Frayer's opinion expressed at the Rybka forum....

[bob]

Been thru this over and over. You will not find any code from fruit "in the public domain". Vas specifically mentioned PopCnt() and such, which are no problem to copy. But that is not _all_ that was copied. And the probability of something in Fruit being identical to something developed independently is simply too low to consider. For all the reasons given in earlier posts.

You are grasping at straws, and they are getting more and more improbable as you make lame attempts to justify what has happened. Won't work.

Cant you read properly? I asked you to prove that Vas didnt buy the code from Fabien! Prove it and stop handwaving.
I asked you to prove that the taken code existed only in the Fruit 2.1 code and nowhere else. Prove it w/o handwaving.

Aha. So now that everyone believes that fruit code _is_ in Rybka, you run to the next rock and hide under it, claiming he bought the source from fruit?

Why didn't he say so in the beginning? Why did Fabien not say anything about this? Because it is all imaginary nonsense, perhaps?

[bob]

Vas's official spokesman says that Vas bought Fruit from Fabien very interesting, can I quote you?

IMO such personal stuff in an attempt to harm other members shouldnt be tolerated in the first place. SteveB could you look after the vicious kid, please. SteveB, I could also ask Williamson when he did last slap his grandmother. Perhaps that then would explain what heÄs doing here all the time.

He asked a legitimate question of an illegitimate poster, IMHO.

[bob]

..now he's telling us that Vasik has bought the Fruit source code from Fabien,what a crap
Dr.D

The kids are getting nervous right now. Because the whole forum was incapable of thinking this all through on their own. They worshipped Bob like holy. But Rolf brought science back into computerchess. (After 1997 now for the second time.)

Bob, what did you compare, uhum, you compared code. And where did it come from??? Uhum, it came from Fruit 2.1., uhum. And if not? How could you prove that the code you saw was PGL code????

I compared with fruit 2.1, which is, by definition, GPL, since it was released under that license. Where do you keep coming up with this nonsense? making things up? Imagining things? Get hit in the head with a brick? Where does this nonsense come from?

Sorry, but the excuses, I had classes, wont do it now. You had weeks and weeks, you had months and months, you had years and years, Bob, to do a proper research, but you didnt. Because you examine what is laid before you, you do never ask if that is the only data that could be found. And now? If it's possible that Vas is innocent?

I have said it a hundred times or more, I'll add another: "there is fruit code in Rybka 1. the code was taken from fruit 2.1. No doubt whatsoever. Now if you can prove Vas bought it from Fabien, go for it as that would certainly solve the problem, although it would _still_ make it impossible for Rybka to enter most tournaments since it would _still_ be a clone, which is not allowed. So you back yourself into a different corner now. But there is _still_ no way out. Keep trying.

If then the whole Strelka Belka stuff was created in vain? If the Ippo, Robbo clone stuff was created in vain?

If the whole cooperation with cloners and thieves was in vain, Bob!

You are the only person that I know that can follow a trail from A to Z, skipping b, c, d, ..., x, y completely. Of course you _have_ to skip those steps as they invalidate your completely nonsensical argument.

You told us for years that you could discover similarities of two codes. But, Bob, what does this mean, if you have no idea from what version of a program of a particular guy was analysed? If he had created 10 versions? What will you do if you wrongly accused Vas of stealing code from 2.1.?

Then I would amend my statement to stealing from fruit 2.3 or 2.0. I clearly stated that his code came from fruit. Whether it was from 2.0 or 2.1 is completely irrelevant. For all I know there are as many versions of Fruit as there are of Crafty. And if he had taken code from Crafty 19.1, it would be no better for him than if he had taken code from Crafty 23.1. We looked at 2.1 for the basis of our comparison, and the matches were there. If some of those were in 2.0, or 1.0 or whatever, it doesn't matter. A clone is a clone.

[Rolf]

Aha. So now that everyone believes that fruit code _is_ in Rybka, you run to the next rock and hide under it, claiming he bought the source from fruit?

Why didn't he say so in the beginning? Why did Fabien not say anything about this? Because it is all imaginary nonsense, perhaps?

Bob, that is not that I'm saying it, I just give you examples the should better make you think about such different explanations. Are you really that fixated on the factual how it's there at present without further thinking about what a detail means overall? I'm astonished that you as a veritable professor are making the same mistakes of some ignorants.

