Komodo - Rybka in Danger?

[bob]

My comments are _not_ "ad hominem".

You called Vas unethical and that is a personal attack on him.

They are based on plain and simple fact. In the "liar" case, "there is no fruit code in Rybka" is false. It seems that some already admit that the UCI parser code was copied. But they say no "playing code". However, last time I checked, "no" means _none_. Not "just a little" or "just unimportant parts." However, there is much more than just UCI code here, some details have been published. Some will be published at some point in the future. But "no" was a very poor choice of words, when you think about it. You can't be "just a little bit pregnant". You are or you are not.

Sorry, but that is just about the strangest reasoning I have ever seen here. He _was_ unethical in claiming a program is a clone without offering any proof of any kind (as well as unethical in copying parts of Fruit directly and using them in Rybka 1). But even if his behaviour _was_ unethical, it is an ad hominem (personal) when I point that out?

_That's_ a stretch...

An ad hominem attack doesn't come from a straight statement of fact.

[bob]

I would also like to say that I don't know how I got sucked into this. I personally don't really care that much on a personal level there is nothing at stake for me - it's just that my own personal sense of justice is offended when I see someone get ripped off like Vas was, and this is followed up by character assassination cleverly disguised as concern for his well being.

Thanks for speaking it out in your position with your status. Because we have many members who cant understand something even if it#s right before their eyes - if the wrong or nameless people are telling them about it. This is my fate e.g., but I dont care because I know what is right and what is wrong.

Let me add this. Here in CCC we have most famous programmers (Theron, Hyatt) who simply dont get what this all about.

They prejudge Vasik as a person. a) Vas has no moral education - if I would behave this way, I could increase my Tiger to the same extent lkike Rybka [NB that exact proof for the allegation was never presented, nowhere, neither here or elsewhere on webpages] b) Vas is a liar [also here without proof]

Nobody sane would believe that Vas begins to elaborate in front of such people and their insults.

Now we have people (pseudo names) who argue as if Vas were stupid. Truth is Vas has thought about all these arguments and saw no way to finally convince a community that stands under the influence of such experts who attack ad hominem. Who make accusations without proving their claims in scientifically sober ways.

My verdict goes even deeper. Bob wrote in a seperate message that for him it's unacceptable that Vas made a claim (vs Rolino) and then decides to add nothing more because after Bob it's the obligation to prove a claim. Again, he himself, Bob Hyatt, did never prove his claim 'he's a liar' nor Theron proved that Vas had no moral education, but this just as an aside, for me the statement is nonsense and I'm surprised that Bob is going into such a provably false direction. Here is the proof that this is total nonsense:

Fact is Vas informed about a sort of blackmail approach via email. He didnt make a claim! In truth he reported what had happened and that he wouldnt care about it because it makes no sense to let your peace of mind be disturbed by crooks and cloners. This is the online description of a reaction but this is no claim at all.

We must learn that this sort of aggressiveness in communication isnt everybody's favorite! This <<Aha you pretend this or that , now tell "us" quickly where you got this. How can you make such a "claim". But I, Bob, oppose that and now you must prove it. It's a duty! Because else you should never have made this sort of claim!!!!>>

But again, it is no claim in reaL, it's Bob and other people who want to get into a fight with Vas, but Vas just ignores it. He doesnt see and doesnt want such conflicts because they dont lead nowhere. And that is a legal position of deepest wisdom. Because how you could defend against ad hominem?

My comments are _not_ "ad hominem". They are based on plain and simple fact. In the "liar" case, "there is no fruit code in Rybka" is false. It seems that some already admit that the UCI parser code was copied. But they say no "playing code". However, last time I checked, "no" means _none_. Not "just a little" or "just unimportant parts." However, there is much more than just UCI code here, some details have been published. Some will be published at some point in the future. But "no" was a very poor choice of words, when you think about it. You can't be "just a little bit pregnant". You are or you are not.

