BB+ on the matter

[Don]

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics.

No it's not iligal and no it's not unethical.
Unethical is selling other ppl's ideas (and code). And not being able to see that is just sad.

I agree this is a valid distinction that Don didn't address.

Please tell me which ideas Vas stole and marketed that made his program far stronger than any other program?

That's a biased question. Does that mean it is OK to steal ideas and sell them if they just allow you to catch up to the best program? OK to steal and sell if it gets you within 100 points of the best?

Copying code is simply wrong, unless you attribute the source and abide by whatever license it falls under.

Let me put it this way. IF, that is what Vas did it was wrong. That would be his crime but this is not really what is being argued even though we want to make it seem like it is.

There is a great deal of dishonesty in this discussion because I seriously doubt most people REALLY cares if that happened or not. And even if it did happen, it's not why people are getting so excited.

If Vas only took ideas from Fruit and added a few hundred ELO to that and profited as a result, then I hate to break it to everyone but that is perfectly acceptable practical in the business world - unless there is a patent. In fact you (not you Bob, but those involved in this conversation) need to change your position on this because EVERY chess program in the world works this same exact way.

[Don]

... he has made an important contribution to computer chess.

What do you feel his contributions have been? Selling a strong product isn't most people's idea of a contribution (I mean if you have to pay for the thing). Contributions are what you give without thought or promise of a return.

This is like saying that teachers make no contribution to society since they get payed.

They don't (unless they teach for free). The idea that they do make contributions to society is just a politically correct kliche, IMO.

Selling a strong product IS a HUGE contribution. It's just not appreciated by stingy people who want something for nothing. Whenever you make a purchase both parties should feel they profited otherwise there would be no transaction.

But it goes WAY beyond that. In another post I mentioned that the very presence of a "strongest" program telegraphs to everyone else that something is possible and the very possibility makes everyone else push forward. It's like the 4 minute mile, or the space race program - it would have never happened if the Soviets had not "embarrassed" the western world into pushing forward.

There were unintended contributions too. Because of Rybka we have Robo, Ippo, critter, Houdini, firebird, Stockfish, Komodo, ....

Part of my inspiration for resuming chess programming was the interest generated by Rybka in the computer chess community.

Likewise, Fruit was an inspiration to many because they showed that you could build a very strong program without any radically new ideas - just solid engineering. That's why your position that Vas "stole" Fruit such a ridiculous notion - even if Vas had literally started with that source code it did not provide anything other than a few days head start and even that was probably negated by the necessity to completely rewrite whatever he initially had in order to make any serious progress.

The Fruit argument is just noise and has absolutely no relevance to the real issues going on here and I think you should drop it for your own credibility. I think some of things you are saying may be valid or at least arguable, but pinning everything on this one thing just makes you look like you are flailing.

There is a big difference between the contributions of fruit and those you claim for Rybka. Vas took much from the forum that was given freely, but didn't give freely in return. The appearance is that a programmer comes here to take, then goes commerical, never to return -- all takin amd no givin. Then he sells you his winning program and you say, gee thanks, that's a great contribution.

I don't think so, Tim.

I think your point of view on this is horribly cynical. Vas got into chess as a business. He put up a forum because it was in his best interest in order to promote Rybka. He sold Rybka so that he could make a profit. People bought Rybka because they saw great value in it and they went on the web site because it was there and it's always enjoyable to talk about things you enjoy with other people who also enjoy those same things.

If Rybka had never existed, you would be using chess software right now that is about 100 ELO weaker. Sooner or later everyone would have caught up but this was a very important development in the history of computer chess, regardless of your negative feelings on it.

[bob]

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics.

No it's not iligal and no it's not unethical.
Unethical is selling other ppl's ideas (and code). And not being able to see that is just sad.

I agree this is a valid distinction that Don didn't address.

Please tell me which ideas Vas stole and marketed that made his program far stronger than any other program?

That's a biased question. Does that mean it is OK to steal ideas and sell them if they just allow you to catch up to the best program? OK to steal and sell if it gets you within 100 points of the best?

Copying code is simply wrong, unless you attribute the source and abide by whatever license it falls under.

Let me put it this way. IF, that is what Vas did it was wrong. That would be his crime but this is not really what is being argued even though we want to make it seem like it is.

