morality and legality of dowloading robbolito

[Zach Wegner]

No

This is clearly an opinion regardless of the evidence that you find.

You have no way to prove that program A is a derivative of program B.
Even if both programs are exactly the same(and it is clearly not the case with rybka and fruit) it is in theory possible that 2 programmers thought in the same way independently.

The probability for having independent identical programs is very small for big programs so of course I am not going to believe a programmer who claims that he wrote a program that is the same as fruit independently but it is only my opinion.

In the case of rybka1 and fruit even if you find some identical parts it is not a proof that rybka1 is a fruit derivative and it is only some supporting evidence.

People who see the supporting evidence can give their opinion if rybka1 is a fruit derivative.

In the best case you are going to have an evidence that convince everybody that rybka1 is a fruit derivative but you will never have a proof.

Note also that people are allowed to use ideas from fruit in other chess programs and it means that more similiarity than the similiarity of independent programs is not surprising.

Uri

And what would that probability be if the author said that he looked through Fruit "forwards and backwards" and "took many things"?

[slobo]

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

That seems rather silly. No doubt Ryan is the person most associated with Fruit now, as the main author. And of course he knows Fruit very well. But Fruit 2.1 is set in stone, and many people have studied it quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I am very familiar with the code and its structure, mostly from the Rybka investigation. There are plenty of people who would have as much or more expertise on Fruit, so I'm not sure why Ryan should take precedence here. Regardless, the last time I talked to Ryan about this, he seemed like he didn't really have an opinion either way. Perhaps he will chime in here.

Anyways, I think familiarity with Rybka 1's internals is a much better qualification in this matter, and I would call myself an expert in that regard. And there is simply nothing that Ryan or anyone else could tell me that would convince me that Rybka 1 was not a direct derivative of Fruit (and derived most of its strength from it). This really has nothing to do with opinion; there is just far too much evidence of wrongdoing. Admittedly, not very much of this is public knowledge, but the evidence is there, in the Rybka 1 exe.

No

This is clearly an opinion regardless of the evidence that you find.

You have no way to prove that program A is a derivative of program B.
Even if both programs are exactly the same(and it is clearly not the case with rybka and fruit) it is in theory possible that 2 programmers thought in the same way independently.

The probability for having independent identical programs is very small for big programs so of course I am not going to believe a programmer who claims that he wrote a program that is the same as fruit independently but it is only my opinion.

In the case of rybka1 and fruit even if you find some identical parts it is not a proof that rybka1 is a fruit derivative and it is only some supporting evidence.

People who see the supporting evidence can give their opinion if rybka1 is a fruit derivative.

In the best case you are going to have an evidence that convince everybody that rybka1 is a fruit derivative but you will never have a proof.

Note also that people are allowed to use ideas from fruit in other chess programs and it means that more similiarity than the similiarity of independent programs is not surprising.

Uri

Even if Vas admit it one day, for his own will, it would be only his personal opinion, not a proof.

Of course, you are right Uri.
Even if one day one of his closest friends confirm that he was using Fruit, it would not be the proof but only a personal opinion, ou revenge...

In other words: to get evidence of anything is impossible human enterprise.

But all these logic changes when Vas says Ippoli/Robbolio is a clone, or when he says his Rybka source have been stolen.

In such cases evidence is not necessary.

[Rolf]

Even if Vas admit it one day, for his own will, it would be only his personal opinion, not a proof.

Of course, you are right Uri.
Even if one day one of his closest friends confirm that he was using Fruit, it would not be the proof but only a personal opinion, ou revenge...

In other words: to get evidence of anything is impossible human enterprise.

But all these logic changes when Vas says Ippoli/Robbolio is a clone, or when he says his Rybka source have been stolen.

In such cases evidence is not necessary.

You cant have it both ways (Bob Hyatt dixit), Slobo, would you want or like that other people would hold you in a hog that says that you once defended or cared about an alleged massmurderer like Milosevic or Karadzic? Would you be pleased if that happened?? If NOT, couldnt you refreign a bit from such evil hate speech insinuations against a reigning Wch who never ever said a negative word about other computerchess collegues? Who are you to stump with your feet here as if you were on a hexenjagd? That is the same bad habit like the multipley caught cloner who appears and accuses others of cloning. It's ethically just not right.

Please be so kind and think positive. For our hobby and for the friendliness among our community members. Thanks so much.

