Fabien's open letter to the community

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

mwyoung
Posts: 2727
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:00 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by mwyoung »

Graham Banks wrote:
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.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
of Rybka. We had to take your suppression and censorship of other programs you deemed a threat to Rybka for using so called stolen code and ideas.

Now Rybka has a direct accusation from the author of Fruit that Vas used code from Fruit in Rybka. Where is your indignation of Rybka. We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.

I want to know...

When will all version of Rybka be removed from your CCRL Rating List. Since you have stated that no program that is not original will be rated on CCRL Mr. Hypocrite.

I guess this only applies to programs you deem a threat to Rybka.
User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10948
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos »

Sven Schüle wrote: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
That is wrong, I agree:

"But this is wrong:
(A --> B and C --> B) implies (A --> C)
"

Yes. But it has nothing to do with my post.

What I was saying, and Vasik said half of that, Fabien said another half is the correct one:

(A = B and C --> B) implies (C --> A)

I confirmed what was Vasik saying in my post with similarity graph in this thread. In fact this similarity graph probably confirms what Fabien is saying too (Rybka 1.0 is shown closer to Fruit 2.1 than Houdini 1.5 is to Rybka 3).

Kai

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...

Kai
Last edited by Laskos on Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
hgm
Posts: 27772
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by hgm »

mwyoung wrote:We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.
Strange we never get to see it then. I guess it is a save bet you will not be able to produce it either, right?

Yet it is such a simple request: just post the code of Fruit you have 'proof' of that it is in Rybka. I am very curious to see it. But of course you are much too busy foulmouthing others to bother which such a trifle...
User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6401
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by michiguel »

mwyoung wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
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.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
of Rybka. We had to take your suppression and censorship of other programs you deemed a threat to Rybka for using so called stolen code and ideas.

Now Rybka has a direct accusation from the author of Fruit that Vas used code from Fruit in Rybka.
Direct accusation? code?
Where did you read this?!?!?

Miguel

Where is your indignation of Rybka. We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.

I want to know...

When will all version of Rybka be removed from your CCRL Rating List. Since you have stated that no program that is not original will be rated on CCRL Mr. Hypocrite.

I guess this only applies to programs you deem a threat to Rybka.
Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Roger Brown »

mwyoung wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
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.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
of Rybka. We had to take your suppression and censorship of other programs you deemed a threat to Rybka for using so called stolen code and ideas.

Now Rybka has a direct accusation from the author of Fruit that Vas used code from Fruit in Rybka. Where is your indignation of Rybka. We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.

I want to know...

When will all version of Rybka be removed from your CCRL Rating List. Since you have stated that no program that is not original will be rated on CCRL Mr. Hypocrite.

I guess this only applies to programs you deem a threat to Rybka.


Hello Mark,

Please feel free to be as passionate as you like without getting personal. I cannot say that your argument is entirely without merit but it does not need the labelling or indeed the suggestion of some ulterior motive.

In fact, if you simply leave it out you will see that your argument still stands on its own.

The last thing I want is that this descends into a name-calling hissy fit. Much too entertaining for that!

:-o

Later.
User avatar
Matthias Gemuh
Posts: 3245
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:10 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Matthias Gemuh »

hgm wrote:
mwyoung wrote:We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.
Strange we never get to see it then. I guess it is a save bet you will not be able to produce it either, right?

Yet it is such a simple request: just post the code of Fruit you have 'proof' of that it is in Rybka. I am very curious to see it. But of course you are much too busy foulmouthing others to bother which such a trifle...
You mean he should compile for you the 1000 posts from several fora for the last 3 years ? Only a fool would want to do such work unpaid.
My engine was quite strong till I added knowledge to it.
http://www.chess.hylogic.de
User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6401
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by michiguel »

Matthias Gemuh wrote:
hgm wrote:
mwyoung wrote:We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.
Strange we never get to see it then. I guess it is a save bet you will not be able to produce it either, right?

Yet it is such a simple request: just post the code of Fruit you have 'proof' of that it is in Rybka. I am very curious to see it. But of course you are much too busy foulmouthing others to bother which such a trifle...
You mean he should compile for you the 1000 posts from several fora for the last 3 years ? Only a fool would want to do such work unpaid.
I think Harm-Geert is pretty modest, Fabien asked for 5 years :-)

Miguel
User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 41385
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks »

mwyoung wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
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.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
of Rybka. We had to take your suppression and censorship of other programs you deemed a threat to Rybka for using so called stolen code and ideas.

Now Rybka has a direct accusation from the author of Fruit that Vas used code from Fruit in Rybka. Where is your indignation of Rybka. We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.

I want to know...

When will all version of Rybka be removed from your CCRL Rating List. Since you have stated that no program that is not original will be rated on CCRL Mr. Hypocrite.

I guess this only applies to programs you deem a threat to Rybka.
Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

However, there are always two sides to every story and it's incredibly annoying and frustrating that Vas does not say more on this issue.
Perhaps FSF action would be a great way to end this debate once and for all.

Meanwhile, I do think that the issue should be discussed without resorting to spreading false information or making personal attacks.

I've seen members post that the most recent Loop was a Toga ripoff and that the most recent Naum was a Rybka ripoff, so who knows where all this madness will end?
Trouble is that Rybka seems to the only target.
gbanksnz at gmail.com
User avatar
M ANSARI
Posts: 3707
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:10 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by M ANSARI »

Is it possible to make a separate thread regarding this issue where maybe Fabien could post with only people that have any chess engine programming knowledge could answer. This thread is unfortunately getting impossible to navigate through due too many posts that are off base.
User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6401
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by michiguel »

M ANSARI wrote:Is it possible to make a separate thread regarding this issue where maybe Fabien could post with only people that have any chess engine programming knowledge could answer. This thread is unfortunately getting impossible to navigate through due too many posts that are off base.
Oh no, Fabien wanted to be updated about what happen in the last 5 years, so he should experience all the noise we had every time anything like this started to be discussed [1]. For instance, when Zach posted his thorough analysis and we started the discussion, the whole thing was drown in soccer chants.

Miguel
[1] this is sarcasm for the humor impaired.