morality and legality of dowloading robbolito

[Rolf]

The problem with _all_ of this is that Vas has opened the door, the horse has left the barn, and now it is too late to repair the damage.

1. When the fruit issue came up, he should have responded with factual arguments. He remained silent, which actually spoke _volumes_.

2. When this new program surfaced, he quickly (again) claimed that it was a clone derived from Rybka, just as was done in the Strelka case previously. And when pressured for proof, has remained completely silent, again speaking _volumes_.

One can only exercise the right to remain silent for so long before the silence itself becomes quite revealing. When I claimed a program was a copy of Crafty, I gave chapter and verse as to what was identical so that anyone could look at both programs and see the same things I saw. Had I not produced any supporting evidence, I would hope my statements would have been ignored.

Perhaps the best thing at the present is to simply let this program continue to exist and be tested, with no anti-type comments directed toward it until adequate proof is offered. That's about the only way to partially correct what has become a pretty unfair discussion.

Bob, with highest respect, but dont you compare apples with oranges? Your Crafty is open source while Rybka is a commercial entry. IMO it wouldnt make sense if Vas opened his details, because then his competitors would have a good laugh.

There is another case where it simply doesnt fit together. You and hopefully many here argue against clones, cloning and stealing code. And still there is someone posting here (Osipov) who once claimed that he had created Strelka with stolen code to prove something about Vas. IMO you either can condeemn clones and stealing code but then you cant allow Osipov here or you think that Osipov has done a good job but then you cant argue against stealing code.

Or is it here the unethical agreement that crimes (well sort of in computerchess) are then in order if they could reveil something about collegues among the programmers?

Here I have another contradiction. When did you examine the known commercial engines who might all be made out of taken codes from others? I know that you answered that with finding something by chance rather than by an agenda out of envy. Again why it was never analysed what the usual commercial engines are made of? I mean, where is your energy as researcher? Guess these programs were fooling us for years?

All that before the background that 90% of all the code is taken from former programmers. What is the meaning of scapegoating a singular program or author? Apparently the very best for almost 5 years right now. Hoiw could that possibly happen if Vas is based on far weaker software??

But again, your argument of the silence that speaks doesnt fly. Because if you asked other commercial authors the silence would become even louder than thunder. Would that prove a thing? Because you cant force business guys to explain their secrets. COCA COLA e.g. has never published its code. Why is that respected by scientists? Would you say that chemical expert would be unable to find out?

[rhollay]

If Robbolito stolen from the author of Rybka, its distribution is immoral and illegal. But if the author and distributor of Robbolito is V.Rajlich, this is quite another matter. The second option for me is much more probable.

It's distribution is but downloading is another matter. I think you shouldn't download it but it's not illegal to do so or immoral. However, it is unethical.

What the hackers are doing, really is a different matter altogether.

A question...What has Vas to gain to be involved with the distribution of Rybka 4 under the guise of Robbolito?

It doesn't add up.

I also cannot believe (hmmm... would not like to believe) in that scenario, however, one thing he could gain
is that he would have an excuse for his new project: to make new Rybka versions private (the "cloud" versions)
and only available for renting via internet.

[Spacious_Mind]

Well I believe in the basic values of "innocent until proven guilty", therefore the disclaimers that are stated on the website when I recently visisted (after all the hype here ) that it is not a clone of Rybka, I would have to accept at face value unless someone makes an open clear statement to the contrary with some examples for proof.

I am playing a lot of 5 ply games at the moment and I DO NOT so far see any indication that it plays similar to my versions of Rybka which are older versions. I cannot say this is the case for version 3 because I do not have it.

Robolito seems to me to behave a lot closer to Fruit or even Stockfish than any of the older Rybka programs that I have.

I believe in what is right, and of course should it be proven that it is a Rybka in disguise then my opinion would change very quickly.