[slobo]

Even if Vas admit it one day, for his own will, it would be only his personal opinion, not a proof.

Of course, you are right Uri.
Even if one day one of his closest friends confirm that he was using Fruit, it would not be the proof but only a personal opinion, ou revenge...

In other words: to get evidence of anything is impossible human enterprise.

But all these logic changes when Vas says Ippoli/Robbolio is a clone, or when he says his Rybka source have been stolen.

In such cases evidence is not necessary.

You cant have it both ways (Bob Hyatt dixit), Slobo, would you want or like that other people would hold you in a hog that says that you once defended or cared about an alleged massmurderer like Milosevic or Karadzic? Would you be pleased if that happened?? If NOT, couldnt you refreign a bit from such evil hate speech insinuations against a reigning Wch who never ever said a negative word about other computerchess collegues? Who are you to stump with your feet here as if you were on a hexenjagd? That is the same bad habit like the multipley caught cloner who appears and accuses others of cloning. It's ethically just not right.

Please be so kind and think positive. For our hobby and for the friendliness among our community members. Thanks so much.

Point out the hate speech, or shut up.
Do you know what is double standard?

[Rolf]

And what would that probability be if the author said that he looked through Fruit "forwards and backwards" and "took many things"?

If even someone like me without any practical experience with programming understood that it's well in order if you let yourself be inspired or you learned by certain ingenious tricks or ideas ans you work this into your own creation then where is your position? That is IMO the same as if 100% of all successful programmers use nullmove. Although dont ask me how they do it and what it means. Young man you should really be a little bit more cautious at the beginning of your career, in case you plan some. How will that look like if you are remembered later on that juvenil sin when you prematurely accused the Wch? Note that you have all the rights to make mistakes. But if someone like Uri tells you that something (out of science reasons) cant be proven then you cant ignore that or you must face the reproach that you are just following a preconceived agenda to scapegoat someone.

Instead of being concerned about your own creations you go way too deep into such prejudiced hate campaign. It just isnt making sense. If you had final proof you would have published it since long. So all what you are doing, please be aware of it, you are misused by others who had to lose their own famous good names. Because you are so young that all mistakes would be excused. But if then you are making your own career this old affair will backstrike upon yourself. Because of the negative mentality, the energy you put into other people's business. Collegues simply wont trust you, believe me.

I can only advise you to use your talents for your own purposes and goals and in the famous affair you just let it go and develop. For all stop talking about webpages that might never come. Or wont you want to be taken for serious?

Please believe me what I say. It doesnt pay off for you. Above all IMO because computerchess programmers are based on their history to at least 90%. And modern computerchess in tournaments is a sport, dont forget that. Are you not concerned about what all the other commercial guys are doing? Have you no sensitivity for fairness?

Throw this into the bin if you cant trust me but listen, I want to claim that what I wrote here is absolutely correct. My motivation is purely led by my wish that you should not waste your time as a talented young guy in the negative fooling around against others. It's so clear to me mainly from my experience with science that I wanted to share my views with you.

All the best to you.

[Uri Blass]

No

This is clearly an opinion regardless of the evidence that you find.

You have no way to prove that program A is a derivative of program B.
Even if both programs are exactly the same(and it is clearly not the case with rybka and fruit) it is in theory possible that 2 programmers thought in the same way independently.

The probability for having independent identical programs is very small for big programs so of course I am not going to believe a programmer who claims that he wrote a program that is the same as fruit independently but it is only my opinion.

In the case of rybka1 and fruit even if you find some identical parts it is not a proof that rybka1 is a fruit derivative and it is only some supporting evidence.

People who see the supporting evidence can give their opinion if rybka1 is a fruit derivative.

In the best case you are going to have an evidence that convince everybody that rybka1 is a fruit derivative but you will never have a proof.

Note also that people are allowed to use ideas from fruit in other chess programs and it means that more similiarity than the similiarity of independent programs is not surprising.

Uri

And what would that probability be if the author said that he looked through Fruit "forwards and backwards" and "took many things"?

I think that it changes nothing because looking at fruit and taking many things is not illegal by itself.

What is illegal is to use copy and paste of code but ideas are not protected
It was also the opinion of Fabien(programmer of fruit)

From his words:
"My opinion is that source code is like a research article. You are free to use the ideas but not the code verbatim (copy/paste)."

