Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Damn,this thread is taking over mine related to the match against Excalibur Ivan II in terms of popularity
Speaking of view totals
this thread here in the CCC has 26929 views as i write
the same exact thread was posted in another forum at about the same time and it has a paltry 931 views as i write
now that's nearly a 30:1 ratio
this of course has nothing to do with the topic of the thread but i thought a bit of healthy chest pounding and struting ones stuff was in order
The Major leagues Regards
Steve
Last edited by Steve B on Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
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.
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).
Your "A = B", intended as "Rybka = Strelka", is clearly wrong. It is a known fact that Strelka was based on both Fruit and Rybka.
Therefore any connection between Fruit and Rybka can't be concluded based on Strelka but needs a _direct_ comparison.
Sven
Vasik claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. My similarity test shows Strelka 1.8 as being identical to Rybka 1.0 within error margins. I don't think the fact that Strelka 1.8 is arguably almost an identical clone of Rybka 1.0 or it is exactly 100% Rybka 1.0 changes something. This is an argument ad absurdum just to defend a preferred soccer team. Take Vasik words that Strelka's code is his as granted.
The real issue is what Fabien is saying, confirms the findings or else, that second half of the of assumptions.
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.
Graham, you and I often agree about these things but Rybka's team made itself a target by crying foul when it seems they did the same thing (or something close enough). As always Vas is tight lipped. That is no help!
Matthias Gemuh wrote:
Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?
Matthias.
I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion!
He has a point Graham! If the first version of Rybka IS bogus then they should all be eliminated from your list. OR you do have to add AT LEAST Houdini.
tomgdrums wrote:Graham, you and I often agree about these things but Rybka's team made itself a target by crying foul when it seems they did the same thing (or something close enough). As always Vas is tight lipped. That is no help!
Perhaps he is too busy "losing" all the Rybka source code on his hard drive to reply.
Graham Banks wrote:This thread is supposed to be about the Rybka/Fruit issue, not about CCRL or myself.
Your reply would have been valid if the CCRL or yourself hadn't taken such an outspoken position in the debate.
As you probably know very well, the Rybka forum defines a "clone" as an engine that doesn't appear on "the professional rating lists like CEGT or CCRL". This shows how the CCRL and CEGT have been instrumental in skewing this whole issue in the favor of one (commercially motivated) point of view.
Graham Banks wrote:This thread is supposed to be about the Rybka/Fruit issue, not about CCRL or myself.
Your reply would have been valid if the CCRL or yourself hadn't taken such an outspoken position in the debate.
As you probably know very well, the Rybka forum defines a "clone" as an engine that doesn't appear on "the professional rating lists like CEGT or CCRL". This shows how the CCRL and CEGT have been instrumental in skewing this whole issue in the favor of one (commercially motivated) point of view.
Robert
He is right Graham!! The Rybka team opened up this can of worms by calling foul. And yet it seems they were just as foul. And CCRL went with them. So CCRL is part of this discussion.
Graham Banks wrote:This thread is supposed to be about the Rybka/Fruit issue, not about CCRL or myself.
Your reply would have been valid if the CCRL or yourself hadn't taken such an outspoken position in the debate.
As you probably know very well, the Rybka forum defines a "clone" as an engine that doesn't appear on "the professional rating lists like CEGT or CCRL". This shows how the CCRL and CEGT have been instrumental in skewing this whole issue in the favor of one (commercially motivated) point of view.
Robert
I fail to see why the way the Rybka Forum defines things means anything at all.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
Graham Banks wrote:This thread is supposed to be about the Rybka/Fruit issue, not about CCRL or myself.
Your reply would have been valid if the CCRL or yourself hadn't taken such an outspoken position in the debate.
As you probably know very well, the Rybka forum defines a "clone" as an engine that doesn't appear on "the professional rating lists like CEGT or CCRL". This shows how the CCRL and CEGT have been instrumental in skewing this whole issue in the favor of one (commercially motivated) point of view.
Robert
He is right Graham!! The Rybka team opened up this can of worms by calling foul. And yet it seems they were just as foul. And CCRL went with them. So CCRL is part of this discussion.
Hi Tom,
as I mentioned previously, I'm going to wait and see how this all plays out. Once bitten, twice shy.
I've always maintained that some sort of legal action is the only way that we'll get finality over this issue, so hopefully it will happen.
As things stand, it's sad to see how the computer chess community is so divided and at each others throats.