I agree with you this is all ok but still you are wrong and I will prove that again. Bob, I beg you to rethink it. If say in a case someone makes a weak statement does this P_R_O_V_E beyond doubt that he lied?? In my eyes you seek to find proof where you cant find it. Ok, in a private sort of court the slightest weakness would prove someone wrong but not in a court with science and justice experts. And for all not in a court like here on the net. You take every little bit and see something meaningful but you cant prove what someone meant with what he said. Our speech is too ambiguous to be taken in a 1-to-1 interpretation. If you want to make a case out of such indices you must at least collect several pieces of evidence not just a single expression.

I cant imagine that you really didnt know this. I am sure you know all this. But here you give the impression to young members as if you had a case. IMO it's a totally different task to check if a program has some Crafty code.

It would help us all if you would at least admit that you had no case beyond reasonable doubts. Please. Let's come to agreements about a minimal consent.

How many times does this need to be answered? Code from Fruit is _absolutely_ included in Rybka 1. It didn't just sneak in there by itself. So (a) there is definitely fruit code in Rybka. How much is irrelevant in this context. (b) Vas said there is _no_ fruit code in Rybka. "no" is pretty clear. Doesn't mean a little. Doesn't mean a few hundred or a few thousand lines. It means _zero_. Given (a), then (b) was a false statement, made knowingly. What do you call someone that makes a false statement _knowing_ it is false???

I have a little non-original code in Crafty. I have credited the sources (such as Pradu for the magic move stuff, but also any others that have contributed code). That's not so hard to do, and then one remains completely honest.

[bob]

3. Is the evaluation funcion really Rybka's property or it was borrowed by Fruit?

Slobo

You know, I looked up the old threads with the claims Rybka Beta was taken from Fruit. And even the 'evidence'. I participated in these discussions at the time, and was wondering now why my memory was that the accusations were pure bunk. Having re-read the threads, I now remember. The 'evidence' was not anything related to Fruit's search or evaluation, rather it was on the UCI code.

Those who were desperate to shoot Vas down, no doubt envious of his achievements, claimed that any code taken was forbidden and unethical. I, and some others, argued that to claim Rybka was a clone of any kind based on UCI code was utterly stupid, since when one speaks of clone, one presumes playing strength, knowledge and ability, not how it sends its moves. One could perfectly well argue that taking the UCI code, if true, was wrong, but not that this constituted proof of any kind that it was a clone.

The accusers then claimed they would present a large sample of proof, but this proof never materialized. We are told there is clear proof, but it is a secret. Secret proof.

Vas has no way to prove anything publicly without giving away his source code.

No one seems to think he has that right to keep his own code secret.

Of course he could show you sections of that code, in which case you will say that he faked it. The best he can do is what he has already done.

To me this has been a terrible injustice to Vas, it's like getting robbed, and then having a different gang of thugs come after you with baseball bats.

You are totally incorrect.

Software piracy cases are conducted in courts every day of the week and they don't dump the code for the public to see!! Are you crazy?

That's why Rybka & Co. needs to at least make a public announcement that ACTION IS BEING TAKEN. Shit, that' just about all a boy would need to say to the public.

OF COURSE he has the right to keep his own code secret!

"The best he can do is what has already been done"

Let us all remember this one. Because at this point Vas has DONE NOTHING.

And Vas can do nothing because he'll be forced to take his clothes off.

So, Vas must just take it like a man. Oh woh is me. He can do nothing about it. Gimme a break.

Damn, your world is weird. Sounds almost like an invitation for all the members here to come steal your software. What would Don do about it? He said so himself: NOTHING.

I hope Vas ain't listening to this inane reasoning. I hope he has enough man in him to take it to these alleged thieves. Maybe the guy has been sitting around getting drunk listening to too much of Don's type of advice.

Oh no Vas, you can't do anything. Oh no, Vas, you may win the battle, but lose the war. Oh no, Vas, didn't you know, you're in a damnable catch-22, you lose at the start because you gotta post your source code on CCC if you want to prove your case.

