My View On The Anti-Rybka Hate Campaign P.1

[Rolf]

A) Fruit 2.1

B) Rybka 1.0 beta
1) suspicion of cloning Fruit
a) Vas claims that he took many ideas from Fruit
b) various code and data snippets given as evidence
1) most were from unimportant sections of Fruit
c) some evidence that the eval was very similar
1) except material imbalance tables were added.
2) was rewritten using bitboards so at worst it is a derivation
a) accusation changed to plagiarism and GPL violation
3) possible wrong doing by Vas ignored by most
a) Rybka strongest engine in the world
b) lack of forth coming proof
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here it was happening that people like Donninger appeared in public and talked about certain tech that they had used which is somewhat a no no but one could still do it. That already stinks because nobody has ever done this towards any other commercial program. If it were done then it could be reveiled where something had been taken from other code plus ideas etc pp. But that isnt done in other cases. Because we must also know that practically all progs in top position are using >95% of the same historically developped ideas. What sense makes it if vs Rybka former programmer Theron claims a vacuum of moral???? If it isnt elaborated what everybody in the top ranks is doing? What sense does it make if a single prog is declared scapegoat. So, I want to see how leading members of decent standing, so no cloners, are seeing the situation. IMO it must be apparent that in the context of 2005 such a special and public hate campaign must have extraordinary reasons. These reasons must be made public. Because then to understand all the next steps are a natural following that by all means should prove something evil for Rybka. But nobody else is examined. If no further info is available then I would call this penalization a form of privat revenge justice, speak lynch justice.

Everything else what ThEN happened Strelka and Rajlich's claim must all be judged under the aspect of lynching=no justice practice. Strelka e.g. is NOT a genuine prog but something conceived to blame Rybka through the Donninger practice with the alleged motivation Theron had explained. However in fair court trials it came out that all top progs are almost the same. So nothing special against Rybka. But of course because it's a private lynch justice people are fooled to believe as if Rajlich were a really special singular perpretator.

In that picture we could now impute Bob Hyatt with his commentaries that he had seen enough etc pp. But although a scientist he is NOT concerned about the bigger picture what is common practice among commercial programmers. Ok, if he didnt care, then why he's focussing on Rybka?

Again unless these aspects are not fully reveiled it doesnt make sense to debate what the later details could mean. IMO until further explanations come forward everything is made up to justify the private lynch scenario. -Rolf Nov28th2009

Could all interested make comments on the scenario prior to Strelka eic. pp.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




C) Strelka
1) suspicion of cloning Rybka 1.0 beta
a) almost exact play and strength
b) Vas said it was a clone
1) tried to claim source as own
2) Jury says not a clone of Rybka
a) used same approach as Vas
1) used Fruit as base
2) translated to bitboards
3) added material imbalance tables from Rybka 1.0 beta
- Vas said to use Rybka 1.0 beta anyway we wanted
3) Done to show us exactly how Vas wrote Rybka 1.0 beta
a) a derivation from Fruit
4) Dann Corbit concludes that Strelka is not a clone of Rybka
a) he misses the Fruit connection
5) Michael Hoffman concludes that Strelka is not a clone of Rybka
a) he misses the Fruit connection

D) Newer version of Rybka rewritten to separate functions for white/black
1) some claim that a simple hex editor shows this
2) Jury Osipov claims this for Rybka 3

E) Ippolit comes out and is said to be a clone of Rybka
1) evidence for cloning
a) Vas said so
1) claims it as his code that was stolen
b) Osipov said so
1) Ippolit has separate functions for white/black like Rybka
2) conflicting evidence for cloning
a) Vas says that it is stolen Rybka 3
b) Jury Osipov says that it is Rybka 4
1) promotion plot for Rybka 4 by Vas
3) hard evidence for cloning
a) None presented
1) Graham Banks says that there is some
- by trusted programmers, but he can not divulge their names
3) evidence for derivation
a) Apparently started from Kaissa
1) Ippolit site implies this, as Kaissa is first listed
2) Authors familiar with Kaissa claim it has same bugs
b) It is arguably stronger than Rybka
c) not as complete as Rybka
d) is better at end games than Rybka
e) is slightly worse in the middle game than Rybka

[Albert Silver]

2) Jury says not a clone of Rybka

This is dead wrong.

