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

[bob]

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. 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.

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, logically, if I offer a possible explanation what might have happened, you can claim that you looked at Fruit 2.1. and did find snippets of code that were also in Rybka 1 beta, and therefore can call me idiot? IMO your "looking at 2.1." sounds like a mantra that cannot be examined anymore?

Vas stated:

In Rybka is only original code and public domain.

Hence if you found something in Fruit 2.1. and it allegedly were in Rybka 1 beta, I would strongly advise to reflect if it could be public domain. Just with all due respect, Bob.

Idiot

It does not matter, so I guess the "idiot" was a reasonable signature there. If he copies code from another engine, most particularly the parts that were copied (search, evaluation) then his program is considered a derivative/clone and can't participate in CC events.

What planet are you from?

[bob]

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.

Unless the code is public domain or you had written it yourself in the first place

You keep using that term "public domain" like you know what it means. One is _not_ free to copy "public domain" code and call it their own original work. That's called "plagiarism". One is not permitted to copy the search (or significant parts of it) or the evaluation (or significant parts of it) from a "public domain" program. That, too, is called plagiarism, and the resulting program is considered a clone/derivative work that can't participate in CC events.

So first investigate the argument you want to make to see if it is valid, then try to make it. In this case, if we assume your argument is true, it would be a double-whammy for Rybka... Nice work.

(5) Vas took code from Fruit that he had written himself and what Fab used in his prog. (That belongs to the four other possible explanations I have offered for considerations.)

Nonsense, and not worth commenting on. He didn't contribute to Fruit.

Again, it's high time that *we* open all codes from all commercial programs out of research interests. And then we publish anonymously all codes for the general public.

Q: But Rolf, wouldnt that destroy computerchess, did you realise that, you idiot?

Doubtful, and that's not been my argument. Feel free to "open all the codes" and look at them. If you find something "interesting" then feel free to report it and we will all look at it. But I'm not wasting _my_ time doing this without some strong suspicions that code was copied. We were given that suspicion by the Strelka example. We've not been given anything for the other programs. Feel free to go find it and I'll gladly look. _after_ it has been found.

Answer: Yes of course, but what is computerchess all about. It is open source thru and thru. Also all the many new ideas! Think about it! It becomes socialised property of the people! We milk the ideas out of the many creative people in our community.

Q. Err, Moron, what happens with these creative cows and goats? If they deliver sour milk or nothing anymore?

Answer: That is a good question. In future we milk our computers. In other words we dont need humans in our field!

#################

Get back on the meds. you are slipping away.

[bob]

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.

Interesting claim: If Fabien took public domain into Fruit 2.1. and Bob finds it in Rybka 1 beta too, then it's by definition (by Bob) no longer public domain because Fabien put 2.1. under GPL. Aha. That was something I didnt know yet. But it clarifies why computerchess is so to speak absolutel sterilized of all copying and stealing code which is such a mess in all parts of the World outside computerchess.

Please lock up your keyboard so that monkey can not get to it...

[Rolf]

I can only repeat for general purposes: everything what has been discussed or proposed by me ...

Your points are crushed factually, repeatedly and everlastingly. Yet in the spaceship of your imagination, your argumentum ad nauseam trumps all because you speak it ex cathedra.

But as much as you'd like us all to join you for the ride, we really can't afford the tickets.

I cant create with words what life and education couldnt achieve. I have nothing to win here but I can help that someone else is no longer diffamated and scapegoated. That's the best a man could achieve. At least this is what my teachers told me. If this were just easy as if I would buy me some icecream, then it wouldnt take a man to stand this. So, I dont care no matter how much they spit on me. How much they insult me. Matt, have I done what members here accuse Vas of? I am almost treated with much more hate than Vas himself. The lawyers of defendants in murder cases usually are treated with the same archaic hate and disgust. It's an interesting experience. Reminds of the Milgram reports.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

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.

Interesting claim: If Fabien took public domain into Fruit 2.1. and Bob finds it in Rybka 1 beta too, then it's by definition (by Bob) no longer public domain because Fabien put 2.1. under GPL. Aha. That was something I didnt know yet. But it clarifies why computerchess is so to speak absolutel sterilized of all copying and stealing code which is such a mess in all parts of the World outside computerchess.

Please lock up your keyboard so that monkey can not get to it...

[K I Hyams]

And it is so easy. I did a little research and read about Fabien in late 2005. A guy somewhat insecure, with several options to chose. Once he gave a code for free, then he sold it, then he GPL'd it. But what is if Vas received code that was NOT GPL?