Again, you claim something, I give a possibility how it could be seen. Why cant you just say, oops sorry, I havent even thought of it, since it was never claimed this way. What is wrong with such a statement? Would it hurt you. I dont think so, because until now you have never lied to me. So, what's wrong with making a mistake? And what is wrong with it if I can show you that mistake in your arguments? I never hid that I had expertise for such logical procedures.

Also, why should Vas ever have said something into that direction in view of the hate campaign. What chance could he have had.

Bob, I am deeply concerned about the fact, that we have such a deep difference in ethical standards. I would never say I know the truth. But if Vas stated that he had NOT used other code than his original plus public domain I would better try to understand what he's talking about. I mean have you absolutely no respect for such human?

Why dont you research for yourself all the explanations I have made up to show you how it could have been?

Please let's just come back to normal talks with respecting each other, without diffamations. Call back the "yard-dogs". Declare that you want peace here.

Or wouldnt you care if the whole community of computerchess would fall into pieces? You cant want that! Please.

Rolf

[Rolf]

Bob, please address my point, that 2.1. was GPL, but how do you know what the version was that Vas got on other channels? Please only this argument. How can you prove GPL violation? How?

[Rolf]

Vas's official spI could also ask Williamson when he did last slap his grandmother.

So you admit that you think you are the spokesman. I think you deserve A Wrist slap.

I did NOT write what you created here in Blue Color in a smear attempt. That is not my text. You should be ashamed. But excuse me I forgot that you didnt know that this is smear if you invent false quotes about other people.

[Rolf]

Been thru this over and over. You will not find any code from fruit "in the public domain". Vas specifically mentioned PopCnt() and such, which are no problem to copy. But that is not _all_ that was copied. And the probability of something in Fruit being identical to something developed independently is simply too low to consider. For all the reasons given in earlier posts.

You are grasping at straws, and they are getting more and more improbable as you make lame attempts to justify what has happened. Won't work.

Cant you read properly? I asked you to prove that Vas didnt buy the code from Fabien! Prove it and stop handwaving.
I asked you to prove that the taken code existed only in the Fruit 2.1 code and nowhere else. Prove it w/o handwaving.

Vas's official spokesman says that Vas bought Fruit from Fabien very interesting, can I quote you?

Official spokeman my a$$ Harvey....the poor guy chats a little bit with Vasik here and there,a small conversation from time to time over the Skype and his wild imagination goes on and on....now he's telling us that Vasik has bought the Fruit source code from Fabien,what a crap
Dr.D

It's not crap, it's possible. At the beginning Fabien was very suspicious about Rybka beeing a Fruit clone. Later he did not talk about it anymore. Maybe he and VR found a solution.

I said this several times before, and Rolf attacked me hard for it. Now he says the same. If he wouldn't be so annoying, I would love this kind of real life comedy

You are right. It was your little idea long ago that brought me to the reading about Fabien in late 2005. And that brought me to the questions to Bob. I think we all missed that Fabien at the time created a lot of code but not always under the same - well - sort of Law. And wouldnt you say that if Fabien gave it to you that you then could claim, after a short re-write that it was your own code? What is illegal with this? Now take the smear since Theron claimed Vas had no ethical education! Think about it if you were the scapegoat.

I always was on the line that prejudicing is wrong. But I have a difference with you: you think also anonymous people have all the rights. There I say NO! But else the general principle is ok.

Rolf

[bob]

[quote="Rolf"]Bob, please address my point, that 2.1. was GPL, but how do you know what the version was that Vas got on other channels? Please only this argument. How can you prove GPL violation? How?[/quote

Rolf, you are now looking like a complete moron.

You have argued each of the following:

(1) Vas did not copy fruit. This is proven because rybka is stronger.

(2) Vas purchased the code from Fabien.

(3) Vas copied a version prior to the GPL version.

The reason you look like an idiot is quite simple: It is against all tournament rules to enter a program that is derived from another. It is against the GPL to copy a GPL program and not make the resulting new program's source publicly available and also subject to the GPL. Only an idiot would try any of these explanations, because each and every one is highly damning to Rybka and its ability to compete in chess tournaments.

You need to find something else to discuss. One of these days the moderators will say "enough of this..." and send you to Elba (if you get that meaning). It's time to let Vas speak for himself, if he chooses to do so. You are simply incompetent in this field and are hurting his reputation far more than is necessary.

It doesn't matter what was copied, version-wise. We looked at fruit 2.1, whether Fabien kept most of the 2.0 code in there (most likely) or not is completely irrelevant. Copying another author's source and claiming it as your own code is plagiarism in the simple case, and violates the GPL as well if the copied program was released under the GPL.

