Frayer's opinion expressed at the Rybka forum....

[Rolf]

I still don't follow your comments. We know Robo* is stronger. It has been tested in several regular tournaments and the results published. Not on test positions or other odd things, but in real games.

I also don't follow your reasoning. On the one hand you said that even if Vas _did_ copy fruit, he modified it to make it much stronger so that it wasn't the same as a clone. Yet now you claim that Robo* is a copy of Rybka, where the authors modified it to make it much stronger, and that still is a clone? You can't have it both ways.

Either Rybka is a clone, or Robo* is not, based on your logic. But it is an either/or proposition, not an "and".

Bob, please, ok, in your perception a criminal without a name and a perfectly honest Wch and university absolvent are the _same_

A) if you confirm that you have seen something like identical code and in a private effort call it unallowed copying but you have no legal case or dont want to process, or

B) in case of criminals you see a case of theft and you then confirm that this isnt so horrible, that thieves existed everywhere and for all no-names and ghosts were we all, and therefore in nuce Vas were also invisible ---- unless he speaks and tells us all the secrets because otherwise we are unsatisfied.

Your perception here in the cases is just totally wrong. IMHO

I propose the following.

Give me time until December, 20th and on that day you have my serious and basic statement from a legal view of the Law. I will report what this is all about. Until then please let's have a cease fire. You once stated that you wouldnt make a sort of private lynch justice.

[Matthias Gemuh]

I propose the following.

Give me time until December, 20th and on that day you have my serious and basic statement from a legal view of the Law. I will report what this is all about. Until then please let's have a cease fire.

Great idea, Rolf !
Stop posting in the CCC till that day and beyond.

Thanks,
Matthias.

[Rolf]

I propose the following.

Give me time until December, 20th and on that day you have my serious and basic statement from a legal view of the Law. I will report what this is all about. Until then please let's have a cease fire.

Great idea, Rolf !
Stop posting in the CCC till that day and beyond.

I had thought more about those who on CCC prejudiced Vas with illegal private lynch justice.

One cannot - out of frustration that there is no possibility to process a legal case against Rajlich/RYBKA - indirectly harm Rajlich's business by suddenly cooperating with anonymous chess cyber terrorists who stand under suspicion of software theft. In Europe you are not allowed to deal with stolen goods. Such dealers are as criminal as the thieves themselves.

In general: if you have suspicion that someone has done something illegal but you cannot make a legal court case you are not free to adopt illegal, criminal methods, in the pretense that you only wanted to stop the former criminal in the first place. Such a private criminal practice is called lynch justice and this is forbidden in all civilized countries.

It is also illegal and a legal offense, to organise in internet forums a sort of hate climate against alleged wrongdoing people against whom you however have no legal instruments because you just have no proof of relevant illegal practices. The latter is apparently what happens actually on CCC. -

This is the only reason for me at all to make warning comments. Personally I have no links of interest at all with the scapegoated Vas Rajlich. I criticize the hate climate for general reasons of psychosocial sanity. It is wrong to pursue prejudice and blackmailing insinuations or hate campaigns if someone still remains silent.

Either one has a case or not, then you either sue someone or not, if you admit that there is no relevance or for you there is no financial incentive, then you cant continue to poison the social climate with the obsession that there is still something wrong because then this is a madhouse climate in the end.

[Matthias Gemuh]

In general: if you have suspicion that someone has done something illegal but you cannot make a legal court case you are not free to adopt illegal, criminal methods, in the pretense that you only wanted to stop the former criminal in the first place. Such a private criminal practice is called lynch justice and this is forbidden in all civilized countries.

I have no reason to suspect these nice Robbo guys of wrong-doing.
I suspect only if evidence is available.
If you ever see evidence against them, inform me please.

Matthias.

[Nasir_Shaheen]

Please try to ignore this clown (Rolf).

[Rolf]

In general: if you have suspicion that someone has done something illegal but you cannot make a legal court case you are not free to adopt illegal, criminal methods, in the pretense that you only wanted to stop the former criminal in the first place. Such a private criminal practice is called lynch justice and this is forbidden in all civilized countries.

I have no reason to suspect these nice Robbo guys of wrong-doing.
I suspect only if evidence is available.
If you ever see evidence against them, inform me please.

Matthias.

