morality and legality of dowloading robbolito

[Rolf]

Cubeman wrote:
You trust Vas this much?
Rob Osborne answered:
Why not. What reason has he given me not to trust his word?
Rob:
Please see these posts by Vas in the rybka forum:
By Vasik Date 2008-01-11 12:26

In light of the above, I am claiming Strelka 2.0 as my own and will release it in the next few days under my own name. The name of the author with the pen name "Osipov" will be included if he comes forward with hiw own real name, otherwise an anonymous contribution will be noted. The contributions of Igor Korshunov will also be confirmed and noted if appropriate. All usage permissions will be granted with this release.
Vas
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2008-08-27 14:55
You claimed Strelka to be your own. Now is it or is it not?
I made quite a detailed post about this around the time of the Strelka 2.0 release, maybe someone can dig it up.
Claiming Strelka as my own would have been illegal, so I didn't do it.
Vas

Sorry I am still new in using quotations and putting them together

You are not only new here in quotations but you are also a mean twister of the truth by using false histories.

I remember this too well to be fooled around by such quotations because I know them to be wrong. They come out of context. They are lies in what they are pretending to stand for. I will explain this:

The most famous snip is the declaration where Vas announced that he will claim that Strelka is his engine etc. pp.

Now to the data that was left out so that it looked as if Vas had written something that must look like a contradiction but it isnt.

The left out part is a longer exchange where someone, forgot the nickname, told Vas that he couldnt claim the whole thing as his own because for those parts that the anonymous guy had added HE would hold the copyright.

So, after this Vas changed his view and no longer repeated his claim.

So, the second quote now reported by this strange reporter now, is a lie how he misused it, but in truth Vas wrote NOT a contradiction to his first statement but he is correctly reporting what he had done, namely that he did no more claim that the WHOLE Strelka is HIS, Vasik's product.

So, after this little elaboration you all can well see that this alleged neutral researching reporter is intentiously lying on the basis of a simple left out part of the WHOLE story.

BTW this intentiously falsely selecting snipped quotations is the usual method of cheaters and twisters of the historical truth. However by definition it's always a certain chosen perspective how historians are presenting facts of the past. But here in our case the truth could quickly be reveiled. In other histories this is much more difficult.

[Terry McCracken]

Cubeman wrote:
You trust Vas this much?
Rob Osborne answered:
Why not. What reason has he given me not to trust his word?
Rob:
Please see these posts by Vas in the rybka forum:
By Vasik Date 2008-01-11 12:26

In light of the above, I am claiming Strelka 2.0 as my own and will release it in the next few days under my own name. The name of the author with the pen name "Osipov" will be included if he comes forward with hiw own real name, otherwise an anonymous contribution will be noted. The contributions of Igor Korshunov will also be confirmed and noted if appropriate. All usage permissions will be granted with this release.
Vas
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2008-08-27 14:55
You claimed Strelka to be your own. Now is it or is it not?
I made quite a detailed post about this around the time of the Strelka 2.0 release, maybe someone can dig it up.
Claiming Strelka as my own would have been illegal, so I didn't do it.
Vas

Sorry I am still new in using quotations and putting them together

You are not only new here in quotations but you are also a mean twister of the truth by using false histories.

I remember this too well to be fooled around by such quotations because I know them to be wrong. They come out of context. They are lies in what they are pretending to stand for. I will explain this:

The most famous snip is the declaration where Vas announced that he will claim that Strelka is his engine etc. pp.

Now to the data that was left out so that it looked as if Vas had written something that must look like a contradiction but it isnt.

The left out part is a longer exchange where someone, forgot the nickname, told Vas that he couldnt claim the whole thing as his own because for those parts that the anonymous guy had added HE would hold the copyright.

So, after this Vas changed his view and no longer repeated his claim.

