What's Vasik Rajlich doing today?

[Rebel]

Start reading a bit of Substantial similarity or non literal copying.

In U.S. copyright law, substantial similarity is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if infringement was limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove copying has occurred.

......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity

Good luck.

So you don't understand what you quote?

This is what you wrote -

I can completely rewrite Fruit so that it is totally free of copyright, but produces totally identical scores and node counts on any position I let it search

Such a program is still a copyright breach because of "Substantial similarity" so your Fruit example is wrong and it shows your ignorance on the matter.

If it has no similarity at all, it also does not have 'substantial similarity'. Yet it can do exactly the same (e.g. in a Chess engine search exactly the same tree, use the same piece values, piece-square tables).

You do not address the inconsistency of your Rybka defense, namely that the 'expert' you quote bases his criticism on the ICGA investigation on the claim that functional similarity does not prove code copying, while you claim that the functional similarity in itself is already a copyright (and thus certainly rule #2) infringement.

That's because you never showed any interest in what the case is about, you never read the 2 documents of the Rybka investigators, you never participated in the technical discussions, you never read the counter investigation document. And yet you profile yourself as an expert using big, provoking and patronizing words.

Seriously, if you were not a chess programmer, meaning you have the potential to understand I would have ignored you. So, start reading the 3 documents and I will be happy to discuss the case with you. Else don't expect me to react on future patronizing stuff from you.

[hgm]

This is what you wrote -

I can completely rewrite Fruit so that it is totally free of copyright, but produces totally identical scores and node counts on any position I let it search

Such a program is still a copyright breach because of "Substantial similarity" so your Fruit example is wrong and it shows your ignorance on the matter.

Wrong again. Similarity in copyright law refers to how it looks, and not to what it does. For example, Fruit generates piece-to-square tables from addition of rank and file bonuses (and occasional other bonuses, such as long diagonals) during initialization. I could incorporate the tables that would result from that in complete form as initialized data in my program. This would have zero similarity to the Fruit code in the sense of copyright law.

That's because you never showed any interest in what the case is about, you never read the 2 documents of the Rybka investigators, you never participated in the technical discussions, you never read the counter investigation document. And yet you profile yourself as an expert using big, provoking and patronizing words.

...

I don't see how any of my behavior would excuse you from posting nonsense here in public. I know about copyright, and I know what ICGA rule #2 means. None of that is in any way affected by the Rybka investigation.

What you quote here as refutation of the ICGA investigation by a clone-detection expert is totally off base, and your own interpretation of it, that functional similarity would be a copyright infringement, supports the ICGA investigation and directly contradict your 'expert'.

So without the need for digging in the investigation itself, which I consider rather irrelevant for completely different reasons, we can already conclude you have not the slightest idea of what the Rybka case is about. You don't understand the allegations, and you don't understand copyright law. That makes anything you say about the case just random noise. So why on earth would I want to waste my time reading those two documents? Whatever they state, it will not alter copyright law, and it will not alter the fact thay you are posting falsehoods and self-contradictory nonsense here.

[Sedat Canbaz]

Dear Frank,

After reading your comments I can't keep myself ))

What is strange by your side,
1) In case of Rybka issue:
- You recommend to use Simtool to check Rybka 1 vs Fruit 2.1

2)In case of Critter issue:
- You don't recommend to use Simtool for Criiter 1.6a vs Houdini 1.5a

Hehe...I have BIG difficulties to understand you, really... !!))

Just a little suggestion,
Please check which engine is released firstly and check both Elo performance...

It looks like you have complexes my friend, really...and you make double standard...
Do you know why ?) Simply because you don't allow Houdini, where you allow Critter

Take a pencil and write in paper (because it's better to remember))):
- Critter 1.6a is based mainly on Houdini 1.5a
- Critter 0.90 is based mainly on Rybka 3

BTW, can you inform me please,
Who are those experts who states that Critter 1.6a is not based on Houdini 1.5a ?

As a tester: Do you know what I wish a lot to see from engine programmers,
- If anybody is looking/learning/copy from other codes, ideas etc...
*This programmer should be able to release his engine stronger...min 50 Elo

And after all,
You are free...you can test any engine which you like or not

About your rest comments,
You say that Vas lost his sources...
So can you publish the link, where Vas states...I need to read by myself

Btw, as far as I know,
The commercial ones are not open-source engines, correct me please if I am wrong...
And why on the earth the commercial ones should be open-source engines ?

To be honest,
I wish to see all engines as free, but however I respect the commercial ones too

And last,
Exception Rybka, as 'LEGEND' engines are:
Stockfish, Komodo, Houdini, Zappa, Hiarcs, Fruit, Shredder, Junior, Fritz, Chess Tiger, ChessMaster, Rebel, Crafty etc...
Because all of them were as LEADERS...that means a lot for me...!


Best,
Sedat

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Ed,

you try to make a very simply story since years complicated.

1+1=2 ...
About this one you try since years to write a book in six volumes. It's OK if you like that, but to solve the situation is really more easy as to buy in the morning fresh buns.

I wonder why you do that?
Can't understand the reasons for your effort around Rybka.

All what`s unclear today can be explain by the programmer of Rybka very easy. Where is the problem?

I life all the time very good with "Ignorance" by others to important computer chess topics, like Winboard, Arena, UCI, Chess960 ... so many things I supported years. Each ignorance by others helps me a lot.

