geots wrote:
Chris, you're a great guy and i consider you a friend. But Hoffman, Dann, Uri, Alessandro and Tord have all said Strelka is not a clone. Hoffman and Dann, at least, were including Rybka in this also. So forgive me, but what ever your find is completely irrelevant to me. I shall go with what they say and keep testing it. I think all that can be said has been said- and im satisfied with what those 5 (i would call experts) say. Have a nice day and best regards.
George, only because you wrote it twice meanwhile, I want to tell you that
Alessandro does _not_ have Strelkas' source and he never gave that
impression in that thread.
Guenther
I stand by what i said, by your count for the 3rd time. I will continue to test Strelka. You have proven that people have tunnel vision and are zeroed in on Strelka to the point it is ridiculous. I mention that a commercial version will score worse in most tests than Strelka, and you completely choose to ignore that. Not even curious? Come, now?
GenoM wrote:Guenther
first of all -- I am not russian, I am bulgarian
second -- IMO there was a very fine psichological play in Osipov appearences in KasparovChess forum. Its too complicated to explain it, but its my feeling:
Osipov wanted that ComputerChess Community believed that his Strelka was a clone. But in fact -- Strelka is not a clone. He was joking. He made fools all of CCC-members that selfestimate theirselves as computer-chess experts and who believed Strelka is a clone. That was his game He just laughed at you.
Just my opinion of course
Best regards,
Geno
I guess that there is a simpler explanation. I guess that Yuri cannot speak English at all. I guess he does not know what 'clone' means.
I don't see another logical explanation.
Anyway, Fabian has the sources for Strelka now (with permission) and he is going to examine them. I think it will put to bed any remaining doubt about Strelka being a 'fruit clone' [one way or the other!]
So log as you realise that in no way proves anything with regard to Rybka that would be good.
As to whether it has Rybka in it well......
1. It's already been shown to have this in its disassembly.
2. Osipov admitted it anyway whether you like it or not.
I deal only in fact and logic with regard to this. In fact there is nothing I would like more than for strong original engines to appear even daily. It's rare but sometimes they do.
Anyway as I said before....it's being checked against Rybka here and Rybka only. I don't give a toss about Fruit. Fruit is not what will determine whether this thing is a clone.
It's one thing and one thing only......Rybka.
If checking both 1.0 and 1.8. One may be a clone and the other may be changed so much or even completely rewitten that it is not a clone.
Christopher
I think that we do not need the code to know that
the similiarity in analysis between rybka beta and strelka1.8 in many positions is not something that happened by luck.
I think that it is clear that rybka beta was used to write strelka when the target of strelka was not to write a stronger engine(otherwise there is no reason to copy rybka's bugs that other programs do not share to strelka).
Note that writing strelka may be harder than writing an original engine but I do not consider strelka to be original.
I do not claim that strelka is illegal and I am not a lawyer so I do not know.
geots wrote:
Chris, you're a great guy and i consider you a friend. But Hoffman, Dann, Uri, Alessandro and Tord have all said Strelka is not a clone. Hoffman and Dann, at least, were including Rybka in this also. So forgive me, but what ever your find is completely irrelevant to me. I shall go with what they say and keep testing it. I think all that can be said has been said- and im satisfied with what those 5 (i would call experts) say. Have a nice day and best regards.
George, only because you wrote it twice meanwhile, I want to tell you that
Alessandro does _not_ have Strelkas' source and he never gave that
impression in that thread.
Guenther
I stand by what i said, by your count for the 3rd time. I will continue to test Strelka. You have proven that people have tunnel vision and are zeroed in on Strelka to the point it is ridiculous. I mention that a commercial version will score worse in most tests than Strelka, and you completely choose to ignore that. Not even curious? Come, now?
I guess that you talk about List.
I do not think that you have to stpp to test Strelka or List.
I think that Strelka is not an original engine and it is possible that the same may be correct for List but I do not have List so it is only speculation and I feel less sure about an engine that I did not test the analysis of it.
geots wrote:
Chris, you're a great guy and i consider you a friend. But Hoffman, Dann, Uri, Alessandro and Tord have all said Strelka is not a clone. Hoffman and Dann, at least, were including Rybka in this also. So forgive me, but what ever your find is completely irrelevant to me. I shall go with what they say and keep testing it. I think all that can be said has been said- and im satisfied with what those 5 (i would call experts) say. Have a nice day and best regards.
