CCRL - Supports clones and illegal engines ?

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Hello!

I must admit, i'm rather suprised.
Strelka is still listed in the CCRL. I requested via e-mail Graham Banks about which reasons are given for Strelka that it's still in the list of CCRL. I don't quote his E-mail, but he answered corresponding:

Everyone should do an opinion if Strelka is a clone, illegal or legal. Furthermore Strelka is listed in the CCRL so long no newer cognitions will be shown and after examination these details it must be proofed that Strekla is illegal or a clone.

I'm asking which new proofs the CCRL will be expect ? The author has admitted the story already, he has described everything what he does so far. In the interview about Strelka 1.0 beta he doesn't show the true circumstances.
I think in reality there will be no newer proofs about Strelka and I'm convinced that the CCRL people know this exactly. Under this nice “cover” thus engines like Strelka will be allowed in the CCRL.

This is the concession for the future to permitt such engines and programmers to be encouraged to use the Fruit source for building own engines or just modifyed once.

Even if you don't hold the opinion Strelka is illegal, because that would be permitted to use the stolen code from Rybka with her own license, what I don't believe, see my genuine [http://www.euro-copyrights.org/], it's still from moral view very very precariously.

The same apply for the GPL violation. Who don't agree with this, at least you must admit to use a out-of-the-box ready engine isn't a morally durable advantage in relation to the competition for other programmers.

If i'm thinking about the future of computerchess i wouldn't wonder if more and more new engines started by 2600 ELO or higher

I know about one case where a programmer retired already, because of the Strelka story. I believe many more programmer thinking or want to do the same or simliar steps.

I will ask the CCRL to be done a choice: Strelka or Homer, but not both engines in one list!

I hope this contribution will be readed by many other programmers and i want that they doing, in this case requesting and pushing, the same statement like me to the CCRL with the demand confront: Her engines or Strelka, but not both. Maybe this “pressure” will be help....


Best,
Daniel

[Graham Banks]

I don't quote his E-mail

You have my permission to quote my emails so that my correct wording can be read.
I am at work presently and cannot access them.

Regards, Graham.

PS - we don't support illegal engines. If Strelka is proven to be illegal, we will remove it from our lists immediately. The trouble is that not even the experts can agree on the issue.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Hello!

I must admit, i'm rather suprised.
Strelka is still listed in the CCRL. I requested via e-mail Graham Banks about which reasons are given for Strelka that it's still in the list of CCRL. I don't quote his E-mail, but he answered corresponding:

Everyone should do an opinion if Strelka is a clone, illegal or legal. Furthermore Strelka is listed in the CCRL so long no newer cognitions will be shown and after examination these details it must be proofed that Strekla is illegal or a clone.

I'm asking which new proofs the CCRL will be expect ? The author has admitted the story already, he has described everything what he does so far. In the interview about Strelka 1.0 beta he doesn't show the true circumstances.
I think in reality there will be no newer proofs about Strelka and I'm convinced that the CCRL people know this exactly. Under this nice “cover” thus engines like Strelka will be allowed in the CCRL.

This is the concession for the future to permitt such engines and programmers to be encouraged to use the Fruit source for building own engines or just modifyed once.

Even if you don't hold the opinion Strelka is illegal, because that would be permitted to use the stolen code from Rybka with her own license, what I don't believe, see my genuine [http://www.euro-copyrights.org/], it's still from moral view very very precariously.

The same apply for the GPL violation. Who don't agree with this, at least you must admit to use a out-of-the-box ready engine isn't a morally durable advantage in relation to the competition for other programmers.

If i'm thinking about the future of computerchess i wouldn't wonder if more and more new engines started by 2600 ELO or higher

I know about one case where a programmer retired already, because of the Strelka story. I believe many more programmer thinking or want to do the same or simliar steps.

I will ask the CCRL to be done a choice: Strelka or Homer, but not both engines in one list!

