morality and legality of dowloading robbolito

[Rolf]

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

That seems rather silly. No doubt Ryan is the person most associated with Fruit now, as the main author. And of course he knows Fruit very well. But Fruit 2.1 is set in stone, and many people have studied it quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I am very familiar with the code and its structure, mostly from the Rybka investigation. There are plenty of people who would have as much or more expertise on Fruit, so I'm not sure why Ryan should take precedence here. Regardless, the last time I talked to Ryan about this, he seemed like he didn't really have an opinion either way. Perhaps he will chime in here.

Anyways, I think familiarity with Rybka 1's internals is a much better qualification in this matter, and I would call myself an expert in that regard. And there is simply nothing that Ryan or anyone else could tell me that would convince me that Rybka 1 was not a direct derivative of Fruit (and derived most of its strength from it). This really has nothing to do with opinion; there is just far too much evidence of wrongdoing. Admittedly, not very much of this is public knowledge, but the evidence is there, in the Rybka 1 exe.

Now you're getting older you should have finally learned that in science you cant prove anything what you say by claiming that you are saying that you are probably right with what you have said. This is basically what you've already said over a year ago. Almost identically combined with the statement of having not enough time. Fortunately you have not the problem of too little money. Although Bob is more concerned abot the latter when he is talking about the motivation really good programmers should have to do such a work with almost no money coming around.

From the four mouscetiers of the anti-Rybka-guys (one of them the famous cloner Norm S.) you are the one who has the best webpage about Rybka in mind, who has the smallest merits as academic, just because you are the youngest.

How could you be calling yourself an expert of the internals of a closed commercial program like Rybka? Would you like to join the Rybka team? Do you want a signature of the famous Wch Vasik himself for Christmas?

[slobo]

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

That seems rather silly. No doubt Ryan is the person most associated with Fruit now, as the main author. And of course he knows Fruit very well. But Fruit 2.1 is set in stone, and many people have studied it quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I am very familiar with the code and its structure, mostly from the Rybka investigation. There are plenty of people who would have as much or more expertise on Fruit, so I'm not sure why Ryan should take precedence here. Regardless, the last time I talked to Ryan about this, he seemed like he didn't really have an opinion either way. Perhaps he will chime in here.

Anyways, I think familiarity with Rybka 1's internals is a much better qualification in this matter, and I would call myself an expert in that regard. And there is simply nothing that Ryan or anyone else could tell me that would convince me that Rybka 1 was not a direct derivative of Fruit (and derived most of its strength from it). This really has nothing to do with opinion; there is just far too much evidence of wrongdoing. Admittedly, not very much of this is public knowledge, but the evidence is there, in the Rybka 1 exe.

Now you're getting older you should have finally learned that in science you cant prove anything what you say by claiming that you are saying that you are probably right with what you have said. This is basically what you've already said over a year ago. Almost identically combined with the statement of having not enough time. Fortunately you have not the problem of too little money. Although Bob is more concerned abot the latter when he is talking about the motivation really good programmers should have to do such a work with almost no money coming around.

From the four mouscetiers of the anti-Rybka-guys (one of them the famous cloner Norm S.) you are the one who has the best webpage about Rybka in mind, who has the smallest merits as academic, just because you are the youngest.

How could you be calling yourself an expert of the internals of a closed commercial program like Rybka? Would you like to join the Rybka team? Do you want a signature of the famous Wch Vasik himself for Christmas?

Again, you did not get it right, Rolf.

He said he was an expert on Rybka 1.
Let me remind you: Rybka 1 is not a commercial program.
OK?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

I agree !!

But please understand that the topic to RobboLito / RobboLite / Tankist / Ippolit isn't clear.

1. Engine is free avaiable.
2. Engine seems to be the number 1
3. Sources are free available
4. Sources are totaly unclear
5. A lot of questions to the "older" number 1 "Rybka"
6. Clone ?
7. From anonym persons comes the first sources.
8. Rybka 1 have parts of Fruit ?
and so on ...

For me quiet clear that the computer chess community have to discuss about it.

But I understand your point of view.
With time other topics will be discuss.

A bigger senstation as RobboLito is in my opinion the new engine Doch. One of the chess programmer from the first time come back with such a great engine. Doch have a bad endgame and its possible that Doch can play with 200 ELO more. 200 ELO more and we have again a new number 1.

Interesting is that also Larry Kaufmann are worked on Doch. Larry is working on Rybka too.

A good question is:
Is Larry Kaufmann at the moment working on both engines or on Doch only. The reasons are interesting ...

A lot of unclear questions.
The computer chess community like it to have clear situations.

Regards to Nevada from Trier, Germany.

Best
Frank

[playjunior]

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

That seems rather silly. No doubt Ryan is the person most associated with Fruit now, as the main author. And of course he knows Fruit very well. But Fruit 2.1 is set in stone, and many people have studied it quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I am very familiar with the code and its structure, mostly from the Rybka investigation. There are plenty of people who would have as much or more expertise on Fruit, so I'm not sure why Ryan should take precedence here. Regardless, the last time I talked to Ryan about this, he seemed like he didn't really have an opinion either way. Perhaps he will chime in here.