So, the second quote now reported by this strange reporter now, is a lie how he misused it, but in truth Vas wrote NOT a contradiction to his first statement but he is correctly reporting what he had done, namely that he did no more claim that the WHOLE Strelka is HIS, Vasik's product.

So, after this little elaboration you all can well see that this alleged neutral researching reporter is intentiously lying on the basis of a simple left out part of the WHOLE story.

BTW this intentiously falsely selecting snipped quotations is the usual method of cheaters and twisters of the historical truth. However by definition it's always a certain chosen perspective how historians are presenting facts of the past. But here in our case the truth could quickly be reveiled. In other histories this is much more difficult.

He'll likely be banned by the end of the week.

[bob]

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.

What I find lamentable here is... There is no "Technical Paper, worthy of being published" documenting this (to my knowledge).

Obviously Dr. Hyatt, you are very well respected for your work and position... maybe it was something (this Technical Paper) that would take more time than it was worth to create.

I personally find plagiarism very distasteful; so much so (in this case) I would reconsider ever purchasing another version of Rybka. I would think for many to commit to such a thing is not likely. But a technical paper that clearly demonstrated Rybka 1.x copying sections of code might be enough to have Rybka X.x banned from further tournaments. I don't think this is tattling or snitching. A peer review would seem to be in order. This would also have the effect of disqualifying derivatives of Rybka (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree... if you will).

My view is, until some sort of paper is written and Rybka remains "on top" we will be condemned to rehashing this issue in various forums... a sort of human programming hell endless loop kind of thing.

There are two issues. To physically compare two large programs is a challenge in terms of effort required. Most want to treat this as at least a zero-sum operation, meaning you get back something equivalent to what you put in. Commercial programmers want even more of course, since they want to make a living from the effort they expend. There is really nothing one would get in return for the effort expended here, other than "the truth." That plus $3.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. The second is how interested are people in learning the truth? It won't help anyone in any way other than to know the entire story. Someone that has something to gain might take this challenge up, or someone that is simply curious beyond the point that it can be ignored.

There's more than enough already known for most of us however.

[Rolf]

Commercial programmers want even more of course, since they want to make a living from the effort they expend. There is really nothing one would get in return for the effort expended here, other than "the truth." That plus $3.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. The second is how interested are people in learning the truth? It won't help anyone in any way other than to know the entire story. Someone that has something to gain might take this challenge up, or someone that is simply curious beyond the point that it can be ignored.

There's more than enough already known for most of us however.

If this is the truth then how could Rybka win one Wch after the other? I came to a different conclusion in retrospect. Rybka is sober and therefore played in official tournaments.

Please do also comment on the aspect that Graham mentioned, that allegedly Benitez had found out that Rybka has nothing from Fruit. Sorry, I am also interested in the very truth. But then we cant just discard such informations.

I must also add that once a webpage was proudly annonced which then never came. Where all the proof should be collected about Rybka. Where is that page? Isnt it a proof, at least indirectly, that there are no proves?

[bob]

I think for practical purposes, if a misdemeanor or felony arrest is made during a traffic stop, an officer shouldn't have to justify a subsequent search of the vehicle. That is just common sense to anyone who has worked a traffic stop, but seems common sense is not so common anymore.

Let me tell you a little secret. If "Reasonable Suspicion" is the only threshold one must meet to make an automobile search, then the Supreme Court ruling has very little impact in changing law enforcement practice. It will require the officer to add a one or two line statement (maybe... if that) in the incident report. Other than that... nada. It is an absolutely inconsequential ruling as long as you do what you are supposed to do to cover yourself.

There is no "reasonable suspicion" leeway. The supreme court enumerated the conditions necessary to do a search. And the only exception they laid out that is of interest is that if there is potential evidence that might be destroyed. You stop someone because a bank was robbed, this car and driver matches the description, and you can search to see if bank property is found. But anything else found can not be used for any reason.

