Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

[Kirill Kryukov]

I think the point about Strelka and many others is quite simple (from my point of view, although Miguel may agree): strong derivative engines filled the top of all existing rating tables. Today there are about 20 versions of ippo occupying the tops of the tables and therefore this "drop down" the other amateur engines (and also redirects the attention of the general public). This is very good for testers (better and better engines to test), but it is not "motivating" for authors who every day have 5 new +3100 ELO engines that move to their own engines more and more down on the table and away from almost all the valuable tests that run the testers (except CCRL, which tests engines throug all the range of ELO).
I addition, I have my reservations on how good it is to try 20 or 50 versions of virtually the same engine to detect after thousands of hours and computer "horse-power" that the performance of all derivatives is about the same +- 10 ELO in limited testing conditions.

Regards,
Guillermo

Hi Guillermo! I agree and I want to say that there are still some people sharing your view. There are some events still running for original engines ("original" in general, not in strict sense), for example Oliver's ChessWar, or my own little tourney. Majority of engine users (and testers) of course just cares about strongest engines, unfortunately, but original engines still have their ecosystem (even if shrinked from what it once was).

Cheer up,
Kirill

[IWB]

Here is my view.

The autor of Fruit consider it as 'fruit like'. It misses the GPL but it has the source and the written expresion (in fora) by Jury Osipov that it comes (mostly) from Fruit. Even you (Uri, Dann) do not fully agree about the status and the origin of the engine, not to talk about FL, RH ... Starting from here it is all a moot point which is impossible to answer 100% without the help of VR and the original source - which I doubt we will ever see.

Thus I simply have to make a practical decision. As nearly all agree that good parts are fruit I consider it a fruit derivate. Whether this comes from Fruit directly or via Rybka or whatever ... doesn't matter as there is always some Fruit ...

A good point is, that it is different than Fruit or Toga (or Rybka). The real question we have to answer is if and when a derivate become an original?

If R1.0 is Fruit (like), is R1.2, R2.3.2, R3, R4 or the Litos or the Littos or Houdini? Can an original determinded by Elo gain or by development time or by different code. If so how much is needed, 1 Month, 1 Year, 20% 50% 99% different code? What if Rybka enters a tourney now? Will someone ask to see the code? What if Houdini enters, will someone ask for code and in case the code would be opened with what do you want to compare? Looking forward I see some problems!

Bye
Ingo

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Btw: I wrote it already here, GPL is dead, at least for comp chess, as it is impossible to finaly prove something.

Oh, it's certainly possible to prove something. It's just that almost noone seems to want to go to court over it.

[IWB]

Btw: I wrote it already here, GPL is dead, at least for comp chess, as it is impossible to finally prove something.

Oh, it's certainly possible to prove something. It's just that almost noone seems to want to go to court over it.

Different reasoning, same result!

You have a law which no one wants to enforce (never did - to my knowledge - in computer chess). What is it worth!

Same problem here in the fora. Endless discussions about coding, moral, node counts or even spaces in engine output ... but to what end? Even the experts do not agree, all this is completely useless for years. The talk here is backwards while it is 100% sure that Pandora will not go back to the box. Is there anyone with a useful proposal how to handle all this in future tourneys. The Littos do not have any copyright notice, everyone if legally free to use use them. I am waiting for the next big tourney where someone is alleged of cloning and he says "Prove it!". How would someone do that without the source of R3 for example.

Bye
Ingo

[Albert Silver]

it has the source and the written expresion (in fora) by Jury Osipov that it comes (mostly) from Fruit.

Link?

[IWB]

it has the source and the written expresion (in fora) by Jury Osipov that it comes (mostly) from Fruit.

Link?

It is difficult if one has to justify every little statement and the guy on the other side will not invest a tiny little bit by himself.

But: This is an exerpt from the "Strelka controvercy" in the Rybka entry of Wikipedia: "Osipov, however, stated repeatedly on discussion boards that Strelka was based on Fruit, not Rybka, and that any similarities was either because Rybka also was based on Fruit, or because he had tuned the evaluation function to be as close to Rybka as possible.[44][45]"

This is the lnk of 44: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?pid=18905 and this of 45: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=3015

The first one starts with a translation of a Osipov Statment. Here is the beginning:

Osipov:
... I’ll tell the whole truth in order of how Strelka was created. I hope this will explain a lot.

