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

[Rolf]

Listen I asked you to say sorry because you told to me "rubbish" as if I had said something wrong. Capito? What I said was correct. Please, I am waiting. Rybka 1 beta was in first edition sent to some friends alone via email. You said Rubbish when I wrote that.

I say rubbish again everyone who wanted Rybka 1.0 beta got it. I presume you refer to the 1st beta after Fruit? I do not have any betas before then.

This is not true in my memories. I saw the date. Slept at night and the next day it was over I came too late. I say it was to the few friends who were in that sort of group friends and supporters. It was NOT officially announced to all. I saw the hint by chance, dont remember where it was. I'm a bit surprised by your unfriendliness also because you are somewhat a frontman for HIARCS in my eyes.

Say what you want but for me this more private distribution to close collaboraters does NOT justify to criticise someone for every content (if ever it is there at all) as if that has been official software selling. It was for free! That is also the reason why I took it as an unfriendly act when Donninger thought it convenient to speak in public about his findings after he reverse engineered the program. Was the first time I ever read about such a method and found it a bit strange to say the least. Then I learned that everybody could do that BUT not publishing something. For me this is a scandal until today.

Someone has a concept for a new book or a music. He fiddles a first version perhaps even with certain quotes and he reads it or gives it to some friends in private. Now such a friend then goes into public and tells the audience the main story. Or an important detail that should explain some attractivity. I mean would that be seen as perfectly normal? Before the first real version is on the market?? For me Donninger at the time in 2005 and now also Bob in his university research is IMO way aside the mainstream IMO because the topic touches the business interests of Vas today. But the critic will be formulated in details later.

With the Theron mantra about lacking moral this smells after a classical man hunt. And if it smells like it it will certainly be a man-hunt (sort of Hyatt mantra argumentation string). Under research I would understand also a report about the historical situation of Fabien Letouzey and his behavior in 2005 with many changes from give-aways to going commercial himself. All that are details that must be fully known to first being able to judge anything about Rybka 1 beta at all.

But beancounters just examine a source with their students. To basically make a legal argument. That is overstretching the whole topic relative to its historical content IMO. For all you lose contact to the historical events.

I researched a bit in the FSH/GPL stuff and saw with surprise that cases of existing misbehavior could be settled by a sort of sponsoring the FSH itself because there they have almost only free contributers. Man, this isnt a sort of Bureau or Embassy of an Attorney General. That is a backdoor room sort of thing. And until now, alarmed by the horror stories of what happened evil, I really thought that there sort of FBI waited to be authorized to search through houses and bureaus or software companies. Not at all.

So that "GPL GPL GPL" like another mantra sounds to me now like whistling in the woods but nobody knows anything detailed. I will continue to report all about GPL (reality, not fiction) if I have more informations.

[sockmonkey]

It was for free!

This is irrelevant. You can't distribute closed-source software that contains GPL'd code. Period. Sources must be included under the terms of the license. But you'll learn this in the course of your investigations, I suppose.

But I might comment that you are concentrating on the irrelevant fringes of the problem (sales, personalities, the open-source threat to the future of computer chess, beans) rather than the core of the issue.

Jeremy

[K I Hyams]

You miss the key legal point. "Truth is the absolute defence against claims of libel/slander." One needs to address two points. (1) were the statements made truthful and can they be proven? (yes).

There you go again. I say No!

a) the Rybka 1 beta was a private thing sent to friends via email in all openess.

b) would you explain to this court, that you want to insinuate that Mr. Rajlich opened a code of his private program, that he had fizzled in a couple of days to give them an impression of his fantastic genius? (No, Sir, I do not.)

c) That R 1 beta then was distributed for free

I am running out of time. So what do you want to prove?

Sir, couldnt we torture a bit, so that he admits?

Sir! We are in the USA and in our Country there is no such thing existing like torture.

I order a penal sum of 550 $$ otherwise 1 week Saint Quentin where the famous chessman once lived.

Officer, accompany this man out of the Court. Uhm, Mr. Rajlich, I have a son who plays chess, could you give me an autograph with a picture of your wife and you, the two international Chessmasters?

Of course and please take this Fish for tonight, judge, it's my newest version of the famous Wch program. All authentic code of course. And for you, Sir, here is a lifelong serial number for an account on my International Servers. You will live over the Clouds from now on. And thanks for that fair procedere. As I always say, keep it fair and KISS.

etc. etc.

And if they are still alive

I was suspecious and frankly speaking a little bit concerned about your mental health Rolf,but now I am sure that you're totaly out of your mind....
Dr.D

Funny, but I wrote my previous reply to this before reading yours. I just assumed he was off his meds. Your explanation may well be more accurate.

I received an email from someone who read one of his posts on the rybka Forum as 'AWRIST' Rolf signed his post as vas's official spokesman - the guy who sent me the email believed he was.