Uri

[Uri Blass]

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

That seems rather silly. No doubt Ryan is the person most associated with Fruit now, as the main author. And of course he knows Fruit very well. But Fruit 2.1 is set in stone, and many people have studied it quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I am very familiar with the code and its structure, mostly from the Rybka investigation. There are plenty of people who would have as much or more expertise on Fruit, so I'm not sure why Ryan should take precedence here. Regardless, the last time I talked to Ryan about this, he seemed like he didn't really have an opinion either way. Perhaps he will chime in here.

Anyways, I think familiarity with Rybka 1's internals is a much better qualification in this matter, and I would call myself an expert in that regard. And there is simply nothing that Ryan or anyone else could tell me that would convince me that Rybka 1 was not a direct derivative of Fruit (and derived most of its strength from it). This really has nothing to do with opinion; there is just far too much evidence of wrongdoing. Admittedly, not very much of this is public knowledge, but the evidence is there, in the Rybka 1 exe.

No

This is clearly an opinion regardless of the evidence that you find.

You have no way to prove that program A is a derivative of program B.
Even if both programs are exactly the same(and it is clearly not the case with rybka and fruit) it is in theory possible that 2 programmers thought in the same way independently.

The probability for having independent identical programs is very small for big programs so of course I am not going to believe a programmer who claims that he wrote a program that is the same as fruit independently but it is only my opinion.

In the case of rybka1 and fruit even if you find some identical parts it is not a proof that rybka1 is a fruit derivative and it is only some supporting evidence.

People who see the supporting evidence can give their opinion if rybka1 is a fruit derivative.

In the best case you are going to have an evidence that convince everybody that rybka1 is a fruit derivative but you will never have a proof.

Note also that people are allowed to use ideas from fruit in other chess programs and it means that more similiarity than the similiarity of independent programs is not surprising.

Uri

Even if Vas admit it one day, for his own will, it would be only his personal opinion, not a proof.

Of course, you are right Uri.
Even if one day one of his closest friends confirm that he was using Fruit, it would not be the proof but only a personal opinion, ou revenge...

In other words: to get evidence of anything is impossible human enterprise.

But all these logic changes when Vas says Ippoli/Robbolio is a clone, or when he says his Rybka source have been stolen.

In such cases evidence is not necessary.

The claim that Ippolit/Robbolito is a clone is only an opinion.
People can choose what to believe.

Note that I think that even in case that it is based on rybka's source it is not correct to say that rybka's source have been stolen.

stealing something means that the original owner does not have it
and it is not the case with rybka's source.

People who believe that the source is based on rybka can say that releasing the source is indirectly stealing money from Vas because Vas is going to earn less money in the future but
it is certainly not stealing code.

Uri

[Rolf]

Point out the hate speech, or shut up.
Do you know what is double standard?

Hate speech is when you publicly insinuate that he must be lying.Or when you fantasized about that he had used Fruit. Because the main point is that one cannot trust the guy. This is part of the hate campaign. Because it's simple. You have no proof. And without proof you are making the allegation about someone's character.

However when Vas declared the his code had been stolen etc, he did NOT talk about character but they had sent him code what then led to the statement. The evil in your insinuation is also that you argue, well try to argue, that Vas has done the same what you are doing now, asking why you shouldnt be allowed. But the truth is you are talking about character and Vas about stealing by thieves and that was based on the material the thieves had sent him.

[Terry McCracken]

Too Much Noise!

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Point out the hate speech, or shut up.
Do you know what is double standard?

Hate speech is when you publicly insinuate that he must be lying.Or when you fantasized about that he had used Fruit. Because the main point is that one cannot trust the guy. This is part of the hate campaign. Because it's simple. You have no proof. And without proof you are making the allegation about someone's character.

However when Vas declared the his code had been stolen etc, he did NOT talk about character but they had sent him code what then led to the statement. The evil in your insinuation is also that you argue, well try to argue, that Vas has done the same what you are doing now, asking why you shouldnt be allowed. But the truth is you are talking about character and Vas about stealing by thieves and that was based on the material the thieves had sent him.

And what prrof do you have to show us that Vasik is telling the truth
Did he show you the e-mails,did you have any visiual contact with any material related to this topic prooving that his source code was stolen and that he was recieving the the updates by e-mails from the bandits,etc....

Don't bother even to try to answer,because the answer is NO....otherwise proove it and no more mamboo jamboo nonsense please....

Dr.D