Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
"Promotion" of engines in CCC.
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:13 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 9773
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:44 pm
- Location: Amman,Jordan
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
I understood the situation exactly as you describe Albert....Graham most probably has nothing to do with this....Albert Silver wrote:I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
-
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:13 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
So Vas randomly decided to completely rewrite Rybka after 1.0 beta? And it was stronger? With the same playing style? Certainly at least 1.2f etc had Fruit code. And those were commercial. Now I don't know about 2.x or 3 or 4. But I'd guess they probably still had a little Fruit code in them (the UCI parser comes to mind). And not all analysis was done from Strelka. Zach Wegner's eval comparison thing for instance was done mostly from a fresh decompilation IIRC.Albert Silver wrote:I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
Peter
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
So you plan to sue ChessUSA because you guess there might be UCI parser code in Rybka 3 and 4? Or did you mean you know someone who plans to sue them for those reasons.?alpha123 wrote:So Vas randomly decided to completely rewrite Rybka after 1.0 beta? And it was stronger? With the same playing style? Certainly at least 1.2f etc had Fruit code. And those were commercial. Now I don't know about 2.x or 3 or 4. But I'd guess they probably still had a little Fruit code in them (the UCI parser comes to mind). And not all analysis was done from Strelka. Zach Wegner's eval comparison thing for instance was done mostly from a fresh decompilation IIRC.Albert Silver wrote:I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
Peter
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:13 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.Albert Silver wrote:So you plan to sue ChessUSA because you guess there might be UCI parser code in Rybka 3 and 4? Or did you mean you know someone who plans to sue them for those reasons.?alpha123 wrote:So Vas randomly decided to completely rewrite Rybka after 1.0 beta? And it was stronger? With the same playing style? Certainly at least 1.2f etc had Fruit code. And those were commercial. Now I don't know about 2.x or 3 or 4. But I'd guess they probably still had a little Fruit code in them (the UCI parser comes to mind). And not all analysis was done from Strelka. Zach Wegner's eval comparison thing for instance was done mostly from a fresh decompilation IIRC.Albert Silver wrote:I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
Peter
Well, if it is illegal, a site containing plenty of links to free Rybkas, links to buy Rybka, links to its website, etc, would be in a bit of a tight spot, agreed?
The same reason no links were allowed to Ippos when it came out.
Peter
-
- Posts: 3019
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
- Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
I didn't actually see any corrections. I just saw assumptions on your end: Guessed things, could bes, would bes, etc.alpha123 wrote:No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.Albert Silver wrote:So you plan to sue ChessUSA because you guess there might be UCI parser code in Rybka 3 and 4? Or did you mean you know someone who plans to sue them for those reasons.?alpha123 wrote:So Vas randomly decided to completely rewrite Rybka after 1.0 beta? And it was stronger? With the same playing style? Certainly at least 1.2f etc had Fruit code. And those were commercial. Now I don't know about 2.x or 3 or 4. But I'd guess they probably still had a little Fruit code in them (the UCI parser comes to mind). And not all analysis was done from Strelka. Zach Wegner's eval comparison thing for instance was done mostly from a fresh decompilation IIRC.Albert Silver wrote:I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
Peter
Well, if it is illegal, a site containing plenty of links to free Rybkas, links to buy Rybka, links to its website, etc, would be in a bit of a tight spot, agreed?
The same reason no links were allowed to Ippos when it came out.
Peter
As to Rybka, if you are suggesting there is a commercial software maker threatening to cut off business because of its potential illegality, I would be very curious to know who.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
-
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:13 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
Well, you claimed the Rybka-Fruit analysises pertained only to the free Rybka 1.0 beta. I corrected you, they also pertain to 1.2f at least and most likely other commercial versions.Albert Silver wrote:I didn't actually see any corrections. I just saw assumptions on your end: Guessed things, could bes, would bes, etc.alpha123 wrote:No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.Albert Silver wrote:So you plan to sue ChessUSA because you guess there might be UCI parser code in Rybka 3 and 4? Or did you mean you know someone who plans to sue them for those reasons.?alpha123 wrote:So Vas randomly decided to completely rewrite Rybka after 1.0 beta? And it was stronger? With the same playing style? Certainly at least 1.2f etc had Fruit code. And those were commercial. Now I don't know about 2.x or 3 or 4. But I'd guess they probably still had a little Fruit code in them (the UCI parser comes to mind). And not all analysis was done from Strelka. Zach Wegner's eval comparison thing for instance was done mostly from a fresh decompilation IIRC.Albert Silver wrote:I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
Peter
Well, if it is illegal, a site containing plenty of links to free Rybkas, links to buy Rybka, links to its website, etc, would be in a bit of a tight spot, agreed?