If that leaves you unhappy, the legal way is to go to a magistrate, make your case for probable cause, and have him issue a search warrant. "I want to look in his car to see what I might find" won't fly any longer. This is not about "common sense" at all. It is about a constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

As far as your "adding the comments" there is no exceptions given. You do not get to search my vehicle, just because you arrest me. I run over someone, you pull me over and arrest me for vehicular assault and such. Fine. But you can't go in my car. Or you can, but nothing found will ever see the courtroom jury. which is as it should be. Arrest is not tantamount to carte-blanch to look for whatever you can find. Why not extend that to my workplace? To my home? To my friend's homes? etc? It is a gestapo-like idea.

Btw... you need not school me on Fourth Amendment issues. I have had plenty of that already from many law enforcement classes on the subject to actual street practice. You have no idea how appreciative this has made me as a "civilian."

Based on your comments, I am not sure you have been schooled "enough" it would seem. But at least the US Supreme Court agrees with me which makes any other opinion completely moot on this issue.

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?

Is this a test btw? Well... If you said "stole my car" no obviously I don't have enough to make a warrantless arrest for something I didn't observe... I take your information... who you said it was... their information (probably run him for outstanding warrants) and file a report. Maybe I'd call a supervisor so he could notify a detective.

But Officers can and do make arrests everyday on just someone else's word. It is so simple to have someone arrested. And I am not referring to violation of a court separation order (husband told by court to stay away from wife, wife calls 911 saying husband is there. Husband is GOA when officers show up and see court order wife has. Officers drive over to husband's house, who has been watching football for the entire time but has no way to corroborate that; husband then arrested for violating court order). There are other ways which I refuse to explain as I don't care to provide instructions on "how to have thy neighbor arrested."

Btw... you’re asking about having to be "proven" guilty or innocent. Watch someone go through the our "Criminal Justice System" and you soon realize it's not a matter of demonstrating guilt. In our justice system, you are guilty until you manage to demonstrate your innocence. That is my opinion from seeing firsthand how the system works.

Opinions like that make me want to puke. Sorry for my slang. Everyone that believes such nonsense ought to be locked up themselves, IMHO. Fortunately, in serving on juries multiple times, I have not had the misfortune of seeing such drumhead justice dispensed, and I hope I never do.

That is _exactly_ what has happened here. "innocent until proven guilty" is still the rule of law here.

No it isn't! Not by a long shot! You can't take what is essentially a civil matter and throw it into Criminal Court! You can't apply the Law willy nilly as you please! Although I know many who would like to do that! IF and I say IF this matter were to even make it to the inside of a civil proceeding, the Burden of Proof is not "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" but a 51 to 49 "Preponderance of the Evidence" i.e. more likely than not.

Preponderance means majority. To prevail you have to provide evidence. That's my point. Absolutely _none_ has been provided here. And I do mean _absolutely_. There is no preponderance. there is no evidence whatsoever. Get my point?

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?

Why do we need "proof"? We go from Criminal Law (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) to Civil Law (Preponderance of the Evidence) to Forum "Law." I say all that is needed here is a much lower standard than "More Likely than Not!" I propose the SAR Standard (Sounds About Right). Now I don't go to the other extreme to consider what Vas says as "absolute truth." Vas said Robbolito is a clone of Rybka. Using my "Forum Standard" it “sounds about right” that this is accurate. Could he be fooling me? Sure! So what? If at some point we find out he is a liar on such matters, we can then say, "Be gone! You are a liar on such matters and not a trustworthy source!" End of story. But to apply such high standards that are imposed on Criminal Proceedings is absolutely ridiculous to me. Do we have a court recorder? Who swears us in? Where's the Judge? What are my rights! And the list is endless and so are the costs in real dollars.

What there really needs to be in this community, in my opinion, is some sort of Oversight Committee. There has to be some sort of accountability by people who are not only well respected, but would understand the programming sections (or however the Engine Author wanted to demonstrate a claim). And there has to be a very real penalty for not complying with this Governing Board. But all this takes time and probably money... so... until then...

