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.
Osipov Jury
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:07 pm
Location: Russia

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Osipov Jury » Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:51 pm

Damir wrote:I think you are asking the wrong person.... :lol:
I am true person. You have strange fantasies.
Juri, could you make Fruit a Cluster Rybka?
I do not understand the question about the cluster. What do you mean?
I went through the Rybka code forwards and backwards and took many things.

Damir
Posts: 1809
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:53 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Damir » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:23 pm

If you can make a ''Fruit'' into Cluster Rybka, than I am wrong and apologize your royal highness.

h1a8
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by h1a8 » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:41 pm

Rolf wrote:
gerold wrote:
rodolfoleoni wrote:Lots of posts, I just cannot read all of them. But I noticed Mr. Letouzey "disappeared" from discussion. What if he'll do nothing about all that stuff?
All this infor or most of it has been beaten to death before. What can
he do. Its about 5 years to late.
These posts were fun to read. They have done more to promote
IH and Houdini than anything else. Now Houdini is on more rating list
and on Playchess. Also top GM are now using Houdini.

Best,
Gerold
Please give me a second to disagree. Houdini is so to speak the genuine version of Rybka for the average chessplayers and testers of chessless automats, while the greatest chessplayer on Earth, the Cluster Rybka is reserved for the eager elites, talents and professionals in chess.

So, if you want to know the truth about chess, go for the online cluster Rybka. If you like to fiddle in your closet with your own hardware but a weaker program, then you can do business as usual.

As the saying goes, every pot finds a black cattle.
So you think that Rybka Cluster is stronger than Houdini on a very strong octal? I don't think so. Hell a member of the Rybka forum (Highendman) with the help of a weaker engine and weaker hardware has a winning record against the cluster. And the funny thing is he isn't an GM or an IM. He's master level at best.

bob
Posts: 20347
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by bob » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:56 pm

playjunior wrote:
bob wrote:
Milos wrote:
bob wrote:I have also seen where those public machines have been broken into, and files copied (including 100Ks of credit card numbers). IMAP won't help you one bit there...
It's rather simple.
Take all your programs zip it in a file (I seriously doubt there would be more than 100MB size in total) and encrypt with like AES256 and then send it to yourself on IMAP account (divide a file if necessary and test everything if it works).

I really don't see how that is unreliably or breakable or hackable (unless you lose the key, but that's another issue)...
The issue is, "where is that file stored?" If it is on my office box, I have complete control, and my office machine has never been broken into. If it is on gmail, there is no guarantee of any such protection for privacy, which is a requirement for my email account due to FIRPA, HIPA and such. So gmail is out. And the machine in my office is the same machine where the program copies exist.

BTW, each version of Crafty is maybe a meg. There are thousands of intermediate versions, or gigabytes of data...
Bob if you have encrypted it properly why would you care if you lose control?

I have 2.5 GB of mails on Gmail, which is 33% of allowed free limit in the moment. Not a single mail lost or deleted for like 5 years. All attachments there etc.
We're not suggesting you migrate your mail to "public" places, but for backup it's perfect. My initial point was that today its much easier to do it, because, em, in 1995 you couldn't have 7.5 GB free mailbox with 25MB attachments.
That's a lousy backup mechanism. It is quite similar to what we did in 1995 when I lost everything, because there is no verification that the backup copy is good, until you need it. I've had lots of disk crashes since, and have lost nothing, because I use the 3-way backup + regular dumps to DVD to boot...

Going off-campus is problematic for reasons I have mentioned previously. FERPA/HIPA being big ones...

bob
Posts: 20347
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by bob » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:59 pm

gerold wrote:
rodolfoleoni wrote:Lots of posts, I just cannot read all of them. But I noticed Mr. Letouzey "disappeared" from discussion. What if he'll do nothing about all that stuff?
All this infor or most of it has been beaten to death before. What can
he do. Its about 5 years to late.
These posts were fun to read. They have done more to promote
IH and Houdini than anything else. Now Houdini is on more rating list
and on Playchess. Also top GM are now using Houdini.

Best,
Gerold
And if houdini is a derivative, which it almost certainly is? Can it play in tournaments? There is still much to be answered. People should feel free to rate what they want, or exclude what they want. I'm more interested in the CCT/ACCA/ICGA events and what happens there.

LucenaTheLucid
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:16 am

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by LucenaTheLucid » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:11 am

I think since the since the Fruit->Rybka issue is basically agreed upon, then the next obvious thing would be to decide what exactly Ippo is? Then once Ippo is decided upon then possibly Houdini.

rodolfoleoni
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by rodolfoleoni » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:36 pm

bob wrote:
gerold wrote:
rodolfoleoni wrote:Lots of posts, I just cannot read all of them. But I noticed Mr. Letouzey "disappeared" from discussion. What if he'll do nothing about all that stuff?
All this infor or most of it has been beaten to death before. What can
he do. Its about 5 years to late.
These posts were fun to read. They have done more to promote
IH and Houdini than anything else. Now Houdini is on more rating list
and on Playchess. Also top GM are now using Houdini.