George, only because you wrote it twice meanwhile, I want to tell you that
Alessandro does _not_ have Strelkas' source and he never gave that
impression in that thread.
Guenther
I stand by what i said, by your count for the 3rd time. I will continue to test Strelka. You have proven that people have tunnel vision and are zeroed in on Strelka to the point it is ridiculous. I mention that a commercial version will score worse in most tests than Strelka, and you completely choose to ignore that. Not even curious? Come, now?
It escapes me what my post has to do with your answer?
(moreover what has strength now to do with all of it? That is completely
irrelevant. As for the tunnel vision I guess I will add a post from yourself
3 months ago to show your motivation for it ;)
I simply don't care and that's why I am just neutral on it, no more no less.
George Speight July 10 2007:
----------------------------------
One thing for sure- no matter which side of the fence you are on, its a very interesting issue. IF and thats IF- it were an illegal clone, i stand to lose more than many- as im consuming a great amount of time running a Strelka Gauntlet. So naturally i have to assume it is NOT a clone. I dont have the expertise to do anything but read as much as possible and I assume it is NOT a clone. Again, just an assumption. The best i can do.
But i still dont see how Hoffman or anyone can make any assumption about it and Rybka without having Rybkas source code. No one has yet explained that to me.
geots wrote:
Chris, you're a great guy and i consider you a friend. But Hoffman, Dann, Uri, Alessandro and Tord have all said Strelka is not a clone. Hoffman and Dann, at least, were including Rybka in this also. So forgive me, but what ever your find is completely irrelevant to me. I shall go with what they say and keep testing it. I think all that can be said has been said- and im satisfied with what those 5 (i would call experts) say. Have a nice day and best regards.
George, only because you wrote it twice meanwhile, I want to tell you that
Alessandro does _not_ have Strelkas' source and he never gave that
impression in that thread.
Guenther
I stand by what i said, by your count for the 3rd time. I will continue to test Strelka. You have proven that people have tunnel vision and are zeroed in on Strelka to the point it is ridiculous. I mention that a commercial version will score worse in most tests than Strelka, and you completely choose to ignore that. Not even curious? Come, now?
It escapes me what my post has to do with your answer?
(moreover what has strength now to do with all of it? That is completely
irrelevant. As for the tunnel vision I guess I will add a post from yourself
3 months ago to show your motivation for it
I simply don't care and that's why I am just neutral on it, no more no less.
George Speight July 10 2007:
----------------------------------
One thing for sure- no matter which side of the fence you are on, its a very interesting issue. IF and thats IF- it were an illegal clone, i stand to lose more than many- as im consuming a great amount of time running a Strelka Gauntlet. So naturally i have to assume it is NOT a clone. I dont have the expertise to do anything but read as much as possible and I assume it is NOT a clone. Again, just an assumption. The best i can do.
But i still dont see how Hoffman or anyone can make any assumption about it and Rybka without having Rybkas source code. No one has yet explained that to me.
Guenther
Guenther, dont tell me that is the best you can do. You disappoint me. I certainly said that then, but a lot has been explained to me since then that i was not aware of. And, sigh, Jesus, I am not saying it is or is not a clone. You prove it is illegal- any more so than Toga. While you are proving all this- for the 4th time now by your count- i will continue to test it.
Of course we never had any clones. I stay with Tony Werten now, who
can follow me. BTW I am sure Vas hasn't seen that source yet?
Guenther
Hi Guenther,
I do not remember a programmer of a clone engine did send his code to other programmers, do you?
What if even Chris would say now: I did a look at the tables - this is not a clone?
I remember several
(e.g. Fafis, DanChess,ElChinito... and so on)
Note also that e.g. WBEC requested the source of programs in doubt
for being checked by independent experts.
(Of course some refused for obvious reasons and were excluded)
I don't know if he (Leo) still does it or if he resigned to the clone problem,
because people who are sceptical against progams are in minority and
even hated by the crowd of engine 'fans' who collect and use whatever is
available...
