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
AdminX
Posts: 4853
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 10:14 am

michiguel wrote:
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

Miguel,

Go back and read my edited post, as I was editing I guess while you were writing this one. I try to make point clearer. No he is not the only expert that has spoken. My point is, I believe Graham will only except his own point of view. Example: There is Person "A" in jail, some believe he is guilty and belongs there, some people never will agree with the sentence.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 30544
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:15 am

AdminX wrote: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.
Not true. The whole reason I'd like to see it decided through the FSF is to get finality.
Unlike Bob, I would accept whatever decision they made and then move on.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

User avatar
AdminX
Posts: 4853
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 10:21 am

Graham Banks wrote:
AdminX wrote: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.
Not true. The whole reason I'd like to see it decided through the FSF is to get finality.
Unlike Bob, I would accept whatever decision they made and then move on.
So you would accept it, but would you agree with it? Thats what I wonder, not that you have to mind you. The same could be said for myself, I could accept it, but that does not mean that I agree with it. To bad as I don't think it will ever be decided or taken up by the FSF.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 30544
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks » Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:23 am

AdminX wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
AdminX wrote: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.
Not true. The whole reason I'd like to see it decided through the FSF is to get finality.
Unlike Bob, I would accept whatever decision they made and then move on.
So you would accept it, but would you agree with it? Thats what I wonder, not that you have to mind you. The same could be said for myself, I could accept it, but that does not mean that I agree with it. To bad as I don't think it will ever be decided or taken up by the FSF.
To me, an FSF decision would be good enough to give finality, which I was really hoping was what we all wanted.
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

mar
Posts: 1830
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:00 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by mar » Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:58 am

bob wrote:
frcha wrote:Are there instances where GPL violation was successfully persecuted - where the code was not blatantly cut and paste but modified + new ideas injected in?

My take on this is that Vas is clearly dishonest about the origins of his engine - but whether its is legal or not -- its hard to say...

-- This too was the same issue with Ippolit of course - clearly dishonest but not necessarily illegal..
....and the wheel keeps turning...



Which is why I have had no problem testing ippolit , houdini on my machine -- I really don't have a clue whether it is legal or not ..

A rating list can have Rybka H and I with an asterisk next to them
*dubious/disputed origin
Take a hypothetical example. You take the source for the GNU C compiler (before there was a C++ even). You modify it so that it will accept C++ syntax. You modify the optimizer so that it produces better code for newer processors. You sell the executable but do not offer source. Are you in violation of the GPL? Absolutely. If you can show that you rewrote _everything_ so that nothing remains of the original (and no, this is not about a line like i=0; or other such nonsense) then your code is not subject to GPL and all is well. But only if no original GPL code remains. And that does mean "any" by a pretty well-defined concept.
If you can turn a C compiler into C++ then you are a true genius :D

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 12:27 pm

Laskos wrote:
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
Use wb2uci. That is how I am able to include Crafty and Thinker.
Unfortunately, some engines do not work well with the sim program,
whether they be WB or UCI.

I'm not sure which diagonal you are refering to. Covariance matrix
or similarity matrix?

I have not had time yet to really try out other linkage methods.
But I will do so.

EDIT: I realize that you (probably) meant the similarity matrix.
Yes, I added in the diagonal. I cheated and used 100%, though
I have enough duplicate data to determine the self-similarity.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Don » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:20 pm

AdminX wrote:
michiguel wrote:
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

Miguel,

Go back and read my edited post, as I was editing I guess while you were writing this one. I try to make point clearer. No he is not the only expert that has spoken. My point is, I believe Graham will only except his own point of view. Example: There is Person "A" in jail, some believe he is guilty and belongs there, some people never will agree with the sentence.
I think Graham has been consistent about where he stands and is more objective that you are from what I have read for the last years or two. He does not want cloned programs and if FSF made a case against Rybka I don't think he would hesitate. I don't think you have a clue about him - he has principles even if you don't like them.

On the other hand I don't think anything like that would stop the clone enthusiasts - they have a totally different mindset and they are takers, not givers. They will cheer if Vas goes down but if Houdini or Robbo goes down they will not stop whining.

In fact I don't believe it's in their best interest in the long run for Vas to go down, because they have used that as their justification for the cloning anyway. Their justification will be taken away and then there will be a case for targeting Ippolit next which would lead to the fall of Robbo, Firebird, Houdini, etc. They would have to turn to another target or change their rationalization to something else.

So my question to you is will you agree if THAT happens or will you cry sour grapes?

If you have been following anything for the past several years now, almost nobody cared about whether Rybka was a derivative or not until the controversy over the clones got real hot. Then the clone fanboys started justifying this behavior by focusing on Vas, then it turned into a kind of resentment because he might have been getting away with what the fanboys secretly consider acceptable behavior anyway.

To be fair, you have to be consistent, it's all rather unethical and probably illegal (depending on your defintion of "derivative") but it cannot be an admirable deed for Robbo but detestable for Rybka. Some of the fanboys see this as a kind of revenge against and enemy and it just makes them look petty.

I would like to say that I don't direct this against everyone who uses these programs or admires them. I know that it's a question of degrees and a lot of people are not so clearly extreme - but there seems to be a solid core of clone advocates who see this as a kind of holy war in support of the values they hold dear.

I am in the same situation as Graham - I have always considered Rybka as original too and that if anything had been copied it was inconsequential. But I might have to change my point of view and I am willing to do that. Are you?

