Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Karlo Bala]

2.0. I haven't been able to get 1.0 or 1.8. If you have them, I would be interested in seeing them.

I have both 1.0 & 1.8. If you want I can send you by mail

[Zach Wegner]

Hi Zach,

absolutely no attempt to diminish or prejudice your work here in any way, but in case you're not aware, the C++ code of Strelka 2.0 was compared line for line with the Rybka 1.0 binary a few months ago. (of course it's certainly interesting to have more info, and another expert opinion, thanks for all your effort in this regard...)

Hello Norm,

The main point of the thread was to show that we are comparing Rybka with Fruit, not Strelka and Fruit. Uri posted something about how Rybka could be different inside, so I thought exposing Rybka's innards would be the best way to get to the bottom of this matter.

I knew about Rick Fadden's work. He seems to be pretty talented, but I think his word on this issue should be taken with a grain of salt, seeing as how he thinks Strelka is C++.

I have found some definite differences between Rybka and Strelka. There are some at the bottom of my first post, I see now that many might have skipped over it because of the huge block of assembly.

I'm not sure how Rick didn't notice the changes that I mention. Possibly he was using a different Strelka version. Or maybe they are just the small superficial changes he spoke of.

[Zach Wegner]

2.0. I haven't been able to get 1.0 or 1.8. If you have them, I would be interested in seeing them.

I have both 1.0 & 1.8. If you want I can send you by mail

I would of course greatly appreciate that.

Email: zwegner at gmail dot com

Thanks.

[kranium]

I'm not sure how Rick didn't notice the changes that I mention. Possibly he was using a different Strelka version. Or maybe they are just the small superficial changes he spoke of.

I'm pretty sure that at the time, he was a rybka customer, and a frequent poster in the rybka forum. I believe he even communicated directly with Vas about the issue on at least one occassion that i'm aware of. It's seems likely that he was simply over-zealous in his 100% assesment...

He does say later on in the same thread that Strelka 2.0 is missing about 50 lines of code to exactly match Rybka 1.0.

Norm

[Zach Wegner]

2.0. I haven't been able to get 1.0 or 1.8. If you have them, I would be interested in seeing them.

I have both 1.0 & 1.8. If you want I can send you by mail

It turns out that Karlo just has the executables. While they could be useful via disassembly, I think the source code would be a better tool here, as then it wouldn't have gone through two optimization paths, etc.

Dann Corbit seems to be away for the week, so if anyone else that might have the sources could send them to me in the meantime I would appreciate it.

Thanks for your offer though, Karlo.

[Tony Thomas]

2.0. I haven't been able to get 1.0 or 1.8. If you have them, I would be interested in seeing them.

I have both 1.0 & 1.8. If you want I can send you by mail

It turns out that Karlo just has the executables. While they could be useful via disassembly, I think the source code would be a better tool here, as then it wouldn't have gone through two optimization paths, etc.

Dann Corbit seems to be away for the week, so if anyone else that might have the sources could send them to me in the meantime I would appreciate it.

Thanks for your offer though, Karlo.

Only other person that I know of who has the source code is Bryan Hoffman. I dont know his email address though..Ofcourse most of us have Strelka 1.0, 1.8 and 2.0, I am one of those who wants all the collectible baseball cards.

[Uri Blass]

2.0. I haven't been able to get 1.0 or 1.8. If you have them, I would be interested in seeing them.

I have both 1.0 & 1.8. If you want I can send you by mail

It turns out that Karlo just has the executables. While they could be useful via disassembly, I think the source code would be a better tool here, as then it wouldn't have gone through two optimization paths, etc.

Dann Corbit seems to be away for the week, so if anyone else that might have the sources could send them to me in the meantime I would appreciate it.

Thanks for your offer though, Karlo.

I have the source of 1.8 but not the source of 1.0

I am going to send you the source of 1.8 later today.
I basically got 2 versions of the source of 1.8 that generate the same output but different.

Uri

[tiger]

Zach is showing code snippets where Rybka 1.0 is actually more similar to Fruit than Strelka 2.0.

A few days ago there was some vocal opposition to the idea that Rybka 1.0 coud be a derived work of Fruit 2.1.

Where is the opposition now?

There are several skilled people ready to explain why many programmers think (without daring to tell it) that Rybka started its life as Fruit 2.1.

The evidence is now being shown factually. Feel free to contradict it factually.



// Christophe

[Terry McCracken]

Zach is showing code snippets where Rybka 1.0 is actually more similar to Fruit than Strelka 2.0.

A few days ago there was some vocal opposition to the idea that Rybka 1.0 coud be a derived work of Fruit 2.1.

Where is the opposition now?

There are several skilled people ready to explain why many programmers think (without daring to tell it) that Rybka started its life as Fruit 2.1.

The evidence is now being shown factually. Feel free to contradict it factually.


// Christophe

Truthfully, I thought that was common knowledge. This forum never fails to surprise me.

Although my day suspension without warning or explanation wasn't too surprising, not with this team...

Treading on Eggshells...

Terry

[tiger]

Zach is showing code snippets where Rybka 1.0 is actually more similar to Fruit than Strelka 2.0.

A few days ago there was some vocal opposition to the idea that Rybka 1.0 coud be a derived work of Fruit 2.1.

Where is the opposition now?

There are several skilled people ready to explain why many programmers think (without daring to tell it) that Rybka started its life as Fruit 2.1.

The evidence is now being shown factually. Feel free to contradict it factually.


// Christophe

Truthfully, I thought that was common knowledge. This forum never fails to surprise me.

Although my day suspension without warning or explanation wasn't too surprising, not with this team...

Treading on Eggshells...

Terry

The fact that Rybka 1.0 is derived from Fruit 2.1 is a common opinion amongst programmers, especially since the reconstructed source code of Rybka 1.0 has been published (it is Strelka 2.0).

For some reason this fact has remained such a taboo that very few established programmers have dared to state clearly their opinion about it.

Now evidence is posted here for everybody to build his own opinion.

The important point to keep in mind is that if the evidence is considered as convincing it will demonstrate that an open source program has been used against the spirit of open source.

More specifically, the evidence is posted to show that a work derived from GPL'ed source code has been published as closed source, when the spirit of the GPL licence under which the original work was published is to always allow the source code to be kept open and shared. It is not only against the spirit, it is also explicitely forbidden by the GPL licence, which is the licence the author of the original work has chosen.



// Christophe