Guenther
I don't think DanChess belongs in that group. DanChess did borrow the SEE from crafty (albeit with changes to accomodate his data structures). However, that was an unintentional violation of what Dr. Hyatt considered acceptable. The other instances were total program snatches and stamping a new name on them (El Chinito did have some interesting ideas injected into it, but it was a clear 'program snatch').
Now, to step back, DanChess stepped over the line. But it was one toe over the line. The other two programs mentioned were 29' broad jumps.
Of course we never had any clones. I stay with Tony Werten now, who
can follow me. BTW I am sure Vas hasn't seen that source yet?
Guenther
Hi Guenther,
I do not remember a programmer of a clone engine did send his code to other programmers, do you?
What if even Chris would say now: I did a look at the tables - this is not a clone?
I remember several ;)
(e.g. Fafis, DanChess,ElChinito... and so on)
Note also that e.g. WBEC requested the source of programs in doubt
for being checked by independent experts.
(Of course some refused for obvious reasons and were excluded)
I don't know if he (Leo) still does it or if he resigned to the clone problem,
because people who are sceptical against progams are in minority and
even hated by the crowd of engine 'fans' who collect and use whatever is
available...
Guenther
I don't think DanChess belongs in that group. DanChess did borrow the SEE from crafty (albeit with changes to accomodate his data structures). However, that was an unintentional violation of what Dr. Hyatt considered acceptable. The other instances were total program snatches and stamping a new name on them (El Chinito did have some interesting ideas injected into it, but it was a clear 'program snatch').
Now, to step back, DanChess stepped over the line. But it was one toe over the line. The other two programs mentioned were 29' broad jumps.
Dann, it seems you missunderstood me here. I did not group nor evaluate!
I just answered the question by Werner and named sources who were sent
for inspection, because he did not know _any_.
(For me DanChess was no clone, but as I said that was not the point
of my answer at all...)
geots wrote:
Chris, you're a great guy and i consider you a friend. But Hoffman, Dann, Uri, Alessandro and Tord have all said Strelka is not a clone. Hoffman and Dann, at least, were including Rybka in this also. So forgive me, but what ever your find is completely irrelevant to me. I shall go with what they say and keep testing it. I think all that can be said has been said- and im satisfied with what those 5 (i would call experts) say. Have a nice day and best regards.
George, only because you wrote it twice meanwhile, I want to tell you that
Alessandro does _not_ have Strelkas' source and he never gave that
impression in that thread.
Guenther
I stand by what i said, by your count for the 3rd time. I will continue to test Strelka. You have proven that people have tunnel vision and are zeroed in on Strelka to the point it is ridiculous. I mention that a commercial version will score worse in most tests than Strelka, and you completely choose to ignore that. Not even curious? Come, now?
It escapes me what my post has to do with your answer?
(moreover what has strength now to do with all of it? That is completely
irrelevant. As for the tunnel vision I guess I will add a post from yourself
3 months ago to show your motivation for it ;)
I simply don't care and that's why I am just neutral on it, no more no less.
George Speight July 10 2007:
----------------------------------
One thing for sure- no matter which side of the fence you are on, its a very interesting issue. IF and thats IF- it were an illegal clone, i stand to lose more than many- as im consuming a great amount of time running a Strelka Gauntlet. So naturally i have to assume it is NOT a clone. I dont have the expertise to do anything but read as much as possible and I assume it is NOT a clone. Again, just an assumption. The best i can do.
But i still dont see how Hoffman or anyone can make any assumption about it and Rybka without having Rybkas source code. No one has yet explained that to me.
Guenther
Guenther, dont tell me that is the best you can do. You disappoint me. I certainly said that then, but a lot has been explained to me since then that i was not aware of. And, sigh, Jesus, I am not saying it is or is not a clone. You prove it is illegal- any more so than Toga. While you are proving all this- for the 4th time now by your count- i will continue to test it.
George, did anyone ever say you cannot test what you want?
Nothing in your post again has something to do with my post. I never
proved anything nor do I see proofs for the opposite.
I would wish people would write less emotional and step back to
a more logical approach, this helps to read what is between the lines not
what is not between them.
