bob wrote:I've communicated with Fabien and he now has an active CCC account. I'd suggest that we try to have a civil discourse and let him explain his interpretation of what has happened. I will alert the other mods to keep a close eye on these threads so that they don't get out of control. I doubt you will hear anything new or surprising, but it will be coming from a new source. What you believe is up to you, of course.
What do you mean we will not hear anything new or surprising.
You don't think Fabien saying he as never talked to Vas about this issue is not new or surprising. After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Robert Flesher wrote:To add some humor to this situation can someone please link this thread to the Rybka forum. I'd like to know how many milliseconds it will last.
Felix will destroy it in 3 milliseconds including the time to read it
I made a post on the Rybka forum but the last time I checked the rybka team had been strangely quiet.
Robert Flesher wrote:To add some humor to this situation can someone please link this thread to the Rybka forum. I'd like to know how many milliseconds it will last.
Felix will destroy it in 3 milliseconds including the time to read it
I made a post on the Rybka forum but the last time I checked the rybka team had been strangely quiet.
They are
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
The 2011 Rybka Fanboy Zealot award goes to, "Banned for Life" on the Rybka forum for this post, I quote,
"Clone has no legal meaning, and outside of cell replication, it doesn't have a clear technical definition either, so I'll leave arguing about whether engine A is a clone of engine B to people who are comfortable arguing about this kind of meaningless stuff.
It is perfectly natural for Vas to be upset about the fact that people have reverse engineered his product and discovered his ideas for building better chess engines. I am 100% sure that if this hadn't happened, Rybka would be at least 150 Elo better than any competitor on equal hardware. It's certainly his prerogative to say that anyone involved in this effort is a dirty SOB.
But if you step back and look around, you will see that this is the normal method that technology advances. For every innovative guy like Vas, there are ten less innovative guys that have other things to offer. Maybe some will build products with fewer bugs, or a better interface. Some may be better at marketing and sales. Having innovators being overtaken and even pushed out by less innovative people or companies is the norm, not the exception.
So now Vas' ideas are out and others are using them. Some would like you to believe that only a small group of upstarts are smart enough to take advantage of these new ideas. Of course, only an imbecile would believe this, but there are no shortage of these types out there. In reality, all good engine design will incorporate lessons learned from Rybka and use them to strengthen their own engines (just as they have done with ideas from Crafty and Fruit and Stockfish).
In this context, did Mr. Letouzy's recent statement really tell us anything we didn't already know? I really don't think it did. Vas has already stated that he studied everything available when he was first developing Rybka. This explicitly included Fruit. Along with being one of the strongest available engines, Fruit was also far and away the most cleanly written program, so it inspired many to use a lot of its architecture. Did Vas use anything from Fruit in the Beta? It's possible, but do we really need to care about this? It really is time to move on to bigger and better things... "
Robert Flesher wrote:The 2011 Rybka Fanboy Zealot award goes to, "Banned for Life" on the Rybka forum for this post, I quote,
"Clone has no legal meaning, and outside of cell replication, it doesn't have a clear technical definition either, so I'll leave arguing about whether engine A is a clone of engine B to people who are comfortable arguing about this kind of meaningless stuff.
It is perfectly natural for Vas to be upset about the fact that people have reverse engineered his product and discovered his ideas for building better chess engines. I am 100% sure that if this hadn't happened, Rybka would be at least 150 Elo better than any competitor on equal hardware. It's certainly his prerogative to say that anyone involved in this effort is a dirty SOB.
But if you step back and look around, you will see that this is the normal method that technology advances. For every innovative guy like Vas, there are ten less innovative guys that have other things to offer. Maybe some will build products with fewer bugs, or a better interface. Some may be better at marketing and sales. Having innovators being overtaken and even pushed out by less innovative people or companies is the norm, not the exception.
So now Vas' ideas are out and others are using them. Some would like you to believe that only a small group of upstarts are smart enough to take advantage of these new ideas. Of course, only an imbecile would believe this, but there are no shortage of these types out there. In reality, all good engine design will incorporate lessons learned from Rybka and use them to strengthen their own engines (just as they have done with ideas from Crafty and Fruit and Stockfish).
In this context, did Mr. Letouzy's recent statement really tell us anything we didn't already know? I really don't think it did. Vas has already stated that he studied everything available when he was first developing Rybka. This explicitly included Fruit. Along with being one of the strongest available engines, Fruit was also far and away the most cleanly written program, so it inspired many to use a lot of its architecture. Did Vas use anything from Fruit in the Beta? It's possible, but do we really need to care about this? It really is time to move on to bigger and better things... "
This guy should sell bridges!
Here is what the above is saying.
Vas is a genius, Fabien's letter is nothing new, everyone used Fruit ideas, and IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON TO BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS......
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:
20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen
Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?
A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:
20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen
Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?
A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:
20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen
Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?
A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
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.
Sven
Laskos wrote:
SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.
2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.
Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...
