Fabien's open letter to the community

[George Tsavdaris]

First thing came to my thoughts after reading the article is a huge lie Vasik was spreading through all these years....that he,Vasik,contacted Fabien regarding the fruit-Rybka affair and Fabien is fine with it and even doesn't care which as I wrote turned out to be a huge lie....
Dr.D

I confirm: no contact with Vasik.
I would like to have a pointer too.

Thanks,

Fabien.

And thanks from my side Fabien....

He didn't thank you for anything you said(in case you misunderstood it).
He just meant it like a "Thanks in advance" way.

And he is thanking you in advance, since he(Fabien) is interested in seeing the original statement of Vasik that you have told us in your previous post that he said in the past, that is:
"First thing came to my thoughts after reading the article is a huge lie Vasik was spreading through all these years....that he,Vasik,contacted Fabien regarding the fruit-Rybka affair and Fabien is fine with it and even doesn't care "

So can you give as a link to his original statement(s) saying that?
•Peter(Skinner) wanted a reference for this.
•Fabien later wanted also a reference about this.
I would like to see it also.

Can you provide it? Simple as that.
And it can be easy to find since you said that he had been spreading it all these years. Constantly i guess, in many public boards.

So? Any reference?
As they say: Link or it didn't happen.

Fabien's intention toward me is none of your business....

Vasik said that several times in the Rybka forum and in one of his infamous interviews....go do the search yourself,I don't work for you....

And one more thing....Fabien didn't ask me to show where Vasik said so,so stop twisting the facts....

I have spent the better part of two days trying to find that quote, and I simply can't.

So if you have a link to it, I would greatly appreciate it. Being that Fabian states that he never knew this whole situation has been happening, it would certainly shed some light on some of my own conclusions to see it in print that Vas said the above statement.

Everyone on here knows I am not a Rybka fan boy.. hell I was one of the first people to publicly state Rybka was a Fruit clone.

So please.. if you have a link to it, I would really appreciate it being sent to me. Even a PM with it is fine. I have searched through 5 years of interviews and can't seem to find it.

Peter

No problem Peter....if I find the link I will post it here....

The problem is that I have to search through tons of posts to find a needle in the hay hill....

But I am sure that Vasik said that....He said it and the truth will come out one way or the other....
Dr.D

I have searched all posts of Vasik in rybkaforum having the words Fruit or Fabien or contacted or contact or email and none of them had an issue about what are you saying.

So:
a) you either lying putting words to Vaisk mouth that he never told for just throwing more of your anti-Rybka stuff. You thought you can escape from this but you can't.
b) your memory failed you.
c) Posts in the rybkaforum about that have been removed for some reason, perhaps when they saw this thread looking for such Vasik's statement.

Personally i think it's a) since you are just constantly throwing any random statement you can for making Rybka or Vasik look bad.

[Roger Brown]

First time your post got deleted.
I hope this time you will get banned.
But i don't have much hopes since moderators don't seem to care much about people saying unfounded and baseless things....

If you don't get banned i will start revealing unfounded things about you also so be careful.

Hello George,

Clearly you are correct about the

moderators don't seem to care much about people saying unfounded and baseless things

statement as I am perfectly alright with your unfounded and baseless statement about the moderators made right here.



By all means proceed on this line without taking time to note the several attempts I have made to ease the tension out of this debate and address those memberes who feel that they should insult those whose opinions differ from theirs.

I do not intend to follow anyone's hints or advice about banning a member and, in considering your statement to reveal unfounded things, isn't there a burden of behaviour on your shoulders to elevate those you come in contact with instead of joining them in the mess you seemingly abhor?

Later.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

First thing came to my thoughts after reading the article is a huge lie Vasik was spreading through all these years....that he,Vasik,contacted Fabien regarding the fruit-Rybka affair and Fabien is fine with it and even doesn't care which as I wrote turned out to be a huge lie....
Dr.D

I confirm: no contact with Vasik.
I would like to have a pointer too.

Thanks,

Fabien.

And thanks from my side Fabien....

He didn't thank you for anything you said(in case you misunderstood it).
He just meant it like a "Thanks in advance" way.

And he is thanking you in advance, since he(Fabien) is interested in seeing the original statement of Vasik that you have told us in your previous post that he said in the past, that is:
"First thing came to my thoughts after reading the article is a huge lie Vasik was spreading through all these years....that he,Vasik,contacted Fabien regarding the fruit-Rybka affair and Fabien is fine with it and even doesn't care "

So can you give as a link to his original statement(s) saying that?
•Peter(Skinner) wanted a reference for this.
•Fabien later wanted also a reference about this.
I would like to see it also.

Can you provide it? Simple as that.
And it can be easy to find since you said that he had been spreading it all these years. Constantly i guess, in many public boards.

So? Any reference?
As they say: Link or it didn't happen.

