"Promotion" of engines in CCC.

[alpha123]

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

[Albert Silver]

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

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.

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.Wael Deeb]

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

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.

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.

I understood the situation exactly as you describe Albert....Graham most probably has nothing to do with this....
Dr.D

[alpha123]

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

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.

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.

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.

Peter

[Albert Silver]

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

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.

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.

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.

Peter

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

Peter

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.?

No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.

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

[Albert Silver]

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

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.

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.

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.

Peter

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.?

No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.

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

I didn't actually see any corrections. I just saw assumptions on your end: Guessed things, could bes, would bes, etc.

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.

[alpha123]

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

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.

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.

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.

Peter

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.?

No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.

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

I didn't actually see any corrections. I just saw assumptions on your end: Guessed things, could bes, would bes, etc.

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.

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.

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

[Robert Flesher]

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

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.

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.

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.

Peter

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.?

No, I was correcting your incorrect assumptions about the Rybka-Fruit thing.

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

I didn't actually see any corrections. I just saw assumptions on your end: Guessed things, could bes, would bes, etc.

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.

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.

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 !

[Graham Banks]

2 of those 3 “deities” certainly did not contact the site sponsor to seek for the censorship.

Matthias.

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.
What I have done though is to ask Quentin for further clarification.

Cheers,
Graham.