When a great genius appears, dunces can be relied upon also.

[Romy]

In a way, he's not that wrong...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." (Picasso)

This is apt.

No copying occurred.

Due to genius-level ideas in RYBKA, the superiority of FRUIT (over competitor SHREDDER at that time) was stolen forever, never to be regained.

Condemn Mr Rajlich, you condemn not only Shakespeare and Mozart but even lesser Picasso.

Thank you.

[JuLieN]

In a way, he's not that wrong...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." (Picasso)

This is apt.

No copying occurred.

Due to genius-level ideas in RYBKA, the superiority of FRUIT (over competitor SHREDDER at that time) was stolen forever, never to be regained.

Condemn Mr Rajlich, you condemn not only Shakespeare and Mozart but even lesser Picasso.

Thank you.

No, no, that is IMPOSSIBLE! I can't be such a villain!! Is my soul so dark? Am I planning on evil plots all day long without even noticing? I just can't believe that!! Or maybe I do! Oh god oh God oh God, what should I do, what should I do? i can't be THAT bad!

[benstoker]

You have no idea Carol, sometimes I bark, or when feeling especially vivacious I may even bite, but that is not to the point of the matter.
Your logic is flawed, and beyond reproach! Your logic seems to suggest that if someone steals a car, then installs an incredible revolutionary engine that runs on cow farts (methane) , this somehow justifies the theft? The problem is sometimes the thief gets caught and goes to prison, or in some places/states (Texas comes to mind) he is shot by the rightful owner. Capiche?

That's right. As long as it's nighttime, the moon shines, and the coyotes howl, I can shoot dead from my second story bedroom window some shadow I see in my driveway breaking into my car.

I cannot argue with conflaters of vivacious and vicious, or those who believe that saying my logic is "beyond reproach" is a reproach.

I can refrain, here there is no car, only an engine. The car is like the UI of chessbase or arena. The engine is the moot. So your counter-analogy is within reproach.

As to random shooting of innocents, as the incendiary last paragraph suggests. In this way the world lost the chupacabra to the cowboy-- http://elsuenoamericano.wordpress.com/2 ... hupacabra/

Let us be more 21st century, please.

That's the law in Texas, no kidding.

[Robert Flesher]

In a way, he's not that wrong...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." (Picasso)

This is apt.

No copying occurred.
Due to genius-level ideas in RYBKA, the superiority of FRUIT (over competitor SHREDDER at that time) was stolen forever, never to be regained.

Condemn Mr Rajlich, you condemn not only Shakespeare and Mozart but even lesser Picasso.

Thank you.

Regarding there enlarged statement above, I see only conjecture, and zero proof supporting your claim. However, on the contrary we have respected "experts" in field of computer chess stating there is illegal code copying present in Rybka 1.0. Henseforth, with each post like this you loose credibility and appear as nothing more than a re-animated, slighty more clever, yet strangely familiar clone of Rolf.

[fern]

In general I tend to agree with you and I have made the point many times, how creative people make use of the things created by other, previous creative people. I also agree that dudes tend to gather to harm the geniuses. Shopenhauer wrote entire chapters of his "Parerga and Paralipomena" about that.
I even agree that could be that certain critics of Vachlij are motivated by sheer envy.
Now, all that said, the point for many people here is not about what you and me agree, but about the fact -for them it is a fact- that Rybka was not only inspired by previous programs, but got entire pieces from them. Certainly Goethe was lot better dramatist than others that previously wrote something like Faust and even with the same name, but goethe did not took entire lines of those predecesors to do his job.
So, perhaps even if you have a valid point, it woud be advisable not to believe every guy here is just barking at vasil, but some of them has a real point.
I will say this last thing: perhaps in every creative work there is a mixture of improving things by sheer inspiraton and also by some stealing.
It has happened.

My best and welcome to the site
Fern

[tomgdrums]

In a way, he's not that wrong...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." (Picasso)

This is apt.

No copying occurred.

Due to genius-level ideas in RYBKA, the superiority of FRUIT (over competitor SHREDDER at that time) was stolen forever, never to be regained.

Condemn Mr Rajlich, you condemn not only Shakespeare and Mozart but even lesser Picasso.

Thank you.

Nope.

[Robert Flesher]

You have no idea Carol, sometimes I bark, or when feeling especially vivacious I may even bite, but that is not to the point of the matter.
Your logic is flawed, and beyond reproach! Your logic seems to suggest that if someone steals a car, then installs an incredible revolutionary engine that runs on cow farts (methane) , this somehow justifies the theft? The problem is sometimes the thief gets caught and goes to prison, or in some places/states (Texas comes to mind) he is shot by the rightful owner. Capiche?

That's right. As long as it's nighttime, the moon shines, and the coyotes howl, I can shoot dead from my second story bedroom window some shadow I see in my driveway breaking into my car.

I cannot argue with conflaters of vivacious and vicious, or those who believe that saying my logic is "beyond reproach" is a reproach.

I can refrain, here there is no car, only an engine. The car is like the UI of chessbase or arena. The engine is the moot. So your counter-analogy is within reproach.

As to random shooting of innocents, as the incendiary last paragraph suggests. In this way the world lost the chupacabra to the cowboy-- http://elsuenoamericano.wordpress.com/2 ... hupacabra/

Let us be more 21st century, please.

