time to fish or cut bait?

[Frank Quisinsky]

1% sources of a closed program is enough to say ... ILLEGAL.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Rybka in my rating list.

Thats right!
Your point ...

For around two month I delete Rybka in SWCR. Readers of the chess magazine SCHACHWELT (at first I started the rating list for a chess magazine) wrote me ... please let Rybka in your list.

OK for the Readers.
Now my work ended for the chess magazine and I can delete Rybka. I don't make this because it is "HICKHACK" ... don't find the right word for. I am not a Rybka fan ... you can be sure about that. I missed some information from Vas Raijlich with more details about it.

Commercial engines in SWCR:
I am playing with the TOP-20 ... any programs missed under the TOP-20. I think the TOP-20 are complete. Perhaps you can give me a tipp which freeware I should add?

[Milos]

1% sources of a closed program is enough to say ... ILLEGAL.

However, 20% of sources of GPLed program is not enough to say illegal by our dear Frank...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

[Frank Quisinsky]

I think you are meaning Rybka with the 20% you wrote about.

I wrote it in an other message.
You have right, I should Rybka delete too.
Read my other message.

I think I will do that again.
I will wait around 30 days ... perhaps more information will be available to the topic in the next days.

[Frank Quisinsky]

And Milos, thinking on etiquette.
Try to strike the right note.

Best
Frank

[Milos]

I am not a Rybka fan ... you can be sure about that. I missed some information from Vas Raijlich with more details about it.

Commercial engines in SWCR:
I am playing with the TOP-20 ... any programs missed under the TOP-20. I think the TOP-20 are complete. Perhaps you can give me a tipp which freeware I should add?

I know you are not a Rybka fan. However, I'm pointing out the inconsistency.
Regarding Top-20, it's true that top engines are mostly commercial, but if you prefer to hold the attribute amateur, you should stick to top 20 amateur engines (you don't need to test Ippo derivates, that's your personal opinion, we know it, and that's ok). There is enough of other non-commercial engines anyway.

[Frank Quisinsky]

1.
Sorry, not possible.
Ratings are not clear enough if the different with 20 engines more as 300 ELO.

2.
Only 4 quad core system for testing. Perhaps 23 are possible, means TOP 23.

3.
Have a look on www.amateurschach.de ...
So far the x64 list is running with Crafty, Scropio, Daydreamer, Chronos ... 4 new amateurs.

More isn't possible with the conditions I have.

[bob]

Didn't Vas recently correspond with someone saying 20% of fruit was in rybka? Recent post ... too lazy to search it ...

Don't remember seeing that, but doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Please be clear. Are you making any GPL violation claims against either engine? Ideas used from Fruit are not a violation unless code is taken outside of the GPL. I am sure the team of people that worked on Fruit 2.1 are proud to have impacted other engines in a positive way.

I am saying, unequivocally, that code from fruit was copied and used in Rybka 1. Whether or not this code remains in current versions is unknown, but highly probable. ip* is unknown. I have not personally compared it to fruit, but that might be an interesting comparison. Although I am not sure it would be convincing since if you copy from the original, or a copy of the original, you could end up with the same thing and it would be pretty tough to decide whether the thing is a copy of the original or the copy.

Because the souce code for Rybka 1 is not availble, the only thing that is available is Zach's reverse engineering job.

Since Rybka 1 is bitboard and not array based like Fruit, it is literally impossible to simply cut and paste things like eval and search.

Actually, search has nothing to do with bitboards. Just look at search.c in Crafty. Evaluate() is clearly a different animal, however. But there are large chunks of a chess engine that are independent of the board representation, yet they are important to playing chess. Move ordering/selection, search itself, hashing, extension/reduction stuff, and even some parts of eval that don't care about piece placement (material balance/imbalance, etc.)

The only things (therefore) which can be cut and paste operations are simple and trivial utility routines. Whether this has happend or not is again open to debate.

See above. Much more can be cut/pasted than you suspect.

Here is what is literally and undeniably clear:
Vas carefully studied Fruit and then either copied code or wrote his own version. If he copied then he committed a crime. If he wrote his own version then he may have done somthing that chess programmers do not like but which would nonetheless be legal.

I think it is strange to say you know which of the two possibilities actually occurred.

Based on 40+ years of trying to prevent student plagiarism on homework assignments. One doesn't find an identical block of code here, an identical block of code there, in a program of any significant size (>20 lines of code). I could take the assignments from my X86 programming course, where programs 2, 3 and 4 are on the range of 30-50 lines each, and let you take assignment 2 from 20 students and compare them. You'd see what I mean. Very different approaches to produce the same result. Duplicate code just does not happen by accident.

And (let us suppose) that a few utility routines were copied and used directly. Since he did give credit to Fruit in his beta documentation, would this usage be within the category of "fair use"? Again, I do not think it is possible to say.

Last quote from him I saw said, explicitly, "there are zero lines of fruit code in Rybka 1." Hard to mis-interpret the meaning of the word "zero" in that context. It can't mean "just a few".

It seems possible to me that your dislike of the action (CLEARLY he has used Fruit ideas) may be coloring your notion that you can plainly see the path he has taken to get there.

First, using ideas has never been an issue. What is an issue is the simple term "plagiarism" which is copying something someone else wrote verbatim. Whether you copy a paragraph of a book, a chapter, or the whole thing, it is _still_ plagiarism. I've never asked for the ICGA, CCT or ACCA to not allow Rybka to participate. Seems to be somewhat like closing the barn door after the horse has left.

Second, there is no "notion" to color in this situation. This is a case of pregnant or not pregnant, and there are only two possible answers. And for this case, "no" is not an answer based on evidence already presented. Therefore...

[Milos]

3.
Have a look on www.amateurschach.de ...
So far the x64 list is running with Crafty, Scropio, Daydreamer, Chronos ... 4 new amateurs.

That's a good news.
I would also include Bright, Bison for 32bit, maybe some Toga instead of Fruit (since these derivatives are legal)...

[Frank Quisinsky]

clones are not possible.
One Fruit is enough. At the moment Fruit by Ryan playing on the SWCR x64 list.

Bright I tested in my blitz list for months.
List is no longer available.

If you have interest I can add the blitz list with the Bright results I have.

Bison ... some people gave me the information that the most are Fruit sources. Yesterday I search more information about it but don't find them. Furthermore, different crashes with Bison 9.11 x64 and automacially Shredder tournaments via network. I tested Bison 9.11 x64 in the morning last day

Milos, for me is really important to have different engines in my list. I try to find out the TOP-20 ... not important if commercial or freeware for myself.