Best,
Gerold
And if houdini is a derivative, which it almost certainly is? Can it play in tournaments? There is still much to be answered. People should feel free to rate what they want, or exclude what they want. I'm more interested in the CCT/ACCA/ICGA events and what happens there.
Just my opinion. Official tourneys are competitions. It means chess programmers worked hard to get their engines performing at their best. It's be a lack of respect to let derivative engines partecipate.
Rodolfo (The Baron Team)

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

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Robert Flesher » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:45 pm

Tord Romstad wrote:My good friend Fabien Letouzey, author of Fruit, asked me to post the following message for him:
Hello,

Long time no see.

First, I am not back to computer chess, sorry about that. I just want to clarify a few things. Sorry if that's old but there is some misunderstanding I need to fix, and I found out only yesterday. Bear in mind that I am mostly unaware of what has happened for five years though.

First there was the Strelka case. Dann approached me with some "Strelka" source code for me to check. I had never heard of it. I assumed it was some closed-source free engine and that people wanted to know whether it was based on the Fruit source code.

The short answer was "no", it was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.

That being said, some original changes and ideas were also included in the program. So it was, as has since been stated many times in fora I suppose, a bitboard re-write of Fruit with some personal (or otherwise) ideas. Also note that the source code Dann sent me might not be the from the 2.0 version.

Edit: I've just had a look at the 2.0 sources. On top of what I said above, there are many constant and function names that are identical to Fruit's. I remember noticing it back then as well.

Hope it helps, because my email answer to Dann was unusually short and cryptic even by my standards. And Dann, please next time make it clear when you want a public statement instead of a private opinion, thanks.

I want to point out something immediately: there was no mention of Rybka whatsoever. Indeed I was unaware of any relation between Strelka and Rybka, this is precisely what I learned only yesterday. I insist because it seems I have often been quoted about "not caring" about the (possible) Fruit/Rybka relationship, but this is not so. Strelka did not look like a problem because I assumed it was free.

Next, I was approached by Ryan (I think) and Christophe Theron about whether I could help with some "possible Fruit code inside Rybka" issues. I answered "yes, but how?", but did not get a reply. This did not make me really aware of a clone possibility however because I thought they were talking about some insignificant UCI-handling code or whatnot. Also this was several years after the initial Rybka release, and I guess quite a few people had a close look at it. Apparently Chrilly did?

Now if someone could tell me a bit more about the major events last five years and the current state of affairs, I'd be much obliged.

A few things I noticed yesterday, can you confirm?
- Rybka search info was obfuscated in some way (like displaying depth-3 or something), any pointers on details please?
- Vasik claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0 (and you know what that would imply!)
- Zach Wegner found many Fruit ideas (and nearly identical code) in Rybka 1.0; I think someone else did, too
- Some even stronger open-source program appeared as a decompilation of Rybka (with own ideas, sounds familiar), what came up of looking at those?

Any questions, now is the one time to ask.

Thanks for your attention,

Fabien Letouzey.

For those who did not see the Vas video interview. I believe it will be of great interest to some at 9:28 Vas is asked, "What chess engines in public domain, when you got started, had the biggest influence on the earliest versions of Rybka?" Nothing "Fruity" about his reply.

http://chessok.com/download/A%20Convers ... ajlich.wmv

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

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Robert Flesher » Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:55 pm

Robert Flesher wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:My good friend Fabien Letouzey, author of Fruit, asked me to post the following message for him:
Hello,

Long time no see.

First, I am not back to computer chess, sorry about that. I just want to clarify a few things. Sorry if that's old but there is some misunderstanding I need to fix, and I found out only yesterday. Bear in mind that I am mostly unaware of what has happened for five years though.

First there was the Strelka case. Dann approached me with some "Strelka" source code for me to check. I had never heard of it. I assumed it was some closed-source free engine and that people wanted to know whether it was based on the Fruit source code.

The short answer was "no", it was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.

That being said, some original changes and ideas were also included in the program. So it was, as has since been stated many times in fora I suppose, a bitboard re-write of Fruit with some personal (or otherwise) ideas. Also note that the source code Dann sent me might not be the from the 2.0 version.

Edit: I've just had a look at the 2.0 sources. On top of what I said above, there are many constant and function names that are identical to Fruit's. I remember noticing it back then as well.

Hope it helps, because my email answer to Dann was unusually short and cryptic even by my standards. And Dann, please next time make it clear when you want a public statement instead of a private opinion, thanks.

