morality and legality of dowloading robbolito

[Graham Banks]

Several programmers demonstrated tha R1 was filled with Fruit code so please get your facts straight

These programmers have obviously not conferred at length with Ryan Benitez regarding this. I'll say no more on it.

What's your point Graham? Is he The Oracle?

I guess a computer scientist of 40+ years is either incompetent or a liar?

You tell me and the rest of CCC.

Again, way off topic.

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Watchman]

Right after Vas released Rybak he did in passing mention that he had seen the coding of Fruit. He did no indicate in any way that he copied an of the ideas presented in Fruit. The "so called" experts here have come up with that idea on their own and most likely because Ryybka is so strong and they can not believe that Vas was capable of creating such a strong program on his own.

Hmmm... Bill, maybe you don't remember reading this Interview with Vasik Rajlich

20. Alexander Schmidt: The increase in playing strength of the latest chess engines is unbelieveable. We have since some time with Fruit 2.1 by Fabien Letouzey a very strong open source engine. Do you see a relation between the published sources of such a strong engine and the increase of strength in computer chess in general? How much influence do the ideas of Fruit have on the future of computerchess?

Vasik Rajlich: Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on. I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.

It is a bit of a pity that Rybka won't make the same contribution to the computer chess community, but at the moment I must also think about protecting my secrets. It's the eternal struggle for a computer chess programmer.

21. Alexander Schmidt: We had our first contact when I had questions about a similarity to Fruit in the search, others found similarities in the evaluation. Some people where a little bit suspicious that Rybka could be a clone of the open source engine. In the meantime it is clear that Rybka is no clone but you used ideas of Fruit (I guess all other serious engine programmers had a look at Fruit too). How strong would Rybka actually be if the Fruit code would have never been published?

Vasik Rajlich: It's a good question. I don't want to get too specific about which ideas from Fruit I think are really useful, but they fall into two categories:

1) Very specific tricks, mostly related to search;
2) Philosophy of the engine (and in particular of the search).

I don't know how else to term Vas's "took many things," "very specific tricks" and Alexander Schmidt's term "used ideas of Fruit" other than "Copying." No shame in that really. However, he didn't want to say which ideas. It would have been a bit more "proper," imo, if he had "given credit where credit is due" but this doesn't appear to be a standard within the commercial programmer community (correct me if I'm wrong) so I don't see the point of holding him to a higher standard.

[Watchman]

...then I can assure you that I will personally interfere and guarantee that this comrade gets a nice place in one of the seperate housing units where they are nourished under medical supervision. They could play soccer and at nighttime they are allowed to visit the CCC. There they could debate extensively about clones and why clones must be protected after the Human Rights Charta.

Sometimes you just gotta love a communist regime!

[Bill Rogers]

Rob
I must admit that I hav ever seen this interview before but the again this is the only chess site that I frequent. Please don't tell me that this was also published here too.

To the rest of the gentlemen here I stand corrected and appologise for my previous statements againt you all.
Bill

[Graham Banks]

Right after Vas released Rybak he did in passing mention that he had seen the coding of Fruit. He did no indicate in any way that he copied an of the ideas presented in Fruit. The "so called" experts here have come up with that idea on their own and most likely because Ryybka is so strong and they can not believe that Vas was capable of creating such a strong program on his own.

Hmmm... Bill, maybe you don't remember reading this Interview with Vasik Rajlich

20. Alexander Schmidt: The increase in playing strength of the latest chess engines is unbelieveable. We have since some time with Fruit 2.1 by Fabien Letouzey a very strong open source engine. Do you see a relation between the published sources of such a strong engine and the increase of strength in computer chess in general? How much influence do the ideas of Fruit have on the future of computerchess?

Vasik Rajlich: Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on. I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.

It is a bit of a pity that Rybka won't make the same contribution to the computer chess community, but at the moment I must also think about protecting my secrets. It's the eternal struggle for a computer chess programmer.

