TalkChess.com

Michael Sherwin wrote:...
5) Michael Hoffman concludes that Strelka is not a clone of Rybka
a) he misses the Fruit connection...

Hello Michael,

using names, pls make sure there arent any mistakes in name !

Because i couldn t find a username nor a real name in the
memberlist, people might think, that is me you are talking of.

i (Michael Hoffmann - Desperado and member of CCC) never gave any statement to the whole topic.

So pls make clear who the person (Michael Hoffman) is !

Michael

Desperado wrote:Hello Michael,

using names, pls make sure there arent any mistakes in name !

Because i couldn t find a username nor a real name in the
memberlist, people might think, that is me you are talking of.

i (Michael Hoffmann - Desperado and member of CCC) never gave any statement to the whole topic.

So pls make clear who the person (Michael Hoffman) is !

Michael

I guess he meant Bryan Hoffman.

BTW, Strelka is most definitely a Rybka 1 clone. They are virtually identical. There is also a very small amount taken from Fruit that is not in Rybka, such as the draw recognition in the material table, which isn't even the same as Fruit. There are also some of the same procedure names, but I'm going to take a wild guess that these are also in Rybka

Zach Wegner wrote:

Desperado wrote:Hello Michael,

using names, pls make sure there arent any mistakes in name !

Because i couldn t find a username nor a real name in the
memberlist, people might think, that is me you are talking of.

i (Michael Hoffmann - Desperado and member of CCC) never gave any statement to the whole topic.

So pls make clear who the person (Michael Hoffman) is !

Michael

I guess he meant Bryan Hoffman.

BTW, Strelka is most definitely a Rybka 1 clone. They are virtually identical. There is also a very small amount taken from Fruit that is not in Rybka, such as the draw recognition in the material table, which isn't even the same as Fruit. There are also some of the same procedure names, but I'm going to take a wild guess that these are also in Rybka

Sorry Michael! I did mean Bryan Hoffman. Just got my wires crossed a little.

Are you sure Zach? Could it not be as Osipov claims--that both Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka are functional rewrites of Fruit with material imbalance tables added? That would also make Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka nearly identical. I do remember that several people said that they could see that it was Fruit rewritten to bitboards. However, if Strelka only has a little Fruit in it and Strelka is nearly identical to Rybka 1.0 beta as you say then that also means that there is just a little Fruit in Rybka. So if Rybka only has a little Fruit in it then why are you, Bob and others calling Rybka a clone?

Michael Sherwin wrote:Are you sure Zach? Could it not be as Osipov claims--that both Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka are functional rewrites of Fruit with material imbalance tables added? That would also make Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka nearly identical. I do remember that several people said that they could see that it was Fruit rewritten to bitboards. However, if Strelka only has a little Fruit in it and Strelka is nearly identical to Rybka 1.0 beta as you say then that also means that there is just a little Fruit in Rybka. So if Rybka only has a little Fruit in it then why are you, Bob and others calling Rybka a clone?

Yes, I am sure. I have looked at virtually all of Rybka in IDAPro and confirmed it. There are some differences here and there (the Strelka material tables are different), but usually just low-level implementation details.

Also, reread what I said: "There is also a very small amount taken from Fruit that is not in Rybka". Basically, what I mean is that in the places where Rybka and Strelka differ, there are not many places where Strelka takes the code from Fruit. One example is Strelka's PV collection (using a 256 element array on the stack), which is the same as Fruit. Rybka gets it's PV from the hash table (and limits it to 10 moves long).

Zach Wegner wrote:

Michael Sherwin wrote:Are you sure Zach? Could it not be as Osipov claims--that both Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka are functional rewrites of Fruit with material imbalance tables added? That would also make Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka nearly identical. I do remember that several people said that they could see that it was Fruit rewritten to bitboards. However, if Strelka only has a little Fruit in it and Strelka is nearly identical to Rybka 1.0 beta as you say then that also means that there is just a little Fruit in Rybka. So if Rybka only has a little Fruit in it then why are you, Bob and others calling Rybka a clone?

Yes, I am sure. I have looked at virtually all of Rybka in IDAPro and confirmed it. There are some differences here and there (the Strelka material tables are different), but usually just low-level implementation details.

Also, reread what I said: "There is also a very small amount taken from Fruit that is not in Rybka". Basically, what I mean is that in the places where Rybka and Strelka differ, there are not many places where Strelka takes the code from Fruit. One example is Strelka's PV collection (using a 256 element array on the stack), which is the same as Fruit. Rybka gets it's PV from the hash table (and limits it to 10 moves long).

You guys are out of a strange nature. What Osipov tells. And BTW who entitled you to look up a whole code, virtually? How come that you have so much time? Or is there money in such activities?? No shame?

Strelka is a criminal offense. Yes or no? If yes, then how can you dare to work with such a thing?