Absolutely priceless! AWRIST "Vas's official spokesman"!! Still, it has had a good effect on me, I haven't stopped smiling all morning.

[Rolf]

No idea what you are talking about again but you speak with no facts no evidence and false statements - you do not even remember what the problem was in charles's tournament it had nothing to do with Clocks and i lost the game in question. As Bob said it is old news and has nothing to do with the current debate.

Err, it was cheating, that's what it was. As operator of HIARCS. What is true however, that you didnt do it under the name Ozzy Osborne. That's correct. You did it under your real name. Harvey Williamson. So, if I should have said, it was Ozzy, then I must admit that this was a mistake. And what Bob attested to that cheating, as far as I remember, in that tournament and ever since nobody cheated with that method. And it's true that you still lost the game. In my books cheating isnt only cheating if you won such a game through the cheat. Cheating is a general wrongdoing independent of if you won or if you lost. So, it's interesting to see how people explain their wrongdoings. And if nothing else helps one still has the JOKER card of insulting someone furiously ad hominem. In the hope that that could divert the attention of the readers. This is the method that was described in Wag the Dog, where as President had a sexual affair with a teenager, the diversion was just that the President had to declare war against Albania for defending the country against a nuclear threat. Because Albania allegedly had the bomb.

Here in CCC another typical diversion in the hate campaign against Vasik Rajlich is if you want to hit Vasik, you choose Rolf as the patsy.

[Harvey Williamson]

No idea what you are talking about again but you speak with no facts no evidence and false statements - you do not even remember what the problem was in charles's tournament it had nothing to do with Clocks and i lost the game in question. As Bob said it is old news and has nothing to do with the current debate.

Err, it was cheating, that's what it was. As operator of HIARCS. What is true however, that you didnt do it under the name Ozzy Osborne. That's correct. You did it under your real name. Harvey Williamson. So, if I should have said, it was Ozzy, then I must admit that this was a mistake. And what Bob attested to that cheating, as far as I remember, in that tournament and ever since nobody cheated with that method. And it's true that you still lost the game. In my books cheating isnt only cheating if you won such a game through the cheat. Cheating is a general wrongdoing independent of if you won or if you lost. So, it's interesting to see how people explain their wrongdoings. And if nothing else helps one still has the JOKER card of insulting someone furiously ad hominem. In the hope that that could divert the attention of the readers. This is the method that was described in Wag the Dog, where as President had a sexual affair with a teenager, the diversion was just that the President had to declare war against Albania for defending the country against a nuclear threat. Because Albania allegedly had the bomb.

Here in CCC another typical diversion in the hate campaign against Vasik Rajlich is if you want to hit Vasik, you choose Rolf as the patsy.

Rofl you are the Grandmaster of hijacking threads and not discussing the issues - for that I salute you.

[Rolf]

This is not a "beancounter myth" as you would like it to be. It is an absolute statement of fact.

From the perspective of beancounter facts. But not the perspective of the whole.

As far as the Robo* issue, all that has to happen is for Vas to provide evidence that the program is reverse-engineered from Rybka. And all of the Robo* talk will go away. But the silence is deafening, and by the same token of fairness, one can not ostracise Robo* with no evidence to support that action. And we have absolutely nothing other than a single statement by the author of Rybka that it is a clone, with no evidence of any kind to support that.

That's a typical statement of beancounter quality. Someone said that something is a clone, that is correct. But was this about everything else? Was it about Robo* at all? And for all what do you intend with the funny abrevation Robo*? Do you want to maintain the impression of a minimum of non-hatred research caution on your side in relation to Vas?

"Decent Gentleman" said there was absolutely no fruit code in Rybka 1. That is plain and simple false.

Professor! Sorry. Excuse me, the quote, the true quote, so much time must be, is that it contains only original code plus public domain. Please research your data correctly before you make such offending statements. Excuse me Bob, but you are now under examinig eyes yourself, so please try to be correct.

Now he says that robo* and IP* are clones of Rybka 3, with absolutely no evidence. Of course we should believe him. I gave him a long "benefit of the doubt" as I figured that he would do the normal thing and provide evidence for such a strong claim. -nothing-.

Ok, there you go again. I thought you were a famous beancounter who has his facts straight. The statement is premature because you forget that we are talking about business matters. And yes, I admit Vas should have notified to the University of Alabama why he had marked the clones with the label clone. Certainly Vas will be better prepared in the next clone affair, because that was really unnecessary negligence. You at least had deserved to get the full proof against the clones. Vas will change that after I told him that you were the patron here. Alone because only this way Vas could avoid the next hate campaign against himself.

What you confound is that in business and justice, other than the laboratory of science, you dont exchange all the data you have because you wont want to hurt your case. The details however important have no inborn reason to be published as such. If you really were a neutral scientist, sworn your oath on a minimum of discretion, I am sure tht you had got the detsils if you had asked. But NOT in your case when you are already in the Strelka case one of the loudest preachers of prejudice and hate. IMO you are just not trustable in questions of RYBKA. I dont want to speculate about the reasons. First I am a computerchess and programming layman, but secondly this is still a pending case. But the science stuff you can just forget it in your case. The same as in the one of DB2/IBM with all friends of yours. You dont even accepted a minimum of criticism that came from a science angle itself, about the treatment of clients and stuff like that. Suddenly you declared that all wasnt about science but a sport where it's important to win by all means. Like in boxing I might add to mark the main idea in such a claim. Because if you once admit by all means then the truth is somewhere over the rainbow but no more here on Earth. All that of course seen from Europe. Sorry.

I have seen fruit 2.1 source code. And I have seen disassembled Rybka 1 assembly language. I don't have any problem going from assembly language to C and back. I teach this exact thing _every_ semester in my x86 assembly language programming course. Any other questions you have?
(The whole code was examined or just some pieces?) Pieces. If pieces of Fruit are copied, the GPL is violated. You don't have to copy the entire thing. What part of that do you fail to understand?? (Because how do you know that what you saw in Rybka 1 beta sourcecode (??) really can only come out of Fruit?) From 40 years of programming experience, which has clearly shown how unlikely it is for two students to produce the same code for very simple assignments, much less for something as complex as a chess engine. I have explained this previously. Multiple times. My answer is not going to change. All you need to do is take Crafty Source, and (say) Fruit 2.1 source and compare them looking for identical blocks of code, or program structure, or data structures, or anything. And when you find zero, then compare crafty to gnuchess, or another open-source engine. And keep going until you either find identical blocks of code or give up. If you find identical blocks of code, we will immediately contact the author of that program as he probably asked me if he could use parts of Crafty and I agreed. But look first, then you will see the problem. Give a simple assignment to an English class. "Write a two page description of XXX." XXX can be any topic that is current. And then compare the write-ups for duplicate wording anywhere. It just doesn't happen. Unless something is copied. (Just for my negotiations with legal authorities. Would that be possible if you related to a page or a message here, or just a quote you post here now, so that I could have the data for my questionnary?) I'm not going to go back thru past CCC posts to do your research. The topic was discussed _at length_ last year. On several occasions. (Again, I dont doubt your expertise, because that would be ridiculous, but it must be allowed to question the sources that made you so confident that you could compare true code. Bob, and please do not play the Strelka card. It proves nothing. Just the codes you have examined.) I have looked at all 3. I first compared Fruit to strelka and saw similarities that looked suspicious. Some claimed foul, saying that is not really Rybka even though Vas explicitly claimed it as his code, originally. So we had some volunteers that disassembled parts of Rybka 1's binary executable, so that the strelka criticism would no longer be valid. But the same problem was still there. Duplicated code, names, bizarre programming practices, etc. (Worldwide also here in Germany in a famous forum people want to know if it is really possible that you had the original source code of the two mentioned relevant programs before your eyes. There are some who said this is impossible. Others wrote yes, but Bob had only the UCI code. Etc. Therefore I ask you here. I'm just the messenger, please dont think that I made this all up.)

We simply looked at the disassembled executable, which turns into assembly language. It is not a complex task to turn assembly language directly into C, any more than it would not be difficult to turn C into assembly language by hand. I teach students to think this way in my assembly language course, in fact.

So far the beancounter mantra. I dont understand the details but I get what you and your "volunteers" did in disassembling code out of other people's engines. Like you do that all day long with other commercial progs like FRITZ, HIARCS, SHREDDER and JUNIOR. In special JONNY comes to mind because that engine was almost as weak as Rybka in the early tournament that was mentioned in an attempt to harm Vasik.

But I didnt ask these questions above to become a real expert in computer science but because I am on a sort of interdisciplinary trip to find out potential weaknesses in your approach as such.

Here now my condensated question to reveil first weaknesses:

In your attempt to prove wrongdoing in Rybka, Bob, you took code from Fruit and code from Rybka, right? And you found similaritiess or even identical pieces of code. I want to believe that for the following proof of your failure. So, here comes now. How could you know that Vas took that code from the Fruit 2.1.? How did you examine if it wasnt from public domain? How did you secure that that whyt ou have found, resulted from a wrong taking code out of that GPL code? How do you want to prove that without having spoken to Vas? Do you think that you can make a case based on evidence, against the loud statement of your collegue that he had only original code in Rybka plus public domain? How do you discard OTHER explanations - say other provenience for these parts of code that you have researched, when you admitted that you havent examined the complete source code at all because you simply dont have it in total? What if Vas got a certain copy of Fruit by Fabien in late 2005? What if he bought some code from Fabien? What is if this happened before the code was declared GPL? Have you researched, what would be a trivial duty for a beancounting scientist, the complete history of the months in late 2005? Between Fabien and Vas?? How can you be so damn certain that you think you are entitled to claim that Vas just plain lied if he said that Rybka contained ONLY original code plus public domain? Can you prove that he lied in a legal case before a court in the USA?