I hope this contribution will be readed by many other programmers and i want that they doing, in this case requesting and pushing, the same statement like me to the CCRL with the demand confront: Her engines or Strelka, but not both. Maybe this “pressure” will be help....


Best,
Daniel

Graham allows to quote our e-mails:

After my PM to Graham, which looks deleted , Graham answer via e-mail:

Code: Select all

Hi Daniel,

Strelka is still on our lists at this stage, but our decision is open to review depending on further developments.

Regards, Graham.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mehrmann" <xxxxxx>
To: "Graham Banks" <xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: Strelka


> Hi,
>
> so its still in List?
>
> Best,
> daniel
>
>
> Graham Banks schrieb:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> we discussed it and decided that until it was proven to be illegal, we would keep it on our lists.
>> We've added a note on our website that says:
>> "We offer no opinion on Strelka-Rybka-Fruit controversy, each individual
>> must take their own view."
>>
>> Regards, Graham.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 17/07/2007 6:30 p.m.
>
>

[Uri Blass]

1)It is not clear if Strelka is a clone and it is dependent on the definition of clone.
People disagree about it.
2)It is not clear if Strelka is illegal and I am not sure what is legal.
Note that in the readme of rybka1 beta it is written that the engine can be used with no restriction and people can understand that reverse engineering in order to get code that does the same thing or almost the same thing is allowed.

3)It is not clear that the author of strelka admitted something because I do not know if the person who claimed to be the author is really the author.

The only clear thing is that strelka was generated in order to behave in a similiar way to rybka1 beta and it was done on purpose.

Note that I think that there is no justification to remove clones from the list
unless they are exact copy of the original engine so there is no justification to remove strelka from the list even if ccrl stops testing it.

The games are still useful to reduce the error in the rating of other engines.

Uri

[Graham Banks]

After my PM to Graham, which looks deleted , Graham answer via e-mail:

Your initial inquiry was through email, not pm.
Here is our full exchange of emails from first to last:

Hi Graham !

Do i understand you correctly that Strelka is still in the list and no plans so far to remove it ?

Thanks
Daniel

Hi Daniel,

we discussed it and decided that until it was proven to be illegal, we would
keep it on our lists.
We've added a note on our website that says:
"We offer no opinion on Strelka-Rybka-Fruit controversy, each individual
must take their own view."

Regards, Graham.

Hi,

so its still in List?

Best,
daniel

Hi Daniel,

Strelka is still on our lists at this stage, but our decision is open to
review depending on further developments.

Regards, Graham.

ok thanks !

I can read between the lines. Public statements will come....
Best,
Daniel

[Kirill Kryukov]

Hello!

I must admit, i'm rather suprised.
Strelka is still listed in the CCRL. I requested via e-mail Graham Banks about which reasons are given for Strelka that it's still in the list of CCRL. I don't quote his E-mail, but he answered corresponding:

Everyone should do an opinion if Strelka is a clone, illegal or legal. Furthermore Strelka is listed in the CCRL so long no newer cognitions will be shown and after examination these details it must be proofed that Strekla is illegal or a clone.

I'm asking which new proofs the CCRL will be expect ? The author has admitted the story already, he has described everything what he does so far. In the interview about Strelka 1.0 beta he doesn't show the true circumstances.
I think in reality there will be no newer proofs about Strelka and I'm convinced that the CCRL people know this exactly. Under this nice “cover” thus engines like Strelka will be allowed in the CCRL.

This is the concession for the future to permitt such engines and programmers to be encouraged to use the Fruit source for building own engines or just modifyed once.

Even if you don't hold the opinion Strelka is illegal, because that would be permitted to use the stolen code from Rybka with her own license, what I don't believe, see my genuine [http://www.euro-copyrights.org/], it's still from moral view very very precariously.

The same apply for the GPL violation. Who don't agree with this, at least you must admit to use a out-of-the-box ready engine isn't a morally durable advantage in relation to the competition for other programmers.

