Fabien's open letter to the community

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

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

playjunior
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:53 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by playjunior » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:07 pm

Clearly Don likes the cake

Adam Hair
Posts: 3183
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Adam Hair » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:39 am

Laskos wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:
Laskos wrote:
michiguel wrote:
In the data you sent me before, Glaurung is closer to Fruit than R1 or Strelka to Fruit, which makes me doubt of the "stylistic" relationship between R1 or S to F. In Adam's data and Michael Hart's, when they included more engines, the relation between S and F fell apart. More engines got in between (but I am saying this without checking details). I always saw distinct branches.

Of course, this does not mean absence of cloning or confirmation of it (the material tables may be a dominant factor in changing the "style" of the engine) but I am not sure we can say Strelka's style is close to Fruit more than Glaurung's.

It is very clear, Strelka's "style" is w/o question Rybka's.

Miguel
Using my data, in your tree (not the dendrite), Fruit appears as an isolated engine, which, I am sorry to say, is unlikely, Fruit being an inspiration to many. We are using different clustering methods, for now I trust my graph better, all obvious things are confirmed, and there are some surprises too (you know :) ).

Disregarding this,

The fact is, my point (1) stands, _therefore_ it is up to Fabien to make claims about the relation between Strelka and Fruit (with implications on Rybka 1.0 Beta).

Kai
Kai, I think you maybe saying " all obvious things are confirmed" is a bit
premature.

I created a dendrogram from my data using Systat. I used the same
engines that you used ( except for Shredder 10 and 12 ). Complete
linkage and normalized Euclidean distance.

Image

Looks alot like yours, maybe Fruit and Rybka 1.0 Beta/Strelka not quite
as close as your data, but no big difference I think.

Then I added 10 more engines.

Image

Rybka 3 and Houdini/Ivanhoe are now closer than Fruit and Rybka 1.0
Beta/Strelka.
Thanks Adam, the first graph looks a lot like mine. It's also true that adding a lot of Fruitsih 2.1 close derivatives like Toga, etc. and Rybkish 1.0 like Rybka 2, etc. scrambles the upper lineages. I may include some to show that your second graph is also correct. But I would intuitively pay more attention to the first graph, because I am not quite so interested in Rybka 1,2,3,4 obvious lineage, which will scramble Rybka 1 - Fruit 2.1 relation (Rybka 4 being a totally different animal). I even might suppress some of the over-represented Ippos in my graph. This is an art-science what we are doing, but it's at least instructive :).

Kai
It is instructive, I agree. :)

I believe the best approach is to include as many engine families as
possible, at least for an overall picture.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 7888
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:34 am

Adam Hair wrote:
Laskos wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:
Laskos wrote:
michiguel wrote:
In the data you sent me before, Glaurung is closer to Fruit than R1 or Strelka to Fruit, which makes me doubt of the "stylistic" relationship between R1 or S to F. In Adam's data and Michael Hart's, when they included more engines, the relation between S and F fell apart. More engines got in between (but I am saying this without checking details). I always saw distinct branches.

Of course, this does not mean absence of cloning or confirmation of it (the material tables may be a dominant factor in changing the "style" of the engine) but I am not sure we can say Strelka's style is close to Fruit more than Glaurung's.

It is very clear, Strelka's "style" is w/o question Rybka's.

Miguel
Using my data, in your tree (not the dendrite), Fruit appears as an isolated engine, which, I am sorry to say, is unlikely, Fruit being an inspiration to many. We are using different clustering methods, for now I trust my graph better, all obvious things are confirmed, and there are some surprises too (you know :) ).

Disregarding this,

The fact is, my point (1) stands, _therefore_ it is up to Fabien to make claims about the relation between Strelka and Fruit (with implications on Rybka 1.0 Beta).

Kai
Kai, I think you maybe saying " all obvious things are confirmed" is a bit
premature.

I created a dendrogram from my data using Systat. I used the same
engines that you used ( except for Shredder 10 and 12 ). Complete
linkage and normalized Euclidean distance.

Image

Looks alot like yours, maybe Fruit and Rybka 1.0 Beta/Strelka not quite
as close as your data, but no big difference I think.

Then I added 10 more engines.

