Fabien's open letter to the community

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

User avatar
slobo
Posts: 2331
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:36 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by slobo » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:53 pm

SzG wrote:
slobo wrote:
SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
You are confused. Mr Rybka and Fabien are disputing Strelka´s code.
I told you I was confused.

I repeat: what new is there as an evidence for many posters here that Rybka is a stolen work.
The newest one is that Rybka´s codes suddenly became lost ( or deleted), and cannot be examined by experts anymore.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."

Xann
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:14 pm
Location: Lille, France

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Xann » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:53 pm

bob wrote:Of course, this is nothing new to those of us that looked and listened in the first place...
Bob,

We never really met, so, nice to meet you!
I am sorry that many people apparently did not listen to you.

Fabien.

tomgdrums
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by tomgdrums » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:53 pm

hgm wrote:
slobo wrote:
hgm wrote:Your logic is definitely flawed. The correct should be:
At some point, you have the choice between being a liar or a no-liar. (...)
Of course he lies. That just shows he is not honest.
You are just sour he took you for a fool. But remember who was the fool! :lol:
Again, your reasoning is morally incompetent.

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 22083
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by hgm » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:54 pm

tomgdrums wrote: Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.
I prefer to call it "non-naive"... :lol: :lol: :lol:

SzG
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:20 am
Location: Szentendre, Hungary

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by SzG » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:56 pm

Laskos wrote:
SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.

2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.

Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...

Kai
It seems to me these have been known facts for years. I am sure of the first two, and the 3rd one has been discussed not very long ago also with the conclusion that it is true. Or?
Gabor Szots

CCRL testing group

User avatar
JuLieN
Posts: 2945
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 10:16 am
Location: Nantes (France)
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by JuLieN » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:56 pm

hgm wrote:
tomgdrums wrote: Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.
I prefer to call it "non-naive"... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Congratulations to the both of you : just by try and fail method you gave an acceptable definition of cynicism. :)
"The only good bug is a dead bug." (Don Dailey)
Image [Blog: http://tinyurl.com/predateur ] [Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/fbpredateur ] [MacEngines: http://tinyurl.com/macengines ]

Frank Quisinsky
Posts: 4814
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Trier, Germany
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Frank Quisinsky » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:56 pm

Hi Fabien,

it was one of the best interviews I ever made. Without my girlfiend not possible, helps me with my bad English. The answers from the Stockfish team are just great. I am very lucky in this time that Tord, Joona and Marco made it with me and gave so many nice information.

Yes, I can send a mail what I read between the lines in our interview :-)
But I don't have your mail address!

If you have time for it:
Please write me:
www.amateurschach.de ... click on impressum ... contact form.

THANKS!
Best for you whatever you do!

Frank
Last edited by Frank Quisinsky on Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I like computer chess!

Carotino
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:40 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Carotino » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:57 pm

A real hornet's nest! Here's the truth comes out ...
Where are all those trombones, who see clones everywhere? :twisted:

...Caught with his fingers in the jam! :D

SzG
Posts: 2408
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:20 am
Location: Szentendre, Hungary

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by SzG » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:57 pm

slobo wrote: The newest one is that Rybka´s codes suddenly became lost ( or deleted), and cannot be examined by experts anymore.
That was Rybka 3 code, while we are talking about Rybka 1.0.
Gabor Szots

CCRL testing group

User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6240
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by michiguel » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:59 pm

Laskos wrote:
SzG wrote:I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?
1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.

2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.

Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...

Kai
Gabor asked for something new.

Miguel

Post Reply