POLL: Do you believe Rybka is a derivative work program?

[Sean Evans]

Derivative work

[hgm]

It depends on how you define 'derivatve work'. I m sure 90% of the strngth of Rybka is profided by the giants on which shoulders it is standing.

For a reasonably skilled programmer it is totally trivial to study the code of Fruit, rewrite the algorithm in its own favorite programming language, and have a 2900 Elo engine. Is that a derivative work?

[Aleks Peshkov]

As far as I remember Vasik Raijlich already had had a private engine before Fruit's code was opened.

I am very skeptical about any reasons to drop own working code, get another and rewrite it to bitboards.

If Rybka's origins was ever a derivative work it should start from Crafty, not Fruit.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Derivative work

I don't see what this poll intends to accomplish other than create another useless and endless quarrell.

Exactly my thoughts....
Dr.D

[menniepals]

I think this discussion is useless. The important thing is we have a very strong program as an end result of whatever and the authors are gracious enough to offer its earlier versions for free. This is very good for people like me who solely rely on freeware except for some Viva Media Chessbase products that are now selling cheaply everywhere: Scid, Arena, Fruit, Toga, Glaurung, Stockfish and etc.

[Onno Garms]

For a reasonably skilled programmer it is totally trivial to study the code of Fruit, rewrite the algorithm in its own favorite programming language, and have a 2900 Elo engine.

Why should the rewritten engine be that much stronger that the public version of fruit? In CEGT I find Fruit 2.1 with 2715 elo.

A rewrite would be faster on 64 bit processors due to bitboards, but I do not see a reason for 185 elo difference. Aren't 70 Elo equal to a speed factor of two? Then 185 Elo would equal to a speed factor of 6. I'm not sure if bitboards would give a speedup on 32 bit processors at all

Any other reason then speed for a 2900 elo engine?

[kranium]

For a reasonably skilled programmer it is totally trivial to study the code of Fruit, rewrite the algorithm in its own favorite programming language, and have a 2900 Elo engine.

Why should the rewritten engine be that much stronger that the public version of fruit? In CEGT I find Fruit 2.1 with 2715 elo.

A rewrite would be faster on 64 bit processors due to bitboards, but I do not see a reason for 185 elo difference. Aren't 70 Elo equal to a speed factor of two? Then 185 Elo would equal to a speed factor of 6. I'm not sure if bitboards would give a speedup on 32 bit processors at all

Any other reason then speed for a 2900 elo engine?

i think he's probably referencing toga, not fruit 2.1 ...?

[kranium]

Do you believe Rybka is a derivative work program?

imho, concerning 1.0 beta, i think the evidence speaks for itself:
http://www.chesslogik.com/controversies/

but there are many who don't share this viewpoint...
so i have a better poll:

who the hell really cares?

the fact is that modern Rybka is incredible...a fantastic piece of programming and software engineering, and Vas should be commended for that.

[Onno Garms]

i think he's probably referencing toga, not fruit 2.1 ...?

Still 100 Elo difference, which is more then can be explained by speedup.

[Sylwy]

Yes-of course !

From its first steps Rybka was presumed to be a clone, derivative......Vasik was avowed cow-boy on all computer chess media ( Vas is a Slav.... ). Naum is ignored ( like its pre- eminent author-the Slav Alexandar Naumov)........

Conclusion: Junior,Shredder,Fritz & co. are only soldiers !

What a pity !

Regards,
Silvian