Image

Rybka 3 and Houdini/Ivanhoe are now closer than Fruit and Rybka 1.0
Beta/Strelka.
Thanks Adam, the first graph looks a lot like mine. It's also true that adding a lot of Fruitsih 2.1 close derivatives like Toga, etc. and Rybkish 1.0 like Rybka 2, etc. scrambles the upper lineages. I may include some to show that your second graph is also correct. But I would intuitively pay more attention to the first graph, because I am not quite so interested in Rybka 1,2,3,4 obvious lineage, which will scramble Rybka 1 - Fruit 2.1 relation (Rybka 4 being a totally different animal). I even might suppress some of the over-represented Ippos in my graph. This is an art-science what we are doing, but it's at least instructive :).

Kai
It is instructive, I agree. :)

I believe the best approach is to include as many engine families as
possible, at least for an overall picture.
Yes, but with some care. I simply don't have so many engine families, most of them are commercial or non-UCI. By the way, how did you include Crafty 23.4? I would love to see some Fritzes, as I have some ideas about them (I put Ruffian because it's probably very similar to a UCI Fritz 6 :) ). I don't have them, as I don't have Hiarcses, Juniors, Sjengs, etc., etc., etc. Putting many fruitish, rybkish and glaurungish engines along with very few other could be a little skewed.

Did you need the diagonal in the matrix? I did need it, I put 100% by hand. I tried with 70% and 50%, it didn't change anything, in my case I am not worried about that.

Did you try another linkage method rather than Complete? I did try, the shape changes. I will give details later. "Complete" gave the most expected and interesting results, although, for example, the problem with Naum is independent of any method, as the relations of Ippos too (Fruit 2.1/Rybka 1.0 is more fragile, but fainter or not, it's usually there).

The normalization is probably different in our methods, as your individual "leaves" are much longer. But it doesn't change anything important.

Kai

bob
Posts: 20340
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by bob » Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:40 am

Graham Banks wrote:
bob wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
bob wrote:
Xann wrote:
bob wrote:Just for the record, to eliminate this specific argument, when Zach, CT, I and others looked at the fruit/rybka1 question, we did _not_ involve Strelka. Strelka was the thing that exposed the issue, but we directly compared fruit to rybka, so the strelka issue could not be raised again...
What happened then?

Fabien.
We found _lots_ of similarities. Zach created a web page that went into great detail with the analysis. There are some obvious differences between Fruit and Rybka, but there are a _ton_ of similarities. Too many to be pure luck.
But these similarities are not a proof of code copying.

Sven
If you look at my previous comments, "similarity" is "identical code". The entire program was not copied. But large chunks were. That _is_ proof of code copying...

Since large chunks were copied, but not everything, I chose to not say "identical" to be accurate. But they are _very_ similar. Moreso when you factor out the bitboard changes...
Just one question Bob. What happens if this case is tried by the FSF (and I hope it is because we all want to see the matter resolved with some finality), and Vas is cleared?

Cheers,
Graham.
As in Criminal vs Civil matters, the standard of proof is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt or "preponderance of the evidence". We have the latter, to be sure. Whether a criminal proceeding would find him guilty is one thing, whether a civil action would find him liable is another.

My opinion won't change however. We can argue forever about how much he copied, but there is no doubt he copied. Fabien could almost certainly win a civil trial, but what damages could he be awarded since his program was not commercial, his reputation has not been damaged. He has just been "ripped off"... So where this goes is most likely nowhere... Typically a FSF action stops at the point where the copying party agrees to provide the source... So there is always a way out...

Ryan Benitez
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Ryan Benitez » Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:42 am

bob wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
bob wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
bob wrote:
Xann wrote:
bob wrote:Just for the record, to eliminate this specific argument, when Zach, CT, I and others looked at the fruit/rybka1 question, we did _not_ involve Strelka. Strelka was the thing that exposed the issue, but we directly compared fruit to rybka, so the strelka issue could not be raised again...
What happened then?

Fabien.
We found _lots_ of similarities. Zach created a web page that went into great detail with the analysis. There are some obvious differences between Fruit and Rybka, but there are a _ton_ of similarities. Too many to be pure luck.
But these similarities are not a proof of code copying.

Sven
If you look at my previous comments, "similarity" is "identical code". The entire program was not copied. But large chunks were. That _is_ proof of code copying...

Since large chunks were copied, but not everything, I chose to not say "identical" to be accurate. But they are _very_ similar. Moreso when you factor out the bitboard changes...
Just one question Bob. What happens if this case is tried by the FSF (and I hope it is because we all want to see the matter resolved with some finality), and Vas is cleared?