Just a couple of questions. Do you answer some of them?

Still in all respect for your 40 years of top expertise in computerchess.

Rolf

[bob]

No idea what you are talking about again but you speak with no facts no evidence and false statements - you do not even remember what the problem was in charles's tournament it had nothing to do with Clocks and i lost the game in question. As Bob said it is old news and has nothing to do with the current debate.

Err, it was cheating, that's what it was. As operator of HIARCS. What is true however, that you didnt do it under the name Ozzy Osborne. That's correct. You did it under your real name. Harvey Williamson. So, if I should have said, it was Ozzy, then I must admit that this was a mistake. And what Bob attested to that cheating, as far as I remember, in that tournament and ever since nobody cheated with that method. And it's true that you still lost the game. In my books cheating isnt only cheating if you won such a game through the cheat. Cheating is a general wrongdoing independent of if you won or if you lost. So, it's interesting to see how people explain their wrongdoings. And if nothing else helps one still has the JOKER card of insulting someone furiously ad hominem. In the hope that that could divert the attention of the readers. This is the method that was described in Wag the Dog, where as President had a sexual affair with a teenager, the diversion was just that the President had to declare war against Albania for defending the country against a nuclear threat. Because Albania allegedly had the bomb.

Here in CCC another typical diversion in the hate campaign against Vasik Rajlich is if you want to hit Vasik, you choose Rolf as the patsy.

After a long discussion, I was convinced Harvey did not realize his actions were not allowed. We all moved on, and have since taken more pains to clarify all rules before an event is started.

So what exactly is your point supposed to be here???

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

No idea what you are talking about again but you speak with no facts no evidence and false statements - you do not even remember what the problem was in charles's tournament it had nothing to do with Clocks and i lost the game in question. As Bob said it is old news and has nothing to do with the current debate.

Err, it was cheating, that's what it was. As operator of HIARCS. What is true however, that you didnt do it under the name Ozzy Osborne. That's correct. You did it under your real name. Harvey Williamson. So, if I should have said, it was Ozzy, then I must admit that this was a mistake. And what Bob attested to that cheating, as far as I remember, in that tournament and ever since nobody cheated with that method. And it's true that you still lost the game. In my books cheating isnt only cheating if you won such a game through the cheat. Cheating is a general wrongdoing independent of if you won or if you lost. So, it's interesting to see how people explain their wrongdoings. And if nothing else helps one still has the JOKER card of insulting someone furiously ad hominem. In the hope that that could divert the attention of the readers. This is the method that was described in Wag the Dog, where as President had a sexual affair with a teenager, the diversion was just that the President had to declare war against Albania for defending the country against a nuclear threat. Because Albania allegedly had the bomb.

Here in CCC another typical diversion in the hate campaign against Vasik Rajlich is if you want to hit Vasik, you choose Rolf as the patsy.

After a long discussion, I was convinced Harvey did not realize his actions were not allowed. We all moved on, and have since taken more pains to clarify all rules before an event is started.

So what exactly is your point supposed to be here???

Trolling,what else Bob
Dr.D

[Rolf]

After a long discussion, I was convinced Harvey did not realize his actions were not allowed. We all moved on, and have since taken more pains to clarify all rules before an event is started.

So what exactly is your point supposed to be here???

Bob, in all shortness, the guy who didnt realise that he was involved in not-allowed actions, said "Rubbish" to me as a foreigner. And that hurt me for general purposes of minority protection! What I mean is he still is wrongly informed about his unallowed actions. I thought that the context was clear.

[Harvey Williamson]

After a long discussion, I was convinced Harvey did not realize his actions were not allowed. We all moved on, and have since taken more pains to clarify all rules before an event is started.

So what exactly is your point supposed to be here???

Bob, in all shortness, the guy who didnt realise that he was involved in not-allowed actions, said "Rubbish" to me as a foreigner. And that hurt me for general purposes of minority protection! What I mean is he still is wrongly informed about his unallowed actions. I thought that the context was clear.

Rofl(AWRIST),

At the time if I realised it was wrong would I have posted here that during the last game I adjusted Contempt? If I had not posted no one would have been any the wiser.

As far as talking 'Rubbish' the fact that you are a foreigner has nothing to do with it. If my boss, who is English, gets something wrong I would be quite happy to tell him he is talking Rubbish.

looking forward to a reply about Theron, Bob, Zach and hopefully next weeks lottery numbers.