Christophe, Zach and Norman? Made a Promise- I Want It

[bob]

What Vas did with Rybka is perfectly fine. He made a better wiget--that is what us humans do--we make better wigets! Okay, he may have used a very good wiget as a base model, but then he used a better material for his wiget (bitboards) and made many improvements. His wiget is a far superior widget and he deserves the credit for his improved wiget!

My gripe is that Fruits source code was released in the first place. I wish that it hadn't been released. This is purely selfish as I believe that my program would have a substantially higher position in the rating list if Fruits sources hadn't been released and would be more important to people today than it is. The number of new/improved programs just skyrocketed after Fruit was released. My program though has not benifited from Fruits release as I have taken nothing from it or any other program except that I learned the basics from TSCP!

But, now my originality does not count for much and to even get close to the top, I must consider doing what Vas may have done!

Why don't you complain about the release of TSCP?

Miguel

You're joking right?

But, just in case you're not.

TSCP is only a very basic engine that was written as a teaching aid for dummies like me, so I could grasp the very rudiments of chess programming with out a whole bunch of perifery algorithms getting in the way. Any engine based on TSCP needs a huge amount of work to be a threat to any engine in the top 150 or so engines. There are plenty of books that give more information than TSCP gives.

I should complain about TSCP? Really?

I think that something else motivates your question!

I am glad we're not all still using bubble sort.
Somebody thought it was a good idea to teach us other ways to order data.

If chess competition has come to the point where winning and losing is the only important thing and learning new ideas should be punished then chess programming is going in entirely the wrong direction.

For most of us, that is not what "it" is about. Otherwise why would I release my latest source, which makes it difficult to gain ground on everyone since everyone can see exactly what I am doing? Why would I make 50% of the posts I write here, which serve as useful information for _everyone_ when I test something on my cluster and the supply the results to show what something is really worth? Why would I write papers describing algorithms I have developed so that others can avoid the same development headaches? And I am not the only one. Why would Slate write a "reveal all" chapter for Frey's book? Why did Ken reveal all details about Belle, and then collaborate with Hsu to put it on a single chip? Why did Newborn, and Marsland, and Schaeffer, and Campbell, and Wendroff, and ... and ... all publish details about what they were doing? It didn't help them "win points". Quite the contrary. But it _did_ advance computer chess.

This is about copying source code, nothing more, nothing less. It is wrong. It has always been wrong. Hopefully it will continue to be wrong. Whether other commercial authors have followed this "dark path" or not is unknown. In this case, someone reverse-engineered a commercial program, and then others noticed a marked similarity between that result and an existing GPL'ed program. And here we are. And from looking at the code posted here so far, and at a little that has not been posted here, there is strong evidence that this is what actually happened. This would be OK had the GPL been followed, but it wasn't.

I have been just as adamant about anti-copying with other programs, particularly in the case of the many crafty "clones" that popped up. Wrong is wrong, regardless of what was copied or who copied it.

it really is that simple...

[bob]

All he did was publish a link to download the engine, which could easily be considered an illegal clone. At best, it is of "questionable legal status", per charter point 5. Anyways, Jury tells me that he isn't going to release any secrets or source from Rybka 3, so I suppose Vas has nothing to worry about...

It is hardly "an illegal clone" when he tells _exactly_ where it came from.

[bob]

Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?

Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.

?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.

What kind of complaint would justify removing such a post? It is hardly unethical to carefully examine a program's binary, decode what it is doing, and then publish the details. It would be unethical to do so and then claim the decoded stuff was your own work, but he didn't do this...

Nope, this is not only not hardly but totally criminal.

You cant take a commercial program, analyse and rip it and then do it in your own stuff and publish it. I know what you want to reach but it wont function. He wont react on such a crap from your side.

It's copyrighted program R3 and nobody has the right to publish its internals. Understood? And now apologize.

Sorry, but that is perfectly legal. You could not take a commercial product, and distribute it directly. But you can certainly analyze it to death, and publish the results wherever you want...

You do realize what "copyright" means? Hint: it has _nothing_ to do with "ideas"... only actual, physical code. No rybka _code_ was distributed in any form.

[Bill Rogers]

I thought you worked in the software field Bill? How many computer products do you know that don't derive a new version from a previous version? It's how things are done and how they have always been done. It's sensible to conclude that Rybka 3 was based on Rybka 2 source code and Rybka 2 on Rybka 1 or do you not think that is how it was done?

Andy
With all due respect your statement does not offer any truths only theories of what might have been done, and that does not make it true.
Years ago I releast my first version of my chess program with its source, but since then I completly rewrote it and entered it in at lease one trournement where it held its own. The rewrite so completly different that I won't, at least at this time release the source as I am still making new improvements as time goes by.
As I stated earlier, Rick Fabian decompiled the source but then he took it upon himself to rename much of the code so that it appeared identical to Fruit. How many chess programs generate a chess board in the same way or the search, or .... There are just to many different things that all chess programs share to claim the ideas were stolen. Rick never proved that the evaluations routines were in any way the same and that in most cases is the heart of a programs true strenght.
Bill

[Rolf]

Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?

Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.

?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.

What kind of complaint would justify removing such a post? It is hardly unethical to carefully examine a program's binary, decode what it is doing, and then publish the details. It would be unethical to do so and then claim the decoded stuff was your own work, but he didn't do this...

Nope, this is not only not hardly but totally criminal.

You cant take a commercial program, analyse and rip it and then do it in your own stuff and publish it. I know what you want to reach but it wont function. He wont react on such a crap from your side.

It's copyrighted program R3 and nobody has the right to publish its internals. Understood? And now apologize.

Sorry, but that is perfectly legal. You could not take a commercial product, and distribute it directly. But you can certainly analyze it to death, and publish the results wherever you want...

You do realize what "copyright" means? Hint: it has _nothing_ to do with "ideas"... only actual, physical code. No rybka _code_ was distributed in any form.

You know what I think in the meantime?

That you who builds his Crafty with the help of thousands of others does this only with source code and all because he speculates that if others who have taken some from this code must mention your name. You just want to be the hero. After your own sports carreer has been closed years ago. Pathetic.

Vas is another one. He is number one and doesnt care what you are judging, convicting and executing. He just doesnt care a bit. And that again doesnt please you. Bad luck.

(All the examples you gave of who shared suddenly so much, they are all old veterans whose creativity high was at least a decade ago. Vas is creative and therefore you want to rip his creating to profit from its ideas. And you use this forum for a smear campaign, just IMO. I agree totally with Bill.)

[Gerd Isenberg]

Is that a turing test? The beta version of your new Eliza?
Not bad

[bob]

Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?

Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.

?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.

What kind of complaint would justify removing such a post? It is hardly unethical to carefully examine a program's binary, decode what it is doing, and then publish the details. It would be unethical to do so and then claim the decoded stuff was your own work, but he didn't do this...

Nope, this is not only not hardly but totally criminal.

You cant take a commercial program, analyse and rip it and then do it in your own stuff and publish it. I know what you want to reach but it wont function. He wont react on such a crap from your side.

It's copyrighted program R3 and nobody has the right to publish its internals. Understood? And now apologize.

Sorry, but that is perfectly legal. You could not take a commercial product, and distribute it directly. But you can certainly analyze it to death, and publish the results wherever you want...

You do realize what "copyright" means? Hint: it has _nothing_ to do with "ideas"... only actual, physical code. No rybka _code_ was distributed in any form.

You know what I think in the meantime?

That you who builds his Crafty with the help of thousands of others does this only with source code and all because he speculates that if others who have taken some from this code must mention your name. You just want to be the hero. After your own sports carreer has been closed years ago. Pathetic.

Pathetic does come to mind, usually when I see the word "Rolf" in one of the many posts here. My "career' is a _long_ way from "closed". You might have become quite worthless in your advanced age and deteriorated mental condition, I have not, yet. So take your pot-shots somewhere where they might attract some attention. Here they appear to be just the rantings of a tired old man.

Vas is another one. He is number one and doesnt care what you are judging, convicting and executing. He just doesnt care a bit. And that again doesnt please you. Bad luck.

You _really_ don't get it. It doesn't matter one scintilla to me what he thinks about me. All that matters to me is what I think about him. And it is less now than it was 3 years ago, as newer and newer information comes to light. From likely copying a GPL program to use for a starting point, to making outright false/misleading statements about his program. You've not seen _me_ do that, you might notice. Nothing copied in the source of Crafty, which anyone can verify. I've never made any false claims about the parallel search, because each claim has been verified by many others. Go figure...

(All the examples you gave of who shared suddenly so much, they are all old veterans whose creativity high was at least a decade ago. Vas is creative and therefore you want to rip his creating to profit from its ideas. And you use this forum for a smear campaign, just IMO. I agree totally with Bill.)

If "the truth" is equated to "smear" then your dictionary is in as sad a shape as you are mentally. Until we share a common vocabulary, there is absolutely no way to communicate. I can't speak "monkey-talk". you know nothing about "computer chess talk" or "software license talk" so the discussion really is hopeless. I need to go buy a monkey myself and let him do the typing to respond to your posts...

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?

Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.

?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.

What kind of complaint would justify removing such a post? It is hardly unethical to carefully examine a program's binary, decode what it is doing, and then publish the details. It would be unethical to do so and then claim the decoded stuff was your own work, but he didn't do this...

Nope, this is not only not hardly but totally criminal.

You cant take a commercial program, analyse and rip it and then do it in your own stuff and publish it. I know what you want to reach but it wont function. He wont react on such a crap from your side.

It's copyrighted program R3 and nobody has the right to publish its internals. Understood? And now apologize.

Sorry, but that is perfectly legal. You could not take a commercial product, and distribute it directly. But you can certainly analyze it to death, and publish the results wherever you want...