Cheers,
Graham.
As in Criminal vs Civil matters, the standard of proof is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt or "preponderance of the evidence". We have the latter, to be sure. Whether a criminal proceeding would find him guilty is one thing, whether a civil action would find him liable is another.

My opinion won't change however. We can argue forever about how much he copied, but there is no doubt he copied. Fabien could almost certainly win a civil trial, but what damages could he be awarded since his program was not commercial, his reputation has not been damaged. He has just been "ripped off"... So where this goes is most likely nowhere... Typically a FSF action stops at the point where the copying party agrees to provide the source... So there is always a way out...
The short version is an email saying to stop distribution of software in violation of the license agreement or else. I have never seen anyone test the FSF to see what the or else is. Some years back a clear violator of Fruit 2.1 got taken down by the FSF. The good thing about the FSF is they are not swayed by popular opinion or the feelings and emotions of the community the programs is a part of. They just look at the relevant evidence and do their job. If anyone feels they have evidence of a GPL violation in any program please submit it to license-violation@fsf.org.

User avatar
Eelco de Groot
Posts: 3817
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Groningen

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Eelco de Groot » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:37 am

bob wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
bob wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
bob wrote:
Xann wrote:
bob wrote:Just for the record, to eliminate this specific argument, when Zach, CT, I and others looked at the fruit/rybka1 question, we did _not_ involve Strelka. Strelka was the thing that exposed the issue, but we directly compared fruit to rybka, so the strelka issue could not be raised again...
What happened then?

Fabien.
We found _lots_ of similarities. Zach created a web page that went into great detail with the analysis. There are some obvious differences between Fruit and Rybka, but there are a _ton_ of similarities. Too many to be pure luck.
But these similarities are not a proof of code copying.

Sven
If you look at my previous comments, "similarity" is "identical code". The entire program was not copied. But large chunks were. That _is_ proof of code copying...

Since large chunks were copied, but not everything, I chose to not say "identical" to be accurate. But they are _very_ similar. Moreso when you factor out the bitboard changes...
Just one question Bob. What happens if this case is tried by the FSF (and I hope it is because we all want to see the matter resolved with some finality), and Vas is cleared?

Cheers,
Graham.
As in Criminal vs Civil matters, the standard of proof is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt or "preponderance of the evidence". We have the latter, to be sure. Whether a criminal proceeding would find him guilty is one thing, whether a civil action would find him liable is another.

My opinion won't change however. We can argue forever about how much he copied, but there is no doubt he copied. Fabien could almost certainly win a civil trial, but what damages could he be awarded since his program was not commercial, his reputation has not been damaged.
Fruit was certainly a commercial project at some point. I think it still was a commercial program when Rybka 1.0 went commercial, I would have to check that from the dates, but I'm pretty sure only later the commercial version became free and Fabien gave the rights to the FSF as far as version 2.1 was concerned, which was never commercial. It is certainly plausible that the arrival of a new commercial program, stronger than Fruit at the time played a role in Fabien stopping his commercial enterprise, without him even knowing about any allegations of copying.

Fabien stated he did not know about these allegations or he could have taken a very different course back in 2005. The rights however are no longer his and I don't think the FSF could take up a civil case? That seems a bit illogical.

If it would go to a copyright case with the FSF and the FSF would win it, this could certainly hurt Vas' his business in my layman opinion. What if he had to include his sources with even any new releases, in the extreme case? I am sure he would not do this, and Rybka 4 would be the last available stand alone version of Rybka. So the stakes in my opinion are high enough...
He has just been "ripped off"... So where this goes is most likely nowhere... Typically a FSF action stops at the point where the copying party agrees to provide the source... So there is always a way out...
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan

Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Gian-Carlo Pascutto » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:47 am

Eelco de Groot wrote: I am sure he would not do this, and Rybka 4 would be the last available stand alone version of Rybka. So the stakes in my opinion are high enough...
Well, if you provide your software as a rental service, the GPL isn't a problem. No distribution happens, so no need to provide source.