Maybe Vas has been listening to your bend-me-over-and-take-it approach to the software business.

And then the timing of LK's new job.

An alignment of the stars ...

This entire argument is flawed beyond belief. If someone copied parts of his code, then I'd think everyone would agree those parts are _already_ public. It would be quite easy to take a couple of significant chunks of code from Rybka 3, lay them out side-by-side with the IP/Robo* code, and say "look, here is the properly formatted code from Rybka... here is the identical code from Robo (except that procedure names or variable names are different, and the code is slightly rearranged... and here is a third code where I took the robo code, line by line, and rearranged/restructured it so that it matches my code exactly.

That doesn't give away a single thing that is not already available in the Robo* source, and it would forever shut this endless debate down. It would not give any new insight into Rybka. It would reveal nothing that has not already been revealed (perhaps a few variable names) and would be more than convincing.

So how, exactly and why, exactly, would he need to reveal parts of the code that were _not_ in Robo*? And how/why would doing what I suggested reveal something that is not already "out there" for everyone to see.

A little logic now and again would go a long way. Just put the emotions aside and think for a bit, and most of this kind of excuse-making goes away.

[bob]

I can't even read RobboLito code myself, I'm not a programmer. I based my conclusion on an email from a reliable independent chess programmer (no connection to Don, me, or Rybka) who sent this king table he either found in or derived from an early Ippo version. He had no access to Rybka code himself, he just sent this info along. I compared it with my files of the values sent to Vas for R3, and the resemblance was startling. I didn't ask for other tables to compare, one was enough for me. It was also obvious to me that using Ippo (or later Robbo) for analysis generally produced evals extremely close to R3 in most situations, with rare exceptions. This should be equally obvious to anyone who compares them in analyzing many positions.
I could post the king table I submitted, but as I said I have no proof that it is actually in R3, I only know that Vas told me any time he made even the slightest changes to my terms or values, so I have no personal doubt on this point. So I'll leave it to others to post the relevant section from the R3 code if they wish to do so.
I don't claim that Robbo has taken the entire Rybka eval. Rather it seems that some parts may have been too difficult to decipher and were left out. So of course I won't post the whole eval even if I could prove it to be in R3.

The danger of "one was enough for me" is to compare rybka 1 beta table values to fruit's. More than one is enough there. BTW that has been done with direct disassembly of the piece/square table values. I don't remember the specifics now, but there is some material value difference between the two that requires some sort of multiplier. For example, stockfish uses P=256, so to convert to my pc/sq table values, one would need to multiply mine by 2.56 or divide the stockfish values by the same constant. But that doesn't make the values different, obviously, just duplicated and then scaled properly. I agree that duplicate tables would be a problem. But in both cases here (fruit/rybka 1 and robo/rybka3).

[Uri Blass]

I can't even read RobboLito code myself, I'm not a programmer. I based my conclusion on an email from a reliable independent chess programmer (no connection to Don, me, or Rybka) who sent this king table he either found in or derived from an early Ippo version. He had no access to Rybka code himself, he just sent this info along. I compared it with my files of the values sent to Vas for R3, and the resemblance was startling. I didn't ask for other tables to compare, one was enough for me. It was also obvious to me that using Ippo (or later Robbo) for analysis generally produced evals extremely close to R3 in most situations, with rare exceptions. This should be equally obvious to anyone who compares them in analyzing many positions.
I could post the king table I submitted, but as I said I have no proof that it is actually in R3, I only know that Vas told me any time he made even the slightest changes to my terms or values, so I have no personal doubt on this point. So I'll leave it to others to post the relevant section from the R3 code if they wish to do so.
I don't claim that Robbo has taken the entire Rybka eval. Rather it seems that some parts may have been too difficult to decipher and were left out. So of course I won't post the whole eval even if I could prove it to be in R3.