The answer is easy. It's because they are anonymous. And they harm the computerchess community with that principle. I explained already that if that principle would be accepted then every strong player in computerchess could create his anonymous secondary or tertiary helpers who then in the old known Soviet manner outplay focussed opponents, remember the Bobby Fischer case in Bled 1962. Even the best player in a sport has no chance if people combined in a gang motivated by whatever play against you with 100% force and draw among each other. Such a gang principle has no right to exist in a fair sport where you assume that the competitors follow their own authentical interests. Such a gang principle corrupts sports competition as such.

If I were Bob and had his suspicions against Vas, and also had no time or incentive to make a legal case against him, then I would also consider to at least tolerate opensource cyber terrorists, so that finally the ugly tournament sport of computerchess has come to an end. That then in online sport there is no guarantee anymore of any authenticity, that is something that must not interest us now. Say what?!

So, computerchess can come back to its roots. Into the harbor of fair and still interesting weekend activities in the realm of our universities, where it had all begun 40 years ago.

(All commercially interested please STAND UP and stop this sort of suicidal motion against the hobby of millions of chessplayers around the World! Some academics want to rob us our beloved helpers, our artificial chess GM!)

Further questions?

[Matthias Gemuh]

Further questions?

I have the full source code of RobboLito and of Strelka (that was claimed to be a clone of Rybka).
Furthermore, Strelka helped prove the opensource ancestory of Rybka.
FYI, the source codes prove that RobboLito is not a clone of Rybka.

You surely appreciate that my brief explanation answers all key questions about the whole cloning issue.

Matthias.

[Rolf]

Further questions?

I have the full source code of RobboLito and of Strelka (that was claimed to be a clone of Rybka).
Furthermore, Strelka helped prove the opensource ancestory of Rybka.
FYI, the source codes prove that RobboLito is not a clone of Rybka.

You surely appreciate that my brief explanation answers all key questions about the whole cloning issue.

Matthias.

Sorry but this a multiple failure.

- there is no proof by Strelka (I mean of relevant legal importance; I fear the question of relevance is too difficult to understand?)

- the same with Robbosources. (the question is again not what they prove or not but what it means with legal relevance if here in this case anonymous cyber terrorists give evidence on whatever; prove me wrong if I say that anonymous people have no relevance in courts; it's so funny that you want to ignore such basics, and this although you are certainly very smart IMO; my answer then is that you must have a superior leveled agenda that brings you to such nonsense, well, we all have our own obsessions, personally I have no problem with yours as long as I can look through the trick)

We have a misunderstanding, you think I dont see the evident, and I say you are ignoring the whole complex while you are true on most details. Now we have a science problem. Even a list of 100% true details dont make it true for the whole string.

The poison is the anonymity, because then it doesnt function legally.

We have that poison of anonymity and thievery since long in computerchess. IMHO it's manifestated through the implementing of the principle that what a human puts into machine memory or indirectly per code this is the authentic behavior of the machine if it reproduces the input. This is not the moment where this could be discussed but this is IMO the starting point for the general blindness among the most talented expert in computerchess in questions like anonymity and cloning and such stuff. You always focus on the result as such and NOT on the process or the origins of the resulting detail.

But if you then come into a legal system, with laws and Constitutional Rights, then you cant claim artifical rights for non existing entities in procedures incited by unknown sources.

[Rolf]

I have the full source code of RobboLito and of Strelka (that was claimed to be a clone of Rybka).
Furthermore, Strelka helped prove the opensource ancestory of Rybka.
FYI, the source codes prove that RobboLito is not a clone of Rybka.

How can they prove that? Strelka code is equal to Rybka 1 code while Robbolito is claimed to be a Rybka 3 clone.

It's also a beancounter myth to report that Strelka proved any ancestory at all of Rybka. The fact that someone "claimed" something does not substantiate something substantial as such as existing entity. However it's (the claim, not the entity) something relevant for legally relevant issues. If however there are no such legal issues then all this is totally uninteresting. It means nothing. Literally nothing. Osipov is a noname not authentic. Only with his authenticity the whole topic would get a different meaning - if ever.

Therefore it's beyond me why now the Robb thing from also unknown people should be existing like a real program from decent and honest programmers. No, if we accept this it will destroy the climate of the whole computerchess world.

[sockmonkey]

The fact that someone "claimed" something does not substantiate something substantial as such as existing entity.

This is PRECISELY the point, Rolf. Vas's claims would be no more valid than these. Unless Vas has some data, some proof, some beans to count, he just "claimed" that RobboLito is a clone. And as he has excellent marketing reasons to do so, that claim is worthless until he backs it up. If he can, I hope that he will, but if he can't or won't, it's time to let Mr. Robber into the community of engines.

Jeremy