User avatar
AdminX
Posts: 4853
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 1:28 pm

Don wrote:
AdminX wrote:
michiguel wrote:
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

Miguel,

Go back and read my edited post, as I was editing I guess while you were writing this one. I try to make point clearer. No he is not the only expert that has spoken. My point is, I believe Graham will only except his own point of view. Example: There is Person "A" in jail, some believe he is guilty and belongs there, some people never will agree with the sentence.
I think Graham has been consistent about where he stands and is more objective that you are from what I have read for the last years or two. He does not want cloned programs and if FSF made a case against Rybka I don't think he would hesitate. I don't think you have a clue about him - he has principles even if you don't like them.

On the other hand I don't think anything like that would stop the clone enthusiasts - they have a totally different mindset and they are takers, not givers. They will cheer if Vas goes down but if Houdini or Robbo goes down they will not stop whining.

In fact I don't believe it's in their best interest in the long run for Vas to go down, because they have used that as their justification for the cloning anyway. Their justification will be taken away and then there will be a case for targeting Ippolit next which would lead to the fall of Robbo, Firebird, Houdini, etc. They would have to turn to another target or change their rationalization to something else.

So my question to you is will you agree if THAT happens or will you cry sour grapes?

If you have been following anything for the past several years now, almost nobody cared about whether Rybka was a derivative or not until the controversy over the clones got real hot. Then the clone fanboys started justifying this behavior by focusing on Vas, then it turned into a kind of resentment because he might have been getting away with what the fanboys secretly consider acceptable behavior anyway.

To be fair, you have to be consistent, it's all rather unethical and probably illegal (depending on your defintion of "derivative") but it cannot be an admirable deed for Robbo but detestable for Rybka. Some of the fanboys see this as a kind of revenge against and enemy and it just makes them look petty.

I would like to say that I don't direct this against everyone who uses these programs or admires them. I know that it's a question of degrees and a lot of people are not so clearly extreme - but there seems to be a solid core of clone advocates who see this as a kind of holy war in support of the values they hold dear.

I am in the same situation as Graham - I have always considered Rybka as original too and that if anything had been copied it was inconsequential. But I might have to change my point of view and I am willing to do that. Are you?
I think the answer to your question can be found in my reply to what Graham posted above.
AdminX wrote: " The same could be said for myself, I could accept it, but that does not mean that I agree with it."
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 7899
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:33 pm

Adam Hair wrote:
Use wb2uci. That is how I am able to include Crafty and Thinker.
Unfortunately, some engines do not work well with the sim program,
whether they be WB or UCI.

I'm not sure which diagonal you are refering to. Covariance matrix
or similarity matrix?

I have not had time yet to really try out other linkage methods.
But I will do so.

EDIT: I realize that you (probably) meant the similarity matrix.
Yes, I added in the diagonal. I cheated and used 100%, though
I have enough duplicate data to determine the self-similarity.
Yes, sim. matrix. I put in by hand 100%, but I tried with 70% and 50%, nothing changes, I am not worried about that. I do nat have enough self-similarity data to fill up correctly the diagonal.

I might try to add in some WB engines. I have an old Zap or Zappa which doesn't work properly with Don's utility, it uses 3-10% of CPU cycles and gives strange results. This happens with several other UCI engines too.

In SPSS it's easy to change the linkage methods, but I have to have a clue what they are actually doing :).

Kai

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Don » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:43 pm

AdminX wrote:
Don wrote:
AdminX wrote:
michiguel wrote:
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

Miguel,

Go back and read my edited post, as I was editing I guess while you were writing this one. I try to make point clearer. No he is not the only expert that has spoken. My point is, I believe Graham will only except his own point of view. Example: There is Person "A" in jail, some believe he is guilty and belongs there, some people never will agree with the sentence.
I think Graham has been consistent about where he stands and is more objective that you are from what I have read for the last years or two. He does not want cloned programs and if FSF made a case against Rybka I don't think he would hesitate. I don't think you have a clue about him - he has principles even if you don't like them.

On the other hand I don't think anything like that would stop the clone enthusiasts - they have a totally different mindset and they are takers, not givers. They will cheer if Vas goes down but if Houdini or Robbo goes down they will not stop whining.

In fact I don't believe it's in their best interest in the long run for Vas to go down, because they have used that as their justification for the cloning anyway. Their justification will be taken away and then there will be a case for targeting Ippolit next which would lead to the fall of Robbo, Firebird, Houdini, etc. They would have to turn to another target or change their rationalization to something else.

So my question to you is will you agree if THAT happens or will you cry sour grapes?

If you have been following anything for the past several years now, almost nobody cared about whether Rybka was a derivative or not until the controversy over the clones got real hot. Then the clone fanboys started justifying this behavior by focusing on Vas, then it turned into a kind of resentment because he might have been getting away with what the fanboys secretly consider acceptable behavior anyway.

To be fair, you have to be consistent, it's all rather unethical and probably illegal (depending on your defintion of "derivative") but it cannot be an admirable deed for Robbo but detestable for Rybka. Some of the fanboys see this as a kind of revenge against and enemy and it just makes them look petty.

I would like to say that I don't direct this against everyone who uses these programs or admires them. I know that it's a question of degrees and a lot of people are not so clearly extreme - but there seems to be a solid core of clone advocates who see this as a kind of holy war in support of the values they hold dear.

I am in the same situation as Graham - I have always considered Rybka as original too and that if anything had been copied it was inconsequential. But I might have to change my point of view and I am willing to do that. Are you?
I think the answer to your question can be found in my reply to what Graham posted above.
AdminX wrote: " The same could be said for myself, I could accept it, but that does not mean that I agree with it."
My question is rhetorical. Although I sometimes address people specifically my mind set when posting is usually that I'm talking to the whole group. But it was a question for you too as well as myself.

Post Reply