My review of Strelka Code

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

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6068
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Nothing To Apologise For.....

Post by Christopher Conkie » Mon May 14, 2007 8:16 pm

Dariusz Orzechowski wrote:The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
Very true. Life does indeed go on.

Every dog has its day.

Regards

Christopher

Tony Thomas

Re: Nothing To Apologise For.....

Post by Tony Thomas » Mon May 14, 2007 8:23 pm

glorfindel wrote:
Christopher Conkie wrote:
Now that Dann (as well as Bryan and Sergei) has expressed his opinion that Strelka is not a clone, Christopher, you have made no clear comment on the matter.
Do you still believe that Strelka is a clone, in contrast to Dann? Or are you convinced that it is not?

The silence from your part is deafening.
May I refer you to the following post which you may have missed.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 64&t=13676

Regards

Christopher
I have not missed this post. It was posted on Thursday, two days before Bryan and Dann expressed their opinions, that Strelka is an original work.

You say in this post that the decision of Dann will be final. I take it, then, that you now believe that Strelka is not a clone.

In my opinion you should have made a post stating this fact and apologizing.

Else you are proving my point that throwing accusations and starting rumors is a lot easier than correcting one's mistake and apologizing.

EDIT: As for your title "Nothing to Apologize for", I would like to remind you that you started the thread "From Russia With Love" (http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13611), where you clearly implied that you had discovered that Strelka is a clone of Rybka
Why are you all crying about apologies? It isnt like Chris insulted you or anyone. He never said the word clone in any of his post. Lucky for you, I decided to give away some apologies, I think this one is the last one for this week. I apologise to you in behalf of Mr. Christopher Conkie. :wink: :lol:

glorfindel

Re: Nothing To Apologise For.....

Post by glorfindel » Mon May 14, 2007 10:36 pm

Christopher Conkie wrote:
glorfindel wrote:As for your title "Nothing to Apologize for", I would like to remind you that you started the thread "From Russia With Love" (http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13611), where you clearly implied that you had discovered that Strelka is a clone of Rybka
No I showed you a position where doth Strelka and a certain version of Rybka behave in a similar manner.

There are no words in the post.

There is nothing clearly implied except a similarity.

Either you can see that or booze is too cheap in Greece.

Regards

Christopher
Since I have drunk cheap booze, then, maybe you should explain the hidden meaning of that post (which had no words).

Because, every single person replying to your message understood that you were implying Strelka is a clone of Rybka.

You were simply pointing out a similarity? And who the hell would care?

Anyway, many people felt the need to apologize. You don't. I suppose you have no problem if defamatory rumors are being circulated about you, and when you prove them wrong (with the help of a sacrifice, like the one Yuri Osipov made by giving his sources away) the starters of the rumors don't apologize.

Tony Thomas

Re: Nothing To Apologise For.....

Post by Tony Thomas » Mon May 14, 2007 10:49 pm

glorfindel wrote: Since I have drunk cheap booze, then, maybe you should explain the hidden meaning of that post (which had no words).

Because, every single person replying to your message understood that you were implying Strelka is a clone of Rybka.

You were simply pointing out a similarity? And who the hell would care?

Anyway, many people felt the need to apologize. You don't. I suppose you have no problem if defamatory rumors are being circulated about you, and when you prove them wrong (with the help of a sacrifice, like the one Yuri Osipov made by giving his sources away) the starters of the rumors don't apologize.
Why are you all crying about apologies? It isnt like Chris insulted you or anyone. He never said the word clone in any of his post. Lucky for you, I decided to give away some apologies, I think this one is the last one for this week. I apologise to you in behalf of Mr. Christopher Conkie.

glorfindel

Re: Nothing To Apologise For.....

Post by glorfindel » Mon May 14, 2007 10:54 pm

Thank you for repeating your post, Tony but I had already read it.

I chose not to reply to you, because I don't think you can speak on behalf of Christopher.

Zlaire

Re: Nothing To Apologise For.....

Post by Zlaire » Mon May 14, 2007 11:19 pm

I don't see a reason why anyone who had a valid concern should be forced to apologize for anything.

Questions needed to be answered and now they are, time to drop this.

