? Who exactly proved this and how would they know not having seen Rybka? The disassembly of Strelka 1.8 contains Rybka.
Don't make out 1.0 is not OK but 1.8 is.
You must be joking.
Alessandro Scotti wrote:what do we need? It is also known that it contains information (a data table) that has been reverse engineered from Rybka, which can be seen also from the executable. This also seems to be true, is there really need to prove it once again?!
I think Uri should not give away any part of the source code, the author can easily send it to anyone if he likes so.
No......no need to prove it once again.
Yes Uri should keep the code and use it in Movei which is all he wants to do. Is that not soooooooo obvious?
With a little support from friends like you and Dann to say its ok to do that of course. (we must keep it legal.......)
First it was Fruit with him and now its Strelka. Why? Because Strelka holds the key to Rybka.......at least thats how he sees it.
Get real.......
I can read you all like a book.
Get your dead horse picture out now......give us a cheap cheap laugh.....because now it applies to YOU.
I'm not saying you don't have a point Chris, I'm saying that evidence seems to show that:
a) Strelka is not a clone;
b) it contains data that has been reverse enginereed from Rybka.
I take the testimonials of many people for point a), and Strelka author's own words for b).
I'm really not sure why you want to discuss the above over and over again, IMO it would be more interesting to take a) and b) for granted and proceeding from there, especially if there is something new that can be added to the lot that has already been said so far.