21. Alexander Schmidt: We had our first contact when I had questions about a similarity to Fruit in the search, others found similarities in the evaluation. Some people where a little bit suspicious that Rybka could be a clone of the open source engine. In the meantime it is clear that Rybka is no clone but you used ideas of Fruit (I guess all other serious engine programmers had a look at Fruit too). How strong would Rybka actually be if the Fruit code would have never been published?

Vasik Rajlich: It's a good question. I don't want to get too specific about which ideas from Fruit I think are really useful, but they fall into two categories:

1) Very specific tricks, mostly related to search;
2) Philosophy of the engine (and in particular of the search).

I don't know how else to term Vas's "took many things," "very specific tricks" and Alexander Schmidt's term "used ideas of Fruit" other than "Copying." No shame in that really. However, he didn't want to say which ideas. It would have been a bit more "proper," imo, if he had "given credit where credit is due" but this doesn't appear to be a standard within the commercial programmer community (correct me if I'm wrong) so I don't see the point of holding him to a higher standard.

You forgot the bit where Vas said that without what he learned from Fruit, Rybka would only be about 20 elo weaker.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Watchman]

You forgot the bit where Vas said that without what he learned from Fruit, Rybka would only be about 20 elo weaker.

No sir... I didn't forget. I intentionally left that out.

When Vas makes these "estimations" I take what he says with a grain of salt i.e. I don't lend much credence to them.

A) Because only he really knows... and in this case even he doesn't really know. And
B) From what I know of Vas, he likes to keep his cards very, very close to his vest.

But he does reveal much when he says, "Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake..." { (my) emphasis added }

I don't equate "20 elo" with "massive" or "huge." This was his personal perspective how he benefited from Fruit.

I am reminded of the scene in T2 where Dr. Miles Dyson is explaining to Sarah Connor (et al.) about how the CPU from the first Terminator, "... it didn't work. But it gave us ideas. It took us in new directions... things we would never have... thought... of..."

[bob]

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.

[/code]

you said you were involved in law enforcement, correct? Are you one of those that disagreed with the US supreme court's decision this past summer that said "if a police offer is arresting someone, they do _not_ have the automatic right to search that person's automobile." Our local LEOs went ape. National LEOs went ballistic. Look at all the crime we will miss, in a large majority of arrests, we find other criminal evidence when searching those cars... from drugs, to open alcohol, an occasional non-permit concealed weapon, etc. I'd suspect you are. Why is that important? Because we have a constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. We also have a constitutional protectoin of "innocent until proven guilty." Do we live by that document or not? What would you do if I walked into the police station, pointed you out, and said "you stole my car, I want you arrested and put in jail."??? Do you arrest someone based on the statement of one person? No evidence offered. No witnesses offered. Just my statement? Are you presumed guilty, or innocent? Do you have to prove your innocence, or do I have to prove your guilt?

That is _exactly_ what has happened here. "innocent until proven guilty" is still the rule of law here. Vas made the claim, it is clearly his responsibility to offer proof to back up that claim would you not think? Or do we let anyone make a claim and react to it as if it is absolute truth?

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 is not "speeder's fallacy." I have two family members in law enforcement, and both will quickly point out that a flashy car attracts their attention, and can cause them to notice that the car is actually speeding, or missing a light, just because they turned their head when they saw it. Happens every day. There are dozens of well-known studies that show that the color of a car is _directly_ correlated to law enforcement "notice". But that's pretty irrelevant here.

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.

This happens. Happened to me. I had witnesses that stated absolutely that I was not speeding. Local cop said I was going over 45 in a 45 zone, but did not have a radar print-out nor did he clock me with his car. talked to my lawyer. he said "pay the ticket". I said no. We drove over to court. Case continued, officer not available. 250 miles back home. Return next month. Case continued. I did this three times. My lawyer friend said "I told you to pay the ticket. They _know_ you are from out of town. They know you are going to get tired of driving 500 miles, wasting a day, and getting nothing done. They were right. This cop had the nerve to tell me the night I was pulled over, I have been told to hold a tight line on driving infractions for out-of-state tags. So whether you think it happens or not, doesn't mean it doesn't. You might not have done it. I have an uncle that was an elected sheriff for 38 years, longest-running elected sheriff in US history at the time. He didn't buy into that sort of stuff. But ther eare certainly some that do.

