the end of the strelka affair

[slobo]

Footnote to *:

The blackmail was the following. Osipov urged Vas to grant him the "right" to go commercial with "his" Strelka. Vas refused it and now Osopov published the source. If that event is honest and legal and ethically decent then oh my goodness!

You are so well informed!
How do you know this?
How could you prove it?

[slobo]

Let me make a clear proposal:

We all should discriminate the anonymous Osipov and his many supporters on the internet who are basically propagating the wellness of thievery and blackmailing. It's really time to take a stand before it's too late. Principiis obsta!

Why should we discriminate a "supposed" cloner of Rybka 1 free program?
Rybka is now 2.3 or more.
By the way, Strelka is stronger than Rybka 1, so for me it is a different engine anyway.

I don´t care about codes, I take in consideration only engine´s playing strenght.

By the way, it is very strange that "Osipov-cloner" chosed Rybka 1 to clone, and not Rybka 2.1 for example, that is much stronger?

Any idea?

[Graham Banks]

Footnote to *:

The blackmail was the following. Osipov urged Vas to grant him the "right" to go commercial with "his" Strelka. Vas refused it and now Osopov published the source. If that event is honest and legal and ethically decent then oh my goodness!

You are so well informed!
How do you know this?
How could you prove it?

This is what Vas had to say:

I've taken a look this morning at the Strelka 2.0 sources. The picture is quite clear.

Vast sections of these sources started their life as a decompiled Rybka 1.0. The traces of this are everywhere. The board representation is identical, and all sorts of absolutely unique Rybka code methods, bitboard tricks and even exact data tables are used throughout. Significant portions of the search and evaluation logic are not fully disassembled - the author has left in hardcoded constants and used generic names (such as "PawnStruScore0" & "PawnStruScore1", "PassedPawnValue0" through "PassedPawnValue7", etc) which show that he hasn't yet fully understood what is happening.

In some cases, these traces do also extend beyond the inner search and evaluation kernel. For instance, Rybka and Strelka are the only engines which I know about which don't report "seldepth" and "hashfull". Rybka's UCI strings are used throughout.

The author did at first make attempts to hide the Rybka origins, for example by masking the table values in earlier Strelka versions. He also made significant attempts to improve the program. The attempts at improvement are not very original, but they are everywhere. They include PV collection, null verification (and in fact changes to the null implementation itself), some endgame drawishness heuristics, a handful of new evaluation term, a new approach to blending between opening and endgame eval terms, and so on. They also do include various structural changes, such as knight underpromotions, on-the-fly calculations of many tables, the setting of piece-square table values, etc. These changes are extensive and no doubt lead to differences in playing style and perhaps a useful engine for users to have, but they do not change the illegality of the code base.

In light of the above, I am claiming Strelka 2.0 as my own and will release it in the next few days under my own name. The name of the author with the pen name "Osipov" will be included if he comes forward with hiw own real name, otherwise an anonymous contribution will be noted. The contributions of Igor Korshunov will also be confirmed and noted if appropriate. All usage permissions will be granted with this release.

I do not see obvious signs of other code usage, but perhaps this deserves a closer look. Some of the transplanted ideas, such as the null verification search, are rather naive implementations of the approach in Fruit/Toga, although my first impression is that that code itself is original. The Winboard parser from Beowolf which was added to Strelka 1.0 seems to have been completely removed. If someone else does find other signs of code theft, please get in touch with me and I will give proper credit in the upcoming release.

If someone has suggestions about an appropriate license, and in particular the pros and cons of the GPL for a chess engine and for this unusual scenario, or if someone would be willing to help in preparing this code and license for release, please also get in touch with me.

As this code is two years and several hundred Elo old, I am not going to launch any major action. However, 'Osipov' has already threatened to repeat the procedure with Rybka 2.3.2a. (He did this after I declined to grant him rights to commercialize Strelka.) If this situation does repeat with a newer Rybka version, I will not just stand and watch any more. In the meantime, if someone has information about 'Osipov', please get in touch with me.

Vas

[slobo]

Footnote to *:

The blackmail was the following. Osipov urged Vas to grant him the "right" to go commercial with "his" Strelka. Vas refused it and now Osopov published the source. If that event is honest and legal and ethically decent then oh my goodness!