Why should Vas want or need to make any other statements?

Because he made the original _claim_. That's why.

[bob]

You trust Vas this much?

Sure. Why not. What reason has he given me not to trust his word?

Yes motive... there is a conflict of interest here. So what. The Standards for this "Forum Trial" are extremely low. Again I will say we can't base it on Criminal Law "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" and the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Standards. Totally ridiculous given "we" aren't a government; we don't have courts and laws and judges and juries and attorneys to represent both sides. And Civil Law Preponderance of the Evidence is out too for essentially the same reasons.

previous statements from him have shown to be false.

What statements have been shown to be false??? Please. I would thank you to post at least two statements (you did say statements i.e. more than one) Vas is known to have publicly made that demonstrate he was providing a "false testimony."

Too many to name them all.

but...

(1) Rybka is not falsifying its nps, node counts, or search depths. Even when some noticed that the depths and node counts sometimes run backward. Then someone looked at the binary, and found exactly _where_ these values were mangled, and gave a fix.

(2) Disucssions about cluster rybka gave false information that I figured out by playing against Rybka in an ACCA event and noticing the strange output. He eventually owned up to what he was doing, after being caught.

(3) He denied copying any part of Fruit's source code, yet we now know that is completely false by matching parts of his binary (things like piece / square table values, really oddball procedure names, very unusual program structure details, and such.

(4) and now, somehow the new R* program is actually _stronger_ than R3, yet he claims it was reverse-engineered. How does one reverse-engineer the strongest program around and then end up with a program that is stronger than the original???

There are more, but you asked for 2 and got 3 for sure, with #4 being the current topic.

All I ask is for him to put up or shut up.Seems he has chosen the shut up option.Therefore he has no proof or evidence.

Who are you? Just who are you that Vas should answer you? Maybe you hold the U.S. equivalent position of Attorney General in New Zealand. Or maybe you sit on a Governing Board for a Chess Federation in New Zealand. Maybe you're just like me... another peon in this world (no matter, I'd still like to buy you a pint and discuss this if were ever fortunate enough to visit New Zealand). Point is... Vas has no need to answer you (or any of us for that matter, which btw is the 3rd time I am making this point). And to then determine from this (that he doesn't answer you) he has no so-called "proof or evidence."

You show Vas your Court (and please don't say the court of public opinion) and maybe he will show you his "proof."

Here's the point, and I wish it would come to pass. The target of this claim, the authors of program X _could_ take this to court if they were so-inclined. And then things would change just a bit, no? If you defame someone, you had better be able to produce evidence to support your claim. And _that_ would be in a court.

[Rolf]

Here's the point, and I wish it would come to pass. The target of this claim, the authors of program X _could_ take this to court if they were so-inclined. And then things would change just a bit, no? If you defame someone, you had better be able to produce evidence to support your claim. And _that_ would be in a court.

Could you please verify where in the American Law System it's defined which someone someone anonymous really is?

[Paloma]

Hi Frank,

IIRC Strelka is a clone of Rybka 1.0 beta, cloned by Jury Ossipov

[Graham Banks]

Please do also comment on the aspect that Graham mentioned, that allegedly Benitez had found out that Rybka has nothing from Fruit.

That's not what I said. I said that they should talk to Ryan.

[Rolf]

Please do also comment on the aspect that Graham mentioned, that allegedly Benitez had found out that Rybka has nothing from Fruit.

That's not what I said. I said that they should talk to Ryan.

Right but what did you say?
When people said that Rybka were based on Fruit, you said that they cant have spoken to Ryan. Now here there is still possible than you could have meant it in joking. But then you specified that he's the best knowie or such of Fruit. Hence IMO it could only mean that you wanted to say what I had understood. And it was also elaborated in the thread there. Thast is what Vas practically said. Rybka has no Fruit code.

Is that now suddenly wrong again? What is it giving you to leave the possibility to understand you both ways?