Fabien's open letter to the community

[hgm]

Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.

I prefer to call it "non-naive"...

[JuLieN]

Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.

I prefer to call it "non-naive"...

Congratulations to the both of you : just by try and fail method you gave an acceptable definition of cynicism.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Fabien,

it was one of the best interviews I ever made. Without my girlfiend not possible, helps me with my bad English. The answers from the Stockfish team are just great. I am very lucky in this time that Tord, Joona and Marco made it with me and gave so many nice information.

Yes, I can send a mail what I read between the lines in our interview
But I don't have your mail address!

If you have time for it:
Please write me:
www.amateurschach.de ... click on impressum ... contact form.

THANKS!
Best for you whatever you do!

Frank

[Carotino]

A real hornet's nest! Here's the truth comes out ...
Where are all those trombones, who see clones everywhere?

...Caught with his fingers in the jam!

[michiguel]

I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?

1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.

2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.

Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...

Kai

Gabor asked for something new.

Miguel

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?

You are confused. Mr Rybka and Fabien are disputing Strelka´s code.

I told you I was confused.

I repeat: what new is there as an evidence for many posters here that Rybka is a stolen work.

The newest one is that Rybka´s codes suddenly became lost ( or deleted), and cannot be examined by experts anymore.

Common sense....the crook must cover his crime signs....
Dr.D

[slobo]

Your reasoning is morally incompetent at best.

I prefer to call it "non-naive"...

Well, you are allowed to call it as you like but, it seems, you know the truth.

[Laskos]

I am lost in this avalanche of post so I must ask someone to enlighten me: if all Fabien saw was his own code and the Strelka code, how is he to know what was the way Rybka was made? He has only the same two source codes at his disposal which have been there for studying for more than 3 years.
So what is new here that makes some posters think Rybka is illegal?

1. Strelka 1.8 gives almost identical output to Rybka 1.0. You can see that on my similarity graph posted in this thread, and Uri's examples.

2. Vasik personally claimed Strelka 2.0 sources as his own. Funny.

Now, if Strelka is Fruit 2.1 derivative, as Fabien implies, then...

Kai

It seems to me these have been known facts for years. I am sure of the first two, and the 3rd one has been discussed not very long ago also with the conclusion that it is true. Or?

The problem disputed was

3. Therefore Rybka 1.0 is a Fruit 2.1 derivative

Maybe I am missing something out of your confusion, but after Fabien statements about Strelka...

Kai

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Damn,this thread is taking over mine related to the match against Excalibur Ivan II in terms of popularity

[JuLieN]

Damn,this thread is taking over mine related to the match against Excalibur Ivan II in terms of popularity

If I'm not mistaken, the absolute record in terms of posts is the thread entitled "BB+ on the matter", with 253 posts, and the most poplar one in term of view count is the one entitled "On Robots", with 69043 views.

Records are made to be broken.