Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[Raphexon]

"Stealing is only illegal the moment the judge strikes down their hammer"

Great argument!

[smatovic]

"Stealing is only illegal the moment the judge strikes down their hammer"

Great argument!

Hmm, you tell me to read GPLv3, and you mix up stealing with a license breach? Great argumentation.

--
Srdja

[Raphexon]

"Stealing is only illegal the moment the judge strikes down their hammer"

Great argument!

Hmm, you tell me to read GPLv3, and you mix up stealing with a license breach? Great argumentation.

--
Srdja

And what about the customers he stole money from?
We have the right to demand the source code, yet all I got was voicemail.

Or I guess you'll just say again: "wait for the court to proof it"
Talkchess, the place were "good" Christians like Graham rather support somebody who's 99.99999999% a scammer in fear of that miniscule chance of being wrong.

Have fun in purgatory.

[Luecx]

It feels like many people here dont understand the difference between whats legal and what is allowed. The legal part is decided by official courts where as what is allowed is decided by the chess community. Especially the unique engine authors, tcec etc.

According to common chess community standards, it is not allowed to:

- steal code
- not correctly credit other people if parts of it are used
- using other peoples data when training NN's
- ...

I do not care if FF is actually legal or not, all i know is what they did is not allowed by common chess community standards and they need to face the consquences for that.

[dkappe]

It feels like many people here dont understand the difference between whats legal and what is allowed. The legal part is decided by official courts where as what is allowed is decided by the chess community. Especially the unique engine authors, tcec etc.

According to common chess community standards, it is not allowed to:

- steal code
- not correctly credit other people if parts of it are used
- using other peoples data when training NN's
- ...

I do not care if FF is actually legal or not, all i know is what they did is not allowed by common chess community standards and they need to face the consquences for that.

- FF2 runs on a slightly modified version of SF. This can be distributed in binary form according to the GPLv3 as long as you provide the source. See github,
- Stockfish is credited prominently in the marketing copy of FF2. (I suspect they did that because Stockfish is a selling point, but that’s just a guess.) It’s on the box.
- FF2 was trained on data generated using FF1. Not hard to believe. I generated a ton of data using Bad Gyal, Toga, Ice, etc., though not nearly as much as Albert.

So there you go. Common chess community standards(tm) adhered to. You are now free to enjoy FF2 without guilt. You’re welcome.

[Modern Times]

ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.

And besides, Chessbase is not the only company selling Houdini 6.

Goal posts moved immediately Time for OpenBench to make a rating list.

Moved by who ?

Chessbase is the right entity to sue on Fat Fritz 2 - it is their brand, they are the only one selling it, so success there will result in it being removed from sale, and possible damages.

As regards Houdini, sold direct by Robert and sold by multiple re-sellers, the right person to sue was probably Robert Houdart directly.

[Rebel]

ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.

And besides, Chessbase is not the only company selling Houdini 6.

Goal posts moved immediately Time for OpenBench to make a rating list.

Call it the ADL --> Anti-Derivative-List

[Uri Blass]

Since it's impossible to reach Stockfish 14 (+100 ELO over commercials Dragon 2.0 and Fat Fritz 2.0, +200 ELO over Ethereal 13 NNUE) the only way to survive for Chessbase is to include Powerbooks 2022 & up to 7-man online tablebases on Fritz 18 if they want to sell their 20 years old GUI for 99€, not only the SF modified source code! How is possible that they cannot hire a top level developers team to create their own engine instead of simply rename "Fritz" the work of others???

My Superblitz between all the best engines:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-a ... e-fritz-17

Regards, AlexChess

You assume customers care only about elo.
It is possible to sell a new engine because it has some other relative advantages.

For example faster in finding mates relative to stockfish and relative to all other engines based on analysis of many winning positions
or can tell users if there is a forced draw for one side that is something I would like to have in an engine (0.00 evaluation is not equivalent to a forced draw).

Another option is being best in getting points against weak engines with some big handicap that is again something that is possible to test and maybe it is possible to have some engine that is 200 elo better than other engines when it start without queen d1(of course no possible points against strong engines but possible points maybe against tscp or weaker engines).

[Rebel]

Alright, there was a prev thread about Vas and the ICGA, one point was, there was no team red, may I ask, does your team blue has an team red for your 'investigation'.

The past (even going back to the 80's) has shown that clones / derivatives are easily detected and that programmers are in consensus, like now with Houdini and Fire. And unlike your statement about the Rybka/Fruit case there was a massive red-team, see the list with quotes of 16 programmers, no consensus.

http://rebel13.nl/home/icga.html

[towforce]

Why is computer chess so full of nasty, spiteful people?

If I may be permitted a generalisation, there seem to be a lot of spergs in this field.