The danger of "one was enough for me" is to compare rybka 1 beta table values to fruit's. More than one is enough there. BTW that has been done with direct disassembly of the piece/square table values. I don't remember the specifics now, but there is some material value difference between the two that requires some sort of multiplier. For example, stockfish uses P=256, so to convert to my pc/sq table values, one would need to multiply mine by 2.56 or divide the stockfish values by the same constant. But that doesn't make the values different, obviously, just duplicated and then scaled properly. I agree that duplicate tables would be a problem. But in both cases here (fruit/rybka 1 and robo/rybka3).

Larry also said the following:

"It was also obvious to me that using Ippo (or later Robbo) for analysis generally produced evals extremely close to R3 in most situations"

I think that it is possible to prove similiarity in this case

take(rybka,robbo,stockfish,Naum,Shredder,toga) and give them to analyze many random positions at small depth(rybka can get depth 1 when other programs get depth that they have similiar strength to rybka depth 1)

If the difference between Rybka and Robbo is significantly smaller than the difference between other pairs then it is going to be an evidence against robbo.

Uri

[Rolf]

My comments are _not_ "ad hominem".

You called Vas unethical and that is a personal attack on him.

They are based on plain and simple fact. In the "liar" case, "there is no fruit code in Rybka" is false. It seems that some already admit that the UCI parser code was copied. But they say no "playing code". However, last time I checked, "no" means _none_. Not "just a little" or "just unimportant parts." However, there is much more than just UCI code here, some details have been published. Some will be published at some point in the future. But "no" was a very poor choice of words, when you think about it. You can't be "just a little bit pregnant". You are or you are not.

Sorry, but that is just about the strangest reasoning I have ever seen here. He _was_ unethical in claiming a program is a clone without offering any proof of any kind (as well as unethical in copying parts of Fruit directly and using them in Rybka 1). But even if his behaviour _was_ unethical, it is an ad hominem (personal) when I point that out?

_That's_ a stretch...

An ad hominem attack doesn't come from a straight statement of fact.

Except that the fact isnt a fact and the claiming wasnt a claiming. In total, you cant substantiate a case by connecting indirectly what you interpretated as alleged facts. Therefore your allegations remain ad hominem because they refer to non-factual interpretations by yourself. It remains based on playing with words. But I thought you were a computer scientist. And not a Bugliosi who handled investigated facts. Where are your facts? Why do you ask Vas to make your case?

[Rolf]

I would also like to say that I don't know how I got sucked into this. I personally don't really care that much on a personal level there is nothing at stake for me - it's just that my own personal sense of justice is offended when I see someone get ripped off like Vas was, and this is followed up by character assassination cleverly disguised as concern for his well being.

Thanks for speaking it out in your position with your status. Because we have many members who cant understand something even if it#s right before their eyes - if the wrong or nameless people are telling them about it. This is my fate e.g., but I dont care because I know what is right and what is wrong.

Let me add this. Here in CCC we have most famous programmers (Theron, Hyatt) who simply dont get what this all about.

They prejudge Vasik as a person. a) Vas has no moral education - if I would behave this way, I could increase my Tiger to the same extent lkike Rybka [NB that exact proof for the allegation was never presented, nowhere, neither here or elsewhere on webpages] b) Vas is a liar [also here without proof]

Nobody sane would believe that Vas begins to elaborate in front of such people and their insults.

Now we have people (pseudo names) who argue as if Vas were stupid. Truth is Vas has thought about all these arguments and saw no way to finally convince a community that stands under the influence of such experts who attack ad hominem. Who make accusations without proving their claims in scientifically sober ways.

