Komodo - Rybka in Danger?

[Graham Banks]

Vas could quite easily shut his big mouth

This is also beyond acceptable in my humble opinion.

[lkaufman]

"I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

"

Reply: 1. I don't know, but I suppose they decompiled it themselves, as others have already done with parts of the code. Also, I don't have access myself to the whole R3 code, only to the evaluation function. If I had access to the whole code my work with Don on Komodo would be a huge conflict of interest.

2. For me the situation was immediately clear. When an early Ippolit version came out, someone sent me the king location tables from it. They matched the king location tables I had made for Rybka 3 except for some very tiny deviations, mostly of one centipawn. This could not possibly occur except by taking the Rybka table and modifying it slightly. I could of course post that Rybka table here, but there is no point in doing so as I have no proof that it is actually the table in Rybka 3. Someone could just say I made up the numbers. So basically, to believe that Ippolit is not derived from Rybka you have to believe that I am lying without even a financial motive to do so, or else believe that someone independently came up with 64 values for the king that almost all were within one centipawn of Rybka values, mostly identical.

3. Finally, as I've already been paid for my work on Rybka 3, it is not my business how Vas chooses to deal with it. I am not a lawyer so I don't even pretend to know whether the derivative engines are illegal or just unethical. From a practical standpoint, the evaluation in the derivative engines is too similar to Rybka 3 to be of interest to anyone wanting a second opinion about a chess position.

[F.Huber]

Vas could quite easily shut his big mouth

This is also beyond acceptable in my humble opinion.

And can we assume that (as a moderator) you would delete everything which is "beyond acceptable" in your opinion?

[Graham Banks]

Vas could quite easily shut his big mouth

This is also beyond acceptable in my humble opinion.

And can we assume that (as a moderator) you would delete everything which is "beyond acceptable" in your opinion?

I wouldn't be accepting posts with personal attacks like this, so you I guess you'd better hope I don't get elected.

[F.Huber]

I wouldn't be accepting posts with personal attacks like this, so you I guess you'd better hope I don't get elected.

Well, indeed I hope so ...

[Michael Sherwin]

"I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

"

Reply: 1. I don't know, but I suppose they decompiled it themselves, as others have already done with parts of the code. Also, I don't have access myself to the whole R3 code, only to the evaluation function. If I had access to the whole code my work with Don on Komodo would be a huge conflict of interest.

2. For me the situation was immediately clear. When an early Ippolit version came out, someone sent me the king location tables from it. They matched the king location tables I had made for Rybka 3 except for some very tiny deviations, mostly of one centipawn. This could not possibly occur except by taking the Rybka table and modifying it slightly. I could of course post that Rybka table here, but there is no point in doing so as I have no proof that it is actually the table in Rybka 3. Someone could just say I made up the numbers. So basically, to believe that Ippolit is not derived from Rybka you have to believe that I am lying without even a financial motive to do so, or else believe that someone independently came up with 64 values for the king that almost all were within one centipawn of Rybka values, mostly identical.

3. Finally, as I've already been paid for my work on Rybka 3, it is not my business how Vas chooses to deal with it. I am not a lawyer so I don't even pretend to know whether the derivative engines are illegal or just unethical. From a practical standpoint, the evaluation in the derivative engines is too similar to Rybka 3 to be of interest to anyone wanting a second opinion about a chess position.

Finally! This is strong evidence that something important from R3 was taken almost verbatim. And it is strong because the person that made the table says so and is deemed trustworthy. This is a good enough indication for me to conclude that R3 was reversed engineered and wrongly copied from. More is needed though to determine the extent of the infringement.

[Rolf]

I would also like to say that I don't know how I got sucked into this. I personally don't really care that much on a personal level there is nothing at stake for me - it's just that my own personal sense of justice is offended when I see someone get ripped off like Vas was, and this is followed up by character assassination cleverly disguised as concern for his well being.

Thanks for speaking it out in your position with your status. Because we have many members who cant understand something even if it#s right before their eyes - if the wrong or nameless people are telling them about it. This is my fate e.g., but I dont care because I know what is right and what is wrong.

Let me add this. Here in CCC we have most famous programmers (Theron, Hyatt) who simply dont get what this all about.

