Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
I guess that if you ask him to, I guess that Yuri will send a copy of the code to Fabian. I do not think that Fabian would consider it a clone.
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.
Bite me.....
Christopher
I think that in order to use the code in movei I first need to understand it
and it is not going to be an easy task but at least it does not seem hard as understanding fruit-toga.
Fruit-toga has so many files that psychologically it convinced me not to try to deal with it when strelka seems to be simply more simple.
I do not plan to copy and paste code to movei but I plan to try to understand it to help me to get ideas for better movei.
Maybe this is an illusion and smaller code does not mean that it is easier to understand it but that illusion is going to push me to try to understand strelka.
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
Let's see Tony. It will be at least tomorrow before we know.
The info is not here yet but when it does arrive I can promise an objective honest analysis.
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
Let's see Tony. It will be at least tomorrow before we know.
The info is not here yet but when it does arrive I can promise an objective honest analysis.
Christopher
Sure, I just wanted to warn you.
Since I can't believe people here are so incompetent to not recognize a clone when they have the sourcecode in front of them, the "author" must have been very good in hiding stuff.
I just hope this time somebody bothers to compile the provided code to see if it actually plays at the level of the (former) executable.
Or in your case, check wether the datatables you get are actually the ones that appear in the exe.
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
I think that it is impossible to write bitboard fruit clone.
If a program is bitboard then you need to write a lot of original code and I simply not consider it as a clone.
You may claim that it has some parts of fruit and it is illegal to release it without the source but even in that case it is not a clone because I consider clone to be something that is the same or almost the same and I think that translating non bitboard program to bitboard is more than 50% change.
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
Let's see Tony. It will be at least tomorrow before we know.
The info is not here yet but when it does arrive I can promise an objective honest analysis.
Christopher
Sure, I just wanted to warn you.
Since I can't believe people here are so incompetent to not recognize a clone when they have the sourcecode in front of them, the "author" must have been very good in hiding stuff.
I just hope this time somebody bothers to compile the provided code to see if it actually plays at the level of the (former) executable.
Or in your case, check wether the datatables you get are actually the ones that appear in the exe.
Tony
I already compiled the code and I will check later if it plays the same as strelka1.8
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
I think that it is impossible to write bitboard fruit clone.
If a program is bitboard then you need to write a lot of original code and I simply not consider it as a clone.
You may claim that it has some parts of fruit and it is illegal to release it without the source but even in that case it is not a clone because I consider clone to be something that is the same or almost the same and I think that translating non bitboard program to bitboard is more than 50% change.
Uri
The thing that worries me the most is that the judge and jury here are *clearly* people with axes to grind. The chances that their evaluation will be impartial is zero.
The clone fever madness has gone way over the edge. I actually think that it is just as criminal to accuse without proof as it is to perform the crime in the first place. Chess programming has become host to a hostile field of witch hunters who assume guilt based upon the flimsiest bits of evidence.
On the one hand, I do not want to see people stealing other people's work and taking the credit for it. On the other hand, I do not want chess programmers to face outrageous attacks based upon the phase of the moon.
Alessandro Scotti wrote: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.
Well Sergei has sent them he says. Not here yet mind. I take a look and then its over so far as im concerned.
Ive better things to do like look at new engines etc....did you see Garbochess?
I just want this put to bed like you so we need speak of it no more.
I believe I can do that.
Christopher
Are you sure ? Converting dimensions of arrays (maybe splitting up) and converting scores (fe from 100 to 255) can be quite difficult to recognize.
Remember, the experts said it was original, but the "author" later told it was a bitboard Fruit clone.
Tony
I think that it is impossible to write bitboard fruit clone.
If a program is bitboard then you need to write a lot of original code and I simply not consider it as a clone.
You may claim that it has some parts of fruit and it is illegal to release it without the source but even in that case it is not a clone because I consider clone to be something that is the same or almost the same and I think that translating non bitboard program to bitboard is more than 50% change.
Uri
The thing that worries me the most is that the judge and jury here are *clearly* people with axes to grind. The chances that their evaluation will be impartial is zero.
The clone fever madness has gone way over the edge. I actually think that it is just as criminal to accuse without proof as it is to perform the crime in the first place. Chess programming has become host to a hostile field of witch hunters who assume guilt based upon the flimsiest bits of evidence.
On the one hand, I do not want to see people stealing other people's work and taking the credit for it. On the other hand, I do not want chess programmers to face outrageous attacks based upon the phase of the moon.
Sorry Dan, you lost me here.
We are talking about the guy who took Fruit, reverse engineerd the Rybka table in it and then very proudly announce he did this, aren't we ? ( And accused Vas of doing the same )
But now, he has written a new engine and all is well, because this one isn't a clone ?
He has mislead people before ( you were one of them) Ever wondered how he did it ? Ever wondered if he's doing it again ?
But I am the bad guy here. Why, because I don't fall for the same crap twice ?