So please go away, voluntarily, before it becomes mandatory. This discussion is pointless. You are offering absolutely nothing of substance, and are only wasting time and bandwidth talking about something you have absolutely no clue about (not that uncommon for you, actually, but that's another issue, separate from this.

I'm not answering any more questions. Everyone but you gets the points that have been made, whether they like them or not notwithstanding. There's something _wrong_ with this picture, and you are completely incapable of clearing it up. So stop trying.

[bob]

Aha. So now that everyone believes that fruit code _is_ in Rybka, you run to the next rock and hide under it, claiming he bought the source from fruit?

Why didn't he say so in the beginning? Why did Fabien not say anything about this? Because it is all imaginary nonsense, perhaps?

Bob, that is not that I'm saying it, I just give you examples the should better make you think about such different explanations. Are you really that fixated on the factual how it's there at present without further thinking about what a detail means overall? I'm astonished that you as a veritable professor are making the same mistakes of some ignorants.

Again, you claim something, I give a possibility how it could be seen. Why cant you just say, oops sorry, I havent even thought of it, since it was never claimed this way. What is wrong with such a statement? Would it hurt you. I dont think so, because until now you have never lied to me. So, what's wrong with making a mistake? And what is wrong with it if I can show you that mistake in your arguments? I never hid that I had expertise for such logical procedures.

Also, why should Vas ever have said something into that direction in view of the hate campaign. What chance could he have had.

Bob, I am deeply concerned about the fact, that we have such a deep difference in ethical standards. I would never say I know the truth. But if Vas stated that he had NOT used other code than his original plus public domain I would better try to understand what he's talking about. I mean have you absolutely no respect for such human?

Why dont you research for yourself all the explanations I have made up to show you how it could have been?

Please let's just come back to normal talks with respecting each other, without diffamations. Call back the "yard-dogs". Declare that you want peace here.

Or wouldnt you care if the whole community of computerchess would fall into pieces? You cant want that! Please.

Rolf

This is all irrelevant. There are parts of code that appear in Fruit 2.1, that also appear in Rybka 1 beta. That's all there is to it. Nothing else matters. Explanations are irrelevant. Imagination is irrelevant. This is a statement of fact, and there is no justification for this happening. So all these side-issues and imaginary explanations are completely useless.

[bob]

Been thru this over and over. You will not find any code from fruit "in the public domain". Vas specifically mentioned PopCnt() and such, which are no problem to copy. But that is not _all_ that was copied. And the probability of something in Fruit being identical to something developed independently is simply too low to consider. For all the reasons given in earlier posts.

You are grasping at straws, and they are getting more and more improbable as you make lame attempts to justify what has happened. Won't work.

Cant you read properly? I asked you to prove that Vas didnt buy the code from Fabien! Prove it and stop handwaving.
I asked you to prove that the taken code existed only in the Fruit 2.1 code and nowhere else. Prove it w/o handwaving.

Vas's official spokesman says that Vas bought Fruit from Fabien very interesting, can I quote you?

Official spokeman my a$$ Harvey....the poor guy chats a little bit with Vasik here and there,a small conversation from time to time over the Skype and his wild imagination goes on and on....now he's telling us that Vasik has bought the Fruit source code from Fabien,what a crap
Dr.D

It's not crap, it's possible. At the beginning Fabien was very suspicious about Rybka beeing a Fruit clone. Later he did not talk about it anymore. Maybe he and VR found a solution.

I said this several times before, and Rolf attacked me hard for it. Now he says the same. If he wouldn't be so annoying, I would love this kind of real life comedy

You are right. It was your little idea long ago that brought me to the reading about Fabien in late 2005. And that brought me to the questions to Bob. I think we all missed that Fabien at the time created a lot of code but not always under the same - well - sort of Law. And wouldnt you say that if Fabien gave it to you that you then could claim, after a short re-write that it was your own code?

Absolutely not, and the idea is, according to a well-known TV character, so far beyond stupid it takes sunlight 6 months to get from stupid to that idea. It is called "plagiarism". Code you borrow from someone can _never_ be "your own code". Until it is completely replaced with your own code. And that did _not_ happen in the fruit/rybka case. The code is still present in Rybka.

What is illegal with this? Now take the smear since Theron claimed Vas had no ethical education! Think about it if you were the scapegoat.

I always was on the line that prejudicing is wrong. But I have a difference with you: you think also anonymous people have all the rights. There I say NO! But else the general principle is ok.

Rolf