Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Terry McCracken]

Care to claify?

Your last comment was absurd in this case.

[Graham Banks]

Care to claify?

Your last comment was absurd in this case.

Why? I wondered how legal it is for anybody to openly declare that they're disassembling the exe of an engine and then posting the results of their handiwork for the world to see.

[kranium]

I think the thing that disturbs me most about all this is the timing.
It certainly gives the appearance that because Vas released Rybka 2.2 as a free engine, this is payback from a lot of pissed off programmers.

If this info came out 2, or 3, or 4, etc. months before the release of Rybka 3, people could then say 'why is this happeneing 2, or 3, or 4 months before the release of Rybka 3? hmmm...it looks to be an attempt to damage sales'...

maybe the timing is coincidental and means nothing?

[Graham Banks]

I think the thing that disturbs me most about all this is the timing.
It certainly gives the appearance that because Vas released Rybka 2.2 as a free engine, this is payback from a lot of pissed off programmers.

If this info came out 2, or 3, or 4, etc. months before the release of Rybka 3, people could then say 'why is this happeneing 2, or 3, or 4 months before the release of Rybka 3? hmmm...it looks to be an attempt to damage sales'...

maybe the timing is coincidental and means nothing?

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

[chrisw]

Hi Chris,

[snip]

Fabien says he has no problem.

Where did Fabien say it? This is of key importance in the whole issue.

Enrique

It's a bit convoluted, but the argument of the "Rybka 1.0 beta might be a clone camp" goes like this ...

Strelka is a reproduction of Rybka 1.0 beta.
Strelka resembles Fruit at a programming level
Therefore Rybka 1.0 resembles Fruit.

The "Rybka 1.0 beta protection society" argues:
Fabian has no worries with Strelka.
If other side wants to argue Strelka = Fruit
then Fabian by extension also has no problems with Rybka.


Bob wrote:
Didn't Vas clearly post "Strelka is a reproduction of Rybka 1.0 and I am claiming it as my own code now"??? I saw that specific comment (probably not those exact words, but semantically _identical_ posted by him when the Strelka / clone issue first broke.

Dan Corbit wrote:
This is what Fabian said about Strelka:
"No worries as far as I am concerned.
Ideas are not a legal property.
The code was rewritten so it's OK with me.
Tournament organisers might think differently.
I cannot say a definite yes or no ..."

Some programmers found code similarities between Strelka and Fruit; Vasik said that Strelka was R1 beta; Fabien told Corbit that he didn’t mind about Strelka. When was all that?

I’m asking because I would like to know why these accusations take place now and not in the old times of Rybka 1 beta. And whether they are related to other accusations here last week about Rybka giving R2 for free and not showing the true node count. I’m not saying it’s a campaign, but it might very well look like it, with these three simultaneous accusations against Rybka just before China 2008 and immediately after the huge lead of Rybka 3.

By the way, when Vasik said that Strelka was R1 beta, was he referring to the whole program or to parts of it? If to parts of it, the whole accusing syllogism (part of Str = Fr, part of Ry = Str, therefore Ry = Fr) is false, because Strelka could have copied parts of Rybka code different than Fruit. Possible? I'm asking you as programmer. I'm lay.

As for your "Tournament organizers might think differently", Rybka 3.x will play in China, not R1 beta, so I don’t see on which grounds the organizers could object.

Enrique

It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.

So we end up with a direct connection from fruit -> strelka -> rybka 1, with the probable connection of Rybka 1 -> Rybka 2 -> Rybka 3.

I have not been involved in discovering this, I have followed the discussions, and have stated several times that based on the evidence that has been presented, things appear to be a bit off-color. Since the Rybka group are offering no arguments or evidence to the contrary, it would be hard to draw any other conclusion.

You say "_if_" above, and then go on to "probable connection".

Methinks you should be extremely cautious before alleging a connection between R1->R2->R3 and then asserting a problem with R1.

Do you have evidence that R3 has R1 beta code contained within? If not, the comments above are exceptionally dangerous.

Did you read what I wrote? I wrote (and rewrote) "blitz" 7 times. _major_ changes. But big chunks of code were reused. Who needs a new opening book format, new PGN parser, new move input/output code, etc? I then rewrote Cray Blitz three times. Major changes. 20,000 lines of assembly language added. over a Period of several years. Yet each had at least 60% of code re-used. I have rewritten Crafty 3-4 times as it was time to clean up and re-do. And again, 50+ % (if not more) of the code was kept. The most recent rewrite where I eliminated all duplicate code was a big change, but tons of reuse.