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.

And my son drives a hot-rod mustang and has been given speeding tickets in three separate areas of Birmingham for 5mph over, lowest posted limit was 55, which means no more than 10% over, max. Yet it happened and he paid 'em every one.

But back to the issue at hand. Vas "said" is not good enough. Not when you are accusing someone of plagiarism or something similar. You _do_ need some proof where you worked, I assume? There's been plenty of time for _something_ to be offered here. Wonder how many claims of abuse, etc, go away because the person making the claim is never heard from again?

[bob]

This entire thread is just full of nonsense. I have followed the making and release of Rybka from its very begining. No where did Vas ever mention seeing Crafty, this is a new idea that someone threw into the soup.
Right after Vas released Rybak he did in passing mention that he had seen the coding of Fruit. He did no indicate in any way that he copied an of the ideas presented in Fruit. The "so called" experts here have come up with that idea on their own and most likely because Ryybka is so strong and they can not believe that Vas was capable of creating such a strong program on his own. It really hurts me to see so many people that I have learned to respect over the years getting in on this hated band wagon against Vas simply because of these false implications. No one, and I repeat "NO ONE" has ever come up with even one iota of proof that Rybka contains even one tiny part of Fruit or for that matter or any part of any other chess program. You can all fall back on your presumed intelligence and proclaim that Rybka is a clone but with out any kind of proof you are just singing to the stars and than only to here yourselves sing.
I think that you are all extremely lucky that Vas is such a mature individual who lets all of this slanderous crap just float by because if there were some kind of internatinal laws and he were not such a man you could all be held libal and made to pay some tremendous sums of money for posting such lies ( I say lies because not even one piece of evidence to back up your statements has ever been shown).
Let me put it this way. This is an American Chess site and as such then American laws hold forth. That means incase non of you can comprehend the legal implications of the law, even though it may have never been done before Vas could start law proceedings against of of you for slander.

The "experts" came up with that idea due to a _major_ mistake by Vas.

1. Strelka was released.

2. Vas said "this is a reverse-engineered program that was derived by disassembling Rybka 1. I hereby claim this code as my own."

3. Now there is a publicly available copy of Rybka 1 (AKA strelka here) source code.

4. The similarities between fruit and strelka were startling, to say the least. Very oddball program structures. Duplicate (and odd) function names. Duplicate piece/square tables This gave a _direct_ link from Fruit to Rybka 1. A few (Zach and others, even including myself to a limited degree) then studied the Rybka 1 executable to make sure that strelka matched reasonably well. And the rest is history.

It was not a witch hunt. It was just a classic case of "foot in mouth disease" that led to a significant and unexpected discovery. Nothing was made up, nothing was fabricated,, there was no ulterior motive just because Rybka is very strong. All of those suggestions are pure crap.

[bob]

Several programmers demonstrated tha R1 was filled with Fruit code so please get your facts straight

These programmers have obviously not conferred at length with Ryan Benitez regarding this. I'll say no more on it.

Why would we need to? Nobody needs advice on how to compare source code.

[bob]

Several programmers demonstrated tha R1 was filled with Fruit code so please get your facts straight

These programmers have obviously not conferred at length with Ryan Benitez regarding this. I'll say no more on it.

What's your point Graham? Is he The Oracle?

I guess a computer scientist of 40+ years is either incompetent or a liar?

You tell me and the rest of CCC.

Again, way off topic.

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

Cheers,
Graham.

You are using a flawed definition. "clone" != exact copy. It _could_ mean that in the case of some Crafty clones in the past. But there have been cases where crafty was copied, and then modified, and yet this is _still_ a clone. If R1 has any of the fruit source code in it, it is a clone, and is also GPL.