SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph poste in this thread, and Uri's examples.
2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.
Kai
Sweet
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
You are confused. Mr Rybka and Fabien are disputing Strelka´s code.
I told you I was confused.
I repeat: what new is there as an evidence for many posters here that Rybka is a stolen work.
The newest one is that Rybka´s codes suddenly became lost ( or deleted), and cannot be examined by experts anymore.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
hgm wrote:Your logic is definitely flawed. The correct should be: At some point, you have the choice between being a liar or a no-liar. (...)
Of course he lies. That just shows he is not honest.
You are just sour he took you for a fool. But remember who was the fool!
it was one of the best interviews I ever made. Without my girlfiend not possible, helps me with my bad English. The answers from the Stockfish team are just great. I am very lucky in this time that Tord, Joona and Marco made it with me and gave so many nice information.
Yes, I can send a mail what I read between the lines in our interview
But I don't have your mail address!
If you have time for it:
Please write me: www.amateurschach.de ... click on impressum ... contact form.
THANKS!
Best for you whatever you do!
Frank
Last edited by Frank Quisinsky on Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.
2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.
Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...
SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
You are confused. Mr Rybka and Fabien are disputing Strelka´s code.
I told you I was confused.
I repeat: what new is there as an evidence for many posters here that Rybka is a stolen work.
The newest one is that Rybka´s codes suddenly became lost ( or deleted), and cannot be examined by experts anymore.
Common sense....the crook must cover his crime signs....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
