On escaping copyright by rewriting everything

[Graham Banks]

we now have Strelka 2.0 source code...clearly containing many hundreds of lines of source code taken directly from Fruit 2.1, yet Strelka is still being distributed, and is even being tested by the CCRL and the CEGT? It has been accepted by the chess community?

Norm

CCRL hasn't tested Strelka for a long while and I don't think that CEGT has tested it at all.
It has been accepted by some, but not by others.

Strelka 2.0 B 32-bit in CCRL 40/4, 2008-08-25
Ponder off, General books (up to 12 moves), 3-4-5 piece EGTB
Time control: Equivalent to 40 moves in 4 minutes on Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (2.4 GHz)
Tested by CCRL team, 2005-2008, http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/

CCRL 40/4 main list:
Strelka 2.0 B 32-bit has no rank with rating of 2978 ELO points (+43 -41),
based on 248 games: 166 wins, 26 losses and 56 draws
Score: 78.2%, Average opponent: −215.3, Draws: 22.6%


Pairwise results:
Opponent ELO Score LOS Perf
- Fruit 05/11/03 2881 16.5-7.5 (+14-5 =5 ) 100.0 +42
- Bright 0.3a 2837 13.0-11.0 (+8 -6 =10) 100.0 -114
- Chess Tiger 2007.1 2816 18.5-5.5 (+15-2 =7 ) 100.0 +27
- Frenzee Feb08 2763 20.5-3.5 (+18-1 =5 ) 100.0 +57
- SmarThink 1.00 32-bit 2763 18.0-6.0 (+14-2 =8 ) 100.0 -43
- Alaric 707 2760 19.0-5.0 (+16-2 =6 ) 100.0 -5
- Movei 00.8.438(10 10 10) 2737 19.5-4.5 (+18-3 =3 ) 100.0 +17
- E.T. Chess 13.01.08 2732 11.0-1.0 (+10-0 =2 ) 100.0 +114
- Delfi 5.2 2711 18.5-5.5 (+16-3 =5 ) 100.0 -64
- Frenzee Dec07 2704 11.0-1.0 (+10-0 =2 ) 100.0 +66
- Pro Deo 1.6(2007-10-11) 2703 20.5-3.5 (+19-2 =3 ) 100.0 +25
- Cerebro 3.01c 2577 8.0-0.0 (+8 -0 =0 ) 100.0 +INF

Take a look at when it was last tested.

[kranium]

we now have Strelka 2.0 source code...clearly containing many hundreds of lines of source code taken directly from Fruit 2.1, yet Strelka is still being distributed, and is even being tested by the CCRL and the CEGT? It has been accepted by the chess community?

Norm

CCRL hasn't tested Strelka for a long while and I don't think that CEGT has tested it at all.
It has been accepted by some, but not by others.

Wolfgang Battig's post:

http://schachwerkstatt.foren-city.de/to ... rybka.html

"CEGT deleted Strelka 1.0beta and 1.8 from 40/20 list some months ago and with next update they will also be deleted from the blitz-list."

[kranium]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

[Uri Blass]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

Strelka is not known to have so much Fruit code in it and even Fabien could not say directly that Strelka is a fruit derivative when he was asked about it(he said that it seems that the code is rewritten).

CCRL stopped to test strelka not because of Fruit but because of Rybka.

I can add that no court decided that strelka is a fruit derivative
and it is only an opinion(and not everybody has the same opinion).

Uri

[kranium]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

Strelka is not known to have so much Fruit code in it and even Fabien could not say directly that Strelka is a fruit derivative when he was asked about it(he said that it seems that the code is rewritten).

CCRL stopped to test strelka not because of Fruit but because of Rybka.

I can add that no court decided that strelka is a fruit derivative
and it is only an opinion(and not everybody has the same opinion).

Uri

yes i agree we're talking here about the court of public opinion.

Fabien's quote is well-known, and if I may paraphrase:
i can't say for sure, it's been re-written, it's ok for me, but maybe tournament directors would disagree.

Strelka 2.0 contains oodles of Fruit 2.1 code, either directly copied or equivalent:
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php ... ht=strelka

this is not difficult to determine...

[Graham Banks]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

Primarily because of the way you've conducted your investigation as has been explained several times previously.

[Terry McCracken]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

Primarily because of the way you've conducted your investigation as has been explained several times previously.

This is the place for such things, open and honest!

[Graham Banks]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

Primarily because of the way you've conducted your investigation as has been explained several times previously.

This is the place for such things, open and honest!

You don't drown the girl before it's determined she's a witch.

[Terry McCracken]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

Primarily because of the way you've conducted your investigation as has been explained several times previously.

This is the place for such things, open and honest!

You don't drown the girl before it's determined she's a witch.

More mindless ad hominems! One get's the impression you can't do better!

AFAIC, many IQ's are in the maximum state of entropy!

[Graham Banks]

I repeat my question:

if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)

and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it...
isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both programs?

and if it is logical, fair, and correct to do so...
why have Christophe T., Bob H., Zach W., myself and others come under such harsh attack for doing so?

Primarily because of the way you've conducted your investigation as has been explained several times previously.

This is the place for such things, open and honest!

You don't drown the girl before it's determined she's a witch.

More mindless ad hominems! One get's the impression you can't do better!

AFAIC, many IQ's are in the maximum state of entropy!

That's an intelligent response.