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.
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 10:47 pm

hgm wrote:
mwyoung wrote:We have more proof against Rybka, then you ever had against the other programs.
Strange we never get to see it then. I guess it is a save bet you will not be able to produce it either, right?

Yet it is such a simple request: just post the code of Fruit you have 'proof' of that it is in Rybka. I am very curious to see it. But of course you are much too busy foulmouthing others to bother which such a trifle...
The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

This is more evidence then the Rybka Fanboys ever had against Houdini or Fire. The point is the Rybka fanboys would use any reason to censor and suppress other programs that would be a threat to Vas and Rybka.

Now the Fanboys are stuck, 1. either be a hypocrite and ignore the previous standards that use to censor and suppress the other programs, or 2. treat Vas and Rybka as they did programs like Houdini and Fire.

Or 3. the last option is to tuck tail and run.

I have seen option 1, and 3. Waiting to see option 2 from the Fan Boys. I will not be holding my breath.

User avatar
Matthias Gemuh
Posts: 3236
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:10 am
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Matthias Gemuh » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:50 pm

Graham Banks wrote:...

Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions ...
"those versions" only ?

Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.
My engine was quite strong till I added knowledge to it.
http://www.chess.hylogic.de

PauloSoare
Posts: 1335
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:30 am
Location: Cabo Frio, Brasil

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by PauloSoare » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:01 pm

I think many people are geniuses. Bob, Vas, Stefan, Larry, Fabien
and many others.
Changing the subject, it is difficult for me to read a post like his
ugly, you're happy and laughing at the misfortune of others, like a
vulture over carrion, Mr Mark old.
Please moderators, my post can be a personal attack, but worse than
mine is the post of this unfortunate person who said he would no
longer post here.

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 31081
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 11:04 pm

Matthias Gemuh wrote: Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.
I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion! :P
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

Ant_Gugdin
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Ant_Gugdin » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:09 pm

Graham Banks wrote: Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).
???

So if Rybka 1 is found to be Fruit translated into bitboards, you will continue to test Rybka 4? Can you confirm that you will be applying the same standard to Ivanhoe? In other words, if Ivanhoe evolves to the point where it cannot be said that it is "undeniably a Rybka ripoff," with those words "defensible in a legal sense," then you will start testing Ivanhoe? Or does a different standard apply to Ivanhoe and, if so, why?

Moreover, even if the similarities between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 3/4 are only faint, this will hardly absolve Vas from guilt as those versions have benefited from the input of other programmers e.g. Larry Kaufman. So it would hardly be surprising if there were less of a family resemblance to grandpa Fruit.

EDIT: point already made and answered, no need to reply. :)

User avatar
Matthias Gemuh
Posts: 3236
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:10 am
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Matthias Gemuh » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:13 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
Matthias Gemuh wrote: Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.
I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion! :P

BigLion is a Crafty clone :oops: .
My engine was quite strong till I added knowledge to it.
http://www.chess.hylogic.de

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 11:17 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
mwyoung 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.
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.
Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

However, there are always two sides to every story and it's incredibly annoying and frustrating that Vas does not say more on this issue.
Perhaps FSF action would be a great way to end this debate once and for all.

Meanwhile, I do think that the issue should be discussed without resorting to spreading false information or making personal attacks.

I've seen members post that the most recent Loop was a Toga ripoff and that the most recent Naum was a Rybka ripoff, so who knows where all this madness will end?
Trouble is that Rybka seems to the only target.
I agree with you, too bad you did not have this kind of fairness and respect of evidence, and looking at both sides of an issue before today.

IWB
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:02 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by IWB » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:19 pm

Hi Graham
Graham Banks wrote:
Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists ....
Ask yourself if you ever got that much certanty from VR about the Littos!?

Actually I remember a posting where VR said that he lost the code and cant prove anything in front of a court and I am pretty sure you remember that as well ...

I think the only thing a tester can stick on is the good advice you once gave me: "There has to be a real name", and I like to add ", thats all!"

Bye Ingo

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Ovyron » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:20 pm

AdminX wrote:Question: If Vas LOST Rybka 3 Sources, Then how the Hell did he write Rybka 4 so fast. That is a hell of allot of code for a very strong program.
Easy, you make one change to the code and now you have Rybka 3.1, you delete Rybka 3 code, you make a change and call it Rybka 3.2, you delete Rybka 3.1 code.

By the time you're at Rybka 4, you've already rewritten most(?) of the code and the original code has been lost (as a fact it happened with the time control code and Vas had to code a new one).

Sven
Posts: 3635
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Full name: Sven Schüle
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Sven » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:29 pm

Laskos wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote: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.
That is wrong, I agree:

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

Yes. But it has nothing to do with my post.

What I was saying, and Vasik said half of that, Fabien said another half is the correct one:

(A = B and C --> B) implies (C --> A)

I confirmed what was Vasik saying in my post with similarity graph in this thread. In fact this similarity graph probably confirms what Fabien is saying too (Rybka 1.0 is shown closer to Fruit 2.1 than Houdini 1.5 is to Rybka 3).
Your "A = B", intended as "Rybka = Strelka", is clearly wrong. It is a known fact that Strelka was based on both Fruit and Rybka.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 815#347815

Therefore any connection between Fruit and Rybka can't be concluded based on Strelka but needs a _direct_ comparison.

The remaining part of my reply is not mainly intended as a reply to your post, Kai, but more as a general comment on the current topic.

This direct Fruit-R1 comparison was tried by Zach Wegner:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 198#328198
, with various discussions following later on in different threads. But a couple of programmers, including Miguel, Uri, HGM and myself, for instance, could not be convinced that this proves anything beyond taking a lot of ideas from Fruit. One main problem of the comparison done by Zach was that the code snippets on the "right side" are intended to represent Rybka 1.0 beta but they can't since the Rybka source code is unknown; instead these snippets were created by disassembling Rybka 1.0 and using names and "infrastructure" from Fruit and/or Strelka source code to get something that can be displayed on the same level as the Fruit 2.1 source code on the "left side". Zach confirmed this more or less:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 230#328230
, although he stated that he also looked into the (Rybka) binary for confirmation. But how can we be sure about his interpretation? It was requested a lot of times to post also the disassembling results but this has never happened.

I really think it is crucial to get this right once and for all. As long as there are still substantial doubts about the Fruit-R1 connection it is not correct to say that the existence of copied _code_ were a proven fact. It does not become truth by just repeating it 10000 times.

Sven

Post Reply