The statement below is from Vas on the Rybka forum. There is no doubt whatsoever that you have seen the statement.

Parent - N/- By Vasik Rajlich (Bronze) [pl] Date 2009-12-01 09:10
Once again: Rybka is 100% original at the source code level, not counting public-domain snippets like population cnt, etc.

You made your suggestion that Vas might have paid for Rybka code when you knew that he denied using Rybka code. Are you now telling us that you think that Vas is a liar?

Can you see now why I told you that your attention seeking behaviour on this forum is doing Vas enormous damage? Does the fact that you are doing him damage worry you?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I can only repeat for general purposes: everything what has been discussed or proposed by me ...

Your points are crushed factually, repeatedly and everlastingly. Yet in the spaceship of your imagination, your argumentum ad nauseam trumps all because you speak it ex cathedra.

But as much as you'd like us all to join you for the ride, we really can't afford the tickets.

I cant create with words what life and education couldnt achieve. I have nothing to win here but I can help that someone else is no longer diffamated and scapegoated. That's the best a man could achieve. At least this is what my teachers told me. If this were just easy as if I would buy me some icecream, then it wouldnt take a man to stand this. So, I dont care no matter how much they spit on me. How much they insult me. Matt, have I done what members here accuse Vas of? I am almost treated with much more hate than Vas himself. The lawyers of defendants in murder cases usually are treated with the same archaic hate and disgust. It's an interesting experience. Reminds of the Milgram reports.

Who forces you to act like one
If you're so eager to tell us the truth,then go to your prophet Vasik and tell him to stand up like a man here in the biggest computer chess forum and elaborate everything related to this messy situation....
Spitting all over you,which is seemingly to happen,won't make you a real man,it will make you wet Rolf....
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

And it is so easy. I did a little research and read about Fabien in late 2005. A guy somewhat insecure, with several options to chose. Once he gave a code for free, then he sold it, then he GPL'd it. But what is if Vas received code that was NOT GPL?

The statement below is from Vas on the Rybka forum. There is no doubt whatsoever that you have seen the statement.

Parent - N/- By Vasik Rajlich (Bronze) [pl] Date 2009-12-01 09:10
Once again: Rybka is 100% original at the source code level, not counting public-domain snippets like population cnt, etc.

You made your suggestion that Vas might have paid for Rybka code when you knew that he denied using Rybka code. Are you now telling us that you think that Vas is a liar?

Rolf is so confused lately that he can't understand this simple fact....actualy in his willing to to hold Vasik's position in this debate,he started to make things up and it's definitely like shooting his own feet....all the sane members of this forum is all over him and sooner than later he'll quit and a little bit later Rybka will start to drop down from numero uno in all the rating lists....
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

And it is so easy. I did a little research and read about Fabien in late 2005. A guy somewhat insecure, with several options to chose. Once he gave a code for free, then he sold it, then he GPL'd it. But what is if Vas received code that was NOT GPL?

The statement below is from Vas on the Rybka forum. There is no doubt whatsoever that you have seen the statement.

Parent - N/- By Vasik Rajlich (Bronze) [pl] Date 2009-12-01 09:10
Once again: Rybka is 100% original at the source code level, not counting public-domain snippets like population cnt, etc.

You made your suggestion that Vas might have paid for Rybka code when you knew that he denied using Rybka code. Are you now telling us that you think that Vas is a liar?

Can you see now why I told you that your attention seeking behaviour on this forum is doing Vas enormous damage? Does the fact that you are doing him damage worry you?

An excellent point,thank you
I hope this little thought can find it's way to Rolf's tiny brain so that he can stop flooding us with his lies and nonsense....
Dr.D

[Rolf]

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.

(4) Vas took public domain (keeping it shortest)

Moron

And any one of the above instantly disqualifies him from participating in any future online tournament, or in ICGA tournaments, etc. You _do_ realize that, right? You are doing him way more harm than good here...

As if that would be my guideline. You _do_ realise that you have no more argument? I mentioned these 4 possibilities (just a small sample) to prove you wrong that your seemingly outstanding proof is the only explanation of the facts you presented. Do you see the difference between us? I must not fear anything what you could really prove, but I will not buy anything of what you are presenting here if _other_ explanations existed. Is such an average process so totally unknown for you, that you must unfairly attack me all day and night? Get real! I have nothing to win in this topic and I am not guided by interests. Your explanation is valid or not. For me it's invalid. Even illogical.