The same reason no links were allowed to Ippos when it came out.
Peter
As to Rybka, if you are suggesting there is a commercial software maker threatening to cut off business because of its potential illegality, I would be very curious to know who.
You also claimed all Rybka-Fruit analysises were based on Strelka. I corrected you there, too.
Oops, my bad, these are assumptions, not corrections. Did you even read my post?!
I don't know what your point is or if it even relates to what I originally said.
EDIT: Typo.
Peter
-
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:06 am
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
alpha123 wrote:Well, you claimed the Rybka-Fruit analysises pertained only to the free Rybka 1.0 beta. I corrected you, they also pertain to 1.2f at least and most likely other commercial versions.Albert Silver wrote:I didn't actually see any corrections. I just saw assumptions on your end: Guessed things, could bes, would bes, etc.alpha123 wrote:No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.Albert Silver wrote:So you plan to sue ChessUSA because you guess there might be UCI parser code in Rybka 3 and 4? Or did you mean you know someone who plans to sue them for those reasons.?alpha123 wrote:So Vas randomly decided to completely rewrite Rybka after 1.0 beta? And it was stronger? With the same playing style? Certainly at least 1.2f etc had Fruit code. And those were commercial. Now I don't know about 2.x or 3 or 4. But I'd guess they probably still had a little Fruit code in them (the UCI parser comes to mind). And not all analysis was done from Strelka. Zach Wegner's eval comparison thing for instance was done mostly from a fresh decompilation IIRC.Albert Silver wrote:I don't think they are worried about being sued, though I have no info one way or the other. I rather imagined that program makers such as Hiarcs, Shredder, ChessOk, or Chessbase, could simply tell them they will take their business elsewhere.alpha123 wrote:Well, I could see how the site sponsor would not want to get sued if they do turn out to be illegal. Then again, if Rybka turns out to be illegal, they might get sued anyway.
Peter
As to illegality, I have never read any posts regarding the commercial builds of Rybka, much less Rybka 2.32a, 3, or now 4. Just comments on the first free Rybka 1.0 Beta. And even then by analyzing Strelka, the first generation of clones. If that were the accepted standard, I would have imagined we would be seeing tons of posts on all the Fruit code in the Ippos, though perhaps I missed them.
Peter
Well, if it is illegal, a site containing plenty of links to free Rybkas, links to buy Rybka, links to its website, etc, would be in a bit of a tight spot, agreed?
The same reason no links were allowed to Ippos when it came out.
Peter
As to Rybka, if you are suggesting there is a commercial software maker threatening to cut off business because of its potential illegality, I would be very curious to know who.
You also claimed all Rybka-Fruit analysises were based on Strelka. I corrected you there, too.
Oops, my bad, these are assumptions, not corrections. Did you even read my post?!
I don't know what your point is or if it even relates to what I originally said.
EDIT: Typo.
Peter
Peter you are of course 100% correct. Infact, to quote a previous statement here on the forums, one could say Rybka was the original "Bastard child" of Fruit. So perhaps all talk of Rybka should also be shunned to the engine origins forum ?
It's not what you know, its what you can prove! So until the "accused clones", are proven to be 100% illegal they should be afforded they same treatment as Rybka, or its peers. Otherwise the people making the decisions are bias fools lost in the thrall of hypocrisy, nothing more, nothing less !
-
- Posts: 41455
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:52 am
- Location: Auckland, NZ
Re: "Promotion" of engines in CCC.
Nor did I actually. I've had no contact at all with either Quentin or ICD for a long while. Either you're making an assumption or you've been misinformed.Matthias Gemuh wrote: 2 of those 3 “deities” certainly did not contact the site sponsor to seek for the censorship.
Matthias.
What I have done though is to ask Quentin for further clarification.
Cheers,
Graham.
gbanksnz at gmail.com