CCRL/CEGT Hypocritical

[hgm]

Ippolit is NOT decompiled code of Rybka. Code of Ippolit is very different from the code of Rybka.

This is why I said 'alleged'. The point is that the origin of Fruit is well established, while that of Ippolit is unclear and hidden behind a comical charade.

[Steve B]

<hijack>

:snip:
Selective Search Magazine is a highly respected Bi-monthly publication(since 1985)available by paid subscription..
The CEGT/CCRL lists are published AS WELL as Thoresen's TCEC tournament results(which include Houdini matches)
:snip:

I didn't know my website was mentioned in a magazine, cool.

</hijack>

Oh Yes
and in a very favorable light i might add
you should try contacting Eric Hallsworth the Publisher
i am sure he would give you a copy of the columns/articles in which he mentions your matches and your site

http://www.elhchess.demon.co.uk/sscontnt.htm

[De Vos W]

You don't seem to understand how different the alleged cases of Ippolit vs Rybka 3 and Rybka vs Fruit are. You talk about them as if they are exactly the same. While they are in fact vastly different:

Fruit was an open-source project. The code and ideas were made public by the author, and everyone was free to take and use them. If Rybka was based on Fruit, this was totally legal. Its author was known and addressble.

Ippolit, on the other hand, seems to be a decompiled code that comes from nowhere, published by 'authors' that do not want to divulge their true identity. If it was derived from a decompiled Rybka, that would make it totally illegal. Any work based on Ippolit would be based on _stolen_ code.

From my understanding of the GPL license you have left out ONE key point. I believe that once Vas used the Fruit code, which has been established, he did. He cannot then close the code and make it commercial.

( " The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms")

By doing so he violated the terms of that license. So why is he exempt from the scrutiny ?

.

This was the main point of my post!

[Uri Blass]

You don't seem to understand how different the alleged cases of Ippolit vs Rybka 3 and Rybka vs Fruit are. You talk about them as if they are exactly the same. While they are in fact vastly different:

Fruit was an open-source project. The code and ideas were made public by the author, and everyone was free to take and use them. If Rybka was based on Fruit, this was totally legal. Its author was known and addressble.

Ippolit, on the other hand, seems to be a decompiled code that comes from nowhere, published by 'authors' that do not want to divulge their true identity. If it was derived from a decompiled Rybka, that would make it totally illegal. Any work based on Ippolit would be based on _stolen_ code.

From my understanding of the GPL license you have left out ONE key point. I believe that once Vas used the Fruit code, which has been established, he did. He cannot then close the code and make it commercial.

( " The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms")

By doing so he violated the terms of that license. So why is he exempt from the scrutiny ?

.

This was the main point of my post!

The only problem is that many people do not agree about the claim that Vas used fruit's code.

People are allowed to test what they want.
Another organization can test houdini and not test rybka if the testers believe that rybka has fruit's code when Ippolit or houdini are legal and are not derived from rybka or fruit.

Personally I assume that rybka is not derived from fruit and also that houdini or ippolit are not derived from rybka(based on the rule innocent if not proven quilty).

[Ant_Gugdin]

The rating lists only hurt themselves by taking this approach because they render themselves irrelevant.

[BTO7]

I know the CCRL/CEGT are very much entitled to decide what engines they include in their rating list, but not including Houdini 1.5 the
strongest chess engine ever is unbelievable, I know the reason they don't include Houdini 1.5, because they believe it is a derivative
of the Ippolit familie (so called "clones" of Rybka.) The fact is that Houdini is clearly the strongest nr. one chess engine at the moment
and looking at its evolution since version 1.0 we must conclude its author, Robert Houdart, is a very skilled programmer that knows
exactly what he's doing. Just like Vasik Rajlich did a few years ago having innovative ideas from Fruit to improve the strength of his
engine, and they had no problem with that! But if Robert Houdart do the same thing with even a better result its a problem for them???
If they can't understand all this it means they have absolutely no enlightenment about the procedure how a chess computer engine is
designed and developed.
What is the relevance of CCRL/CEGT if it doesn't include the strongest engine? There is a lot of information on the Internet and computer
chess enthusiasts will conclude, if Houdini 1.5 is not on the CCRL/CEGT rating list, this rating list must be crap and hypocritical.
I think CCRL/CEGT is not providing a service to the chess community with a prejudiced against Houdini in the CCRL/CEGT.

Spot on. I couldn't agree more. IPON is the only place to see the facts now....and really ...thats all us chess players really care about. Things are changing ...and if you dont know how to keep up ...you get left behind.

BT

[mhurd]

I know the reason they don't include Houdini 1.5, because they believe it is a derivative of the Ippolit familie (so called "clones" of Rybka.)

Actualy on the CCRL site it states the following :-

Our members are free to choose any engines they like to test, as long as the testing is done under conditions stated below.

So presumably your beef is against CEGT. Aslong as the CEGT do not infer that the number one engine on their list is the best available, I have no problem with that.

Mike

[Robert Flesher]

From my understanding of the GPL license you have left out ONE key point. I believe that once Vas used the Fruit code, which has been established, he did. He cannot then close the code and make it commercial.

( " The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms")

By doing so he violated the terms of that license. So why is he exempt from the scrutiny ?

But, I have no problem with CCRL/CEGT, they can test whatever they want.

It is obvious that Rybka could not have any Fruit code, as Rybka is a bitboard engine, and Fruit is mailbox. That pervades the code everywhere, and requires a thorough rewrite.

Any code, even one line that is the same, is copying, even if ported/translated to bitboards. Perhaps going to bitboards is a way around the GPL license. But, like Dr. Hyatt said, " you cannot be a little bit pregnant"
Maybe you should give this a looksee.

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=815

[Uri Blass]

From my understanding of the GPL license you have left out ONE key point. I believe that once Vas used the Fruit code, which has been established, he did. He cannot then close the code and make it commercial.

( " The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms")

By doing so he violated the terms of that license. So why is he exempt from the scrutiny ?

But, I have no problem with CCRL/CEGT, they can test whatever they want.

It is obvious that Rybka could not have any Fruit code, as Rybka is a bitboard engine, and Fruit is mailbox. That pervades the code everywhere, and requires a thorough rewrite.

Any code, even one line that is the same, is copying, even if ported/translated to bitboards. Perhaps going to bitboards is a way around the GPL license. But, like Dr. Hyatt said, " you cannot be a little bit pregnant"
Maybe you should give this a looksee.

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=815

I disagree with you.

If 2 programs have one line that is the same like i++; then it does not mean copying.

I do not trust hyatt's opinion and I prefer to trust the programmers of fruit about it.
As far as I know they did not complain about copying.

Here is a direct link for Fabien's opinion.
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 73&t=23286

[Uri Blass]

The rating lists only hurt themselves by taking this approach because they render themselves irrelevant.

I do not think that they are irrelevant.
They may be irrelevant for people who are interested in the first place but not everybody is interested in the first place and people may be interested in the rating of some relatively weak engine.