I made a post on the Rybka forum but the last time I checked the rybka team had been strangely quiet.Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Felix will destroy it in 3 milliseconds including the time to read itRobert Flesher wrote:To add some humor to this situation can someone please link this thread to the Rybka forum. I'd like to know how many milliseconds it will last.
Fabien's open letter to the community
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 736
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:48 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
-
- Posts: 9773
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:44 pm
- Location: Amman,Jordan
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
They aretomgdrums wrote:I made a post on the Rybka forum but the last time I checked the rybka team had been strangely quiet.Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Felix will destroy it in 3 milliseconds including the time to read itRobert Flesher wrote:To add some humor to this situation can someone please link this thread to the Rybka forum. I'd like to know how many milliseconds it will last.
_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….
-
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:06 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
The 2011 Rybka Fanboy Zealot award goes to, "Banned for Life" on the Rybka forum for this post, I quote,
"Clone has no legal meaning, and outside of cell replication, it doesn't have a clear technical definition either, so I'll leave arguing about whether engine A is a clone of engine B to people who are comfortable arguing about this kind of meaningless stuff.
It is perfectly natural for Vas to be upset about the fact that people have reverse engineered his product and discovered his ideas for building better chess engines. I am 100% sure that if this hadn't happened, Rybka would be at least 150 Elo better than any competitor on equal hardware. It's certainly his prerogative to say that anyone involved in this effort is a dirty SOB.
But if you step back and look around, you will see that this is the normal method that technology advances. For every innovative guy like Vas, there are ten less innovative guys that have other things to offer. Maybe some will build products with fewer bugs, or a better interface. Some may be better at marketing and sales. Having innovators being overtaken and even pushed out by less innovative people or companies is the norm, not the exception.
So now Vas' ideas are out and others are using them. Some would like you to believe that only a small group of upstarts are smart enough to take advantage of these new ideas. Of course, only an imbecile would believe this, but there are no shortage of these types out there. In reality, all good engine design will incorporate lessons learned from Rybka and use them to strengthen their own engines (just as they have done with ideas from Crafty and Fruit and Stockfish).
In this context, did Mr. Letouzy's recent statement really tell us anything we didn't already know? I really don't think it did. Vas has already stated that he studied everything available when he was first developing Rybka. This explicitly included Fruit. Along with being one of the strongest available engines, Fruit was also far and away the most cleanly written program, so it inspired many to use a lot of its architecture. Did Vas use anything from Fruit in the Beta? It's possible, but do we really need to care about this? It really is time to move on to bigger and better things... "
This guy should sell bridges!
"Clone has no legal meaning, and outside of cell replication, it doesn't have a clear technical definition either, so I'll leave arguing about whether engine A is a clone of engine B to people who are comfortable arguing about this kind of meaningless stuff.
It is perfectly natural for Vas to be upset about the fact that people have reverse engineered his product and discovered his ideas for building better chess engines. I am 100% sure that if this hadn't happened, Rybka would be at least 150 Elo better than any competitor on equal hardware. It's certainly his prerogative to say that anyone involved in this effort is a dirty SOB.
But if you step back and look around, you will see that this is the normal method that technology advances. For every innovative guy like Vas, there are ten less innovative guys that have other things to offer. Maybe some will build products with fewer bugs, or a better interface. Some may be better at marketing and sales. Having innovators being overtaken and even pushed out by less innovative people or companies is the norm, not the exception.
So now Vas' ideas are out and others are using them. Some would like you to believe that only a small group of upstarts are smart enough to take advantage of these new ideas. Of course, only an imbecile would believe this, but there are no shortage of these types out there. In reality, all good engine design will incorporate lessons learned from Rybka and use them to strengthen their own engines (just as they have done with ideas from Crafty and Fruit and Stockfish).
In this context, did Mr. Letouzy's recent statement really tell us anything we didn't already know? I really don't think it did. Vas has already stated that he studied everything available when he was first developing Rybka. This explicitly included Fruit. Along with being one of the strongest available engines, Fruit was also far and away the most cleanly written program, so it inspired many to use a lot of its architecture. Did Vas use anything from Fruit in the Beta? It's possible, but do we really need to care about this? It really is time to move on to bigger and better things... "
This guy should sell bridges!
