I'm in doubt if RobboLito is a clone

[Christopher Conkie]

And how do you propose to compare the source of Ippolit with source code of Rybka.
Christopher

I can help. I have the sources of Rybka 3, which displays the same results as Rybka (nodes, PV, scores).

That would be very helpful if you could Jury.

Christopher

[Terry McCracken]

Although back then I was suspicious that Vas broke the GPL or looked that way never reached a Final Verdict and even if he did breach the GPL I wouldn't go as far to say he's dishonest. Crooks are dishonest and the people behind Ippolit are just that.

The damage it seems has already been done.

The problem is that changing your code to not break the GPL is easy if one is willing to spend the time. The ideas in Fruit are not copyrighted, just the implementation.

So all that needs to be done is take code, change the implementation, but keep the same logic in your commercial code. This is not really violating GPL, though ethically there is a gray area. Zach is probably referring to this gray area in Rybka 1's implementation, which is a fair point.

This obviously does not condone the illegal release of reverse engineered code to the public (aka Ippolit style). The potential ethical (but not illegal) transgression is minor compared to the highly illegal reverse engineering of closed source code.

Here's a key point. There are definitely pieces of fruit in rybka 1. Which means it is quite likely they remain in 2 and 3. Legally the source for all 3 must be released under the GPL as well, since the thing has _already_ been sold. Which means that one could make the argument that if IPPOLIT is a reverse-engineered source for R3, it makes everything nice and legal in a twisted way.

This is a problem that should never have happened in the first place. But the genie was let out of the bottle a few years ago, and again now. There's more than enough wrongdoing here to go around...

Amen to that!

We have to erect a dam before computer chess as we know it is washed away.

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

I can add that the doninancy of Rybka is over....I predicted this to happen in the summer of 2010,but it's already happening....
The Happening regards,
Dr.D

I think it will happen but it hasn't happen yet. Ippilit isn't advancing, it's the same since March.

Rybka 4 will be at least 50-100 ELO points stronger. Ippolit hasn't been proven it's better than Rybka 3 with the contempt factor set at 0 AFAIK.

[Christopher Conkie]

I'll let some programmer tell you why what you are saying is nonsense.
Christopher

Wael implied you were a programmer so you can very well tell me yourself.

You don't get C from disassembling a program. Here is a free disassembler.

http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/idadown.htm

And this is what it does.

http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/overview.htm

Christopher

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Although back then I was suspicious that Vas broke the GPL or looked that way never reached a Final Verdict and even if he did breach the GPL I wouldn't go as far to say he's dishonest. Crooks are dishonest and the people behind Ippolit are just that.

The damage it seems has already been done.

The problem is that changing your code to not break the GPL is easy if one is willing to spend the time. The ideas in Fruit are not copyrighted, just the implementation.

So all that needs to be done is take code, change the implementation, but keep the same logic in your commercial code. This is not really violating GPL, though ethically there is a gray area. Zach is probably referring to this gray area in Rybka 1's implementation, which is a fair point.

This obviously does not condone the illegal release of reverse engineered code to the public (aka Ippolit style). The potential ethical (but not illegal) transgression is minor compared to the highly illegal reverse engineering of closed source code.

Here's a key point. There are definitely pieces of fruit in rybka 1. Which means it is quite likely they remain in 2 and 3. Legally the source for all 3 must be released under the GPL as well, since the thing has _already_ been sold. Which means that one could make the argument that if IPPOLIT is a reverse-engineered source for R3, it makes everything nice and legal in a twisted way.

This is a problem that should never have happened in the first place. But the genie was let out of the bottle a few years ago, and again now. There's more than enough wrongdoing here to go around...

Amen to that!

We have to erect a dam before computer chess as we know it is washed away.

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

I can add that the doninancy of Rybka is over....I predicted this to happen in the summer of 2010,but it's already happening....
The Happening regards,
Dr.D

I think it will happen but it hasn't happen yet. Ippilit isn't advancing, it's the same since March.

Rybka 4 will be at least 50-100 ELO points stronger. Ippolit hasn't been proven it's better than Rybka 3 with the contempt factor set at 0 AFAIK.

Unfortunately Terry that won't be enough....there is a version out there that is already 100 Elo stronger than Rybka 3,so assuming that,Rybka 4 must be at least 120-150 Elo stronger which I strongly doubt unless,as the black conspiracy predict,Vasik does benifit from the source code of the one who should not be mentioned
Dr.D

[Christopher Conkie]

Yes. But you do get C by decompiling it (by a C decompiler). Maybe quite different from the original but the structures must be there.
And if Impolite is a disassembled Rybka 3, the C 'source' obtained via decompilation may resemble Impolite source even better than Rybka source.

No, and it is a very lengthy undertaking which I would not even consider. These posts explain it quicker.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 974#298974

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 50&t=30296

Jury says that he has a version of Rybka 3 sources. This is what he said earlier.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... ht=#298142

I assume he said this by comparing them.

Christopher

[Terry McCracken]

Although back then I was suspicious that Vas broke the GPL or looked that way never reached a Final Verdict and even if he did breach the GPL I wouldn't go as far to say he's dishonest. Crooks are dishonest and the people behind Ippolit are just that.

The damage it seems has already been done.

The problem is that changing your code to not break the GPL is easy if one is willing to spend the time. The ideas in Fruit are not copyrighted, just the implementation.

So all that needs to be done is take code, change the implementation, but keep the same logic in your commercial code. This is not really violating GPL, though ethically there is a gray area. Zach is probably referring to this gray area in Rybka 1's implementation, which is a fair point.

This obviously does not condone the illegal release of reverse engineered code to the public (aka Ippolit style). The potential ethical (but not illegal) transgression is minor compared to the highly illegal reverse engineering of closed source code.