My opinion comes from someone whole just likes to play with all chess programs and my outlook may be skewed from seeing clear easily definable clones within dedicated chess computers. Which I do not see at the moment when playing the mentioned engine.

Best regards

Nick

[PauloSoare]

I do not think that is neither immoral nor illegal. I'll buy Rybka 4 anyway.

[rjand]

The problem with _all_ of this is that Vas has opened the door, the horse has left the barn, and now it is too late to repair the damage.

1. When the fruit issue came up, he should have responded with factual arguments. He remained silent, which actually spoke _volumes_.

2. When this new program surfaced, he quickly (again) claimed that it was a clone derived from Rybka, just as was done in the Strelka case previously. And when pressured for proof, has remained completely silent, again speaking _volumes_.

One can only exercise the right to remain silent for so long before the silence itself becomes quite revealing. When I claimed a program was a copy of Crafty, I gave chapter and verse as to what was identical so that anyone could look at both programs and see the same things I saw. Had I not produced any supporting evidence, I would hope my statements would have been ignored.

Perhaps the best thing at the present is to simply let this program continue to exist and be tested, with no anti-type comments directed toward it until adequate proof is offered. That's about the only way to partially correct what has become a pretty unfair discussion.

Way to cut to the chase. Agree 100%. These threads are becoming redundant.

Rick

[Mincho Georgiev]

I was in Nevada for a month and i wasn't be able to read very often the posts during that time because i didn't carry my PC or laptop. I have an opportunity to do that a couple of times and from what i saw, the 80% of the posts was dedicated to clones/cloners/vas/rybka/robo/ipo and stuffs like that. Is there anyone else, who is sharing my opinion that we are just devoting too much on this subject, or I am completely alone on that. Honestly, there where days when the forum was filled with similar topics and none of them was in the "Programming and Technical...". I found this a bit frustrating. I believe that this is not the "Rybka Forum" and one of the things that proves it, is that Vasik Rajlich do not participate in those discussions.

[Watchman]

1. When the fruit issue came up, he should have responded with factual arguments. He remained silent, which actually spoke _volumes_.

2. When this new program surfaced, he quickly (again) claimed that it was a clone derived from Rybka, just as was done in the Strelka case previously. And when pressured for proof, has remained completely silent, again speaking _volumes_.

One can only exercise the right to remain silent for so long before the silence itself becomes quite revealing.

With all due respect Dr. Hyatt, remaining silent doesn't "speak _volumes_" it speaks absolutely nothing unless one is hell bent on assuming guilt or innocence of a person. (Although I am prejudiced here, as I tend to think the quiet ones, barring evidence to the contrary, are the innocent ones.)

I found while a law enforcement officer, Whether guilty or innocent, it was the ones with a modicum of wisdom who kept their mouth shut (speaking as little as possible). A person who tended to run his mouth did one thing: dig his own grave deeper.

In my own life when accused of something false, I didn't feel I had a need to justify myself to anyone. If IA (Internal Affairs) wanted a statement, they got their statement. If my Lt. wanted "my version" of events, he got my version of events. Everyone else could believe what they wanted to believe. As for me, I conducted myself in the way I felt was honorable and let that speak for itself.

It could be (and this is my sincere belief in this case) Vas has no real care for who thinks what about his engine. What does it matter to him? Why should it matter? All the clamouring to say this or that about Rybka... it says one thing... he doesn't care to answer to those who have demanded answers. That is all it says.

[bob]

The problem with _all_ of this is that Vas has opened the door, the horse has left the barn, and now it is too late to repair the damage.

1. When the fruit issue came up, he should have responded with factual arguments. He remained silent, which actually spoke _volumes_.

2. When this new program surfaced, he quickly (again) claimed that it was a clone derived from Rybka, just as was done in the Strelka case previously. And when pressured for proof, has remained completely silent, again speaking _volumes_.

One can only exercise the right to remain silent for so long before the silence itself becomes quite revealing. When I claimed a program was a copy of Crafty, I gave chapter and verse as to what was identical so that anyone could look at both programs and see the same things I saw. Had I not produced any supporting evidence, I would hope my statements would have been ignored.

