Fabien's open letter to the community

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

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
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 8:59 pm

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
Robert Flesher wrote:To add some humor to this situation can someone please link this thread to the Rybka forum. I'd like to know how many milliseconds it will last. :lol:
Felix will destroy it in 3 milliseconds including the time to read it :lol:
I made a post on the Rybka forum but the last time I checked the rybka team had been strangely quiet.

User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9635
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:06 pm

tomgdrums wrote:
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:
Robert Flesher wrote:To add some humor to this situation can someone please link this thread to the Rybka forum. I'd like to know how many milliseconds it will last. :lol:
Felix will destroy it in 3 milliseconds including the time to read it :lol:
I made a post on the Rybka forum but the last time I checked the rybka team had been strangely quiet.
They are :shock:


:lol:
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Robert Flesher » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:09 pm

The 2011 Rybka Fanboy Zealot award goes to, "Banned for Life" on the Rybka forum for this post, I quote,

"Clone has no legal meaning, and outside of cell replication, it doesn't have a clear technical definition either, so I'll leave arguing about whether engine A is a clone of engine B to people who are comfortable arguing about this kind of meaningless stuff.

It is perfectly natural for Vas to be upset about the fact that people have reverse engineered his product and discovered his ideas for building better chess engines. I am 100% sure that if this hadn't happened, Rybka would be at least 150 Elo better than any competitor on equal hardware. It's certainly his prerogative to say that anyone involved in this effort is a dirty SOB.

But if you step back and look around, you will see that this is the normal method that technology advances. For every innovative guy like Vas, there are ten less innovative guys that have other things to offer. Maybe some will build products with fewer bugs, or a better interface. Some may be better at marketing and sales. Having innovators being overtaken and even pushed out by less innovative people or companies is the norm, not the exception.

So now Vas' ideas are out and others are using them. Some would like you to believe that only a small group of upstarts are smart enough to take advantage of these new ideas. Of course, only an imbecile would believe this, but there are no shortage of these types out there. In reality, all good engine design will incorporate lessons learned from Rybka and use them to strengthen their own engines (just as they have done with ideas from Crafty and Fruit and Stockfish).

In this context, did Mr. Letouzy's recent statement really tell us anything we didn't already know? I really don't think it did. Vas has already stated that he studied everything available when he was first developing Rybka. This explicitly included Fruit. Along with being one of the strongest available engines, Fruit was also far and away the most cleanly written program, so it inspired many to use a lot of its architecture. Did Vas use anything from Fruit in the Beta? It's possible, but do we really need to care about this? It really is time to move on to bigger and better things... "


This guy should sell bridges!

mwyoung
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by mwyoung » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:26 pm

Robert Flesher wrote:The 2011 Rybka Fanboy Zealot award goes to, "Banned for Life" on the Rybka forum for this post, I quote,

"Clone has no legal meaning, and outside of cell replication, it doesn't have a clear technical definition either, so I'll leave arguing about whether engine A is a clone of engine B to people who are comfortable arguing about this kind of meaningless stuff.

It is perfectly natural for Vas to be upset about the fact that people have reverse engineered his product and discovered his ideas for building better chess engines. I am 100% sure that if this hadn't happened, Rybka would be at least 150 Elo better than any competitor on equal hardware. It's certainly his prerogative to say that anyone involved in this effort is a dirty SOB.

But if you step back and look around, you will see that this is the normal method that technology advances. For every innovative guy like Vas, there are ten less innovative guys that have other things to offer. Maybe some will build products with fewer bugs, or a better interface. Some may be better at marketing and sales. Having innovators being overtaken and even pushed out by less innovative people or companies is the norm, not the exception.

So now Vas' ideas are out and others are using them. Some would like you to believe that only a small group of upstarts are smart enough to take advantage of these new ideas. Of course, only an imbecile would believe this, but there are no shortage of these types out there. In reality, all good engine design will incorporate lessons learned from Rybka and use them to strengthen their own engines (just as they have done with ideas from Crafty and Fruit and Stockfish).