Albert

[Rolf]

Hi Albert,
I forgot to mention that the screenplay script was originally written by Michael Sherwin under the I am ill header.

What I was trying now is seperating the different periods of the whole affair.

I Start with Suspicions and strange Methods with a complete
ignoring of the whole computerchess situation as far as commercial engines are concerned. For me this isnt science when some here pretended that they had for sure to anaylse, examine and rip apart this strange Rybka entry. Since NEVER before commercial progs were investigated this way (otherwise one would have found what TIGER from Theron all had taken from others, I have first hand information about it, and not from anonymous sources!) the whole activities smelled somewhat fishy-like or hypocrisy comes to mind.

II Strelka marked a new period with now a changed procedere. From now on only anonymous "programmers" are participating while on CCC (my only source of information) assists with commentaries also from many members in good standing. But my theory was never mentioned. The community didnt realise that this wasnt a case that simply HAD to been investigated because it led to a court case but the further proceeding was part of the damnation of Rybka with preconceived opinions, not based on a legally acceptable process. For me with my theory it's simply uninteresting what someone who is called Jury, another anonymous guy, is commenting about something. Because the whole anonymity already is the unallowed part if you still think you are living in a decent research of something that shouldnt have happened. Because who knows what is happening in sport computerchess tournaments?

III the actual period with new creations with whatever code parts from wherever want to insinuate that now an even stronger entity had been created. Although it was never tested like any other acceptable program. Allegedly this entity is a clone. It uses stolen material from Rybka. Whatever it is, we see the same trick that made Strelka so obviously a fishy prog, the anonymity of authership. Nowhere I got informations here on CCC that suddenly anonymity is the accepted trick for decent programmers who want to compete in computerchess.

Also I asked Bob Hyatt what anonymity meant for US Courts. In case someone is defamated. Could someone anonymous claim being character assassinated if he's anonymously doing his unallowed cloning? Bob answered that if someone would want to step forward in a court then he must reveil his identity. If not he stays in the background like before.
BUt my question was more, if already formerly someone anonymous doing something allegedly wrong must be granted all the human rights. Here I got no answer yet. IMO terrorists have no rights whatsoever to be respected because their own evil intentions must be stopped with everything available.

Note that in chess in general RYBKA is the absolute number one reference for chess analyses and training. I for one use it in the famous Fritz environment. I would never use anonymous UCI products even if they were somewhat "stronger" in certain phases of the game. Simply because how could I trust anonymous stealers? I mean I need chess analyses. I dont want to participate in computerchess wars. And this is the motto of most chessplayers.

The legal aspect above, that we hold here in our little group a sort of private prejudiced trial (I call it lynch justice) totally negligating the many other commercial entries and their illegal parts, and now we are also ignoring the whole scene of traditional chess. We try to internally defamate our own best player and want to make the World believe that from now on we all believe into anonymity of sort of gamblers out of dubious directions. I mean if members here would realise that, would they really support what is going here with this hate campaign against this fine and decent sportman Vas???

-Rolf Nov28th2009

[Alexander Schmidt]

Pro Ippolit statements are not an anti-rybka-campain.

I said, I think VR's statement was wrong. Ippolit is not just a decompiled Rybka 3. I think this is clear.

Maybe VR thought he is right at that time and maybe Ippolit contains some Rybka code. But so far there are not many hints for that.

BTW, is there a newer statement by VR? What did he say lately about the "Clone"?

[gerold]

Pro Ippolit statements are not an anti-rybka-campain.

I said, I think VR's statement was wrong. Ippolit is not just a decompiled Rybka 3. I think this is clear.

Maybe VR thought he is right at that time and maybe Ippolit contains some Rybka code. But so far there are not many hints for that.

BTW, is there a newer statement by VR? What did he say lately about the "Clone"?