Perhaps the best thing at the present is to simply let this program continue to exist and be tested, with no anti-type comments directed toward it until adequate proof is offered. That's about the only way to partially correct what has become a pretty unfair discussion.

Bob, with highest respect, but dont you compare apples with oranges? Your Crafty is open source while Rybka is a commercial entry. IMO it wouldnt make sense if Vas opened his details, because then his competitors would have a good laugh.

By the same token, it doesn't make sense to make a statement without offering any proof. Since this new program is stronger than R3 according to everyone I have seen post here, it is hard to imagine that it is a simple "copy". Whether it is or not, I do not know, and don't really care. I have enough to work on with my own program to keep me busy for the next 10 years.

There is another case where it simply doesnt fit together. You and hopefully many here argue against clones, cloning and stealing code. And still there is someone posting here (Osipov) who once claimed that he had created Strelka with stolen code to prove something about Vas. IMO you either can condeemn clones and stealing code but then you cant allow Osipov here or you think that Osipov has done a good job but then you cant argue against stealing code.

It is not quite that cut-and-dried, IMHO. It is clear to me that for Strelka, it came from Rybka 1 (already confirmed by everyone including Vas (again)) and then strelka has been shown to be extremely similar to fruit in significant ways. Given that, technically R1 is a GPL program and so deriving and posting the source code is not only acceptable, but actually is completely legal.

R3 is less clear. But as I have repeatedly said, it is very extreme to think that no code in R3 came from R1. There is code in Crafty version 23.1 that was present in version 1.0 from 1994. Which means, again, that one could make a case that publishing source derived from R3 executable is not illegal because of the original GPL that is most likely still firmly in place. It is a mess that should not have happened, but blaming Osipov (or others in the new case) seems wrong. The finger should be pointed at Vas for creating this mess in the first place.

Or is it here the unethical agreement that crimes (well sort of in computerchess) are then in order if they could reveil something about collegues among the programmers?

It is a bit simpler than that. It is highly likely someone could make the case that R3 is a GPL program. And the only way to disprove that is to release the source so that it can be compared. So it is a catch-22. It would be much better had it never happened. One _can_ write a chess engine without copying an existing one, particularly one released under the GPL.

Here I have another contradiction. When did you examine the known commercial engines who might all be made out of taken codes from others? I know that you answered that with finding something by chance rather than by an agenda out of envy. Again why it was never analysed what the usual commercial engines are made of? I mean, where is your energy as researcher? Guess these programs were fooling us for years?

Who knows? Perhaps they are all original works. Or perhaps they are all copies of something existing. Or perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. With commercial programs it is non-trivial to determine this. And in my case, it would take a lot of convincing to cause me to investigate such stuff and expend the significant amount of time needed to investigate those programs. I don't care about nuclear fusion reactors, I don't care about quantum physics. There are lots of things I don't care about enough to investigate them. I hope others continue working on all of these areas, but not me. And investigating clones other than Crafty clones simply doesn't rise to the level that makes me want to expend a lot of time investigating this stuff.

All that before the background that 90% of all the code is taken from former programmers. What is the meaning of scapegoating a singular program or author? Apparently the very best for almost 5 years right now. Hoiw could that possibly happen if Vas is based on far weaker software??

This is very much like getting a speeding ticket on a major highway, and then going in and saying "Judge, I was just keeping up with the flow of traffic, I was going no faster than anyone else. Why should I have to pay a fine when no one else was pulled over? It isn't fair."

He got caught, why is irrelevant. Most know that if you drive a white honda at 85 mph in a 70 mph speed zone you have less chance of getting caught than if you drive 80mph in a red ferrari or porsche.

