Fabien's open letter to the community

[tmokonen]

Here is the latest:

Google accused of using stolen Oracle code in Android

Golly gee willikers, whatever happened to Google's motto "Don't be evil"?

[Roger Brown]

To me, an FSF decision would be good enough to give finality, which I was really hoping was what we all wanted.

But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums). People don't like unfair standards, especially from people who put themselves in a position of objectivity, such as running a rating list or being a moderator.

People are wrapping their heads in duct tape trying to keep it from exploding every time you say something like this.

Hello Matthew,

I do not know about the exploding heads (sounds like a rock group) but this post from you certainly reflects the seething I seem to sense on this issue.

On one hand, an accusation is enough to take action. On the other, proof from a court case is required.

Sigh.

Still a part of life is living and let live...

Later.

[Rolf]

But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums).

Let me enter another aspect into the debate, Matt.

How trustable and how valid is it for you as a mature man, if someone like Fabien Letouzey needs almost 5 years to realise that his own program should have been copied? And how believable and how probable it's for you that a computerchess programmmer like Fabien disappears for almost 5 years and pretends that he didnt hear or read anything about the rising Wch Rybka who now should be allegedly a version of his own Fruit???

Therefore I already asked the question: was Fabien locked in a military secret institution, was he on the backside of the moon?

How much could you trust such fairy tales?

Therefore, I for one agree with Graham, that only a court decision would clarify the whole story. But not only against Rybka as some are dreaming, but also against Fabien.

I would be happy if the so called Hippo family and Robert H. would be found and clearified. Am I a victim of a big hoax or could it end in a happy ending?

[Rolf]

But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums).

Let me enter another aspect into the debate, Matt.

How trustable and how valid is it for you as a mature man, if someone like Fabien Letouzey needs almost 5 years to realise that his own program should have been copied? And how believable and how probable it's for you that a computerchess programmmer like Fabien disappears for almost 5 years and pretends that he didnt hear or read anything about the rising Wch Rybka who now should be allegedly a version of his own Fruit???

Therefore I already asked the question: was Fabien locked in a military secret institution, was he on the backside of the moon?

How much could you trust such fairy tales?

Therefore, I for one agree with Graham, that only a court decision would clarify the whole story. But not only against Rybka as some are dreaming, but also against Fabien.

I would be happy if the so called Hippo family and Robert H. would be found and clearified. Am I a victim of a big hoax or could it end in a happy ending?

[JuLieN]

@Rolf

Obviously the NSA pushed Fabien into taking a public step.

(Yes, I have a very synthetic mind and I managed to synthesize all the recents contributions in this thread and summarize the result in the above statement. )

[Milos]

The claim I saw once (indirectly from another person, not from the horse's mouth) was that he lost version 3.00.

Accidents happened and it is possible to lose one "specific" version. Particularly if only one guy works on the code.

Ok, an IQ/objectivity test for you:
How strongly do you believe this was the case with Rybka 3 source on the scale from 0 to 100%?
I'm just asking for your sincere personal opinion. Even though refusing to answer the question is an option, doing so would only mean you are too embarrassed to admit.

[Gino Figlio]

To me, an FSF decision would be good enough to give finality, which I was really hoping was what we all wanted.

But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums). People don't like unfair standards, especially from people who put themselves in a position of objectivity, such as running a rating list or being a moderator.

People are wrapping their heads in duct tape trying to keep it from exploding every time you say something like this.

Graham's opinion would only be important if he was a forum moderator just like rating lists are only useful when they include all engines.

Live and let llve.

[Osipov Jury]

About copying, rewriting of code and so on.

In eval-function of Ivanhoe we can find:

Code: Select all

  U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP;
  while (U)
    {
      b = BSF (U);
      MobValue -= PawnAntiMobility;
      BitClear (b, U);
    }

Robert Houdart replace this at:

Code: Select all

  U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP;
  MobValue -= popcnt(U) * PawnAntiMobility;

Is it plagiarism?

[Milos]

About copying, rewriting of code and so on.

In eval-function of Ivanhoe we can find:

Code: Select all

  U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP;
  while (U)
    {
      b = BSF (U);
      MobValue -= PawnAntiMobility;
      BitClear (b, U);
    }

Robert Houdart replace this at:

Code: Select all

  U = (POSITION->OccupiedBW >> 8) & wBitboardP;
  MobValue -= popcnt(U) * PawnAntiMobility;

Is it plagiarism?

I don't know if it's plagiarism but it gives almost 1% speed increase .

[mhull]

But all you needed was an accusation against non-rybka products. But for the Rybka product itself, an accusation isn't good enough, even if its from Fabien. It is your apparent double standard that drives people up the wall and generates so much heat (and entire alternate chess forums).

Let me enter another aspect into the debate, Matt.

How trustable and how valid is it for you as a mature man, if someone like Fabien Letouzey needs almost 5 years to realise that his own program should have been copied?

It's perfectly trustable and valid if the person in question has a track record of honesty and giving freely to the community without rancor or selfishness; And never making implications without supporting evidence (like some people we know). Supporting evidence, Rolf -- not bald accusations. Openness, kindness, giving freely, never accusing without evidence. Heck, he's even reticent to accuse, even when the evidence is bigger than Dallas. That's how trustable.

Your big point -- your big evidence -- is that your imagination cannot conceive of someone tuning out CC for five years. I suggest you consult your friend CW on that point.