A Question for Our Sponsor..IPPO Links OK or Not??

[Rolf]

Surely the content is what matters in a technical discussion.

Later.

What a nonsense. If a "crime" has been done under anonymity, the solution is the reveiling of the identity but not lurking for more anonymous statements. Vas has spoken and he is real. More would only be said if it's a court case. What Bibi or Buba or BadBoy have to say is laughable. Graham is right on.

[Robert Flesher]

Surely the content is what matters in a technical discussion.

Later.

This statement should have said :
What a nonsense. If a "crime" has been done under anonymity, the solution is the reveiling of the identity but not lurking for more anonymous statements. Vas has spoken falsehoods and he is real. More would only be said if it's a court case. What Bibi or Buba or BadBoy have to say is laughable. Graham is right on.

Rolf, one question, did you even watch the Vas interview ?
Vas was asked a direct question. This is not verbatim, but he was asked, did Fruit help with the development of Rybka ? Vas stated NO. This is a complete lie! FACT! We know that certain parts of Rybka 1.0 is a direct copy of Fruit. Yet you still trust his spoken words as divine providence. I cannot understand your devotion or logic.

[Roger Brown]

Surely the content is what matters in a technical discussion.

Later.

What a nonsense. If a "crime" has been done under anonymity, the solution is the reveiling of the identity but not lurking for more anonymous statements. Vas has spoken and he is real. More would only be said if it's a court case. What Bibi or Buba or BadBoy have to say is laughable. Graham is right on.

Hello Rolf,

First of all attack the post by labelling it as you see fit.

Secondly, supply a bewildering series of statements that in no way addresses the point of the post.

Thirdly, assert that those who agree with your point of view are right.

Fourthly, repeat again and again.

Of course, as you support Graham your gratuitous insults and posts will stand when perhaps others would have been quickly removed.

Later.

[Robert Flesher]

BB is most likely a well known programmer

Agreed!

BB is certainly a well know programmer. He had met Zach Wegner and had talked with Larry Kauffman a great deal. What more could one ask....

As you correctly pointed out, it doesn't make sense to talk about his identity(why would anyone would be so interested in that is beyond me) especially when he's produced finest piece of report there is.

Because it's the only point they have left to argue. The clone debate seems to have ended for the logical minds. It's the kill, " Zorro " complex. Only in this narrative "BB" is the masked villian they seek to expose. Great for a chuckle !

[gerold]

gerold,

If _you_ think the Ippolit is questionable. Why do you still download and test the engine?

Here's your test: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... ht=#353190

As for me, I don't think it's questionable.

If you haven't read the BB's report and want to read it. Please see this:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34914

Is it illegal to test these many engines
I was emailed the engine and ask to test it. Still testing them
So what.
When did i say these clones were illegal.
DO you plan on running for Mod here again.
Once you were kicked out and this time quit on the
job. When will you learn. Have you been led down
the garden path again.LOL.

Best,
Gerold.

[Milos]

When did i say these clones were illegal.

Unfortunately, you seams to be in a clash with a basic logic.
If something is a clone (of commercial program) then it is by definition illegal. Therefore, the upper sentence of yours is the classic example of oxymoron.

[gerold]

When did i say these clones were illegal.

Unfortunately, you seams to be in a clash with a basic logic.
If something is a clone (of commercial program) then it is by definition illegal. Therefore, the upper sentence of yours is the classic example of oxymoron.

Are you saying thes clones are illegal. Good to know your opinion.
Oxymoron. LOL.Maybe you are projecting.

[Zach Wegner]

The key point is that those people who understand the BB report know that IP* is definitely based to a huge extent on the results of disassembling Rybka 3, with a lot of *changes* that were made. The major part of the R3 reuse obviously occurs in evaluation and search while the origin of other parts like board representation, move generator or UCI interface (to name only a few) is not clearly identified.

Sven

That alone is adequate proof that you don't understand the BB report.
The _types_ of differences exposed in the report make it near impossible to modify Rybka that much and still end up with a functioning engine.
It would be _much_ easier to write everything from scratch, exploiting concepts and code snippets from other engines (including Rybka).

The question is who understands what. If *you* think you would be unable to do this kind of adapting work then this does not mean that it is *impossible*. Others may be better than you. Look what BB has done. It took him a couple of months to complete his analysis but he did it. Look how detailled his understanding of single functions, parameters and variables has become.

How do you explain the huge number of IDENTICAL parts, when assuming IP* was written from scratch? Look at the example I mentioned, appendix B: was this done by "taking code snippets"?

If you can't understand that much, look for a different topic to discuss.

Not the right tone that you choose. Keeping rational would be appreciated.

Sven

I'm sorry, but this situation is nearly identical to Rybka 1.0/Fruit. Everything you say can be perfectly applied to R1. There are only a few cases of obvious copy-and-paste, while most of it is just taking identical chunks of code that might have a few tweaks. It's impossible to prove code copying in such cases, but the fact that virtually every aspect of R1 is directly from Fruit gives a very clear picture. How can you say that Ippolit is questionable and Rybka is not?

The situation is made even worse by two facts: Ippolit has more differences with R3 than R1 does with Fruit, and it would be much easier to modify Fruit than the result of some decompilation.

[Milos]

Are you saying thes clones are illegal. Good to know your opinion.
Oxymoron. LOL.Maybe you are projecting.

Seams you are not capable of maintaining a grownup conversation.
Here is just a little paraphrase so you can more easily follow.

Gerold: When did I say that idiot is stupid?

Me: If he is an idiot that certainly means he is stupid.

Gerold: So you say he's an idiot. Good to know your opinion.

[Milos]

The situation is made even worse by two facts: Ippolit has more differences with R3 than R1 does with Fruit, and it would be much easier to modify Fruit than the result of some decompilation.

But you've forgot the biggest Sven's argument. Fruit is not bitboard and Rybka is.
For Sven rewriting an engine from non-bitboard to bitboard is such an amazigly complicated task that after such a rewrite there is no doubt we got a complately new engine, while writing an engine from scratch following some decompiled code is just a piece of cake...

The man is just hopeless, it's not that he doesn't see that, it's that he doesn't want to see it. What is the reason (protecting a friend, worshiping, being paid) is another topic...