There is a great deal of dishonesty in this discussion because I seriously doubt most people REALLY cares if that happened or not. And even if it did happen, it's not why people are getting so excited.

If Vas only took ideas from Fruit and added a few hundred ELO to that and profited as a result, then I hate to break it to everyone but that is perfectly acceptable practical in the business world - unless there is a patent. In fact you (not you Bob, but those involved in this conversation) need to change your position on this because EVERY chess program in the world works this same exact way.

If we were only talking _ideas_ and not "implementations" then I would agree. But there is certainly copied code from Fruit when you look inside Rybka 1. It is quite likely ip*/robo* is a reverse-engineered Rybka 3 in essence, with changes of course. But all of those are "tainted" IMHO, since copying an original or a copied program is still illegal/unethical...

[Milos]

Selling a strong product IS a HUGE contribution.

Sure it is, but from the point of economy not from the point of computer chess development.

And this is just a logic fallacy

But it goes WAY beyond that. In another post I mentioned that the very presence of a "strongest" program telegraphs to everyone else that something is possible and the very possibility makes everyone else push forward. It's like the 4 minute mile, or the space race program - it would have never happened if the Soviets had not "embarrassed" the western world into pushing forward.

Presence of the first means only to the second best. It is completely irrelevant to the third, fourth and all others. And you are comparing computer chess with numerous authors with binary case of USA/USSR cold war which is wrong.
Why would a first guy inspire you much when you are far away from the second? If you are not first or second, does it really matter who is first? No it doesn't unless it's Vas coz you are biased when he is in question. The same way I'm biased against him, you are biased for him, with the difference that you are unable to admit this!

There were unintended contributions too. Because of Rybka we have Robo, Ippo, critter, Houdini, firebird, Stockfish, Komodo, ....

This is highly questionable in the same way or even more than Fruit/Rybka thing.

The Fruit argument is just noise and has absolutely no relevance to the real issues going on here and I think you should drop it for your own credibility.

No, Fruit issue only proves how biased you are, when you don't realize the simplest causality principle.
Without Fruit or without open-source Fruit there would be no Rybka at all. As simple as that, Rybka would not exist!!

[mhull]

If Rybka had never existed, you would be using chess software right now that is about 100 ELO weaker. Sooner or later everyone would have caught up but this was a very important development in the history of computer chess, regardless of your negative feelings on it.

I don't use Rybka and never have. I have only ever bought 3 chess programs, CM 2100 for Mac, Checkmate for Mac and Rex Chess for PC (not counting 4 dedicated units). Since then, free programs were strong enough that I didn't need to pay to be beaten to a jelly by a computer.

Maybe Larry Kaufman can tell the 100 Elo difference. In a blind test I bet nobody else could.

[Don]

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics.

No it's not iligal and no it's not unethical.
Unethical is selling other ppl's ideas (and code). And not being able to see that is just sad.

I agree this is a valid distinction that Don didn't address.

Please tell me which ideas Vas stole and marketed that made his program far stronger than any other program?

That's a biased question. Does that mean it is OK to steal ideas and sell them if they just allow you to catch up to the best program? OK to steal and sell if it gets you within 100 points of the best?

Copying code is simply wrong, unless you attribute the source and abide by whatever license it falls under.

Let me put it this way. IF, that is what Vas did it was wrong. That would be his crime but this is not really what is being argued even though we want to make it seem like it is.

There is a great deal of dishonesty in this discussion because I seriously doubt most people REALLY cares if that happened or not. And even if it did happen, it's not why people are getting so excited.

If Vas only took ideas from Fruit and added a few hundred ELO to that and profited as a result, then I hate to break it to everyone but that is perfectly acceptable practical in the business world - unless there is a patent. In fact you (not you Bob, but those involved in this conversation) need to change your position on this because EVERY chess program in the world works this same exact way.

If we were only talking _ideas_ and not "implementations" then I would agree. But there is certainly copied code from Fruit when you look inside Rybka 1. It is quite likely ip*/robo* is a reverse-engineered Rybka 3 in essence, with changes of course. But all of those are "tainted" IMHO, since copying an original or a copied program is still illegal/unethical...

I have heard that some interface code may have been copied, but nothing to do with the playing engine itself. I am willing to forgive this small crime if that is what happened, but perhaps the Fruit author is not? What is bizarre is that this is trivial to write yourself - which is probably why Vas "forgot" that part. I think he should go to prison for a very long time for this oversight.