-
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:00 pm
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Here is what the above is saying.Robert Flesher wrote:The 2011 Rybka Fanboy Zealot award goes to, "Banned for Life" on the Rybka forum for this post, I quote,
"Clone has no legal meaning, and outside of cell replication, it doesn't have a clear technical definition either, so I'll leave arguing about whether engine A is a clone of engine B to people who are comfortable arguing about this kind of meaningless stuff.
It is perfectly natural for Vas to be upset about the fact that people have reverse engineered his product and discovered his ideas for building better chess engines. I am 100% sure that if this hadn't happened, Rybka would be at least 150 Elo better than any competitor on equal hardware. It's certainly his prerogative to say that anyone involved in this effort is a dirty SOB.
But if you step back and look around, you will see that this is the normal method that technology advances. For every innovative guy like Vas, there are ten less innovative guys that have other things to offer. Maybe some will build products with fewer bugs, or a better interface. Some may be better at marketing and sales. Having innovators being overtaken and even pushed out by less innovative people or companies is the norm, not the exception.
So now Vas' ideas are out and others are using them. Some would like you to believe that only a small group of upstarts are smart enough to take advantage of these new ideas. Of course, only an imbecile would believe this, but there are no shortage of these types out there. In reality, all good engine design will incorporate lessons learned from Rybka and use them to strengthen their own engines (just as they have done with ideas from Crafty and Fruit and Stockfish).
In this context, did Mr. Letouzy's recent statement really tell us anything we didn't already know? I really don't think it did. Vas has already stated that he studied everything available when he was first developing Rybka. This explicitly included Fruit. Along with being one of the strongest available engines, Fruit was also far and away the most cleanly written program, so it inspired many to use a lot of its architecture. Did Vas use anything from Fruit in the Beta? It's possible, but do we really need to care about this? It really is time to move on to bigger and better things... "
This guy should sell bridges!
Vas is a genius, Fabien's letter is nothing new, everyone used Fruit ideas, and IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON TO BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS......
-
- Posts: 41455
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:Graham Banks wrote:Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen
Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?
A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.
http://www.superchessengine.com/interviews.htm
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 41455
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
That is Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (Shredder), not Vas.AdminX wrote:There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:Graham Banks wrote:Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen
Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?
A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.
http://www.superchessengine.com/interviews.htm
gbanksnz at gmail.com
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Graham Banks wrote:That is Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (Shredder), not Vas.AdminX wrote:There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:Graham Banks wrote:Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen
Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?
A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.
http://www.superchessengine.com/interviews.htm
Opops my bad!
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 4052
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Sven Schüle
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
If B is derived from A, and C is derived from B, then C is also derived from A.
But if B (Strelka) is derived from A (Rybka 1.0) and B is also derived from C (Fruit 2.1) then there is no "is-derived-from" relationship between A and C.
To make it simple, let's use "A --> B" for "B is derived from A".
This is correct:
(A --> B and B --> C) implies (A --> C)
But this is wrong:
(A --> B and C --> B) implies (A --> C)
Therefore your last sentence, if you would have finished it in the way most readers would expect, would be lacking some logical foundation.
Sven
But if B (Strelka) is derived from A (Rybka 1.0) and B is also derived from C (Fruit 2.1) then there is no "is-derived-from" relationship between A and C.
To make it simple, let's use "A --> B" for "B is derived from A".
This is correct:
(A --> B and B --> C) implies (A --> C)
But this is wrong:
(A --> B and C --> B) implies (A --> C)
Therefore your last sentence, if you would have finished it in the way most readers would expect, would be lacking some logical foundation.
Sven
Laskos wrote: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.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?
2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.
Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...
Kai
-
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:00 pm
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATIONGraham Banks wrote:Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
of Rybka. We had to take your suppression and censorship of other programs you deemed a threat to Rybka for using so called stolen code and ideas.
Now Rybka has a direct accusation from the author of Fruit that Vas used code from Fruit in Rybka. Where is your indignation of Rybka. We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.
I want to know...
When will all version of Rybka be removed from your CCRL Rating List. Since you have stated that no program that is not original will be rated on CCRL Mr. Hypocrite.
I guess this only applies to programs you deem a threat to Rybka.