You do realize what "copyright" means? Hint: it has _nothing_ to do with "ideas"... only actual, physical code. No rybka _code_ was distributed in any form.

You know what I think in the meantime?

That you who builds his Crafty with the help of thousands of others does this only with source code and all because he speculates that if others who have taken some from this code must mention your name. You just want to be the hero. After your own sports carreer has been closed years ago. Pathetic.

Pathetic does come to mind, usually when I see the word "Rolf" in one of the many posts here. My "career' is a _long_ way from "closed". You might have become quite worthless in your advanced age and deteriorated mental condition, I have not, yet. So take your pot-shots somewhere where they might attract some attention. Here they appear to be just the rantings of a tired old man.

Vas is another one. He is number one and doesnt care what you are judging, convicting and executing. He just doesnt care a bit. And that again doesnt please you. Bad luck.

You _really_ don't get it. It doesn't matter one scintilla to me what he thinks about me. All that matters to me is what I think about him. And it is less now than it was 3 years ago, as newer and newer information comes to light. From likely copying a GPL program to use for a starting point, to making outright false/misleading statements about his program. You've not seen _me_ do that, you might notice. Nothing copied in the source of Crafty, which anyone can verify. I've never made any false claims about the parallel search, because each claim has been verified by many others. Go figure...

(All the examples you gave of who shared suddenly so much, they are all old veterans whose creativity high was at least a decade ago. Vas is creative and therefore you want to rip his creating to profit from its ideas. And you use this forum for a smear campaign, just IMO. I agree totally with Bill.)

If "the truth" is equated to "smear" then your dictionary is in as sad a shape as you are mentally. Until we share a common vocabulary, there is absolutely no way to communicate. I can't speak "monkey-talk". you know nothing about "computer chess talk" or "software license talk" so the discussion really is hopeless. I need to go buy a monkey myself and let him do the typing to respond to your posts...

That was a good one Bob,I have to admit....

[Rolf]

Pathetic does come to mind, usually when I see the word "Rolf" in one of the many posts here. My "career' is a _long_ way from "closed". You might have become quite worthless in your advanced age and deteriorated mental condition, I have not, yet. So take your pot-shots somewhere where they might attract some attention. Here they appear to be just the rantings of a tired old man.

If "the truth" is equated to "smear" then your dictionary is in as sad a shape as you are mentally. Until we share a common vocabulary, there is absolutely no way to communicate. I can't speak "monkey-talk". you know nothing about "computer chess talk" or "software license talk" so the discussion really is hopeless. I need to go buy a monkey myself and let him do the typing to respond to your posts...

That is the language of one who wants to smear on Vasik and his Rybka for alleged violations, and who has no case. So everything boils down to the state of 'lame duck' if I understood the idiom good enough. Like Bill I declare that you cant make a case based on big mouthed words. You have no case.

One correction. You dont speak money talk? I have other memories when you supported the cheating against Kasparov because allegedly IBM had told them to betray their research object. Question was if they could beat the best in chess on his own battle field. There was no idea that this could be misunderstood as a zoo of impolite behavior. Cheating for the money. Also chessplayers cheat, not in chess but in poker.

During the Dresden Olympiad Spassky talked about Fischer and e.g. Korchnoi. He said that Fischer never disturbed him during a chess game but Korchnoi was insupportable. He had made all kind of noise to distract Spassky's concentration. This is exactly what IBMteam has done. And scandal, they did it as operators because the machine couldnt speak or breathe, it didnt even know what impoliteness means. Brave heroes, your friends! Dont you dare to put your hands on Vasik with such a bad record, Bob. Stop the campaign against him! He's above you.

[bob]

I thought you worked in the software field Bill? How many computer products do you know that don't derive a new version from a previous version? It's how things are done and how they have always been done. It's sensible to conclude that Rybka 3 was based on Rybka 2 source code and Rybka 2 on Rybka 1 or do you not think that is how it was done?

Andy
With all due respect your statement does not offer any truths only theories of what might have been done, and that does not make it true.
Years ago I releast my first version of my chess program with its source, but since then I completly rewrote it and entered it in at lease one trournement where it held its own. The rewrite so completly different that I won't, at least at this time release the source as I am still making new improvements as time goes by.
As I stated earlier, Rick Fabian decompiled the source but then he took it upon himself to rename much of the code so that it appeared identical to Fruit. How many chess programs generate a chess board in the same way or the search, or .... There are just to many different things that all chess programs share to claim the ideas were stolen. Rick never proved that the evaluations routines were in any way the same and that in most cases is the heart of a programs true strenght.
Bill

You keep mis-quoting the main topic of these discussions. You said "claim the ideas were stolen" has _never_ been mentioned. It would be correct to say "claim the actual source code was copied in whole or in major parts..." and you would be back on-topic. This is _not_ about ideas. It is about actual source code. nothing more, nothing less.