They prejudge Vasik as a person. a) Vas has no moral education - if I would behave this way, I could increase my Tiger to the same extent lkike Rybka [NB that exact proof for the allegation was never presented, nowhere, neither here or elsewhere on webpages] b) Vas is a liar [also here without proof]

Nobody sane would believe that Vas begins to elaborate in front of such people and their insults.

Now we have people (pseudo names) who argue as if Vas were stupid. Truth is Vas has thought about all these arguments and saw no way to finally convince a community that stands under the influence of such experts who attack ad hominem. Who make accusations without proving their claims in scientifically sober ways.

My verdict goes even deeper. Bob wrote in a seperate message that for him it's unacceptable that Vas made a claim (vs Rolino) and then decides to add nothing more because after Bob it's the obligation to prove a claim. Again, he himself, Bob Hyatt, did never prove his claim 'he's a liar' nor Theron proved that Vas had no moral education, but this just as an aside, for me the statement is nonsense and I'm surprised that Bob is going into such a provably false direction. Here is the proof that this is total nonsense:

Fact is Vas informed about a sort of blackmail approach via email. He didnt make a claim! In truth he reported what had happened and that he wouldnt care about it because it makes no sense to let your peace of mind be disturbed by crooks and cloners. This is the online description of a reaction but this is no claim at all.

We must learn that this sort of aggressiveness in communication isnt everybody's favorite! This <<Aha you pretend this or that , now tell "us" quickly where you got this. How can you make such a "claim". But I, Bob, oppose that and now you must prove it. It's a duty! Because else you should never have made this sort of claim!!!!>>

But again, it is no claim in reaL, it's Bob and other people who want to get into a fight with Vas, but Vas just ignores it. He doesnt see and doesnt want such conflicts because they dont lead nowhere. And that is a legal position of deepest wisdom. Because how you could defend against ad hominem?

[Don]

Bob,

We can get into technicalities if you want. But I don't want this. What I see is that Vas has been victimized and you and others are demonstrating an outpouring of compassion for the Bully instead of the victim. In the post to me you are calling Vas the unethical one and I think this is shameful.

What is wrong is to make false accusations, it is not wrong to identify your attacker. If your wife or daughter were to be physically attacked and she recognized her attacker, I am SURE you would want her to identify that person even if she could not prove it. If she was not sure, then she would be wrong to make accusations. But if she knows, she SHOULD make accusations in a very strong way.

But Vas is sure and has done nothing wrong and it's truly shameful that the victim is being attacked as the unethical one. What else is truly shameful is not respecting his reasons for not wanting to pursue this. What boggles my mind is that everyone expects Vas to stop everything he is doing to come and defend himself and he should do that because you think he should.

Also, you are wrong to claim no evidence was presented. The evidence was very clearly presented but it's been mostly ignored. I'm really disgusted over the whole matter.

I remember seeing YOUR program ripped off and represented as someone else's in past events and you were pretty quick to take those accusations seriously. I remember that those accusations were made and I thought they were made way too quickly (even though they turned out to be true) but I don't remember you having any problem with that.

Well, this stuff was made public by the clones, and anyway Vas had asked me to keep such general eval knowledge confidential for a year, and it's now been a year and a half. Still I won't reveal exact values of terms in R3 even if they are more or less public due to the clones (or "derivatives" if you prefer). I doubt that they would be of much use to a non-clone program anyway, as different programs require different values for terms.

I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

For what reason should they do this? Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, and whoever is left is not going to be convinced no matter what additional evidence is presented.

I know from my own dealings with people that if someone really want to believe something, no amount of evidence or logic is going to change them.

"Every reasonable person already knows that these "clones" are based on Rybka, "

You mean:
1. I am not a reasonable person because I don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;

I apologize for my choice of wording. I don't mean to say that you are an unreasonable person, only that the conclusion you are drawing is unreasonable.

Please understand that I'm not saying you are stupid. I have seen very smart people come to the wrong conclusions based on emotion or some kind of bias. It's part of being human and we are all subject to it.

I don't want to get too psychological here, but humans tend to make judgments based on what they want to believe, not what it actually the case. I personally believe the facts in this case are really obvious and that if you don't see them, you don't want to see them.

The way this works is that if something is presented that you don't like, it's "innuendo" and "opinion" and if you like it, it's "fact" and "evidence."