My verdict goes even deeper. Bob wrote in a seperate message that for him it's unacceptable that Vas made a claim (vs Rolino) and then decides to add nothing more because after Bob it's the obligation to prove a claim. Again, he himself, Bob Hyatt, did never prove his claim 'he's a liar' nor Theron proved that Vas had no moral education, but this just as an aside, for me the statement is nonsense and I'm surprised that Bob is going into such a provably false direction. Here is the proof that this is total nonsense:

Fact is Vas informed about a sort of blackmail approach via email. He didnt make a claim! In truth he reported what had happened and that he wouldnt care about it because it makes no sense to let your peace of mind be disturbed by crooks and cloners. This is the online description of a reaction but this is no claim at all.

We must learn that this sort of aggressiveness in communication isnt everybody's favorite! This <<Aha you pretend this or that , now tell "us" quickly where you got this. How can you make such a "claim". But I, Bob, oppose that and now you must prove it. It's a duty! Because else you should never have made this sort of claim!!!!>>

But again, it is no claim in reaL, it's Bob and other people who want to get into a fight with Vas, but Vas just ignores it. He doesnt see and doesnt want such conflicts because they dont lead nowhere. And that is a legal position of deepest wisdom. Because how you could defend against ad hominem?

My comments are _not_ "ad hominem". They are based on plain and simple fact. In the "liar" case, "there is no fruit code in Rybka" is false. It seems that some already admit that the UCI parser code was copied. But they say no "playing code". However, last time I checked, "no" means _none_. Not "just a little" or "just unimportant parts." However, there is much more than just UCI code here, some details have been published. Some will be published at some point in the future. But "no" was a very poor choice of words, when you think about it. You can't be "just a little bit pregnant". You are or you are not.

I agree with you this is all ok but still you are wrong and I will prove that again. Bob, I beg you to rethink it. If say in a case someone makes a weak statement does this P_R_O_V_E beyond doubt that he lied?? In my eyes you seek to find proof where you cant find it. Ok, in a private sort of court the slightest weakness would prove someone wrong but not in a court with science and justice experts. And for all not in a court like here on the net. You take every little bit and see something meaningful but you cant prove what someone meant with what he said. Our speech is too ambiguous to be taken in a 1-to-1 interpretation. If you want to make a case out of such indices you must at least collect several pieces of evidence not just a single expression.

I cant imagine that you really didnt know this. I am sure you know all this. But here you give the impression to young members as if you had a case. IMO it's a totally different task to check if a program has some Crafty code.

It would help us all if you would at least admit that you had no case beyond reasonable doubts. Please. Let's come to agreements about a minimal consent.

How many times does this need to be answered? Code from Fruit is _absolutely_ included in Rybka 1. It didn't just sneak in there by itself. So (a) there is definitely fruit code in Rybka. How much is irrelevant in this context. (b) Vas said there is _no_ fruit code in Rybka. "no" is pretty clear. Doesn't mean a little. Doesn't mean a few hundred or a few thousand lines. It means _zero_. Given (a), then (b) was a false statement, made knowingly. What do you call someone that makes a false statement _knowing_ it is false???

I have a little non-original code in Crafty. I have credited the sources (such as Pradu for the magic move stuff, but also any others that have contributed code). That's not so hard to do, and then one remains completely honest.

I have read that Vas stated that there were original code in R1 except some public domain. Now the eternal challenge: where is the proof for ingredients that are Fruit but not public domain or original Vas code? This is the sober question logically and scientifically. Not your "nothing, zero" and "a bit" verbal games. Where are the facts? The announced proof for many years by now for "knowing false" statements? Doesnt the emptiness of proof bother you a bit?

[Rolf]

This entire argument is flawed beyond belief. If someone copied parts of his code, then I'd think everyone would agree those parts are _already_ public. It would be quite easy to take a couple of significant chunks of code from Rybka 3, lay them out side-by-side with the IP/Robo* code, and say "look, here is the properly formatted code from Rybka... here is the identical code from Robo (except that procedure names or variable names are different, and the code is slightly rearranged... and here is a third code where I took the robo code, line by line, and rearranged/restructured it so that it matches my code exactly.

