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

[bob]

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

If the FSF wants to proceed with a case, they certainly can. I have repeatedly said I have no interest in doing so. I can't sue someone on behalf of a 3rd party. I have to have some sort of interest in the case so that I can prove that I was damaged by the violation. So let's leave the possible court action to FSF and move on.

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.

Fine by me. Once you ave a legal view of this, the discussion should stop anyway.

[bob]

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.

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). (2) were the statements beneficial to others in that the knowledge they imparted were important in the context they were given? (yes).

There's no legal case against a group (B) that points out that (A) did something improper by copying a GPL program (or even copied a non-GPL program since that would be a copyright issue rather than GPL issue).

Please try again as you are simply barking up the wrong tree. This forum is about computer chess, and clone/no-clone discussions are perfectly appropriate here since that is one of many valid computer chess topics. A topic which _used_ to be discussed on r.g.c.c usenet news.

[Rolf]

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

With all due respect, your argument sucks, because look please:
Vas is a gentleman, he has a real name, he's authentic, both he and his wife are chessplayers, his father is professor like Bob, Vas himself has also academic roots with the whole family, so if he says people blackmailed me, stole my code, then this is a fact to begin with. Now look at Uncle Robb and his teamsters, all talented, probably older seniors out of the Stalin&Troitsky stoneage, he just cant show his fathers, because they are all chess cyber terrorists.

You argue now as if Vas were a cyber terrorist. What a scandal!

I wouldnt call Robb a clone either, but I would call him a bastard program without testified parents. And that is impossible in decent sports like computerchess. That is like a dog without a testified pedigree. All bastards.

[bob]

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.

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

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.

[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

With all due respect, your argument sucks, because look please:
Vas is a gentleman, he has a real name, he's authentic, both he and his wife are chessplayers, his father is professor like Bob, Vas himself has also academic roots with the whole family, so if he says people blackmailed me, stole my code, then this is a fact to begin with. Now look at Uncle Robb and his teamsters, all talented, probably older seniors out of the Stalin&Troitsky stoneage, he just cant show his fathers, because they are all chess cyber terrorists.

You argue now as if Vas were a cyber terrorist. What a scandal!

I wouldnt call Robb a clone either, but I would call him a bastard program without testified parents. And that is impossible in decent sports like computerchess. That is like a dog without a testified pedigree. All bastards.

The argument which sucks is 'what Vas said must be true because Vas said it is true'. Which is what your argument boils down to.

Scandalously yours,
Jeremy

[mariaclara]

that's his way. you caught him in his own words.
he's just trying to get outta it.

but everyone reading his post can see very clearly,

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

Ya caught him.

hahahahaha

...................................

The argument which sucks is 'what Vas said must be true because Vas said it is true'. Which is what your argument boils down to.

Scandalously yours,
Jeremy

[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.

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

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.

THis is true. We have the word of a decent gentlemen against still unknown chess cyber terrorists who want to destroy computerchess sport. For you as our patron no problem?

And also good that you repeat the other topic as alleged fact. Bob are you sure that you have seen from both prgrams the source code?

I repeat, you saw

°°°°°°° Rybka 1 beta sourcode and

°°°°°°° from whatever Fruit version (2.1?) sourcecode?

The whole code was examined or just some pieces?

Because how do you know that what you saw in Rybka 1 beta sourcecode (??) really can only come out of Fruit?

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?

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. 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.

Best, Rolf

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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

With all due respect, your argument sucks, because look please:
Vas is a gentleman, he has a real name, he's authentic, both he and his wife are chessplayers, his father is professor like Bob, Vas himself has also academic roots with the whole family, so if he says people blackmailed me, stole my code, then this is a fact to begin with. Now look at Uncle Robb and his teamsters, all talented, probably older seniors out of the Stalin&Troitsky stoneage, he just cant show his fathers, because they are all chess cyber terrorists.

You argue now as if Vas were a cyber terrorist. What a scandal!

I wouldnt call Robb a clone either, but I would call him a bastard program without testified parents. And that is impossible in decent sports like computerchess. That is like a dog without a testified pedigree. All bastards.

Yeah,a real gentleman,that's why he didn't release Rybka 3+ as he promised....after that,any action is taken or a word spoken from this gentleman is second-gussed Rolf if you are at the same level of intelligence or more than a first grader....
Dr.D

[mariaclara]

a lotta blabity-bla

hahahahaha

but ya can't hide or evade this.

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

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.

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

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.

THis is true. We have the word of a decent gentlemen against still unknown chess cyber terrorists who want to destroy computerchess sport. For you as our patron no problem?

And also good that you repeat the other topic as alleged fact. Bob are you sure that you have seen from both prgrams the source code?

I repeat, you saw

°°°°°°° Rybka 1 beta sourcode and

°°°°°°° from whatever Fruit version (2.1?) sourcecode?

The whole code was examined or just some pieces?

Because how do you know that what you saw in Rybka 1 beta sourcecode (??) really can only come out of Fruit?

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?

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. 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.

Best, Rolf

[Rolf]

Yeah,a real gentleman,that's why he didn't release Rybka 3+ as he promised....after that,any action is taken or a word spoken from this gentleman is second-gussed Rolf if you are at the same level of intelligence or more than a first grader....Dr.D

That is totally true! I just read that Vas planned to publish directly a Rybka 5 before he would ever have released the version of Rybka 4. Deep, if Vas does that, then I can assure you, he's for me completely out. Then I will refuse every attempts of the Ralichs to adopt me as their official speaker. I couldnt do this as experienced mathematician. If he cant even hold his numbers under control. Deep, please help me, what can I do? HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!