2. and also that Robert Hyatt is not a reasonable person, because he doesn't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka;

Name dropping to make a point is hardly evidence one way or the other. And even if you take Bob as the ultimate judge or authority on this he said he doesn't know and that is not particularly unreasonable (unless he really looked at the facts and still thinks it is in doubt.)

3. and also that all those who don't know that these "clones" are based on Rybka - they don't know it because Vasic did not provide any evidence in this sense -, are not reasonable persons.

Vas is under no compulsion to provide evidence on this just because you think he should. Is this another example of how you reason on things? To do so would be counter-productive for him. Please tell me WHY he needs to do this, and how it would benefit him. Do you think people will buy Rybka if he reveals that another program is based on Rybka? If he sues do you think it will help his case to reveal his arguments to give his opponents time to prepare? Do you think he should actually reveal his code to the world to make some kind of point that he cannot benefit from? And Vas must surely know that even if he reveals sections of identical or similar code it will not stop unreasonable people from explaining it away. Go the web sites and look at the people who still believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing were faked and you will see exactly what Vas would be dealing with - and then tell me why he should deal with this when there would be no benefit whatsoever in doing so - and in fact would be a huge distraction for him.

Here we are in 100% _disagreement. Vas made the claim that Robo* is a clone. It _is_ his reponsibility to back that up with more than "just because I say so". He could have said nothing, in which case no evidence would be needed, or since he did make the claim, he should have (and still should) provide something to support it.

I find it impossible to believe that you _really_ think it is ok to accuse a program of being a clone, and dropping it there, without any evidence. It boggles the mind.

It's presumptuous and arrogant to believe that Vas must answer to us just because we want a show. In my opinion he is showing wisdom and restraint by just moving on - which is what you and I need to do.

It is "presumptuous and arrogant" to believe that someone should behave ethically? There's a twisted concept...

You know what?

This statement of yours reminded me a short tale called: "The Emperor's New Clothes", by Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers-crooks who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes invisible to those who are incompetent or not enough inteligent.

I really hope you are not a programmer-crook, and that what you said was a simple accident, a LAPSUS LINGUAE, because stupidity it was not, for sure.

I think in this case you are being unreasonable again.

[Rolf]

I find it impossible to believe that you _really_ think it is ok to accuse a program of being a clone, and dropping it there, without any evidence. It boggles the mind.

Bob, the prog has no authors at all, so where is the object for your reflections? However if you prove your claim that some clone is from Crafty you make a personally interesting case. You aere open source and have no problem to prove everything. But you cant simply generalise it, because others have a different interest.

[slobo]

"I would like to know something:
1. If only you and Vas had the Rybka 3 code, how did the "cloners" managed to get it ?
2. If Rybka's code is alredy "stealed", why you and Vas don't present evidences that the "cloners" code and the Rybka 3 one is the same?

"

Reply: 1. I don't know, but I suppose they decompiled it themselves, as others have already done with parts of the code. Also, I don't have access myself to the whole R3 code, only to the evaluation function. If I had access to the whole code my work with Don on Komodo would be a huge conflict of interest.

2. For me the situation was immediately clear. When an early Ippolit version came out, someone sent me the king location tables from it. They matched the king location tables I had made for Rybka 3 except for some very tiny deviations, mostly of one centipawn. This could not possibly occur except by taking the Rybka table and modifying it slightly. I could of course post that Rybka table here, but there is no point in doing so as I have no proof that it is actually the table in Rybka 3. Someone could just say I made up the numbers. So basically, to believe that Ippolit is not derived from Rybka you have to believe that I am lying without even a financial motive to do so, or else believe that someone independently came up with 64 values for the king that almost all were within one centipawn of Rybka values, mostly identical.

3. Finally, as I've already been paid for my work on Rybka 3, it is not my business how Vas chooses to deal with it. I am not a lawyer so I don't even pretend to know whether the derivative engines are illegal or just unethical. From a practical standpoint, the evaluation in the derivative engines is too similar to Rybka 3 to be of interest to anyone wanting a second opinion about a chess position.

Thanks for your answer.
Now Ippolit's family team has material to think and give his arguments.

But before they start I'd like to give my own interpretation of your words.

Of course, no one should believe your words without evidences:

1. the king location tables should be found in both programs: Rybka 3 and Ippolit derivates.

2. the presence of these tables is sufficient to call Ippolit derivates clones?

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo