Thoughts...

[Marek Soszynski]

Rolf... I have noticed that almost _EVERY_ post you make clouds the issue that is being discussed.

Don't knock it, it's a skill.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Just wondering. At the moment several Ippo threads pop up with personal comments. Even a "To the moderation" thread. I see no reason to delete a thread with a factual question and allow a "To the moderation" thread.

Or must I have the same opinion as you, Steve, to not get deleted?

Moderators are doing a great job in my opinion Alex....this is the best that can be done in this messy situation generated mainly by Vasik's dead silence....
Dr.D

[Matthias Gemuh]

Rolf... I have noticed that almost _EVERY_ post you make clouds the issue that is being discussed.

Don't knock it, it's a skill.

Yes, Rolf is really great at covering up !

[Alexander Schmidt]

one thread we deleted which you created which asked the same question for the third time

I asked the question in another thread while discussing it with Rolf. Most people do not follow such 1v1 discussion down in a thread, so I asked the question _once_ in a new thread. I really don't see a violation of the charter.

[Rolf]

one thread we deleted which you created which asked the same question for the third time

I asked the question in another thread while discussing it with Rolf. Most people do not follow such 1v1 discussion down in a thread, so I asked the question _once_ in a new thread. I really don't see a violation of the charter.

I understand you. Couldnt we agree that you are interested in chess and just hate liars and think that Vas is liar and that other people should be informed, and that besides that you are not the least obsessed by that topic? Perhaps you collect stamps and friends, that's why you met me and that this is absolutely nothing personal. I hope that then the mods must allow you to open as many threads with this topic as you want and must.

[ernest]

Rolf, I am fairly new to this forum, relatively speaking. But I have noticed...

Actually, I am surprised that the moderators are not trying to stop that continuous, spam-like, bandwidth gobbling, insane babble...

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Rolf, I am fairly new to this forum, relatively speaking. But I have noticed...

Actually, I am surprised that the moderators are not trying to stop that continuous, spam-like, bandwidth gobbling, insane babble...

Wow

[Rolf]

Rolf, I am fairly new to this forum, relatively speaking. But I have noticed...

Actually, I am surprised that the moderators are not trying to stop that continuous, spam-like, bandwidth gobbling, insane babble...

Hi,

excuse me if that is how I come across for you. I know myself that my English sucks. Just give me your power of speech, so that you can tolerate me. Thanks and again, excuse me. Hint: Please skip my messages. Hope that this wasnt too insane to hope for.

Rolf

[bob]

There was _more_ than enough "proof" offered.

I remember some admitted that Rybka probably started as Fruit, but then people wanted proofs that

a) still original Fruit code is inside
b) it is in the chess playing part.

The fact that Rybka is stronger was enough to say: it can't be a clone, and if it was a clone it was changed so much that it is not a clone anymore.

That ignores two important points.

(1) GPL doesn't care about how much it was modified, only whether any of the GPL code is still present. Doesn't matter if it is in the chess playing parts, or in ancillary code.

(2) This was about Rybka 1 initially. However, it is certainly likely enough that code from R1 survived into R2 and R3. You can look at Crafty version 1.0 and still find code that is in 23.2...

Of course, it also begs the question about Robo*. Was _it_ modified enough to not be considered a clone of Rybka? Was it ever a clone of Rybka? who knows?

[bob]

Remember how the engines inproved in the last years. After years of stagnation Fruit (and later Glaurung) appeared. Are you sure no one copied some code? Did you ever blame a commercial author for the improvement in his engine because he maybe took some code?

You did not, and that is fine.

You did not when Rybka 1 appeared, allthough it was 600 ELO points stronger than it's predecessor.

You did it not even when I showed similaries between Rybka and Fruit. This is also fine to me as long as you apply the same standart for all engines.

Despite Zach posting that he'd provide absolute proof that Vas had taken code from Fruit for Rybka 1.0, nothing has been shown after more than a year.
Despite this, some here are still making accusations without proof.
Is there a link to where we can all view the absolute proof?

Cheers,
Graham.

There was _more_ than enough "proof" offered. But one has to look at the proof with an unbiased eye, otherwise there is no proof good enough. This _really_ did happen. Does it mean anything on the cosmic scale? nope. Just shows that some have slightly different moral standards than others. One has to live with himself, first, and with others, second.

There was no proof that most people accepted as a proof.
Rybka continue to play in tournaments and is considered by most people as an original engine that has nothing to do with fruit.

It seems that your evidence is not convincing for the people who organize chess championships(otherwise they are not going to allow rybka to play in the world computer championship and in other tournaments).

Uri

The evidence was more than enough to make that case. However, _I_ have never asked that Rybka be banned. Nor has anyone else I know of. As I said, my intent was not to dismantle Rybka, but simply to learn how it came to be in such a short time. That has been answered, and that's all I cared about.