It is clear to me that robb e4 is the strongest engine today at any
time control.
Will people that know about it use it. IMO yes. When another engine
is stronger it will be used.

Best.
Gerold.

[M ANSARI]

Pro Ippolit statements are not an anti-rybka-campain.

I said, I think VR's statement was wrong. Ippolit is not just a decompiled Rybka 3. I think this is clear.

Maybe VR thought he is right at that time and maybe Ippolit contains some Rybka code. But so far there are not many hints for that.

BTW, is there a newer statement by VR? What did he say lately about the "Clone"?

Can I ask you a question. Since you seem to be hinting that you also believe that Ippolit has Rybka code. Do you think that Ippolit without the Rybka code would be of similar strength to what it is with the Rybka code? If not, then what would be your estimate in ELO of Ippolit because it has Rybka code ... and try to be as honest as you can.

I ask this because you are playing with words similar to how Bill Clinton was categorizing "sexual intercourse". In his opinion since he received a blow job then that does not mean it was sex. Here it is the same ... ofcourse everyone knows it is not a simple decompile of Rybka, otherwise it would not have many of the problems it has. What everyone who is claiming that it is a clone is trying to say is that it has crucial Rybka code which makes it a clone. There is a big difference between a clone and an identical copy.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Pro Ippolit statements are not an anti-rybka-campain.

I said, I think VR's statement was wrong. Ippolit is not just a decompiled Rybka 3. I think this is clear.

Maybe VR thought he is right at that time and maybe Ippolit contains some Rybka code. But so far there are not many hints for that.

BTW, is there a newer statement by VR? What did he say lately about the "Clone"?

Can I ask you a question. Since you seem to be hinting that you also believe that Ippolit has Rybka code. Do you think that Ippolit without the Rybka code would be of similar strength to what it is with the Rybka code? If not, then what would be your estimate in ELO of Ippolit because it has Rybka code ... and try to be as honest as you can.

I ask this because you are playing with words similar to how Bill Clinton was categorizing "sexual intercourse". In his opinion since he received a blow job then that does not mean it was sex. Here it is the same ... ofcourse everyone knows it is not a simple decompile of Rybka, otherwise it would not have many of the problems it has. What everyone who is claiming that it is a clone is trying to say is that it has crucial Rybka code which makes it a clone. There is a big difference between a clone and an identical copy.

Exactly but unfortunately a lot of people,programmers included,don't want to understand this little fact....
Dr.D

[Alexander Schmidt]

Since you seem to be hinting that you also believe that Ippolit has Rybka code.

You missunderstood me

I really don't know it. I am sure it is based on something different than Rybka. Also I am sure it contains something of Rybka. All of the following possibilities have the same likelyness to me:

1. Decompiled Rybka code was copied to Ippolit (Illegal)
2. Rybka was decompiled and it contains ideas taken out of that decompiled code. While decompiling is illegal, takeing ideas is not. (Unclear legal situation for me, but I guess legal action would fail)
3. Ideas of Rybka where taken by studying it's behaviour, studying Strelka's source, StockFish sources (which also uses some "Rybka ideas") (legal)

[Terry McCracken]

Since you seem to be hinting that you also believe that Ippolit has Rybka code.

You missunderstood me

I really don't know it. I am sure it is based on something different than Rybka. Also I am sure it contains something of Rybka. All of the following possibilities have the same likelyness to me:

1. Decompiled Rybka code was copied to Ippolit (Illegal)
2. Rybka was decompiled and it contains ideas taken out of that decompiled code. While decompiling is illegal, takeing ideas is not. (Unclear legal situation for me, but I guess legal action would fail)
3. Ideas of Rybka where taken by studying it's behaviour, studying Strelka's source, StockFish sources (which also uses some "Rybka ideas") (legal)

Try this with Microsoft and see what happens...You'll be in court losing your shirt.

Robbolito is, simple put, an illegal engine.

[Terry McCracken]

2) Jury says not a clone of Rybka

This is dead wrong.

Albert

Rolf is always dead wrong and will be to the day he dies.