[Dann Corbit]

I have to say one thing about reverse engineering of commercial products. I don't know if this is legal or illegal. But to me that is a minor consideration - it's clearly a violation of ethics.

No it's not iligal and no it's not unethical.
Unethical is selling other ppl's ideas (and code). And not being able to see that is just sad.

I agree this is a valid distinction that Don didn't address.

Please tell me which ideas Vas stole and marketed that made his program far stronger than any other program?

That's a biased question. Does that mean it is OK to steal ideas and sell them if they just allow you to catch up to the best program? OK to steal and sell if it gets you within 100 points of the best?

Copying code is simply wrong, unless you attribute the source and abide by whatever license it falls under.

Let me put it this way. IF, that is what Vas did it was wrong. That would be his crime but this is not really what is being argued even though we want to make it seem like it is.

There is a great deal of dishonesty in this discussion because I seriously doubt most people REALLY cares if that happened or not. And even if it did happen, it's not why people are getting so excited.

If Vas only took ideas from Fruit and added a few hundred ELO to that and profited as a result, then I hate to break it to everyone but that is perfectly acceptable practical in the business world - unless there is a patent. In fact you (not you Bob, but those involved in this conversation) need to change your position on this because EVERY chess program in the world works this same exact way.

If we were only talking _ideas_ and not "implementations" then I would agree. But there is certainly copied code from Fruit when you look inside Rybka 1. It is quite likely ip*/robo* is a reverse-engineered Rybka 3 in essence, with changes of course. But all of those are "tainted" IMHO, since copying an original or a copied program is still illegal/unethical...

I have heard that some interface code may have been copied, but nothing to do with the playing engine itself. I am willing to forgive this small crime if that is what happened, but perhaps the Fruit author is not? What is bizarre is that this is trivial to write yourself - which is probably why Vas "forgot" that part. I think he should go to prison for a very long time for this oversight.

There is also the concept of "fair use" even for copyrighted code.
If credit is given, and a small portion is used, then it is not illegal.

I have literally no idea whatsoever if this is the case or not, but I thought it should be mentioned.

[Osipov Jury]

Without Fruit or without open-source Fruit there would be no Rybka at all. As simple as that, Rybka would not exist!!

Many thanks to Fruit and Fabien for contribution into Rybka development

[Don]

I have heard that some interface code may have been copied, but nothing to do with the playing engine itself. I am willing to forgive this small crime if that is what happened, but perhaps the Fruit author is not? What is bizarre is that this is trivial to write yourself - which is probably why Vas "forgot" that part. I think he should go to prison for a very long time for this oversight.

There is also the concept of "fair use" even for copyrighted code.
If credit is given, and a small portion is used, then it is not illegal.

I have literally no idea whatsoever if this is the case or not, but I thought it should be mentioned.

I was of course being sarcastic about the prison sentence. I have not looked closely at this specific issue because it is not relevant to me. Rybka is so strong compared to Fruit that nothing of any real importance in the program came from Fruit.

[Dann Corbit]

I have heard that some interface code may have been copied, but nothing to do with the playing engine itself. I am willing to forgive this small crime if that is what happened, but perhaps the Fruit author is not? What is bizarre is that this is trivial to write yourself - which is probably why Vas "forgot" that part. I think he should go to prison for a very long time for this oversight.

There is also the concept of "fair use" even for copyrighted code.
If credit is given, and a small portion is used, then it is not illegal.

I have literally no idea whatsoever if this is the case or not, but I thought it should be mentioned.

I was of course being sarcastic about the prison sentence. I have not looked closely at this specific issue because it is not relevant to me. Rybka is so strong compared to Fruit that nothing of any real importance in the program came from Fruit.

I knew you were joking.

On the other hand, I think that things of real importance that came from fruit are in every strong chess program.

If there are strong chess programs that did not learn anything from fruit's ideas, then the author was not trying hard enough, or was so clever it did not matter whether he learned from fruit or not. In every case, advances would have been made faster if the fruit code had been studied.

Put another way: "Chess authors are remiss if they do not study the fruit code."

An opinion:
Fabian's use of assert() is utterly fabulous, and this facet alone is worth reading the fruit source code.