Fabien's intention toward me is none of your business....

Vasik said that several times in the Rybka forum and in one of his infamous interviews....go do the search yourself,I don't work for you....

And one more thing....Fabien didn't ask me to show where Vasik said so,so stop twisting the facts....

I don't like to tell you this Wael, but nobody can find where Vas ever stated this (or even recall it).
The closest that anybody can find is where Stefan Meyer-Kahlen stated that he'd had email contact with Fabien.

Cheers,
Graham.

No problem Graham....
I am sure that I read somewhere that he contacted Fabien regarding the issue and he's ok with it....

Somewhere? now it became somewhere?
Let me remind you what you were saying some posts earlier:

"Vasik said that, several times in the Rybka forum and in one of his infamous interviews."

It's incredible how incapable we are about finding something that has been told several times or find something in an (ghost) interview of him.

The truth will pop up at a certin moment....

Yes but for now your credibility suffers a lot....
Well it's up to you to prove that he indeed said that, and it's not just some more random **** of yours, putting words in his mouth that he never said.

Let me reming you to shut up

[Roger Brown]

Well, it is clear that there are quite a few people that are monomanic about nclusion of Houdini in the CCRL testing.

"Rybka a derivative of Fruit? Then you must test Houdini!"
"Stockfish surpasses Rybka? Then you must test Houdini!"
"Your neigbor's dog crapped at your doorstep? Then you must test Houdini!"

Etc, etc.

Hello H.G.,

I could care less about what these groups test. It is not as if my chess experience revolved around them.

However I do find the various arguments that are made quite interesting.

Not a lot of light, just positions taken and daggers drawn.

Thank goodness it is all just a hobby!

Suppose it was serious, like football (not soccer!!)?

Later.

[Alexander Schmidt]

If re-writing should be considered cloning is not a matter of law, but of opinion. Like I stated before, I consider all existing engines clones of Shannon's work. But what good does that insight do me?

We are not talking about law, we are talking about the gpl and license agrements.

If you take the source code of Fruit, change it until every line is changed, the new program is still under gpl protection. Publishing it without sources and GPL license is illegal. Hard to pinch but illegal. Is this so hard to understand? When will you finally accept that?

Reading the Fruit sources, build your own engine with the ideas is fine. Using other common ideas is fine. Copying one single line out of Fruit is violating the gpl.

Your shannon clone case is misplaced. Your way of argument is rude. Noone here ever said that it is illegal to take ideas from GPL'ed code. Thats what you always try to imply. I am really sick of this kind of discussions.

[George Tsavdaris]

By all means proceed on this line without taking time to note the several attempts I have made to ease the tension out of this debate and address those memberes who feel that they should insult those whose opinions differ from theirs.

The tension can't be cooled off. Because the same people will say the same stupid things over and over again killing any kind of logic there is(was) in this forum.

I do not intend to follow anyone's hints or advice about banning a member and, in considering your statement to reveal unfounded things, isn't there a burden of behaviour on your shoulders to elevate those you come in contact with instead of joining them in the mess you seemingly abhor?

No. I have said that to Steve(the previous moderator) also. I will deliberately try to create fuss and throw woods to the fire just in case moderators will see what is happening with some guys.

If you don't see it (i wonder why) then this is not a place for me.

Mr Wael constantly is saying every kind of illogical things about Rybka and Vasik, and constantly trying to degrade and dishonor Rybka or Vasik.
I would have no problem if he just said his opinion based on facts. But the problem is he distorts facts or more commonly he doesn't present any!

And when things are becoming difficult and you push him to the limit(like i did) he starts insulting me for example. Saying twice the same thing. Directly saying it. That i received a free copy of Rybka from Vasik in order to protect Rybka in some way here and say good things. He also told me to go to hell and shut up among other similar things.

So yeah if he escapes once again from this, i will become a similar troll and accuse every day any random member here with unfounded and totally random things like (totally random examples) Graham Banks received a copy of Hiarcs in order to say good things about it here, or john dalhem received some money from SMK in order to protect Shredder and show only good results of it in his tests, etc etc.

Every single day i will do that! It's the exact same things Wael did with me and some other members.

If he is allowed to do that, then i am too. If he escaped 3-4 times with this, i should escape too.

I'm not behaving childishly i'm just trying to bring logic back to this forum. That's why i'm creating this fuss. To make bold his posts in order you, the moderators, to see them and see how illogical and out of charter they are.

[hgm]

We are not talking about law, we are talking about the gpl and license agrements.

If you take the source code of Fruit, change it until every line is changed, the new program is still under gpl protection. Publishing it without sources and GPL license is illegal. Hard to pinch but illegal. Is this so hard to understand? When will you finally accept that?