I wrote above "It is not much of a stretch to believe that most of R1 source was retained and used in R2, and that most of R2 would be reused in creating R3." I see _zero_ danger there and if someone would want to challenge me on it, suits me. The university has a team of lawyers to handle such nonsense. I did not say "absolutely, R3 contains part of R1". I said "it most likely does" and I'd stake my software engineering reputation on such a statement any day of the week... The probability is _HIGH_ that if R1 contains GPL code, R2 and R3 also do. But even if not, if R1 contains GPL code, that could be a significant legal issue for someone if the FSF folks get interested.

_If_ R1 beta contained GPL code then the probability that R3, a commercial release through a publisher, contains any of that code is extremely low, not high. The simplistic assumption via the naming does not apply.

[GenoM]

I think the thing that disturbs me most about all this is the timing.
It certainly gives the appearance that because Vas released Rybka 2.2 as a free engine, this is payback from a lot of pissed off programmers.

If this info came out 2, or 3, or 4, etc. months before the release of Rybka 3, people could then say 'why is this happeneing 2, or 3, or 4 months before the release of Rybka 3? hmmm...it looks to be an attempt to damage sales'...

maybe the timing is coincidental and means nothing?

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

Another attempt to psycho-attack? Rolf quit, Graham took his place.
Graham, why to make noise if you're not an expert in this matter?

[kranium]

I'm not a programmer and so all this code being produced means little to me.
However, from what I've read, it seems that no matter what is said, there will still be disagreement amongst more knowledgeable people than myself over what constitutes absolute proof of anything untoward.
What I would be interested in is what those like yourself, Bob and Zach are therefore trying to achieve. What exactly is it that you want as the end outcome?

Regards, Graham.

Hyatt, Wegner, Schmidt, Donninger, Cozzie, Theron, Korshunov and other russian programmers are on the same side. Mehrmann and Benitez have had some suspicions too. Who's on the other side, Graham? From these 'more knowledgeable than yourself' people?
Are you expecting God come down and said the ultimate truth?

Well I'm an ex-programmer, but more to the point I ran a business based on games AI, and my view is that Vas has done nothing wrong.

1. The alleged connection with Strelka is completely irrelevent to Fruit

2. That version 1 beta was not commercial and I doubt it any different to the 500 or more, whatever the number, of "amateur" programs that have suddenly been created in the wake of published free source codes.

3. The Fruit programmer who owns the GPL licence says he has no problems with Rybka in any form, beta, 1, 2, 3

4. If there ever was any Fruit code in beta 1, then it is an absolute guarantee that future commercial versions created will have removed every last bit of it.

5. If Vas looked at Crafty, TSCP, Fruit or anything else he did no more and no less than any other current programmer. If he used bits and pieces of other programs to get his version up and running he will have done no different to any other programmer. Or is anybody seriously suggesting all those amateurs started absolutely from scratch? Hahaha.

All that counts now from his commercial business point of view and that of his publisher is that the R3 version is squeaky clean. Which it is, obviously.

For those people who complain that their source is used by commercials, or that other source is used by commercials (and by used, I mean read, rewritten, learnt from, whatever) the answer is easy. Don't publish your sources over the internet.

I am very shocked to read such general accusations from a moderator of this forum. Is the charter gone ?

Olivier

Chris-
Specifically, in response to your points # 2 and # 5 from above.
2 wrongs doesn't make it right...
500 wrongs doesn't make it right
if there are 500 programs in violation of the GPL, then they should come under scruntiny

[Graham Banks]

I think the thing that disturbs me most about all this is the timing.
It certainly gives the appearance that because Vas released Rybka 2.2 as a free engine, this is payback from a lot of pissed off programmers.

If this info came out 2, or 3, or 4, etc. months before the release of Rybka 3, people could then say 'why is this happeneing 2, or 3, or 4 months before the release of Rybka 3? hmmm...it looks to be an attempt to damage sales'...

maybe the timing is coincidental and means nothing?

While it would be good to see this thing settled once and for all, I just hope the accusers have got their arses covered!

Another attempt to psycho-attack? Rolf quit, Graham took his place.
Graham, why to make noise if you're not an expert in this matter?

Not an attack at all Geno.
You're right in that I'm no expert, but I can still voice an opinion.
I'd like to see the whole issue settled once and for all also.
Christophe, Zach and others have got balls to go ahead with this. As I regard them both highly, I'm hoping that nothing bad will come of it for them.

Cheers, Graham.

[GenoM]

Sorry, Graham, it's a language barrier fault, it seems...

[kranium]

Sorry, Graham, it's a language barrier fault, it seems...

must be difficult Geno, partcipating in a forum in a different language...
how many laguages do you speak, besides bulgarian and russian and english?

i for one, believe Graham is an expert in several areas and has keen insights to offer...