Last Rybka Thread for now...

[Graham Banks]

Be sure some people check this.

perhaps your group should be putting other top engines under the microscope also.

Do you even read my posts before u answer?

So some are disassembling the exes of these other top engines to look for code similarities in them also?

Why asking?
People have work to do. Suppose they work on hypotetical case "Commercial engine X is a clone of other commercial engine Y". What for they would do that??? Commercial engines has their stuff, let's their stuff set such cases clear. That's not our business. That's their business. Here all is about free engine. One can not make all the work.
And finally, I have a suspicion deep in me, that if Zach and others were working on other case you would ask the same question... "Why exactly this and not that?"

Geno - from what I recall, you've always defended Strelka and its author quite strongly. Has your stance changed?
If not, then surely supporting the anti-Rybka operation seems odd?

Regards, Graham.

[Guetti]

So some are disassembling the exes of these other top engines to look for code similarities in them also?

This is a good question Graham. Why are they disassembling Rybka, and not other engines?
Of course Rybka is by far the strongest engine. And there is also the rumored "Secret of Rybka". Maybe that is what got Jury going, I don't know, his intentions are still a mystery for me.
But then, Shredder once was also ahead for quite a while, and I'm not aware of people disassembling Shredder to look for secrets or even stolen code. But that was before the time of Fruit.

But isn't it ironical, that the current discussion started because in May a customer of Rybka (R. Faden) stumbled on piece of code that looked very similar to Fruit? And this guy used a disassembler on Rybka not to search for Fruit code, but to investigate the obfuscation of node count and search depth in Rybka. Without this node count mystery, he would probably never have started the disassembler.

He also wrote about his findings in the Rybka forum, as he was a Rybka customer. There was a big discussion, and Vas wrote a post that he will try to make it harder to disassemble Rybka in future versions. Here was my reply:

Instead of investing time to make disassembling more difficult, why not make disassembling less interesting? Of course Rybka currently is the strongest engine and thus there is always a danger that some people pop out their disassemblers. But by making a big secret about the methods Rybka uses, obfuscating node counts and search depths, you make people curious and directly attract them to start their disassemblers.
The best way to prevent this kind of stuff is make people not too curious about looking inside you code IMO. By providing transparency, giving away some information but not all people think they know what you're up to but you can stay easily ahead of them. By sharing some more info about Rybka and less obfuscation I think the whole story of disassembling might never have occurred. At least ExperiMental would not have looked into the code, and maybe the same even goes for Osipov.

I wonder if the obfuscation of information the engine provides to the user really is a good thing to do, when your own customers start to disassemble you code. And I wrote that in May long before the GPL and Fruit discussion came up.

[Graham Banks]

I wonder if the obfuscation of information the engine provides to the user really is a good thing to do, when your own customers start to disassemble you code. And I wrote that in May long before the GPL and Fruit discussion came up.

Good point Andy.

Regards, Graham.

[GenoM]

Be sure some people check this.

perhaps your group should be putting other top engines under the microscope also.

Do you even read my posts before u answer?

So some are disassembling the exes of these other top engines to look for code similarities in them also?

Why asking?
People have work to do. Suppose they work on hypotetical case "Commercial engine X is a clone of other commercial engine Y". What for they would do that??? Commercial engines has their stuff, let's their stuff set such cases clear. That's not our business. That's their business. Here all is about free engine. One can not make all the work.
And finally, I have a suspicion deep in me, that if Zach and others were working on other case you would ask the same question... "Why exactly this and not that?"

Geno - from what I recall, you've always defended Strelka and its author quite strongly. Has your stance changed?
If not, then surely supporting the anti-Rybka operation seems odd?

Regards, Graham.

My position is strongly against lynching anyone. With or without proof.

I am strongly against any injustice too.

Seeking for a possible injustice made in the past in my view is not nearly close to lynching. Or to witchhunting.

About Strelka. As I said I'm against lynching with or without proof. For me it was important to clarify my views on the case. There was experts saying that Strelka isn't a clone. In the beginning the accusations against it was based only on some similarities in test positions and just later on Rajlich statement that it is a clone of Rybka. Evidence (of such kind that is wanted in the present case with Rybka) was not supported. Even when Strelka went open-source. Fabien Letouzey said it's okay with him, because Strelka was rewritten. One expect that he saw his code in it to say that, isn't that true? So what we see -- an engine derivated from Fruit that is a clone of Rybka. How can such happen, one may ask? No clear answer. There is only one logical answer but it has to be proven. So we're waiting.

My personal non-expert view is that in its early stage Strelka was some sort of educational purpose work supposed to show how Rybka beta was created. So for me it was important to clarify my position in the arguments with my opponents. That was important part. But the opponents did not buy this and continue with repeating that Strelka is a clone and it will hurt Vasik. Without proof. But if you accusing someone you need better proof than your beliefs, isn't that true? Now the main argument of the opponent side is the same -- "This investigation is bad thing because it will hurt Vasik". No facts provided, just pure emotions. May be Rolf can analyse their behaviour better (if he has the ability to analyse himself too, of course ).

So I was always concerned about presenting proof. Now and in the Strelka case too. No contradiction.

About Rybka-Fruit case. I'm not a programmer, you know, so I'm forced to lean on experts opinion. I'm waiting for the results and I'm closely listening to all opinions. But for me it's important that Zach, Christophe and Norman were leaved to finish their work and to present their best to public. Is Rybka beta derived from Fruit -- the answer is obvious to me but as I already said above I'm not an expert so to make any final conclusions I need the results of the investigation.