Anyways, I think familiarity with Rybka 1's internals is a much better qualification in this matter, and I would call myself an expert in that regard. And there is simply nothing that Ryan or anyone else could tell me that would convince me that Rybka 1 was not a direct derivative of Fruit (and derived most of its strength from it). This really has nothing to do with opinion; there is just far too much evidence of wrongdoing. Admittedly, not very much of this is public knowledge, but the evidence is there, in the Rybka 1 exe.

Now you're getting older you should have finally learned that in science you cant prove anything what you say by claiming that you are saying that you are probably right with what you have said. This is basically what you've already said over a year ago. Almost identically combined with the statement of having not enough time. Fortunately you have not the problem of too little money. Although Bob is more concerned abot the latter when he is talking about the motivation really good programmers should have to do such a work with almost no money coming around.

From the four mouscetiers of the anti-Rybka-guys (one of them the famous cloner Norm S.) you are the one who has the best webpage about Rybka in mind, who has the smallest merits as academic, just because you are the youngest.

How could you be calling yourself an expert of the internals of a closed commercial program like Rybka? Would you like to join the Rybka team? Do you want a signature of the famous Wch Vasik himself for Christmas?

mmm...let me guess. Because he has spend a lot of time looking at Strelka's code?

[Rolf]

He said he was an expert on Rybka 1.
Let me remind you: Rybka 1 is not a commercial program.
OK?

We have already 2009 and Rybka 3 or already 4. So the recompensation would be defined by the actual campaign. Fortunately Zach has not enough "time".

Would you also like a personal signature from the Wch for Christmas?

[playjunior]

He said he was an expert on Rybka 1.
Let me remind you: Rybka 1 is not a commercial program.
OK?

We have already 2009 and Rybka 3 or already 4. So the recompensation would be defined by the actual campaign. Fortunately Zach has not enough "time".

Would you also like a personal signature from the Wch for Christmas?

He claims Rybka 1 had stuff from Fruit, and he claims he is an expert in Rybka 1 because he has studied the source of Rybka 1 thoroughly.

[Rolf]

He is a claimer without time or prestige to have impact.

I am also a claimer. I can beat Bobby Fischer. I'm an expert of his games and I spent hours with deep studies. I know too well what I'm saying. I say I'm the best player of the World. So it's proven.
The games? I will publish all of them on my webpage. But I want my analyses completed. Actually I dont have much time since they all want a rematch after they lost, Kasparov, Kramnik, Steinitz - you know what I'm talking about.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

He said he was an expert on Rybka 1.
Let me remind you: Rybka 1 is not a commercial program.
OK?

We have already 2009 and Rybka 3 or already 4. So the recompensation would be defined by the actual campaign. Fortunately Zach has not enough "time".

Would you also like a personal signature from the Wch for Christmas?

_No we don't have Rybka 4 and no one knows when and what we will have in the future,only your prophet knows that....

_Is that how your prophet keeps you close to him,a personal signature or another exchanged e-mail from time to time

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

He is a claimer without time or prestige to have impact.

I am also a claimer. I can beat Bobby Fischer. I'm an expert of his games and I spent hours with deep studies. I know too well what I'm saying. I say I'm the best player of the World. So it's proven.
The games? I will publish all of them on my webpage. But I want my analyses completed. Actually I dont have much time since they all want a rematch after they lost, Kasparov, Kramnik, Steinitz - you know what I'm talking about.

[Uri Blass]

Aside from Fabien, Ryan is the author most familiar with Fruit. Rybka's strength does not come from Fruit. However, those wanting to pooh-pooh Rybka as a Fruit clone should talk to Ryan. As I said, I can't add anything further.

That seems rather silly. No doubt Ryan is the person most associated with Fruit now, as the main author. And of course he knows Fruit very well. But Fruit 2.1 is set in stone, and many people have studied it quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I am very familiar with the code and its structure, mostly from the Rybka investigation. There are plenty of people who would have as much or more expertise on Fruit, so I'm not sure why Ryan should take precedence here. Regardless, the last time I talked to Ryan about this, he seemed like he didn't really have an opinion either way. Perhaps he will chime in here.

Anyways, I think familiarity with Rybka 1's internals is a much better qualification in this matter, and I would call myself an expert in that regard. And there is simply nothing that Ryan or anyone else could tell me that would convince me that Rybka 1 was not a direct derivative of Fruit (and derived most of its strength from it). This really has nothing to do with opinion; there is just far too much evidence of wrongdoing. Admittedly, not very much of this is public knowledge, but the evidence is there, in the Rybka 1 exe.

No

This is clearly an opinion regardless of the evidence that you find.

You have no way to prove that program A is a derivative of program B.
Even if both programs are exactly the same(and it is clearly not the case with rybka and fruit) it is in theory possible that 2 programmers thought in the same way independently.

The probability for having independent identical programs is very small for big programs so of course I am not going to believe a programmer who claims that he wrote a program that is the same as fruit independently but it is only my opinion.

In the case of rybka1 and fruit even if you find some identical parts it is not a proof that rybka1 is a fruit derivative and it is only some supporting evidence.

People who see the supporting evidence can give their opinion if rybka1 is a fruit derivative.

In the best case you are going to have an evidence that convince everybody that rybka1 is a fruit derivative but you will never have a proof.

Note also that people are allowed to use ideas from fruit in other chess programs and it means that more similiarity than the similiarity of independent programs is not surprising.

Uri