And we already have the source of Rybka 3, it's called Ippolit :)

User avatar
AdminX
Posts: 4851
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:34 pm
Location: Acworth, GA
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by AdminX » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:04 am

bob wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
bob wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
bob wrote:
Xann wrote:
bob wrote:Just for the record, to eliminate this specific argument, when Zach, CT, I and others looked at the fruit/rybka1 question, we did _not_ involve Strelka. Strelka was the thing that exposed the issue, but we directly compared fruit to rybka, so the strelka issue could not be raised again...
What happened then?

Fabien.
We found _lots_ of similarities. Zach created a web page that went into great detail with the analysis. There are some obvious differences between Fruit and Rybka, but there are a _ton_ of similarities. Too many to be pure luck.
But these similarities are not a proof of code copying.

Sven
If you look at my previous comments, "similarity" is "identical code". The entire program was not copied. But large chunks were. That _is_ proof of code copying...

Since large chunks were copied, but not everything, I chose to not say "identical" to be accurate. But they are _very_ similar. Moreso when you factor out the bitboard changes...
Just one question Bob. What happens if this case is tried by the FSF (and I hope it is because we all want to see the matter resolved with some finality), and Vas is cleared?

Cheers,
Graham.
As in Criminal vs Civil matters, the standard of proof is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt or "preponderance of the evidence". We have the latter, to be sure. Whether a criminal proceeding would find him guilty is one thing, whether a civil action would find him liable is another.

My opinion won't change however. We can argue forever about how much he copied, but there is no doubt he copied. Fabien could almost certainly win a civil trial, but what damages could he be awarded since his program was not commercial, his reputation has not been damaged. He has just been "ripped off"... So where this goes is most likely nowhere... Typically a FSF action stops at the point where the copying party agrees to provide the source... So there is always a way out...
Graham,

A expert has spoken, but lets be honest here, you still will not accept it. It does not change your mind one way or the other. So what is the point of your question? In the above statement even if Vas were convicted, I don't think you would accept it, only if he were found not guilty would you agree.
Last edited by AdminX on Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Christopher Conkie » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:07 am

Eelco de Groot wrote:Fruit was certainly a commercial project at some point. I think it still was a commercial program when Rybka 1.0 went commercial, I would have to check that from the dates, but I'm pretty sure only later the commercial version became free and Fabien gave the rights to the FSF as far as version 2.1 was concerned, which was never commercial. It is certainly plausible that the arrival of a new commercial program, stronger than Fruit at the time played a role in Fabien stopping his commercial enterprise, without him even knowing about any allegations of copying.
Fruit 2.2 was late September 2005. Rybka 1.0 Beta was early December 2005.

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 » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:07 am

AdminX wrote:
bob wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
bob wrote:
Sven Schüle wrote:
bob wrote:
Xann wrote:
bob wrote:Just for the record, to eliminate this specific argument, when Zach, CT, I and others looked at the fruit/rybka1 question, we did _not_ involve Strelka. Strelka was the thing that exposed the issue, but we directly compared fruit to rybka, so the strelka issue could not be raised again...
What happened then?

Fabien.
We found _lots_ of similarities. Zach created a web page that went into great detail with the analysis. There are some obvious differences between Fruit and Rybka, but there are a _ton_ of similarities. Too many to be pure luck.
But these similarities are not a proof of code copying.

Sven
If you look at my previous comments, "similarity" is "identical code". The entire program was not copied. But large chunks were. That _is_ proof of code copying...

Since large chunks were copied, but not everything, I chose to not say "identical" to be accurate. But they are _very_ similar. Moreso when you factor out the bitboard changes...
Just one question Bob. What happens if this case is tried by the FSF (and I hope it is because we all want to see the matter resolved with some finality), and Vas is cleared?

Cheers,
Graham.
As in Criminal vs Civil matters, the standard of proof is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt or "preponderance of the evidence". We have the latter, to be sure. Whether a criminal proceeding would find him guilty is one thing, whether a civil action would find him liable is another.

My opinion won't change however. We can argue forever about how much he copied, but there is no doubt he copied. Fabien could almost certainly win a civil trial, but what damages could he be awarded since his program was not commercial, his reputation has not been damaged. He has just been "ripped off"... So where this goes is most likely nowhere... Typically a FSF action stops at the point where the copying party agrees to provide the source... So there is always a way out...
Graham,

A expert has spoken, but lets be honest here, you still will not accept it. It does not change your mind one way or the other. So what is the point of your question?
He was not the only expert that has spoken, was he?

Miguel

Post Reply