Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[frcha]

That is NOT what happened. It is next to impossible that

Somebody simply guessed a password

- nearly an impossible scenario that Robert would have left stolen code on insecure server .

Most likely that:

1. Houdini leaked sources are not original sources but a leaked Rev. Eng. job done similar to the vein of the Robolitto/Robodouni clone. - 85%chance.

2. 14.5 % chance that there was targeted attack on Robert's servers. The chances of this are less though compared to #1.

3. guessable pswd chance is 0.5 % - really no one with a clear mind will believe the official cucumber story.

Why doubt a man who has not yet ever revealed himself to lie?

What kind of man is this? Never lied ... yet breaks into other servers by own admission.

[ChickenLogic]

That is NOT what happened. It is next to impossible that

Somebody simply guessed a password

- nearly an impossible scenario that Robert would have left stolen code on insecure server .

Most likely that:

1. Houdini leaked sources are not original sources but a leaked Rev. Eng. job done similar to the vein of the Robolitto/Robodouni clone. - 85%chance.

2. 14.5 % chance that there was targeted attack on Robert's servers. The chances of this are less though compared to #1.

3. guessable pswd chance is 0.5 % - really no one with a clear mind will believe the official cucumber story.

Why doubt a man who has not yet ever revealed himself to lie?

What kind of man is this? Never lied ... yet breaks into other servers by own admission.

Certainly a better man than Houdart - who steals, lies and makes his best effort to hide it instead of actually trying to write a good engine himself (which he is more than capable of). Just because you 'break' into a server (regardless of how it happened) certainly doesn't make you a liar.

[dkappe]

Would be nice if you stopped putting things in my mouth I never said. All I said was that I think it's likely that the leaked source code will be permitted as evidence. I never said cucumber didn't commit a crime. Also, Houdart would have to file a case against cucumber because accessing somebodies server isn't a crime that gets pursued without somebody filing a case (unlike murder which will be investigated regardless of somebody filing a case). It's called 'Antragsdelikt' - look it up. I'm rather sure it's the same in Belgium (where Houdart lives to my knowledge).

You wouldn’t happen to know what the rules of evidence are in Germany? If it’s anything like the US, you can’t just introduce any old thing but have to show that it is what it purports to be. If the evidence was stolen, that could involve deposing under oath someone who has committed a crime. Tricky.

Based on what I’ve seen in the blog post and the statements of various stockfish contributors like noob, the facts of their case don’t seem that strong. It leads one to wonder whether winning the case is their primary concern.

[AndrewGrant]

That is NOT what happened. It is next to impossible that

Somebody simply guessed a password

- nearly an impossible scenario that Robert would have left stolen code on insecure server .

Most likely that:

1. Houdini leaked sources are not original sources but a leaked Rev. Eng. job done similar to the vein of the Robolitto/Robodouni clone. - 85%chance.

2. 14.5 % chance that there was targeted attack on Robert's servers. The chances of this are less though compared to #1.

3. guessable pswd chance is 0.5 % - really no one with a clear mind will believe the official cucumber story.

Why doubt a man who has not yet ever revealed himself to lie?

What kind of man is this? Never lied ... yet breaks into other servers by own admission.

Well people said he was lying when he said Houdini was a clone. And then he proved them wrong.
Then people said he was lying when he said Fire was a clone. And then he proved them wrong.
I have no reason to doubt anything Cucumber has said thus far, and trust him.

[frcha]

That is NOT what happened. It is next to impossible that

Somebody simply guessed a password

- nearly an impossible scenario that Robert would have left stolen code on insecure server .

Most likely that:

1. Houdini leaked sources are not original sources but a leaked Rev. Eng. job done similar to the vein of the Robolitto/Robodouni clone. - 85%chance.

2. 14.5 % chance that there was targeted attack on Robert's servers. The chances of this are less though compared to #1.

3. guessable pswd chance is 0.5 % - really no one with a clear mind will believe the official cucumber story.

Why doubt a man who has not yet ever revealed himself to lie?

What kind of man is this? Never lied ... yet breaks into other servers by own admission.

Well people said he was lying when he said Houdini was a clone. And then he proved them wrong.
Then people said he was lying when he said Fire was a clone. And then he proved them wrong.
I have no reason to doubt anything Cucumber has said thus far, and trust him.

Well people said he was lying when he said Houdini was a clone. And then he proved them wrong.
BY:
Rev. Eng Houdini to demonstrate

My earlier statements have no bias on whether Houdini is or not a clone only on the EXACT means by which this was demonstrated - generally its about a 0.5 % or less chance that someone leaves important things (in this case top secret) lying around in an unsecured server.

[towforce]

Based on what I’ve seen in the blog post and the statements of various stockfish contributors like noob, the facts of their case don’t seem that strong. It leads one to wonder whether winning the case is their primary concern.

Shortly after FF2 was launched, there was a long thread in this forum discussing the legal issues. For me, it can be filtered down to two issues:

1. Can an NN be copyrighted?

2. Are Chessbase in violation of SF's GPL license?

The participants in the thread were split roughly 50/50 on both issues. FWIW, my conclusion was: (1) an NN can be copyrighted (based on a discussion I linked by legal experts on whether computer generated art can be copyrighted: they concluded that it can - but there are no test cases yet), and (2) Chessbase are in violation of the license: for me: the more closely you look at the license, the clearer it becomes that they're in violation of it. However, I can see how they could make a case that they're not in violation of it, and, if we're honest, anyone who thinks that the outcome of this case is obvious (if it goes all the way to judgement) is probably only seeing one side of the argument.

btw - assuming that computer generated art can be copyrighted (and the case that it can seemed compelling to me), the economist in me sees the impact of this being the lowering of the value of copyrights to almost zero because once anyone can create great art in one second at the click of a mouse, there would then be a massive increase in the supply.

[Milos]

btw - assuming that computer generated art can be copyrighted (and the case that it can seemed compelling to me), the economist in me sees the impact of this being the lowering of the value of copyrights to almost zero because once anyone can create great art in one second at the click of a mouse, there would then be a massive increase in the supply.

Computers can not create art (whatever they create can in no way be called art). If you really think they can you understand art even less than computers.

[Graham Banks]

And no personal offense. You know that I like you and all your work you do for the chess programming community. Just wanted to share my different oppinion here.

Regards, Andreas

No offense taken.
People can hold differing points of view and still be friends.

[towforce]

Computers can not create art (whatever they create can in no way be called art). If you really think they can you understand art even less than computers.

https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-ne ... -york-sale

https://www.google.com/search?q=compute ... t&tbm=isch

[ChickenLogic]

btw - assuming that computer generated art can be copyrighted (and the case that it can seemed compelling to me), the economist in me sees the impact of this being the lowering of the value of copyrights to almost zero because once anyone can create great art in one second at the click of a mouse, there would then be a massive increase in the supply.

Computers can not create art (whatever they create can in no way be called art). If you really think they can you understand art even less than computers.

This is more of a philosophical question than a computer science one. Namely it's the question of 'Theory of Mind' and if sentience is actually a thing and what/who experiences 'sentience'. That only applies if your definition of art requires 'sentience'. Imho, art doesn't require sentience per se. It requires creativity which is 'coming up with new solutions/ideas' which NNs have demonstrated to be capable of and it requires that it can be appreciated and is able to cause emotions. You just need to read the response to the claim that computers can create art to see that they indeed cause strong emotions with their work