If i'm thinking about the future of computerchess i wouldn't wonder if more and more new engines started by 2600 ELO or higher

I know about one case where a programmer retired already, because of the Strelka story. I believe many more programmer thinking or want to do the same or simliar steps.

I will ask the CCRL to be done a choice: Strelka or Homer, but not both engines in one list!

I hope this contribution will be readed by many other programmers and i want that they doing, in this case requesting and pushing, the same statement like me to the CCRL with the demand confront: Her engines or Strelka, but not both. Maybe this “pressure” will be help....


Best,
Daniel

Hello Daniel. I am very disappointed by your attitude, by seeing that you think it is acceptable to make such demands. I personally did not test Homer yet, and reading this thread I think there is very little chance I'll ever test it.

Homer is a free chess engine, and as such it is a part of complex computer chess picture. People interested in computer chess have right to know where Homer stands in that picture. Our goal is to provide such information to anyone interested in computer chess. If you don't want us (or anyone) to test future version of Homer, I suggest you to make it private, thus removing it from the picture of free chess engines.

Regarding Strelka, I personally agree that it plays very similar to Rybka 1.0. However I have no idea whether Strelka is legal or not. The GPL violation was not confirmed by the experts who saw Strelka code. I am also not sure on what you are basing your claims that Strelka contains stolen code from Rybka.

We are trying to provide objective comparison of chess engines. If you don't want to compete with Strelka (or any other engines stronger than yours), you can run your own tournaments and publish the results. You are free to do that. But you better stop harrasing the testers who invest so much of their time and efforts into doing this free service to the community.

[Graham Banks]

Hello Daniel. I am very disappointed by your attitude, by seeing that you think it is acceptable to make such demands.

I can see why Daniel feels annoyed, but when the experts can't agree over whether Strelka is a clone, or whether it's illegal, why should we be expected to make such an assumption?
Under such circumstances, it's also unfair to be accused of a lack of ethics or morals.
If Strelka was proven to be illegal in a court of law, there would be no questions. We'd dump it immediately.

Regards, Graham.

[M ANSARI]

The threshold of what is legal or illegal will never be agreed upon. Strelka is definetely not kosher but I guess many people were happy that an engine was able to perform well out of the blue. This is really not fair to engine developers that spent a lot of time and effort creating original engines. Why spend all the effort on making an original work when you can simply copy or clone an already strong engine. The UCI strings of Strelka are identical to Rybka 1.0 according to Vas, if this was done on purpose (for whatever idiotic reason) to try to mimick Rybka then I think the author should be treated as a cloner. If he wants to get away with cheating then he should do a good job at that and try to mask his effort a little better. As it is now ... accepting Strelka as an original work is a farse.

[Graham Banks]

Strelka is definetely not kosher but I guess many people were happy that an engine was able to perform well out of the blue.

The strength of the engine has nothing to do with our stance.

If Vas was to contact us to tell us categorically and undeniably that we should not be testing Strelka, we'd of course listen.
Until then, because the experts can't agree over whether it's a clone or illegal, how are non-experts supposed to know?
And where would one draw the line in future cases?

In the meantime, we've left the decision on whether or not to test Strelka up to the individual.

Regards, Graham.

[Martin Thoresen]

Daniel,

Don't you have more important things to do than to spend time and energy to discuss decisions made internally by CCRL?

I can tell you that the "Strelka" thread in our discussion board isn't small, by no means.

As for this thread, you could have kept it as a private message/email with Graham, no need to publish this.

Further, if you are unhappy with CCRL's current stance on the Strelka matter, you could go public stating that you will make Homer private and such preventing us from testing it if that is what you really want.

As it stands now, Homer is a free engine and we in CCRL enjoy testing it.


Think about this scenario:

Is it possible that Yuri Osipov invented the wheel independently from Vasik Rajlich?

I am sure you get my analogy.

Regards,
Martin