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 .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:
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.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
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 .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:
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.
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 .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:
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.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
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
Laskos wrote:
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...
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 .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
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.
Sven Schüle wrote: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
That is wrong, I agree:
"But this is wrong:
(A --> B and C --> B) implies (A --> C)"
Yes. But it has nothing to do with my post.
What I was saying, and Vasik said half of that, Fabien said another half is the correct one:
(A = B and C --> B) implies (C --> A)
I confirmed what was Vasik saying in my post with similarity graph in this thread. In fact this similarity graph probably confirms what Fabien is saying too (Rybka 1.0 is shown closer to Fruit 2.1 than Houdini 1.5 is to Rybka 3).
Kai
Laskos wrote:
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...
Kai
Last edited by Laskos on Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
mwyoung wrote:We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.
Strange we never get to see it then. I guess it is a save bet you will not be able to produce it either, right?
Yet it is such a simple request: just post the code of Fruit you have 'proof' of that it is in Rybka. I am very curious to see it. But of course you are much too busy foulmouthing others to bother which such a trifle...
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 .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
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.
Direct accusation? code?
Where did you read this?!?!?
Miguel
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.
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 .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
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.
Hello Mark,
Please feel free to be as passionate as you like without getting personal. I cannot say that your argument is entirely without merit but it does not need the labelling or indeed the suggestion of some ulterior motive.
In fact, if you simply leave it out you will see that your argument still stands on its own.
The last thing I want is that this descends into a name-calling hissy fit. Much too entertaining for that!
mwyoung wrote:We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.
Strange we never get to see it then. I guess it is a save bet you will not be able to produce it either, right?
Yet it is such a simple request: just post the code of Fruit you have 'proof' of that it is in Rybka. I am very curious to see it. But of course you are much too busy foulmouthing others to bother which such a trifle...
You mean he should compile for you the 1000 posts from several fora for the last 3 years ? Only a fool would want to do such work unpaid.
