Rolf wrote:If Osipov had created his own engine what Zakharov wants to insinuate (after all the information we have now!) then why should he have contacted Vas at all?
'Cause it's Rybka GUI, smartguy. Very-very hard to guess it for an law-expert as you.
I hate to break it to you, but there is no specific Rybka PPC GUI. At least not in the sense that it is a new GUI. The GUI in question is the PPC GUI already being sold, except that it would be modified to accept Rybka as an engine. Vas was contacted because of the legal status of Strelka.
Albert
For a long time Convekta developed Rybka GUI for mobile platforms (PocketPC and Nokia Smartphones). As Rybka engine was not ready yet and Convekta needed to have some income from this development we agreed with Vasik Rajlich to sell GUI with another engine for a while.
Victor Zakharov
Yes, but the betrayal then was that ANOTHER engine was the decompiled Rybka Beta... That's the point Zakharov is silently or loud speakingly suppressing.
During the several years I worked with Victor at Convekta, I never had any reason to doubt his integrity. I've seen confusions or misunderstandings, such as in this debacle, but never had any reason to believe he was less than honest.
Rolf wrote:If Osipov had created his own engine what Zakharov wants to insinuate (after all the information we have now!) then why should he have contacted Vas at all?
'Cause it's Rybka GUI, smartguy. Very-very hard to guess it for an law-expert as you.
I hate to break it to you, but there is no specific Rybka PPC GUI. At least not in the sense that it is a new GUI. The GUI in question is the PPC GUI already being sold, except that it would be modified to accept Rybka as an engine. Vas was contacted because of the legal status of Strelka.
Albert
For a long time Convekta developed Rybka GUI for mobile platforms (PocketPC and Nokia Smartphones). As Rybka engine was not ready yet and Convekta needed to have some income from this development we agreed with Vasik Rajlich to sell GUI with another engine for a while.
Victor Zakharov
Yes, but the betrayal then was that ANOTHER engine was the decompiled Rybka Beta... That's the point Zakharov is silently or loud speakingly suppressing.
I am sorry but I do not understand the betrayal.
Convekta did not release strelka so I do not see the betrayal.
I also do not see evidence that they planned to do it without agreement of Vas.
I also do not believe that Osipov planned to release a commercial version of strelka.
In case that the plan was to release a commercial version of strelka then the simplest way was not to release first a free version first.
The releasing of free version and the name of it were clear hints that the Osipov wanted people to know that strelka is based on rybka in the first place so it seems clear to me that he did not want to make it commercial(otherwise he could say nothing and simply release strelka later after he makes it less similiar to rybka by changing the code and strelka2.0 is less similiar to rybka relative to strelka1.8)
George Tsavdaris wrote:
1)Rybka 1.0 executable has been publiced.
2)2 years later Strelka was publiced its executable.
3)Uri and C.Conkie and others have reported MILLIONS of positions where the behavior of Strelka is IDENTICAL with that of Rybka.
4)Strelka's code is publiced.
5)Vas says Strelka has many identical parts of Rybka's 1.0 code.
If someone needs more evidence from the above to believe Strelka is genuine, then it is his problem.
Which of the above is an evidence that Strelka and Rybka have common code parts?
None alone.
Only the succession of 1)->2)->3)->4)->5) with most important evidence the 3). Strelka was Rybkiing dangerously.....
Again: One doesn't need to see the back side of the moon, to know that exists.
1+1=2
If you see an engine called Niarcs that has in hundreds of positions IDENTICAL evaluation with Hiarcs and IDENTICAL bugs with Hiarcs but with no other engine and Mark Uniacke sees the code of Niarcs and says Niarcs has many parts of code similar with Hiarcs, then 1+1=2.
It is unimportant what I believe. I don't know who is lying and why. And you don't know either. Either Rajlich has no evidence that their engines have common code parts (in which case he is lying) or his interest is not to publicize this evidence.