But again, your argument of the silence that speaks doesnt fly. Because if you asked other commercial authors the silence would become even louder than thunder. Would that prove a thing? Because you cant force business guys to explain their secrets. COCA COLA e.g. has never published its code. Why is that respected by scientists? Would you say that chemical expert would be unable to find out?

Not at all. But the chemical expert would need some significant incentive to try to figure this out. It is not something I would do on a Saturday afternoon instead of going fishing or hunting, for example. Something has to make me want to do such an investigation. And in this case, I simply don't care where their programs come from.

[bob]

1. When the fruit issue came up, he should have responded with factual arguments. He remained silent, which actually spoke _volumes_.

2. When this new program surfaced, he quickly (again) claimed that it was a clone derived from Rybka, just as was done in the Strelka case previously. And when pressured for proof, has remained completely silent, again speaking _volumes_.

One can only exercise the right to remain silent for so long before the silence itself becomes quite revealing.

With all due respect Dr. Hyatt, remaining silent doesn't "speak _volumes_" it speaks absolutely nothing unless one is hell bent on assuming guilt or innocence of a person. (Although I am prejudiced here, as I tend to think the quiet ones, barring evidence to the contrary, are the innocent ones.)

I found while a law enforcement officer, Whether guilty or innocent, it was the ones with a modicum of wisdom who kept their mouth shut (speaking as little as possible). A person who tended to run his mouth did one thing: dig his own grave deeper.

In my own life when accused of something false, I didn't feel I had a need to justify myself to anyone. If IA (Internal Affairs) wanted a statement, they got their statement. If my Lt. wanted "my version" of events, he got my version of events. Everyone else could believe what they wanted to believe. As for me, I conducted myself in the way I felt was honorable and let that speak for itself.

It could be (and this is my sincere belief in this case) Vas has no real care for who thinks what about his engine. What does it matter to him? Why should it matter? All the clamouring to say this or that about Rybka... it says one thing... he doesn't care to answer to those who have demanded answers. That is all it says.

Your logic is flawed, however. Vas _claimed_ this program is a copy of Rybka 3. He opened the door. And offered absolutely no proof. Even though testers have concluded that this thing is stronger than R3 by a significant amount. So the question becomes, "if it is stronger, how can it be a copy?" And we get absolutely no supporting information. He's not been the one that was accused, he was the accuser. And he should have offered some evidence to support his claim. That hasn't happened, and it looks bad to at least some of us.

In the US, one might call that "defamation of character". Anyone can accuse someone else of something. But they had better be prepared to either offer proof, or defend themselves in civil court (or even criminal court if the accusation is made to law enforcement).

[Watchman]

Your logic is flawed, however. Vas _claimed_ this program is a copy of Rybka 3. He opened the door.

Yes I realize that he has said so... so I don't see how my logic is flawed just because he said such a thing. I have to take his word on that, and until it is demonstrated to me he is a habitual liar and/or can't be trusted, I will take him at his word. That is good enough for me for the work I have to do.

He got caught, why is irrelevant. Most know that if you drive a white honda at 85 mph in a 70 mph speed zone you have less chance of getting caught than if you drive 80mph in a red ferrari or porsche.

well another "speeder's fallacy." Maybe this is true in some parts of the country but not where I ran radar.

This reminds me of the other one where people think they are getting pulled over because they "are out-of-state." What a joke... as if I could see the plate as they go by at over a mile a minute. I was lucky enough to remember "Red... late model... Van" as I headed off in pursuit.

From a half mile plus out... it's hard enough just to make out type while a half dozen other things are going thru your head ("am I safe here, does that vehicle appear to be well over the limit before I 'gun' him, will I be able to get out safely in traffic to pursue, etc.)... not even to speak about how hard it was to pick out the vehicle type among the gazillion cars going by. And this was during the Day!

My "personal minimums" were 15mph and over on the interstate. So in my book that Red Ferrari would get a pass (unless I was EXTREMELY bored) because writing a ticket for 10mph over was borderline lame. 15mph and over looks so much better in traffic court.