My View On The Anti-Rybka Hate Campaign P.1

[Alexander Schmidt]

Do you trust a judge?

Some experts estimate that 40% of the people executed in the US are unguilty.

[Rolf]

you made this famous mistake when you claimed and defended that anonymous accusers and blackmailers of Vas should be granted the famous ...until proven guilty!

Did VR say, the blackmailers are the Ippolit authors? Is he sure, or just guessing? Where did he say that? I can't find it atm.

Look, that is what I said. Because that it is what happened. If someone you dnt know suddenly sends you your own code and he proudly announces that they now would do this or that - then this is blackmail in my books. But continue to defend their human rights. Now you know that you defend scum, correct?

[Steve B]

More posts removed that digenerated into personal attacks
if the thread continues in this vein Moderation will lock the thread
Steve

[bob]

A) Fruit 2.1

B) Rybka 1.0 beta
1) suspicion of cloning Fruit
a) Vas claims that he took many ideas from Fruit
b) various code and data snippets given as evidence
1) most were from unimportant sections of Fruit

Not quite. Evaluation data is not exactly "unimportant". Basic search code, using odd constructs found in Fruit is not exactly "unimportant".

c) some evidence that the eval was very similar
1) except material imbalance tables were added.

Totally irrelevant to this discussion. You can copy something, add lots of code to it, but it is _still_ a copied program.

2) was rewritten using bitboards so at worst it is a derivation
a) accusation changed to plagiarism and GPL violation

Plagiarism: copying something written by someone else and either claiming it as your own, or not citing it as someone else's work.

GPL is clear. Since fruit is GPL, +any+ program that contains parts of fruit's source code must be GPL also. That's in the GPL and there is no exception for copying and "adding something to make it different".

3) possible wrong doing by Vas ignored by most
a) Rybka strongest engine in the world
b) lack of forth coming proof

The proof is overwhelming, not lacking. If you don't want to look at what was discussed, or are unable to understand what was discussed, that's fine. But a lack of understanding on your part does not change what happened.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here it was happening that people like Donninger appeared in public and talked about certain tech that they had used which is somewhat a no no but one could still do it. That already stinks because nobody has ever done this towards any other commercial program. If it were done then it could be reveiled where something had been taken from other code plus ideas etc pp. But that isnt done in other cases. Because we must also know that practically all progs in top position are using >95% of the same historically developped ideas. What sense makes it if vs Rybka former programmer Theron claims a vacuum of moral???? If it isnt elaborated what everybody in the top ranks is doing? What sense does it make if a single prog is declared scapegoat. So, I want to see how leading members of decent standing, so no cloners, are seeing the situation. IMO it must be apparent that in the context of 2005 such a special and public hate campaign must have extraordinary reasons. These reasons must be made public. Because then to understand all the next steps are a natural following that by all means should prove something evil for Rybka. But nobody else is examined. If no further info is available then I would call this penalization a form of privat revenge justice, speak lynch justice.

Everything else what ThEN happened Strelka and Rajlich's claim must all be judged under the aspect of lynching=no justice practice. Strelka e.g. is NOT a genuine prog but something conceived to blame Rybka through the Donninger practice with the alleged motivation Theron had explained. However in fair court trials it came out that all top progs are almost the same. So nothing special against Rybka. But of course because it's a private lynch justice people are fooled to believe as if Rajlich were a really special singular perpretator.

What a conspiracy theory. And it is too full of holes, and too implausible to even be considered by rational people.

In that picture we could now impute Bob Hyatt with his commentaries that he had seen enough etc pp. But although a scientist he is NOT concerned about the bigger picture what is common practice among commercial programmers. Ok, if he didnt care, then why he's focussing on Rybka?

Because _that_ is the example that was exposed. But I also focused on Crafty as it has been copied multiple times in the past. Vas brought this on when he claimed that Strelka was a reverse-engineered Rybka 1. Because that said that this code was his code and when comparing that to fruit, someone noticed something that should not have been happening.

Again unless these aspects are not fully reveiled it doesnt make sense to debate what the later details could mean. IMO until further explanations come forward everything is made up to justify the private lynch scenario. -Rolf Nov28th2009

Could all interested make comments on the scenario prior to Strelka eic. pp.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




C) Strelka
1) suspicion of cloning Rybka 1.0 beta
a) almost exact play and strength
b) Vas said it was a clone
1) tried to claim source as own
2) Jury says not a clone of Rybka
a) used same approach as Vas
1) used Fruit as base
2) translated to bitboards
3) added material imbalance tables from Rybka 1.0 beta
- Vas said to use Rybka 1.0 beta anyway we wanted
3) Done to show us exactly how Vas wrote Rybka 1.0 beta
a) a derivation from Fruit
4) Dann Corbit concludes that Strelka is not a clone of Rybka
a) he misses the Fruit connection
5) Michael Hoffman concludes that Strelka is not a clone of Rybka
a) he misses the Fruit connection

D) Newer version of Rybka rewritten to separate functions for white/black
1) some claim that a simple hex editor shows this
2) Jury Osipov claims this for Rybka 3

E) Ippolit comes out and is said to be a clone of Rybka
1) evidence for cloning
a) Vas said so
1) claims it as his code that was stolen
b) Osipov said so
1) Ippolit has separate functions for white/black like Rybka
2) conflicting evidence for cloning
a) Vas says that it is stolen Rybka 3
b) Jury Osipov says that it is Rybka 4
1) promotion plot for Rybka 4 by Vas
3) hard evidence for cloning
a) None presented
1) Graham Banks says that there is some
- by trusted programmers, but he can not divulge their names
3) evidence for derivation
a) Apparently started from Kaissa
1) Ippolit site implies this, as Kaissa is first listed
2) Authors familiar with Kaissa claim it has same bugs
b) It is arguably stronger than Rybka
c) not as complete as Rybka
d) is better at end games than Rybka
e) is slightly worse in the middle game than Rybka

[Rolf]

Bob, thanks for the comments. NB please that all the lines with something in front, a number or whatever, is quoted from an actual message of Michael Sherwin (Iam feeling ill) - my own theory ist in between the +++++++++++++++++++ two lines.

What I was trying, to add the chronical points and commenting with some general ideas. Well, you call it conspiracy, but then please give us another theory for the year-long defamation of the collegue. Unless you dont make the same investigation against all commercial progs you are prejudiced or biased against Vas. That is trivially true.

[slobo]

It is the same old question we all know, but with reversed colours:
Do you think that Rybka without the Fruit code would be of similar strength to what it is with the Fruit code?

Hi,

This is the right question.

Without Fruit: Rybka 1.5.32.

After Fruit: Rybka 1.0 beta.

Regards,
Patrick

Hi Patrick,

It is the old problem of Double Standards.

Regards.
SL

[Michael Sherwin]

2) Jury says not a clone of Rybka

This is dead wrong.

Albert

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=3015

[mariaclara]

sounds ok ...

Uncle Bob wrote:

The proof is overwhelming, not lacking. If you don't want to look at what was discussed, or are unable to understand what was discussed, that's fine. But a lack of understanding on your part does not change what happened.

[Steve B]

As the personal attacks have continued moderation has deleted more posts and now locked the thread
Steve