In this context, did Mr. Letouzy's recent statement really tell us anything we didn't already know? I really don't think it did. Vas has already stated that he studied everything available when he was first developing Rybka. This explicitly included Fruit. Along with being one of the strongest available engines, Fruit was also far and away the most cleanly written program, so it inspired many to use a lot of its architecture. Did Vas use anything from Fruit in the Beta? It's possible, but do we really need to care about this? It really is time to move on to bigger and better things... "


This guy should sell bridges!
Here is what the above is saying.

Vas is a genius, Fabien's letter is nothing new, everyone used Fruit ideas, and IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON TO BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS...... :lol:

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 30769
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:29 pm

mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
AdminX
Posts: 4869
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: Acworth, GA
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by AdminX » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:53 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:

20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen

Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?

A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid :-)
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.


http://www.superchessengine.com/interviews.htm
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 30769
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:58 pm

AdminX wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:

20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen

Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?

A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid :-)
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.


http://www.superchessengine.com/interviews.htm
That is Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (Shredder), not Vas.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
AdminX
Posts: 4869
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: Acworth, GA
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by AdminX » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:00 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
AdminX wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
There is this, not sure if this is what you are looking for:

20.06.2005, Stefan Meyer Kahlen

Q: After first results the new Fruit 2.1 could be very close to the best commercial chess engines, even to Shredder 9. What is more scaring for you, Fabien Letouzey himself or the GPL behind Fruit?

A: I have to admit that I have not yet downloaded and tested Fruit 2.1. From what I have heard so far it seems to be quite strong so I will certainly take a look at it. I have already had a short email conversation with Fabien. He seems to be a nice guy so there should be no reason to be afraid :-)
Also I see no problems with the GPL license behind Fruit. If others will be able to find some ideas in Fruit there is probably also some inspiration for me. As far as I know taking ideas from GPL licensed software is ok. The best motivation for me to further improve Shredder is, if someone is overtaking Shredder at the top of the rating lists or will beat Shredder badly in a match. So my personal judgement about Fruit is not negative but positive. The only negative point is that the clone problem in tournaments might be bigger now, but there should be a solution for this.


http://www.superchessengine.com/interviews.htm
That is Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (Shredder), not Vas.

Opops my bad! :oops:
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers

Sven
Posts: 3578
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Sven » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:01 pm

If B is derived from A, and C is derived from B, then C is also derived from A.

But if B (Strelka) is derived from A (Rybka 1.0) and B is also derived from C (Fruit 2.1) then there is no "is-derived-from" relationship between A and C.

To make it simple, let's use "A --> B" for "B is derived from A".

This is correct:
(A --> B and B --> C) implies (A --> C)


But this is wrong:
(A --> B and C --> B) implies (A --> C)


Therefore your last sentence, if you would have finished it in the way most readers would expect, would be lacking some logical foundation.

Sven
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

mwyoung
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by mwyoung » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:08 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
mwyoung wrote:After Vas stated he talked to Fabien, and Fabien had no issues with Rybka regarding Fruit code. Yes, this is not news I guess if it is a given that Vas is a pathological Liar .
Could somebody please give a link to where Vas stated this. Peter Skinner asked earlier in the thread, but got no response.
He is what I would like to know Mr. Banks. Where is your INDIGNATION
of Rybka. We had to take your suppression and censorship of other programs you deemed a threat to Rybka for using so called stolen code and ideas.

Now Rybka has a direct accusation from the author of Fruit that Vas used code from Fruit in Rybka. Where is your indignation of Rybka. We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.

I want to know...

When will all version of Rybka be removed from your CCRL Rating List. Since you have stated that no program that is not original will be rated on CCRL Mr. Hypocrite.

I guess this only applies to programs you deem a threat to Rybka.

Post Reply