bob wrote:
So let's get off this bad analogy approach unless you can choose an analogy that actually supports your position rather than contradicts it.
It's my fault that you missed the main point I made. Therefore just for completeness reasons. You are repeating the same output, the moves and such but my example meant this: following you it was the same, a copy or whatever term of your choice, but how could it be faster, in my example of the cars, and in chess 100 points better all of the time with rising version numbers? I'm only speaking about this surplus.
If it were so easy to at first begin with the copy then why many others arent doing the same? In my books that speaks clearly against your hypothesis that Rybka1beta was a copy. Then what is your final verdict? I measn, what relevance legally, justice, court, this what you see and claim does have?? Violations of past experiences? Into what category that crime belongs? We have never done this, this would be completely new... It will always insult masters of concrete/beton/past.
I don't see why you don't get this. You steal a super-secret high-performance engine, and then mount it in a better carbon-fiber chassis/body so that it now is faster than anything around. Partially because of the innovation of the carbon-fiber chassis, but also because of the stolen high-performance motor. Is this OK? Not in my mind. If you steal something and improve it, it is still stolen property...
Then what is with the almost 80% you all have stolen/taken from your forefathers?? And again, Vas didnt just once improve the performance on the base of the bitboard design but he does it with every new version. From where did he steal this? If not from his own genius!
Bob, guess is the best student you ever had, and better than yourself, cant you imagine a method in the field itself plus some ingenious marketing ideas, that Vas might have followed? That is the difference, Bob, where mere stealing is transforming into genius creativity. You speak of a secret that you would want to know. But then at first consider that Vas is really some improvement. Lay asks, could it be that a genial programmer could have introduced a sort of loop - invisible - that forces false output to rippers? IMO the secret doesnt lie in a concrete place, it's the overall design. Ok, now make some jokes about my ignorance.
It's like a rowing boat, an eight or a four. You can put together the finest and latest lightweight sleek design, with superdesigned oars and rowlocks, perfect seating glide, the best oarsmen, the lightest cox and they'll be hopeless, because they are not practised, tuned and working as one - maybe even they don't fit together and never will.
Vas genius was to take the components of chess programming, mostly known, and work them together into a lean mean perfectly tuned machine. He took two and two and made five, that's his genius and that's what makes him stand head and shoulders above the opposition. The genius is in the overview, the design, the feel for what he is doing. The proof is in the performance. It's the failure to understand, let alone repeat, the genius of the overview that leads to the envy and the criticism.
What I like in particular is Vas completely relaxed attitude to the venom that is thrown at him. He has an understanding level above and beyond, so he can simply look down in resigned amusement.
Viva Vas and Viva Rybka.
And I would add that the idea that Vas stole anything from Fruit is wrong. You can not steal what was given! GPL or no GPL, Fabien published his ideas for all to use. It looks as though Vas may have used some framework code from Fruit (and maybe some constants that were probably, "best by test"), but that is mundane and nobody should care. The engine itself is a complete rewrite and shares no code with the original. And it is Vastly improved.
The ideas are free for all to take. The actual source code is _not_ free unless you follow the specific GPL guidelines however. I don't see why we keep coming back to the discussion about "taking ideas" when the original claim was "actual source code was copied." The two are _not_ the same thing.
My concern as a programmer is primarily with the search and evaluation functions. These were written using bitboards and obviously improved. How can 'copy and paste' be even in question for the actual engine? The other stuff is mostly mundane. Even you allow copy and paste of some mundane support type functions such as popcnt().
Edsel suggest that Vas closely reproduced the exact algorithm (framework) as Fruit and that is what gives Rybka its strength. However, even if he chose that as his starting point, he clearly improved upon that framework. I doubt that Rybka 3 looks much like Fruit 2.1 very much at all anymore. And remember, Rybka 1.0 beta was free. And now Rybka 2 ... is free as well. On moral grounds, this does count for something and it is not a pittance.
If you are on a sidewalk and the covid goes beep beep
Just step aside or you might have a bit of heat
Covid covid runs through the town all day
Can the people ever change their ways
Sherwin the covid's after you
Sherwin if it catches you you're through
All of that might be completely true. But it is also completely irrelevant. If you copy source, you copied source. Modifying it does not change the fact that it was copied to start with. That's the point here...
does the phrase ".........it appears......." constitute solid proof:?:
or is it a malicious smear disguised as intelligent discussion?
It is a simple statement of fact. Nothing more, nothing less. I have piece/square tables in Crafty. Most everyone does. What is the probability that two different people come up with the _same_ set of 64 numbers for, say, knights, to represent the base score for a knight on each square? What about the set of 6 x 64 numbers for all 6 piece types? Coincidence? Plagiarism? Certainly coincidence is not the explanation. That would leave ... what???
"appears" is perhaps a _very_ generous word at the moment... I might not use it the next time this discussion pops up after we see some more results....
............
........"appears" is perhaps a _very_ generous word at the moment... I might not use it the next time this discussion pops up after we see some more results....