So in order not to be accused of lying he should publish his code.
Great....!
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
Rolf wrote:If Osipov had created his own engine what Zakharov wants to insinuate (after all the information we have now!) then why should he have contacted Vas at all?
'Cause it's Rybka GUI, smartguy. Very-very hard to guess it for an law-expert as you.
I hate to break it to you, but there is no specific Rybka PPC GUI. At least not in the sense that it is a new GUI. The GUI in question is the PPC GUI already being sold, except that it would be modified to accept Rybka as an engine. Vas was contacted because of the legal status of Strelka.
Albert
For a long time Convekta developed Rybka GUI for mobile platforms (PocketPC and Nokia Smartphones). As Rybka engine was not ready yet and Convekta needed to have some income from this development we agreed with Vasik Rajlich to sell GUI with another engine for a while.
Victor Zakharov
Yes, but the betrayal then was that ANOTHER engine was the decompiled Rybka Beta... That's the point Zakharov is silently or loud speakingly suppressing.
During the several years I worked with Victor at Convekta, I never had any reason to doubt his integrity. I've seen confusions or misunderstandings, such as in this debacle, but never had any reason to believe he was less than honest.
Albert
Al I have a nice video for you and perhaps you could enjoy it with your kids. Have fun.
George Tsavdaris wrote:
1)Rybka 1.0 executable has been publiced.
2)2 years later Strelka was publiced its executable.
3)Uri and C.Conkie and others have reported MILLIONS of positions where the behavior of Strelka is IDENTICAL with that of Rybka.
4)Strelka's code is publiced.
5)Vas says Strelka has many identical parts of Rybka's 1.0 code.
If someone needs more evidence from the above to believe Strelka is genuine, then it is his problem.
Which of the above is an evidence that Strelka and Rybka have common code parts?
None alone.
Only the succession of 1)->2)->3)->4)->5) with most important evidence the 3). Strelka was Rybkiing dangerously.....
Again: One doesn't need to see the back side of the moon, to know that exists.
1+1=2
If you see an engine called Niarcs that has in hundreds of positions IDENTICAL evaluation with Hiarcs and IDENTICAL bugs with Hiarcs but with no other engine and Mark Uniacke sees the code of Niarcs and says Niarcs has many parts of code similar with Hiarcs, then 1+1=2.
It is unimportant what I believe. I don't know who is lying and why. And you don't know either. Either Rajlich has no evidence that their engines have common code parts (in which case he is lying) or his interest is not to publicize this evidence.
So in order not to be accused of lying he should publish his code.
Great....!
Note that 3 is a clear evidence that strelka is not an original engine and is based on rybka but it is not a proof that strelka has code of rybka because it is possible to get the same result by different ways.
If you translate the code of the program delfi5.2(that is in the delphi language) to english and write a C program that does exactly the same things as delfi5.2 then the program that you write is clearly based on delfi but it does not have delfi5.2's code(except some numbers that are the same) because all the structures are written in a different way.
SzG wrote:Either Rajlich has no evidence that their engines have common code parts (in which case he is lying) or his interest is not to publicize this evidence.
So in order not to be accused of lying he should publish his code.
Great....!
Where did I say so?
(Please apply some simple mathematical logic before replying. Thank you.)
This is what it's leading to. If it goes to court that will settle this problem, but that is expensive!
We have no reason not to believe Vas...and him obfuscating code has no bearing on this, if in fact he did so.
George Tsavdaris wrote:
1)Rybka 1.0 executable has been publiced.
2)2 years later Strelka was publiced its executable.
3)Uri and C.Conkie and others have reported MILLIONS of positions where the behavior of Strelka is IDENTICAL with that of Rybka.
4)Strelka's code is publiced.
5)Vas says Strelka has many identical parts of Rybka's 1.0 code.
If someone needs more evidence from the above to believe Strelka is genuine, then it is his problem.
