Fabien's open letter to the community

[Graham Banks]

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.

Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

However, there are always two sides to every story and it's incredibly annoying and frustrating that Vas does not say more on this issue.
Perhaps FSF action would be a great way to end this debate once and for all.

Meanwhile, I do think that the issue should be discussed without resorting to spreading false information or making personal attacks.

I've seen members post that the most recent Loop was a Toga ripoff and that the most recent Naum was a Rybka ripoff, so who knows where all this madness will end?
Trouble is that Rybka seems to the only target.

[M ANSARI]

Is it possible to make a separate thread regarding this issue where maybe Fabien could post with only people that have any chess engine programming knowledge could answer. This thread is unfortunately getting impossible to navigate through due too many posts that are off base.

[michiguel]

Is it possible to make a separate thread regarding this issue where maybe Fabien could post with only people that have any chess engine programming knowledge could answer. This thread is unfortunately getting impossible to navigate through due too many posts that are off base.

Oh no, Fabien wanted to be updated about what happen in the last 5 years, so he should experience all the noise we had every time anything like this started to be discussed [1]. For instance, when Zach posted his thorough analysis and we started the discussion, the whole thing was drown in soccer chants.

Miguel
[1] this is sarcasm for the humor impaired.

[mwyoung]

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...

The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

This is more evidence then the Rybka Fanboys ever had against Houdini or Fire. The point is the Rybka fanboys would use any reason to censor and suppress other programs that would be a threat to Vas and Rybka.

Now the Fanboys are stuck, 1. either be a hypocrite and ignore the previous standards that use to censor and suppress the other programs, or 2. treat Vas and Rybka as they did programs like Houdini and Fire.

Or 3. the last option is to tuck tail and run.

I have seen option 1, and 3. Waiting to see option 2 from the Fan Boys. I will not be holding my breath.

[Matthias Gemuh]

...

Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions ...

"those versions" only ?

Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.

[PauloSoare]

I think many people are geniuses. Bob, Vas, Stefan, Larry, Fabien
and many others.
Changing the subject, it is difficult for me to read a post like his
ugly, you're happy and laughing at the misfortune of others, like a
vulture over carrion, Mr Mark old.
Please moderators, my post can be a personal attack, but worse than
mine is the post of this unfortunate person who said he would no
longer post here.

[Graham Banks]

Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.

I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion!

[Ant_Gugdin]

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

???

So if Rybka 1 is found to be Fruit translated into bitboards, you will continue to test Rybka 4? Can you confirm that you will be applying the same standard to Ivanhoe? In other words, if Ivanhoe evolves to the point where it cannot be said that it is "undeniably a Rybka ripoff," with those words "defensible in a legal sense," then you will start testing Ivanhoe? Or does a different standard apply to Ivanhoe and, if so, why?

Moreover, even if the similarities between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 3/4 are only faint, this will hardly absolve Vas from guilt as those versions have benefited from the input of other programmers e.g. Larry Kaufman. So it would hardly be surprising if there were less of a family resemblance to grandpa Fruit.

EDIT: point already made and answered, no need to reply.

[Matthias Gemuh]

Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.

I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion!

BigLion is a Crafty clone .

[mwyoung]

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.

Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

However, there are always two sides to every story and it's incredibly annoying and frustrating that Vas does not say more on this issue.
Perhaps FSF action would be a great way to end this debate once and for all.

Meanwhile, I do think that the issue should be discussed without resorting to spreading false information or making personal attacks.

I've seen members post that the most recent Loop was a Toga ripoff and that the most recent Naum was a Rybka ripoff, so who knows where all this madness will end?
Trouble is that Rybka seems to the only target.

I agree with you, too bad you did not have this kind of fairness and respect of evidence, and looking at both sides of an issue before today.