Zach Wegner wrote:

Michael Sherwin wrote:Are you sure Zach? Could it not be as Osipov claims--that both Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka are functional rewrites of Fruit with material imbalance tables added? That would also make Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka nearly identical. I do remember that several people said that they could see that it was Fruit rewritten to bitboards. However, if Strelka only has a little Fruit in it and Strelka is nearly identical to Rybka 1.0 beta as you say then that also means that there is just a little Fruit in Rybka. So if Rybka only has a little Fruit in it then why are you, Bob and others calling Rybka a clone?

Yes, I am sure. I have looked at virtually all of Rybka in IDAPro and confirmed it. There are some differences here and there (the Strelka material tables are different), but usually just low-level implementation details.

Also, reread what I said: "There is also a very small amount taken from Fruit that is not in Rybka". Basically, what I mean is that in the places where Rybka and Strelka differ, there are not many places where Strelka takes the code from Fruit. One example is Strelka's PV collection (using a 256 element array on the stack), which is the same as Fruit. Rybka gets it's PV from the hash table (and limits it to 10 moves long).

Sorry Zach. Guess that I am just too exhausted to read with comprehension. Taking care of a parent with Alzheimer's will do that to a person.

1) So there is a lot of Fruit in both engines that is the same between them.

2) There are some small amount of things that Rybka and Strelka do differently that are not in fruit.

3) And there are only a few things that Strelka takes from Fruit that are not to be found in Rybka.

4) There are things in Strelka besides the material tables that are also in Rybka, but are not in Fruit.

Are all these statements true? If so then please elaborate on point 4 as this would be the proof that Osipov took more from Rybka than just the material tables. Are the move generators nearly identical? I read that they are not the same.

Anyway, I am going on vacation from this madness for a while. Though I am still interested in an answer.

Rolf wrote:

Zach Wegner wrote:

Michael Sherwin wrote:Are you sure Zach? Could it not be as Osipov claims--that both Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka are functional rewrites of Fruit with material imbalance tables added? That would also make Rybka 1.0 beta and Strelka nearly identical. I do remember that several people said that they could see that it was Fruit rewritten to bitboards. However, if Strelka only has a little Fruit in it and Strelka is nearly identical to Rybka 1.0 beta as you say then that also means that there is just a little Fruit in Rybka. So if Rybka only has a little Fruit in it then why are you, Bob and others calling Rybka a clone?

Yes, I am sure. I have looked at virtually all of Rybka in IDAPro and confirmed it. There are some differences here and there (the Strelka material tables are different), but usually just low-level implementation details.

Also, reread what I said: "There is also a very small amount taken from Fruit that is not in Rybka". Basically, what I mean is that in the places where Rybka and Strelka differ, there are not many places where Strelka takes the code from Fruit. One example is Strelka's PV collection (using a 256 element array on the stack), which is the same as Fruit. Rybka gets it's PV from the hash table (and limits it to 10 moves long).

You guys are out of a strange nature. What Osipov tells. And BTW who entitled you to look up a whole code, virtually? How come that you have so much time? Or is there money in such activities?? No shame?

Strelka is a criminal offense. Yes or no? If yes, then how can you dare to work with such a thing?

Answer is easy. "NO". Because Rybka 1 clearly has pieces of fruit code in it, which makes R1's source bound by the GPL. Anyone can reverse-engineer a GPL program since the source is supposed to be public anyway.

bob wrote:

Strelka is a criminal offense. Yes or no? If yes, then how can you dare to work with such a thing?

Answer is easy. "NO". Because Rybka 1 clearly has pieces of fruit code in it, which makes R1's source bound by the GPL. Anyone can reverse-engineer a GPL program since the source is supposed to be public anyway.

Can you prove this? Please show the evidence. We have

1) Rybka 1 has Fruit code.

2) Vas took ideas he had understood but no code. As far as chess is concerned, not some techno stuff. Because stuff like this is everywhere in all progs. Nobody re-invents the wheel.

Bob, if you couldnt prove this, were Strelka then illegal, forbidden, and made by ruthless jerks under anonymity and will you help Vas to defend against such vilains?

1) Ippolit has separate functions for white/black like Rybka

I've seen this so many times by now. It's just so wrong. This nonsense argumentation should really stop.

Robbolito doesn't have separate functions for white/black like Rybka. Anyone claiming so, either doesn't even have the basic knowledge of C (like doesn't know what is a macro) or is simply bluntly laying for his own reasons, and should not be takes seriously in any discussion.

Zach Wegner wrote:... There are also some of the same procedure names, but I'm going to take a wild guess that these are also in Rybka

That's all you come up with after the long time of silence, when you had promised to offer evidence? wild guesses? Well, this is the level this campaign had from the very beginning.

Everybody arguing this way should lose any credibility, but there is none left anyway, so what ...

Are you going to keep any real proof private or is there something you have to offer? but don't come up with strelka code, only real rybka code is acceptable as a proof, the rest is irrelevant.
You had more than enough time for your decompilation process of Rybka beta, hadn't you? Or did you have to do better things with the result of your hard efforts?!