You are so well informed!
How do you know this?
How could you prove it?

This is what Vas had to say:

I've taken a look this morning at the Strelka 2.0 sources. The picture is quite clear.

Vast sections of these sources started their life as a decompiled Rybka 1.0. The traces of this are everywhere. The board representation is identical, and all sorts of absolutely unique Rybka code methods, bitboard tricks and even exact data tables are used throughout. Significant portions of the search and evaluation logic are not fully disassembled - the author has left in hardcoded constants and used generic names (such as "PawnStruScore0" & "PawnStruScore1", "PassedPawnValue0" through "PassedPawnValue7", etc) which show that he hasn't yet fully understood what is happening.

In some cases, these traces do also extend beyond the inner search and evaluation kernel. For instance, Rybka and Strelka are the only engines which I know about which don't report "seldepth" and "hashfull". Rybka's UCI strings are used throughout.

The author did at first make attempts to hide the Rybka origins, for example by masking the table values in earlier Strelka versions. He also made significant attempts to improve the program. The attempts at improvement are not very original, but they are everywhere. They include PV collection, null verification (and in fact changes to the null implementation itself), some endgame drawishness heuristics, a handful of new evaluation term, a new approach to blending between opening and endgame eval terms, and so on. They also do include various structural changes, such as knight underpromotions, on-the-fly calculations of many tables, the setting of piece-square table values, etc. These changes are extensive and no doubt lead to differences in playing style and perhaps a useful engine for users to have, but they do not change the illegality of the code base.

In light of the above, I am claiming Strelka 2.0 as my own and will release it in the next few days under my own name. The name of the author with the pen name "Osipov" will be included if he comes forward with hiw own real name, otherwise an anonymous contribution will be noted. The contributions of Igor Korshunov will also be confirmed and noted if appropriate. All usage permissions will be granted with this release.

I do not see obvious signs of other code usage, but perhaps this deserves a closer look. Some of the transplanted ideas, such as the null verification search, are rather naive implementations of the approach in Fruit/Toga, although my first impression is that that code itself is original. The Winboard parser from Beowolf which was added to Strelka 1.0 seems to have been completely removed. If someone else does find other signs of code theft, please get in touch with me and I will give proper credit in the upcoming release.

If someone has suggestions about an appropriate license, and in particular the pros and cons of the GPL for a chess engine and for this unusual scenario, or if someone would be willing to help in preparing this code and license for release, please also get in touch with me.

As this code is two years and several hundred Elo old, I am not going to launch any major action. However, 'Osipov' has already threatened to repeat the procedure with Rybka 2.3.2a. (He did this after I declined to grant him rights to commercialize Strelka.) If this situation does repeat with a newer Rybka version, I will not just stand and watch any more. In the meantime, if someone has information about 'Osipov', please get in touch with me.

Vas

Thanks, Graham,
but for me it is not a proof. It was only Vas´ declaration.

About the first part:
I would believe all he says about Strelka´s code if he let Fabien have a look at Rybka 1 original source code.

[pedrox]

We must call things by their name and in the words of Vas I do not see the word "clone", which I welcome, and that in view of this maybe as Vas said the code is not based on Fruit or maybe as said autor of Strelka it is based on Fruit with generator bitboard contains portions of code Rybka by decompiled.

The latter is what we have to decide if it is legal o not, and perhaps we are not for those who do, if Vas believes that this is illegal has the possibility to go to court if Osipov believes that is legal it can then try to use the latest version of Rybka.

[Edward German]

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... id=3006#fp


In case this posting got lost in the other strelka thread, I'll insert it here. Vas has now stated more clearly how strelka is a clone and he is claiming it as his own.

I did not notice any testing going on, so maybe everybody has finally agreed it is a clone. I am amazed at how much disagreement this generated, and how confident some people where that it was not a clone, despite lacking the crucial evidence (vas looking at the code.)

It is not over. It has just begun Now if Vas release Strelka as
his own will it be a clone of Strelka. Rybka will get more
attendion and sale more copies of Rybka. Nice going Vas.


I am glad it was finally found out so that the honest engine authors can get the attention they deserve. I hope this does not hurt vas financial prospects too much

best
J

We have not found out. We have not heard the other side of the
story.