Messy situation, I agree, but it's not my fault.

[Graham Banks]

Geno - from what I recall, you've always defended Strelka and its author quite strongly. Has your stance changed?
If not, then surely supporting the anti-Rybka operation seems odd?

Regards, Graham.

My position is strongly against lynching anyone. With or without proof.

I am strongly against any injustice too.

Seeking for a possible injustice made in the past in my view is not nearly close to lynching. Or to witchhunting.

About Strelka. As I said I'm against lynching with or without proof. For me it was important to clarify my views on the case. There was experts saying that Strelka isn't a clone. In the beginning the accusations against it was based only on some similarities in test positions and just later on Rajlich statement that it is a clone of Rybka. Evidence (of such kind that is wanted in the present case with Rybka) was not supported. Even when Strelka went open-source. Fabien Letouzey said it's okay with him, because Strelka was rewritten. One expect that he saw his code in it to say that, isn't that true? So what we see -- an engine derivated from Fruit that is a clone of Rybka. How can such happen, one may ask? No clear answer. There is only one logical answer but it has to be proven. So we're waiting.

My personal non-expert view is that in its early stage Strelka was some sort of educational purpose work supposed to show how Rybka beta was created. So for me it was important to clarify my position in the arguments with my opponents. That was important part. But the opponents did not buy this and continue with repeating that Strelka is a clone and it will hurt Vasik. Without proof. But if you accusing someone you need better proof than your beliefs, isn't that true? Now the main argument of the opponent side is the same -- "This investigation is bad thing because it will hurt Vasik". No facts provided, just pure emotions. May be Rolf can analyse their behaviour better (if he has the ability to analyse himself too, of course ).

So I was always concerned about presenting proof. Now and in the Strelka case too. No contradiction.

About Rybka-Fruit case. I'm not a programmer, you know, so I'm forced to lean on experts opinion. I'm waiting for the results and I'm closely listening to all opinions. But for me it's important that Zach, Christophe and Norman were leaved to finish their work and to present their best to public. Is Rybka beta derived from Fruit -- the answer is obvious to me but as I already said above I'm not an expert so to make any final conclusions I need the results of the investigation.

Messy situation, I agree, but it's not my fault.

Thanks for clarifying your stance.

Regards, Graham.

[Alexander Schmidt]

There where a lot more similaries between Strelka and Rybka than between Rybka and Fruit.

I posted positions with exactly the same evaluation in every depth.

[ozziejoe]

yes, there was a great deal of originality and playing strength in rybka 1. that was never present in strelka. Rybka right from the begining was teaching chess players new things about chess. That is why I am greatful to Vas.

Now, he's added 100s of points of improvement, and I think rybka combined with tools like Interactive deep analysis (IDEA: in aquirium) can really revolutionize the way we study chess. IDEA helps you to develop an opening repertoire in a way that has never occured before....

All these folks talking about promoting "justice" etc. I'd love to see them bring this stuff into a court of law. I wonder how the judge would react, after sitting on cases involving theft, rape, murder, abuse, white color crime, etc

I can see the proscutors of rybka step forward and say. J'accuse, Vas of copying 25% of the code from Fruit, and we want to see "justice" done. The judge would either piss himself laughing or would throw the prosecutor out of court.

Everybody is influenced by past work. Everybody scientist, every poet, every programer--borrows from others.

The most important two questions for me are:

1)Has vas produced something original and of use to the mass of chess players (yes)
2) Does Fabien, the author of Fruit, believe that Vas has overstepped the line and plagerized? (no)


Let's give this whole debate a rest for awhile. All you smart folks who are disembling rybka. If you want to promote justice and fairness, there are far better ways to use your intelligence. The world is full of genuine suffering and unfairness.

best
j

[Graham Banks]

2) Does Fabien, the author of Fruit, believe that Vas has overstepped the line and plagerized? (no)

Please tell me, Joseph, if I kill X's mother and X forgives me am I innocent?

Hmmm - not quite the same as murder Gabor.
Anyway, the prosecution still have to present their findings and their questions in entirety before the defence responds.

Even we CCRL testers have differing opinions.

Cheers, Graham.

[tiger]

2) Does Fabien, the author of Fruit, believe that Vas has overstepped the line and plagerized? (no)

Please tell me, Joseph, if I kill X's mother and X forgives me am I innocent?

Hmmm - not quite the same as murder Gabor.
Anyway, the prosecution still have to present their findings and their questions in entirety before the defence responds.

Even we CCRL testers have differing opinions.

Cheers, Graham.

I think the point is that Fabien's blessing (which does not even exist as far as I know) does not imply that we must be blind about what happened.



// Christophe

[Graham Banks]

2) Does Fabien, the author of Fruit, believe that Vas has overstepped the line and plagerized? (no)

Please tell me, Joseph, if I kill X's mother and X forgives me am I innocent?

Hmmm - not quite the same as murder Gabor.
Anyway, the prosecution still have to present their findings and their questions in entirety before the defence responds.

Even we CCRL testers have differing opinions.

Cheers, Graham.

I think the point is that Fabien's blessing (which does not even exist as far as I know) does not imply that we must be blind about what happened.



// Christophe

What has 'supposedly' happened hasn't been proven yet and your 'proof' might well get refuted anyway.
I think that Vas's request is perfectly reasonable. Put your case together in its entirety with the questions you'd like answered. Then let him have the chance to respond rather than trying to execute him before he's had that chance.