1.As the basis of program was taken source code of Fruit (little less than two years ago).
...

And further on it is interesting as well.

Is comes from a time where there was a lot of heated discussions and if you search for a bit by yourself in that posts and other links in the Rybka forum and the Rybka Wikipedia entry you find a lot of interesting statements, at least seen from today. In the Thread about Fabiens letter here at CCC you find some links too.

(It seems the 'Strelka controversy' at Rybka in Wikipedia needs some additional work)

And it is a bit disapointing that again there is interest in the unchangeble past but no one is interested in how to handle these things in the future!

Bye
Ingo

[Albert Silver]

it has the source and the written expresion (in fora) by Jury Osipov that it comes (mostly) from Fruit.

Link?

It is difficult if one has to justify every little statement and the guy on the other side will not invest a tiny little bit by himself.

But: This is an exerpt from the "Strelka controvercy" in the Rybka entry of Wikipedia: "Osipov, however, stated repeatedly on discussion boards that Strelka was based on Fruit, not Rybka, and that any similarities was either because Rybka also was based on Fruit, or because he had tuned the evaluation function to be as close to Rybka as possible.[44][45]"

This is the lnk of 44: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?pid=18905 and this of 45: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=3015

The first one starts with a translation of a Osipov Statment. Here is the beginning:

Osipov:
... I’ll tell the whole truth in order of how Strelka was created. I hope this will explain a lot.

1.As the basis of program was taken source code of Fruit (little less than two years ago).
...

And further on it is interesting as well.

Is comes from a time where there was a lot of heated discussions and if you search for a bit by yourself in that posts and other links in the Rybka forum and the Rybka Wikipedia entry you find a lot of interesting statements, at least seen from today. In the Thread about Fabiens letter here at CCC you find some links too.

(It seems the 'Strelka controversy' at Rybka in Wikipedia needs some additional work)

And it is a bit disapointing that again there is interest in the unchangeble past but no one is interested in how to handle these things in the future!

Bye
Ingo

Yes, the links are bogus though. The statements predated his later admissions that Strelka was heavily based on RE of Rybka, though there were a number of parts of the RE that were incomprehensible to him. He also added parts of Fruit and other things, which was what made it such a strange patchwork piece of code. His correspondence with Vas after he came clean was quite enlightening. I got it from ChessOk who translated the messages between the two to ease communication.

[Albert Silver]

Yes, the links are bogus though. The statements predated his later admissions that Strelka was heavily based on RE of Rybka, though there were a number of parts of the RE that were incomprehensible to him. He also added parts of Fruit and other things, which was what made it such a strange patchwork piece of code. His correspondence with Vas after he came clean was quite enlightening. I got it from ChessOk who translated the messages between the two to ease communication.

In case you wonder why I got the correspondence at all, which would be a perfectly valid question, it is because I was asked to mediate a situation created after Osipov suggested Strelka could be included in Chess Assistant packages as a flavor/variant of Rybka (not Fruit).

[IWB]

In case you wonder why I got the correspondence at all, ...

I dont wonder and I dont mind! Whats left is, that he admits to have taken Fruit. Reading what Fabien has written about Strelka ("... So it was, as has since been stated many times in fora I suppose, a bitboard re-write of Fruit with some personal (or otherwise) ideas.) it seems a correct description of Osipov about Strelka.

Again and a last time: One can moan forever, I am tired of it. The discussion is going on for 2 years+ and most likely it will go on for another 2 years without any outcome as long as no one is going to court. With Fruit/Rybka/Strelka/Littos the pandora is out of the box and will not go back. We (the interested in it) have to live with it or die in agonie. I choose to live on as life goes on.

Bye
Ingo

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Yes, the links are bogus though. The statements predated his later admissions that Strelka was heavily based on RE of Rybka, though there were a number of parts of the RE that were incomprehensible to him. He also added parts of Fruit and other things, which was what made it such a strange patchwork piece of code. His correspondence with Vas after he came clean was quite enlightening. I got it from ChessOk who translated the messages between the two to ease communication.

In case you wonder why I got the correspondence at all, which would be a perfectly valid question, it is because I was asked to mediate a situation created after Osipov suggested Strelka could be included in Chess Assistant packages as a flavor/variant of Rybka (not Fruit).

Hehehehe....I weren't aware of that....sweet