User avatar
tiger
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Guadeloupe (french caribbean island)
Contact:

Re: My review of Strelka Code

Post by tiger » Tue May 15, 2007 12:22 am

Bryan Hofmann wrote:The code that was passed on to me plays the same as the released binary. It is original work and not a clone. If you have questions about the code or how it works I ask that you direct them to author as it is his work.


Bryan

Excuse me Bryan, AND I AM NOT SUGGESTING STRELKA IS A CLONE, but out of curiosity, how can you tell that a piece of code you are reading, even in source form, is "original work"?

I direct this question to you and not to the author because the certainty you are expressing tells me that you have seen an obvious proof of this "originality", and I have no idea what it can be.


// Christophe

gerold
Posts: 10121
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: van buren,missouri

Re: My review of Strelka Code

Post by gerold » Tue May 15, 2007 12:33 am

tiger wrote:
Bryan Hofmann wrote:The code that was passed on to me plays the same as the released binary. It is original work and not a clone. If you have questions about the code or how it works I ask that you direct them to author as it is his work.


Bryan

Excuse me Bryan, AND I AM NOT SUGGESTING STRELKA IS A CLONE, but out of curiosity, how can you tell that a piece of code you are reading, even in source form, is "original work"?

I direct this question to you and not to the author because the certainty you are expressing tells me that you have seen an obvious proof of this "originality", and I have no idea what it can be.


// Christophe
Thanks for asking this question Christophe. I was hoping someone
would ask him.
I didn't want to ask him because he ask that all questions be put to
the author.

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: My review of Strelka Code

Post by Rolf » Tue May 15, 2007 12:54 am

tiger wrote:
Bryan Hofmann wrote:The code that was passed on to me plays the same as the released binary. It is original work and not a clone. If you have questions about the code or how it works I ask that you direct them to author as it is his work.


Bryan

Excuse me Bryan, AND I AM NOT SUGGESTING STRELKA IS A CLONE, but out of curiosity, how can you tell that a piece of code you are reading, even in source form, is "original work"?

I direct this question to you and not to the author because the certainty you are expressing tells me that you have seen an obvious proof of this "originality", and I have no idea what it can be.


// Christophe
I have great respect for the idea that an expert out of our midst is trustworthy and expert enough so that programmers send him their codes to judge. However, I have criticised this before, it would make a caricature out of the trustworthy judge if he now would begin to publish details out of the program codes, giving examples in debates or even making jokes or tongues in cheek of sorts.

It's beyond my understanding why members here could confound the idea of reasonable control of new program entries (what has now been done and decided without the need of further talks) with speculations, jokes, advices or harsh criticism against the (anonymous) author.

Further it should be guaranteed that if there is still reason for further analyses, that the highest judge should NEVER participate in these debates. I for one would be interested in the quote between similarities and differences and the meaning for the final verdict. From my understanding out of science I would say that not always new examples for similartities can be taken as decisive but the existence of sufficient (percentage?) differences between codes. I was impressed by the calm judgement of Gert who spoke directly about the differences well knowing the already given similarities. Why do others put all their motivation into finding similarities in certain examples? I wished to get some informations although I'm not a programmer myself. Perhaps this is of interest for many members who are mostly users of the software like me.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

User avatar
tiger
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Guadeloupe (french caribbean island)
Contact:

Re: My review of Strelka Code

Post by tiger » Tue May 15, 2007 1:12 am

gerold wrote:
tiger wrote:
Bryan Hofmann wrote:The code that was passed on to me plays the same as the released binary. It is original work and not a clone. If you have questions about the code or how it works I ask that you direct them to author as it is his work.


Bryan

Excuse me Bryan, AND I AM NOT SUGGESTING STRELKA IS A CLONE, but out of curiosity, how can you tell that a piece of code you are reading, even in source form, is "original work"?

I direct this question to you and not to the author because the certainty you are expressing tells me that you have seen an obvious proof of this "originality", and I have no idea what it can be.


// Christophe
Thanks for asking this question Christophe. I was hoping someone
would ask him.
I didn't want to ask him because he ask that all questions be put to
the author.

It's more a computer science question than an accusation of any sort.

I think I should have been more specific in my question to Bryan and not talk about any piece of code.

My question would then be: what in the Strelka source code makes you believe that it is not a clone of another program, and not a clone of Rybka in particular?

I think it is possible to answer this question by giving details that do not reveal secrets about the program. At least I hope so.


// Christophe

Post Reply