That was a good one!

I Agree!

Read my german Statement in Arena-Forum here:

http://f22.parsimony.net/forum41668/messages/45936.htm

BTW: I write It in Rybka-Forum too (German Section).

My German Text:

Strelka 2.0 B und die Folgen?

Im Rybka-Forum hat Vasik R. angekündigt in Bälde (in einigen Tagen) Strelka 2.0 B als seine eigene Engine zu veröffentlichen, unter seinem eigenem Namen.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=3006

Was soll dieser Gegenzug denn bewirken?

Jeder vernünftige Mensch würde doch einfach beweisen dass der GEGNER ungerecht gehandelt hat, und würde die dazugehörigen Beweise vorlegen. Damit wäre der Gegner dann für IMMER Matt gesetzt - und man hätte auch ENDLICH seine Ruhe!

Fehlt es Rajlich etwa an Beweisen? So kommt es mir nun jedenfalls vor, denn wenn er es nötig hat, eine angeblich geklonte Engine, nun doppelt zu publizieren, dann kann ich nicht über den Gedanken springen, dass es ihm, dem Geschädigten, schlicht an Beweisen fehlt, bzw. sogar, dass er selber auch etwas zu verbergen hätte, wenn er Beweise vorliegen müsste!

[Rolf]

We must call things by their name and in the words of Vas I do not see the word "clone", which I welcome, and that in view of this maybe as Vas said the code is not based on Fruit or maybe as said autor of Strelka it is based on Fruit with generator bitboard contains portions of code Rybka by decompiled.

The latter is what we have to decide if it is legal o not, and perhaps we are not for those who do, if Vas believes that this is illegal has the possibility to go to court if Osipov believes that is legal it can then try to use the latest version of Rybka.

Sorry but it's IMO unwanted to set equal the two names. Vas is an honest and well-known member of the community, while "Osipov" is obviously a fake figure only existing to do harm to Vas. That's why a court would be out of reach actually. Please everybody should concentrate on the search for this anon.

[Rolf]

Was soll dieser Gegenzug denn bewirken?

Jeder vernünftige Mensch würde doch einfach beweisen dass der GEGNER ungerecht gehandelt hat, und würde die dazugehörigen Beweise vorlegen. Damit wäre der Gegner dann für IMMER Matt gesetzt - und man hätte auch ENDLICH seine Ruhe!

Fehlt es Rajlich etwa an Beweisen? So kommt es mir nun jedenfalls vor, denn wenn er es nötig hat, eine angeblich geklonte Engine, nun doppelt zu publizieren, dann kann ich nicht über den Gedanken springen, dass es ihm, dem Geschädigten, schlicht an Beweisen fehlt, bzw. sogar, dass er selber auch etwas zu verbergen hätte, wenn er Beweise vorliegen müsste!

Osipov has already commited blackmail, Eduard, and you are arguing on that same chain: If Vas doesnt show his details then we should conclude that he cant prove his innocence or worse this would show that Vas had also done something wrong. Eduard: that is a nasty form of character assassination. Correct this if possible.

[pedrox]

We must call things by their name and in the words of Vas I do not see the word "clone", which I welcome, and that in view of this maybe as Vas said the code is not based on Fruit or maybe as said autor of Strelka it is based on Fruit with generator bitboard contains portions of code Rybka by decompiled.

The latter is what we have to decide if it is legal o not, and perhaps we are not for those who do, if Vas believes that this is illegal has the possibility to go to court if Osipov believes that is legal it can then try to use the latest version of Rybka.

Sorry but it's IMO unwanted to set equal the two names. Vas is an honest and well-known member of the community, while "Osipov" is obviously a fake figure only existing to do harm to Vas. That's why a court would be out of reach actually. Please everybody should concentrate on the search for this anon.

There are people for whom things are black or white and there are other people for whom things can also be grey.

The only comment that I made is that Vas has not used the word "clone" in his comments, which I think is correct. Strelka is not a clone, if it is illegal or not, that's another matter.

I assume that is not a clone of Rybka because if it is then Rybka maybe could have a small problem with the GPL.

[menniepals]

It might be as good as releasing his code if he tries to prove strelka's code as copied from his.