Carol this was a figurative comparision. Simple put, "The end does not justiify the means." If theft or copying occurs, it is still theft or plagiarism, even if the after product is more desirable. However, your statements seem to suggest otherwise,
" So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius."
"Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation."

[bob]

In advance, forgive me my failures in English for my first post and all permitted successors.

I was attracted here by the controversy of early versions of RYBKA and any alleged small idea or even code/method borrowings or inspirations by its author Mr Rajlich.

You may not know that this matter even has escaped into the realworld media. Der Spiegel!!

I studied the whole thing, read a PDF from Mr Wegner and a PDF from another who did not directly sign his name to it, but who is known. And I read hundreds of post here and in open chess and hiarcs, and a hit-letter to ICGA with list of confederated signers.

I think by this standard applied against Mr Rajlich, even Mr Shakespeare should be banned. Shakespeare borrowed plots, methods, ideas even big groups of words. Plays are not chessprograms but the principle is similar.

Point is, Shakespeare's improvements were of great supergenius, not (relatively) mediocre like his so-called inspiration sources

More I studied this matter, more I was reminded of this wise quotation --

"This evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the management of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes, that need not be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain writer observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift, "Essay on the Fates of Clergymen", 1728

I do not call all the signatories to the anti-Rajlich as "dunces" but I do classify them as dunces by relativity - means by comparison to Mr Rajlich. In my opinion. And in opinion of Chess. Everything is relative. In their own circles I am sure they are all great wiseguys. Maybe, 20 or 30 years ago they too were genius not (relative) dunce.

Reason for my thinking is this. Their creations were not only beaten thoroughly by RYBKA, but were beaten with a maximum of humiliation! They could not even understand the chess method, how they were beaten! Most of the time they and their vast-inferior creations thought they were drawing, even winning, then as if my magic RYBKA prevailed. No magic. Just a higher chess.

So the 10 signatures to the anti-Rajlich letter, to me are all a nonsense and a confederacy. Of no appreciable value. No probative value. No evidential value. No big technical value. Only grapes value. Sour, even?

So what if Mr Rajlich looked at Mr Letouzey's work? He produce something of much higher magnitudes, level, understanding - Mr Rajlich's genius.

In all so-called evidence I see patch of code here and of source there. Nowhere I see understanding of how the alleged son is so much stronger (at Chess! not programming!) than the father.

If Mr Houdart (author of the HOUDINI) were to sign such a hit-letter as produced against Mr Rajlich, then I would pay some attention to the letter. At least HOUDINI is a suitable calibre opponent to RYBKA, its author's opinion deserve respect. All I can see is result of RYBKA-CRAFTY or other lacklustres. How many game I have to play from neutral openingbook before Crafty win single game against RYBKA? 300? 3000? More? JUNIOR same.

I am waiting to be sent testcopy of Dr Wael Deeb's chessprogram. His most gentle, most refined language is a good attracter for me.

History will record this attack event much the same as my analysis, of this I am confident.

ICGA better disband before Mr Levy gets into trouble, I would advise. It has no legal role and should watch carefully unwise statement.

My advice to Mr Rajlich, ignore the mob, I mean confederacy. Let them make sanctions. History is to your side. Tournament without RYBKA is like human chess world without KASPAROV. Do not even soil your hand with lawsuit. It is in the inherent(?) nature of dog to bark when it sees a frightening power, and of dunces to confederate, so there is no question of blame.

Even if Mr Rajlich did 90% of what he is accused, no big deal, it is matter of legal interpretation. Mozart had but once to hear other's music, he internally recorded and processed then improved greatly. There are many examples.

Condemn Rajlich, you condemn Shakespeare and Mozart too.

Excuse me, I have no intention of providing offense to any person, even Salieri. Only for perspective. So, confederacy of (relative) dunces, please excuse my statements, they all were given with the maximum of due, earned respect to you.

Romy

A lot of words. No technical content, and no relevance to the current topic. We are, for the 101st time, _NOT_ talking about copying ideas, or plots, or other abstract things. We are talking about copying, _verbatim_ large pieces of both Crafty _and_ Fruit. Shakespeare did _not_ do that. To suggest equivalence between the two issues shows a complete lack of understanding.

[bob]

you're overlooking something.

No.

Rap musicians must clear their sampling by getting prior authorization.

While of course you are much cleverer than I, relevance of the above factoid either to Mozart or to Mr Rajlich may be hard to establish.

Any samplings, permitting the analogy, was mental.

No, the "samplings" involved verbatim copying of code he did not own the copyright to. That is _not_ "OK". The only "dunces" here are those offering such inane and ridiculous arguments to justify that which simply can not be justified unless ethics and morals are completely suspended and ignored...

[bob]

In a way, he's not that wrong...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." (Picasso)

This is apt.

No copying occurred.

Due to genius-level ideas in RYBKA, the superiority of FRUIT (over competitor SHREDDER at that time) was stolen forever, never to be regained.

Condemn Mr Rajlich, you condemn not only Shakespeare and Mozart but even lesser Picasso.

Thank you.

Actually you are condeming yourself for offering up such arcane arguments to justify the unjustifiable...