Here's a key point. There are definitely pieces of fruit in rybka 1. Which means it is quite likely they remain in 2 and 3. Legally the source for all 3 must be released under the GPL as well, since the thing has _already_ been sold. Which means that one could make the argument that if IPPOLIT is a reverse-engineered source for R3, it makes everything nice and legal in a twisted way.

This is a problem that should never have happened in the first place. But the genie was let out of the bottle a few years ago, and again now. There's more than enough wrongdoing here to go around...

Amen to that!

We have to erect a dam before computer chess as we know it is washed away.

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

I can add that the doninancy of Rybka is over....I predicted this to happen in the summer of 2010,but it's already happening....
The Happening regards,
Dr.D

I think it will happen but it hasn't happen yet. Ippilit isn't advancing, it's the same since March.

Rybka 4 will be at least 50-100 ELO points stronger. Ippolit hasn't been proven it's better than Rybka 3 with the contempt factor set at 0 AFAIK.

Unfortunately Terry that won't be enough....there is a version out there that is already 100 Elo stronger than Rybka 3,so assuming that,Rybka 4 must be at least 120-150 Elo stronger which I strongly doubt unless,as the black conspiracy predict,Vasik does benifit from the source code of the one who should not be mentioned
Dr.D

Oh please...And pray tell what ver. of X is 100 elo stronger than Rybka 3???

Your Proof!

[Tord Romstad]

Once again I've taken a couple of weeks off from computer chess, and once again so much seems to have happened (both here and in my mailbox) that just catching up seems like an impossible task. Sigh. For those of you who have written to me and haven't heard anything from me yet: Please be patient, I hope to reply to all of you within the next few days.

For now, something completely off-topic, because track and field is one of the hobbies competing with computer chess about my attention:

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

In fact, even today, a significant minority of the track and field community still thinks that the Fosbury flop has ruined high jump, or at least made it less attractive. This is because it makes the sport considerably less accessible for children and recreational athletes without access to special equipment. In the days before the Fosbury flop (a time I don't personally remember, as I was born in 1974), it was much more common to arrange informal high jump competitions in parks and gardens, on a surface of grass. This is obviously dangerous when using the Fosbury flop, as there is a serious risk of breaking your neck. Of course, it is still possible to use older techniques, but people tend to be more interested in trying to jump the same way the pros do. Therefore, high jump has become increasingly a sport for the elite, and not for the masses.

The above is not my personal opinion, though. I would rather see the rules relaxed, to allow jumping on two feet. If this were to happen, we would probably have seen techniques like this:



The final jump is 2.46, one centimeter higher than Javier Sotomayor's world record. Of course they are cheating by jumping from a bouncy surface, but these are also not world-class high jumpers, but merely good Norwegian gymnasts (which aren't all that good by international standards). The technique works, and I think it would be possible to jump higher this way than with the Fosbury flop, even on a hard surface.

[Cubeman]

Does not jumping from 2 feet mean actually 1 foot.Since there is a specific moment that there is only 1 foot still on the ground when the other has left?As it would be just about impossible to have both leave at exactly the same time.

[bob]

Once again I've taken a couple of weeks off from computer chess, and once again so much seems to have happened (both here and in my mailbox) that just catching up seems like an impossible task. Sigh. For those of you who have written to me and haven't heard anything from me yet: Please be patient, I hope to reply to all of you within the next few days.

For now, something completely off-topic, because track and field is one of the hobbies competing with computer chess about my attention:

I don't think it will be "washed away". Many years ago (I remember it from the 1968 olympics, but maybe it was used earlier than that) a new high-jump technique hit the track and field world. The "Fosbury flop". Some said "illegal". Some said "this will ruin the high jump. It just changed things and the high-jump is still alive and well, although the record has gone up significantly due to the technique. That's all that might happen here, IMHO.

In fact, even today, a significant minority of the track and field community still thinks that the Fosbury flop has ruined high jump, or at least made it less attractive. This is because it makes the sport considerably less accessible for children and recreational athletes without access to special equipment. In the days before the Fosbury flop (a time I don't personally remember, as I was born in 1974), it was much more common to arrange informal high jump competitions in parks and gardens, on a surface of grass. This is obviously dangerous when using the Fosbury flop, as there is a serious risk of breaking your neck. Of course, it is still possible to use older techniques, but people tend to be more interested in trying to jump the same way the pros do. Therefore, high jump has become increasingly a sport for the elite, and not for the masses.

The above is not my personal opinion, though. I would rather see the rules relaxed, to allow jumping on two feet. If this were to happen, we would probably have seen techniques like this:



The final jump is 2.46, one centimeter higher than Javier Sotomayor's world record. Of course they are cheating by jumping from a bouncy surface, but these are also not world-class high jumpers, but merely good Norwegian gymnasts (which aren't all that good by international standards). The technique works, and I think it would be possible to jump higher this way than with the Fosbury flop, even on a hard surface.

Is there a "one foot rule"??? I have never noticed it. The old way of "face down" sort of forced it, and the "flop" sort of does too. But I didn't know there was a rule concerning how to jump...

[bob]

This is one of the many _serious_ problems we have here. The technical expertise of members is a wildly variable thing. If they don't see the problem with this issue now, then they will not be able to see the problem, ever. Plain "users" or plain "programmers" are just not going to "get" this.

This is why I proposed to put the matter in the hands of an expert panel. Unfortunately, the experts don't agree on the matter, they don't provide evidence, they don't want to form a panel.

This is one of the many _serious_ problems we have here.

There was a group of 5-6 that looked at this question in significant detail. We _did_ come to a uniform consensus. The others did not look at anything except personal opinion so far as I can tell. Or at the insides of their eyelids. But not at what was being discussed. I agree that _is_ a serious problem...