You wrote:
Seriously, if you were not a chess programmer, meaning you have the potential to understand I would have ignored you.

And to myself you are working with the same words!

An other question:
Do you think that a chess programmer is a better human as a non chess programmer?

Honestly:
I can life very good with ignorance. In my view a good evaluation unit. With such persons I can see very easy ... my own work is good or bad. More of such persons, work is good, lesser of such person ... work is bad. Ignorance people helps a lot, a good barometer all the time for Millions of hits on my older sites.

In so many years I see a lot of such persons. But all these persons aren't really important, companies, users. Ignorance persons are only very good supernumeraries.

But in your case ...
You are a respect person for myself since so many years.

Can't understand the motives you have in building a protective shield around Rybka.

Best
Frank

Will give you examples what others are thinking before he gave up with official computer chess works. Frank, no time for childrens like discussion around my hobby. Computer chess should be run silent with good examples what we can do. An other wrote: Are we ready for Courts? If so the nice time ended because I have to accept we are not flagships. How many from such comments you need to show up that a fight for a black site isn't good for the community? I am sure you are thinking ... it's a fight for the White site

Again, not to understand the motives by yourself to a very clear situation today.

[Frank Quisinsky]

"Berge verwandeln sich in Gold wenn Brüder zusammen arbeiten."
Richard von Weizäcker like that. The best Federal President Germany have all the time. To listen his words is much better as to speak about courts.

A good example are engine protocols I supported from the first hour. Arena is the next good example. And all the ignorance to that topics helps a lot for pushing. Persons like Richard van Weizäcker inspire me. Not persons like Vas.

Thats my way all the years, works fine!

Do you thought in the past that Rybka is one of the brothers?

[Rebel]

This is what you wrote -

I can completely rewrite Fruit so that it is totally free of copyright, but produces totally identical scores and node counts on any position I let it search

Such a program is still a copyright breach because of "Substantial similarity" so your Fruit example is wrong and it shows your ignorance on the matter.

Wrong again. Similarity in copyright law refers to how it looks, and not to what it does. For example, Fruit generates piece-to-square tables from addition of rank and file bonuses (and occasional other bonuses, such as long diagonals) during initialization. I could incorporate the tables that would result from that in complete form as initialized data in my program. This would have zero similarity to the Fruit code in the sense of copyright law.

Hilarious.........

You are making my day, you should consult Zach Wegner and Mark Watkins. The PST's are a sphere point in both their documents Vas copied Fruit. And you are saying it's all okay???? What you describe is EXACTLY what Wegner and Watkins accuse Vasik of.

Enough.

[hgm]

You are making my day, you should consult Zach Wegner and Mark Watkins. The PST's are a sphere point in both their documents Vas copied Fruit. And you are saying it's all okay???? What you describe is EXACTLY what Wegner and Watkins accuse Vasik of.

Enough.

You really don't get it, do you?

I am saying it is not a copyright infringement.
Of course it is an ICGA rule #2 violation.

These are not the same, and the fact that you maintain they are, makes any opinion you have on this entire matter only suitable for the dustbin.

[S.Taylor]

Somebody here must know him or Iweta! I am curious..

I don't know if anyone has answered it yet.

What IS Vas doing today?

(He was a legend. If Kittinger was, and Richard Lang was, and some others, then more than anything, Vas was too!)

[S.Taylor]

Very good! You're consistent! +1!

[Rebel]

Hi Ed,

Hi Frank,

you try to make a very simply story since years complicated.

If it were so simple then there was consensus among the chess programmers. We have seen consensus on a 100% base regarding past cases. Only exception would be Ippolit, there are a few who (still want to) believe Ippolit being an original engine, the vast majority (90-95%) believes Ippolite is a Rybka clone. All in all that's quite an impressive performance of consensus.

And then the Rybka-Fruit case blows into our face and you see the chess programmers (the ones who should know) severely divided. No, it's not so simple at all. It's also a sign something is wrong.

I wonder why you do that? Can't understand the reasons for your effort around Rybka.

The human aspect and the injustice that is done.

You wrote:
Seriously, if you were not a chess programmer, meaning you have the potential to understand I would have ignored you.

Which was not directed at you.

And to myself you are working with the same words!

Which was related to your 2 claims that a) Fabien's Senpai was not a bitboard engine and later b) that Senpai could gain huge elo switching to
Magic Bitboards. Look it up, that isn't the case also. Bob reported no immediate speed gain over Rotated Bitboards, others do profit but on average not more than10-15 elo. Which is nice but not what you implied.

An other question:
Do you think that a chess programmer is a better human as a non chess programmer?

WHAT ?

Honestly:
I can life very good with ignorance. In my view a good evaluation unit. With such persons I can see very easy ... my own work is good or bad. More of such persons, work is good, lesser of such person ... work is bad. Ignorance people helps a lot, a good barometer all the time for Millions of hits on my older sites.

In so many years I see a lot of such persons. But all these persons aren't really important, companies, users. Ignorance persons are only very good supernumeraries.

But in your case ...
You are a respect person for myself since so many years.

And vice versa Frank. You always done an excellent work with Arena, your tournaments, your interviews, priceless.

Can't understand the motives you have in building a protective shield around Rybka.

Already answered that.