Which of the above is an evidence that Strelka and Rybka have common code parts?
None alone.
Only the succession of 1)->2)->3)->4)->5) with most important evidence the 3). Strelka was Rybkiing dangerously.....
Again: One doesn't need to see the back side of the moon, to know that exists.
1+1=2
If you see an engine called Niarcs that has in hundreds of positions IDENTICAL evaluation with Hiarcs and IDENTICAL bugs with Hiarcs but with no other engine and Mark Uniacke sees the code of Niarcs and says Niarcs has many parts of code similar with Hiarcs, then 1+1=2.
It is unimportant what I believe. I don't know who is lying and why. And you don't know either. Either Rajlich has no evidence that their engines have common code parts (in which case he is lying) or his interest is not to publicize this evidence.
So in order not to be accused of lying he should publish his code.
Great....!
Note that 3 is a clear evidence that strelka is not an original engine and is based on rybka but it is not a proof that strelka has code of rybka because it is possible to get the same result by different ways.
If you translate the code of the program delfi5.2(that is in the delphi language) to english and write a C program that does exactly the same things as delfi5.2 then the program that you write is clearly based on delfi but it does not have delfi5.2's code(except some numbers that are the same) because all the structures are written in a different way.
Uri
There are some things about the Rybka espionage that may present real legal difficulties.
1. The use of the Rybka tables may be copyright infringment.
If the tables were used verbatim, then the extensive use of the exact original material may extend beyond "fair use" and hence represent copyright infringment. If he had computed the tables from first principles or if he used the same original research then I think that the use would be OK, even if the tables matched exactly. But to simply lift them and use them verbatim is probably not "fair use" because the tables are very large.
2. I posted another link from a document that included some text explanations from a legal standpoint somewhere upthread. It seems to me that the text was a bit contradictory, but {ignoring the contradictory part} according to my understanding, he may have procedural flaws with how he reverse engineered Rybka that would result in violations.
Dann Corbit wrote:
1. The use of the Rybka tables may be copyright infringment.
If the tables were used verbatim, then the extensive use of the exact original material may extend beyond "fair use" and hence represent copyright infringment. If he had computed the tables from first principles or if he used the same original research then I think that the use would be OK, even if the tables matched exactly. But to simply lift them and use them verbatim is probably not "fair use" because the tables are very large.
Still nobody shows what exactly tables are the same. Is there any?
Dann Corbit wrote:
1. The use of the Rybka tables may be copyright infringment.
If the tables were used verbatim, then the extensive use of the exact original material may extend beyond "fair use" and hence represent copyright infringment. If he had computed the tables from first principles or if he used the same original research then I think that the use would be OK, even if the tables matched exactly. But to simply lift them and use them verbatim is probably not "fair use" because the tables are very large.
Still nobody shows what exactly tables are the same. Is there any?
OK, you have me there. I was operating on hearsay evidence.
Dann Corbit wrote:
1. The use of the Rybka tables may be copyright infringment.
If the tables were used verbatim, then the extensive use of the exact original material may extend beyond "fair use" and hence represent copyright infringment. If he had computed the tables from first principles or if he used the same original research then I think that the use would be OK, even if the tables matched exactly. But to simply lift them and use them verbatim is probably not "fair use" because the tables are very large.
Still nobody shows what exactly tables are the same. Is there any?
OK, you have me there. I was operating on hearsay evidence.
It's funny how little it costs to make people believe that they had us. When it's clear for all to see that one shouldnt give away too much to the other side. The basic conflict cant be debated in public because the attack was meant to be against the secrets of Vas' code. Therefore always the dishonest insinuations but he just could show us the evidence anytime he wants, if he doesnt want to be called a liar. We are not evil, we just want to know the truth. And to achieve that we have to commit a-priori condemnation. But we promise. If all is published we will apologise. Honestly! And promised the old saying isnt true at all: semper aliquid haeret.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