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
bob wrote:All of that might be completely true. But it is also completely irrelevant. If you copy source, you copied source. Modifying it does not change the fact that it was copied to start with. That's the point here...
Bla. If you do so for a present, a free engine, you could do so. It should be reported and this is what happened. That is 100% kosher unless you want to harm Vas. All he should have done is he should have told you his new-found secrets. Then he would be tolerated. But he keeps his secrets for himself. I guess he could tell, it wouldnt make a difference because he's a genius. Because already now others could copy him and even did but at the end of the day when the body count is done, he's still better than the rest.
Vasik should be praised for his class but not be discriminated as non-kosher. He is kosher through and through! Talking about facts.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:
Bla. If you do so for a present, a free engine, you could do so. It should be reported and this is what happened. That is 100% kosher unless you want to harm Vas.
<snipped>
No you cannot 'do so' and it's 0% kosher as not releasing the source code from a derivative work violates the GPL. You might think it's OK as it was given away but alas it's not.
Rolf wrote:
Bla. If you do so for a present, a free engine, you could do so. It should be reported and this is what happened. That is 100% kosher unless you want to harm Vas.
<snipped>
No you cannot 'do so' and it's 0% kosher as not releasing the source code from a derivative work violates the GPL. You might think it's OK as it was given away but alas it's not.
But make sure that you run for a court trial...
Show me why I'm wrong if I say that this is formalism, beancounting. Help me to understand the problem for you. But please in your words not quotes out of pages of GPL rules. I've seen that before when ChrisW debated with Bob.
Just take this case and make some comments when the crucial moment existed, what exactly was the wrongdoing, perhaps in a false assumption etc. And please do always add if you think that this what you say is the only thinkable interpretation of how things must be done. Who has organised all that in computerchess? Is CC a serious field for such questions? Or is it all a play? You see how I want to relativate certain things.
I havent written given away, I meant given for free as a present to those who showed interest via email, so, a totally private circle. Your turn.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
bob wrote:All of that might be completely true. But it is also completely irrelevant. If you copy source, you copied source. Modifying it does not change the fact that it was copied to start with. That's the point here...
Bla. If you do so for a present, a free engine, you could do so. It should be reported and this is what happened. That is 100% kosher unless you want to harm Vas. All he should have done is he should have told you his new-found secrets. Then he would be tolerated. But he keeps his secrets for himself. I guess he could tell, it wouldnt make a difference because he's a genius. Because already now others could copy him and even did but at the end of the day when the body count is done, he's still better than the rest.
Vasik should be praised for his class but not be discriminated as non-kosher. He is kosher through and through! Talking about facts.
Total gibberish. Copying someone else's work/code is simply unacceptable. Revealing his modifications would not absolve him of any transgressions related to copying the code.
bob wrote:All of that might be completely true. But it is also completely irrelevant. If you copy source, you copied source. Modifying it does not change the fact that it was copied to start with. That's the point here...
Bla. If you do so for a present, a free engine, you could do so. It should be reported and this is what happened. That is 100% kosher unless you want to harm Vas. All he should have done is he should have told you his new-found secrets. Then he would be tolerated. But he keeps his secrets for himself. I guess he could tell, it wouldnt make a difference because he's a genius. Because already now others could copy him and even did but at the end of the day when the body count is done, he's still better than the rest.
Vasik should be praised for his class but not be discriminated as non-kosher. He is kosher through and through! Talking about facts.
Total gibberish. Copying someone else's work/code is simply unacceptable. Revealing his modifications would not absolve him of any transgressions related to copying the code.
Can we get off of this nonsense now?
Except the author=someone intended his work to be taken or being inspired by. It's clear that Fab. wanted it this way otgherwise he would have said so when some Rybka was presented to him via email by Corbitt.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
bob wrote:All of that might be completely true. But it is also completely irrelevant. If you copy source, you copied source. Modifying it does not change the fact that it was copied to start with. That's the point here...
Bla. If you do so for a present, a free engine, you could do so. It should be reported and this is what happened. That is 100% kosher unless you want to harm Vas. All he should have done is he should have told you his new-found secrets. Then he would be tolerated. But he keeps his secrets for himself. I guess he could tell, it wouldnt make a difference because he's a genius. Because already now others could copy him and even did but at the end of the day when the body count is done, he's still better than the rest.
Vasik should be praised for his class but not be discriminated as non-kosher. He is kosher through and through! Talking about facts.
Total gibberish. Copying someone else's work/code is simply unacceptable. Revealing his modifications would not absolve him of any transgressions related to copying the code.
Can we get off of this nonsense now?
Except the author=someone intended his work to be taken or being inspired by. It's clear that Fab. wanted it this way otgherwise he would have said so when some Rybka was presented to him via email by Corbitt.
You have _got_ to stop using your imagination in a factual discussion. The _author_ released his code under the GPL. Which is a very explicit legal document detailing what can and can not be done with the source code. Just because someone releases their source code does _not_ mean it is ok for others to copy it and claim it as their own. To suggest that is simply ridiculous.