That doesn't give away a single thing that is not already available in the Robo* source, and it would forever shut this endless debate down. It would not give any new insight into Rybka. It would reveal nothing that has not already been revealed (perhaps a few variable names) and would be more than convincing.

So how, exactly and why, exactly, would he need to reveal parts of the code that were _not_ in Robo*? And how/why would doing what I suggested reveal something that is not already "out there" for everyone to see.

A little logic now and again would go a long way. Just put the emotions aside and think for a bit, and most of this kind of excuse-making goes away.

Question is why you need Vas showing something if it reveils nothing new for you? What exactly would it mean to you if it's nothing new? Is this a secret language I miss somehow? Why cant you speak for Vas if it's irrelevant what he could say? Isnt it in truth just to keep such a topic alive with allegedly you urging Vas for something inexistent? Why not following my invitation for slowly establishing peace from your side, bad emotions aside? So, please, take away the "liar", "lack of moral education" and "unethical" allegations. Big thanks.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It's not really like that. The issue is the underlying message that Vas is some of kind of lying fraud. Nobody want to talk directly about what is really being implied here, and instead wants to take little jabs and imply that Vas must be guilty of something because he is afraid to aggressively go after the cloners. He must be hiding something - he must be afraid or otherwise he would do that because we think he should. It's a government cover-up!

__He definitely falls into this category

I'm not speaking to those who really want to know the facts, which have already been clearly presented - I'm speaking to those who seem to have a need to dismiss or ignore the facts.

__What facts are you talking about,we haven't hear or say anything yet

I would also like to say that I don't know how I got sucked into this. I personally don't really care that much on a personal level there is nothing at stake for me - it's just that my own personal sense of justice is offended when I see someone get ripped off like Vas was, and this is followed up by character assassination cleverly disguised as concern for his well being.

__Vasik has drown himself into a moral cesspoll by lying to the clients and fans of Rybka by not releasing the Rybka 3+ and yes I am making my point for the 10 000 time already because I have the rihgt to recieve Rybka 3+ as an honest customer paid for his piece of software....

Vas may very well believe the code is stolen from him. Maybe he has very good reason to believe that. The nothing more than cursory investigations reported in this forum have yielded suspicions, but there frankly are too many questions. Maybe he jumped the gun. Maybe not.

It is reasonable and expected for people to protect their property. Did you know that?

I hope Vas will make his case. He has waited WAY TOO LONG. I have never seen a software company respond to stolen source like Rybka has.

Here's the typical thing to do. You go issue a press release and announce that your proprietary source code has been illegally pirated. You make a big deal about. If you do not want to show proof just then, because you may be doing further investigation, then you definitely want to announce that you have investigators (working with the police, etc.) vigorously investigating the matter to bring the thieves to justice.

To say the least Rybka is public relations disaster.

And why do you think he's not doing that
Simple as that,because the truth is twisted from his side of the story....
Dr.D

[slobo]

There is a difference between the questions of whether what the derivative-makers did was illegal and whether it is just dishonest/immoral. Perhaps they reverse-engineered the code, which I believe is not illegal, and then made their own program by modifying it. If it ever went to court, I suppose it would come down to how great the changes were. Maybe Vas thinks that's a difficult case to win, considering also the problem of trying to sue people who may live in countries that are under very different legal systems. The one thing that is clear is that the similarity of these programs to Rybka is too great to be attributed to anything other than starting with a reverse-engineered (or stolen) code and then making changes. That may not be enough to win a lawsuit though, I have no idea of how much things have to be changed to be legally in the clear. I do know that if I had made the world's (arguably) strongest chess program I wouldn't keep my name secret. You can be sure that if Komodo ever passes Rybka Don and I won't deny authorship!

Thanks for your honest answers, Larry.
I'd like to tell you that Rybka-Ippo story started, probably, with Rybka 1 copying parts of Fruit code. Fruit was under GPL licence, and it was not allowed to borrow its code without publishing your own one.