I want to point out something immediately: there was no mention of Rybka whatsoever. Indeed I was unaware of any relation between Strelka and Rybka, this is precisely what I learned only yesterday. I insist because it seems I have often been quoted about "not caring" about the (possible) Fruit/Rybka relationship, but this is not so. Strelka did not look like a problem because I assumed it was free.

Next, I was approached by Ryan (I think) and Christophe Theron about whether I could help with some "possible Fruit code inside Rybka" issues. I answered "yes, but how?", but did not get a reply. This did not make me really aware of a clone possibility however because I thought they were talking about some insignificant UCI-handling code or whatnot. Also this was several years after the initial Rybka release, and I guess quite a few people had a close look at it. Apparently Chrilly did?

Now if someone could tell me a bit more about the major events last five years and the current state of affairs, I'd be much obliged.

A few things I noticed yesterday, can you confirm?
- Rybka search info was obfuscated in some way (like displaying depth-3 or something), any pointers on details please?
- Vasik claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0 (and you know what that would imply!)
- Zach Wegner found many Fruit ideas (and nearly identical code) in Rybka 1.0; I think someone else did, too
- Some even stronger open-source program appeared as a decompilation of Rybka (with own ideas, sounds familiar), what came up of looking at those?

Any questions, now is the one time to ask.

Thanks for your attention,

Fabien Letouzey.

For those who did not see the Vas video interview. I believe it will be of great interest to some at 9:28 Vas is asked, "What chess engines in public domain, when you got started, had the biggest influence on the earliest versions of Rybka?" Nothing "Fruity" about his reply.

http://chessok.com/download/A%20Convers ... th%20Vasik%
20Rajlich.wmv
The next Vas interview?

Image

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 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:41 pm

Robert Flesher wrote:
Robert Flesher wrote:
Tord Romstad wrote:My good friend Fabien Letouzey, author of Fruit, asked me to post the following message for him:
Hello,

Long time no see.

First, I am not back to computer chess, sorry about that. I just want to clarify a few things. Sorry if that's old but there is some misunderstanding I need to fix, and I found out only yesterday. Bear in mind that I am mostly unaware of what has happened for five years though.

First there was the Strelka case. Dann approached me with some "Strelka" source code for me to check. I had never heard of it. I assumed it was some closed-source free engine and that people wanted to know whether it was based on the Fruit source code.

The short answer was "no", it was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.

That being said, some original changes and ideas were also included in the program. So it was, as has since been stated many times in fora I suppose, a bitboard re-write of Fruit with some personal (or otherwise) ideas. Also note that the source code Dann sent me might not be the from the 2.0 version.

Edit: I've just had a look at the 2.0 sources. On top of what I said above, there are many constant and function names that are identical to Fruit's. I remember noticing it back then as well.

Hope it helps, because my email answer to Dann was unusually short and cryptic even by my standards. And Dann, please next time make it clear when you want a public statement instead of a private opinion, thanks.

I want to point out something immediately: there was no mention of Rybka whatsoever. Indeed I was unaware of any relation between Strelka and Rybka, this is precisely what I learned only yesterday. I insist because it seems I have often been quoted about "not caring" about the (possible) Fruit/Rybka relationship, but this is not so. Strelka did not look like a problem because I assumed it was free.

Next, I was approached by Ryan (I think) and Christophe Theron about whether I could help with some "possible Fruit code inside Rybka" issues. I answered "yes, but how?", but did not get a reply. This did not make me really aware of a clone possibility however because I thought they were talking about some insignificant UCI-handling code or whatnot. Also this was several years after the initial Rybka release, and I guess quite a few people had a close look at it. Apparently Chrilly did?

Now if someone could tell me a bit more about the major events last five years and the current state of affairs, I'd be much obliged.

A few things I noticed yesterday, can you confirm?
- Rybka search info was obfuscated in some way (like displaying depth-3 or something), any pointers on details please?
- Vasik claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0 (and you know what that would imply!)
- Zach Wegner found many Fruit ideas (and nearly identical code) in Rybka 1.0; I think someone else did, too
- Some even stronger open-source program appeared as a decompilation of Rybka (with own ideas, sounds familiar), what came up of looking at those?

Any questions, now is the one time to ask.

Thanks for your attention,

Fabien Letouzey.

For those who did not see the Vas video interview. I believe it will be of great interest to some at 9:28 Vas is asked, "What chess engines in public domain, when you got started, had the biggest influence on the earliest versions of Rybka?" Nothing "Fruity" about his reply.

http://chessok.com/download/A%20Convers ... th%20Vasik%
20Rajlich.wmv
The next Vas interview?

Image
You show a moderate level of lying here....
If Vas is attached,the machine will simply blow off to pieces :lol:

:wink:
_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….

Post Reply