You don't seem to know and understand much about law / copyrights / GPL. Otherwise you would not talk such nonsense. None of what you say above is even remotely true. So the chances that I will accept it are about as large as that I will accept the Earth is flat...

But I have written often enough now how it works, and won't repeat it again. Take some legal advice, or just go on shouting nonsense to make sure everyone sees how little you understand of these matters, I don't care.It is your choice...

Reading the Fruit sources, build your own engine with the ideas is fine. Using other common ideas is fine. Copying one single line out of Fruit is violating the gpl.

Your shannon clone case is misplaced. Your way of argument is rude. Noone here ever said that it is illegal to take ideas from GPL'ed code. Thats what you always try to imply. I am really sick of this kind of discussions.

[bob]

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.

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).

Your "A = B", intended as "Rybka = Strelka", is clearly wrong. It is a known fact that Strelka was based on both Fruit and Rybka.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 815#347815

Therefore any connection between Fruit and Rybka can't be concluded based on Strelka but needs a _direct_ comparison.

Sven

Vasik claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. My similarity test shows Strelka 1.8 as being identical to Rybka 1.0 within error margins. I don't think the fact that Strelka 1.8 is arguably almost an identical clone of Rybka 1.0 or it is exactly 100% Rybka 1.0 changes something. This is an argument ad absurdum just to defend a preferred soccer team. Take Vasik words that Strelka's code is his as granted.

The real issue is what Fabien is saying, confirms the findings or else, that second half of the of assumptions.

Kai

I gave a link to the statement of the Strelka author where he explained exactly what he did to create Strelka. That tells you that A != B. Yuri Osipov also explained that he did not succeed in creating a compilable codebase by only using disassembled R1 code.

So I have to reject your view of my argument being "an argument ad absurdum just to defend a preferred soccer team".

The same post of Yuri Osipov which I linked to above also contains his statement "[...] I gradually added the parts of code and tables from Rybka. It was easy, because Rybka was made on the same way." I do not say this is wrong, I can only say he cannot know exactly that Rybka was made like this. He thinks so. But he can only know for sure what he did by himself, not what someone else did.

Using Don's similarity test is not valid to prove that two programs are "identical". It was not intended for this purpose, I may assume that you know that. Surely you can show that two programs _behave_ very similar. And in case of Strelka vs. R1 this is no big surprise, since Strelka was explicitly designed for exact that purpose.

My point remains that Strelka can't be used to conclude anything about Fruit-R1 connections.

Sven

Just for the record, to eliminate this specific argument, when Zach, CT, I and others looked at the fruit/rybka1 question, we did _not_ involve Strelka. Strelka was the thing that exposed the issue, but we directly compared fruit to rybka, so the strelka issue could not be raised again...

[bob]

Hi Guenther,

Fabien did voice his interest in the issue and also voiced his opinion that Strelka is definitely a Fruit clone. On the other hand we know that Rajlich said that Strelka is actually Rybka. For me that spells that Fabien did issue a straightforward message. Thus Fabien voiced his opinion, the way I read it.

and me too.

I guess that Fabian right now is gathering the facts so that he can make up his mind about what happened. Instead of reading between the lines and deciding what we think he might mean, I suggest that in a few days he will simply tell us his opinion.

I would like to put events into proper time-frame / perspective.

1. Strelka came along.

2. Vas looked at it, claimed it was Rybka and therefore he was going to release the strelka source under his name.

3. He then discovered that even if you take a source from a questionable place, once you modify it, the modifications are _your_ copyright. Since Strelka admittedly had some changes made (improvements according to Vas) he then realized he could not release it as his code as then he would be violating the "author's" copyright. Even though Vas had violated the Fruit GPL.

So he was damned if he did (release the code as his own) or damned if he didn't (someone else was getting credit and his ideas were exposed)...

That's all there was to that little episode.

[bob]

There is no way of knowing wether or not the code has its origin in a decompile or if its a rewrite. Its possible to write code that looks exactly like a decompile.

Indeed. Like it is possible to write code that looks exactly like the original. But it would be a bit stupid to do either of that, as it would be a way to make sure the original copyrights still apply to it. The mechanism by which you actually produce the copy is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much it looks like the original.

If decompiling produces the exact same output as rewriting it then you need to explain why decompiling is cloning while rewriting is not. Both are clearly cloning in my opinion, both are at least derivatives

By 'output' you mean here 'moves it makes', as opposed to the binary output from the compiler? This has been a well-fought battle in the software industry. If I write an operating system that requires exactly the same input as Unix, and gives us the same output on it, would it be a violation of the AT&T copyrights on it? The answer is an unequivocal 'no'. Hence we have Linux...

JUST so long as there is _no_ AT&T sys V unix source included. This has happened a few times in the Linux past, and code was completely rewritten to solve the problem... It is not always clear whether code was written by AT&T or by users, after a long time elapses. But AT&T has a memory like an elephant.