Robbolito 0.09 New Edition VS Rybka 3

[Graham Banks]

Graham. You may very well be quite correct. However I have read on this and other forums that the said issue is apparantly hotly contested. As for the anonymity of the authors that does indeed look -flakey. Their site even flakier. However there are indeed many reasons one choses to be unknown. I can not speak to that. My personal dilemma is that as I stated I am to ignorant to unequivocably know for certain the absolute correctness of either side of the issue. Many posters seem to have doubts both ways. They seem knowledgeble to me.

Yes - everybody is entitled to their opinion. A lot of honest, genuine people have been misled over this.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Rolf]

Graham: Once the unamed named engine is proven to be a clone I can then see the ethical point of not using the said engine. As I am too ignorant (like many other mere end engine users) to judge on this point then the question must be asked "Why should I punish (not acknowledge the achievment) of other programmers?" If I were to be using the unamed engine and it was subsequently proven to be stolen then indeed the use of the engine should be stopped due to ethical considerations. I would then -If I were using the engine pay for Rybka 4 although I am somewhat loathe to do so due to his (Vas's) ethics of not being forthright on the R3+ issue. However as virtue is indeed it's own reward I personally would feel obligated to buy R4 under these circumstances. To paraphrase 'Vas's unethical behavior does not justify unethical behavior on my part' or two 'wrongs' do not make a 'right'. So................... until then -when all is clear- I will act accordingly.

People are entitled to believe what they want, but in my opinion, the fact that links to this engine are allowed in here is one of the biggest disgraces to ever hit CCC. The mods are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. They seem too stubborn to admit they've erred. Statements from both Dann and Bob give their opinion that this is a reverse engineered clone. Plus it has an anonymous author. Absolutely disgusting. CCC has reached a new all-time low.

Thanks for the good English. Let me add that apparently here were personal agendas embedded in official forum politics.

I have no personal interest obviously but a strong motivation to defend scapegoats. Now for the first time I dare to write something that takes both Bob and Dann, these big experts out of their socks.

IMO Vas used a mechanism to fool such experts because he had foreseen the development here. Right from the beginning I had the idea that Vas must have launched something like Strelka and then let them run through the labyrinth. Rybka and Ariadne. Two legendary women.

The moral. Dont become suspicious and you cant be trapped. If you mistrust a woman, you have already lost her. Believe in Rybka like a child and she will satisfy your wishes...

Now a little encounter. All men now, please take your nose btween digit and thumb, and all who feel the ring there, please stand up now! Grah, did you sense the earth quake from down under?

Just my 2 cts.

[BubbaTough]

Graham. You may very well be quite correct. However I have read on this and other forums that the said issue is apparantly hotly contested. As for the anonymity of the authors that does indeed look -flakey. Their site even flakier. However there are indeed many reasons one choses to be unknown. I can not speak to that. My personal dilemma is that as I stated I am to ignorant to unequivocably know for certain the absolute correctness of either side of the issue. Many posters seem to have doubts both ways. They seem knowledgeble to me.

The debate does not seem too hotly contested to me. Almost all programmers that have looked at the code seem to think it is unlikely to be original. Most of those loudly contesting that conclusion are either not chess programmers, or have not looked at the code.

I think it is too much to ask to "unequivocably know for certain the absolute correctness of either side of the issue." This issue is just one of a large class of problems where it is hard to be completely sure, but not hard to make a reasonably accurate educated guess.

-Sam

[Nimzovik]

Interesting .....Do you think this issue will ever be 'legally' resolved?

[Tomcass]

Alex, my feelings about this topic are very close to yours.

1st. I decided no to enter in this thread, because for me computer chess is a great enjoyment and I don't know anything about source codes and so on. I am breaking my first intention.

2nd. I don't feel very disappointed because Vas did not honour his promise of issuing a free improved version of R3. Of course I think he has to solve this point as soon as possible. But more for his own credibility than for me. Vas was able to make a revolution in computer chess and he deserves all my respect. I will buy (not lease through internet!) every next program of Rybka in the future.

3rd. Since Fruit, all the engines seem to be son or grand son of the same code. I have read the arguments given by Robbo authors and they are quite convincing for an ignorant as myself in these issues.

4rt. My ethics allow me to cooperate with the development of Robbo -as a beta tester- if I am asked to do it. I see no problem at all on it. The same than with the authors of any other engine available in the market.

5th. For me computer chess is happiness and enjoyment. And for this reason this thread -with all my respects for the participants- seems to me absolutely unnecessary and boring. Be positive!!.

Best regards from Barcelona.

Tom.

[M ANSARI]

The issue is NOT if it IS or IS NOT a clone. I am pretty sure most everyone here if they were forced to put a $1000 of their hard earned money on a bet ... they would put it as being a clone of Rybka. Even if there was 100% positive proof, that will make absolutely no change in who will use it and who will not. Hopefully Vas will learn something from that and come out with something better. The old saying about driving in a convertible in the rain comes to mind ... "if you drive fast enough you won't get wet". Vas got through the Strelka issue quite well by producing something that was dramatically superior. Who knows maybe he will come out with something similar with R4. The shit has already hit the fan and it is time to put this unfortunate incident behind and move on. Hopefully this will not turn off future talented prospective engine writers and there will still be some professionals working full time on engine development. This latest incident has obviously made this less likely, but I am hoping there might still be a way where creative work can be protected by force and not by hoping for the proper ethical behaviour of people. By force I don't mean to smack the thieves on the head or throw lawsuits at them (although that sometimes might seem like a good idea) but rather by putting the code on some hardware card which is proprietary and thus very difficult to hack. I think that is the only way for the future of professional chess engines if they happen to be #1.

[Graham Banks]

Even if there was 100% positive proof, that will make absolutely no change in who will use it and who will not.

Yep. Agreed (or should I say greed?).

[bnemias]

This latest incident has obviously made this less likely, but I am hoping there might still be a way where creative work can be protected by force and not by hoping for the proper ethical behaviour of people. By force I don't mean to smack the thieves on the head or throw lawsuits at them (although that sometimes might seem like a good idea) but rather by putting the code on some hardware card which is proprietary and thus very difficult to hack. I think that is the only way for the future of professional chess engines if they happen to be #1.

This is a leading cause of piracy. When you add DRM, proprietary hardware, and phone home stuff into your programs, the "benign" version you buy turns out to be vastly more cumbersome to use than a hacked one which has no crazy restrictions and is therefore more useful.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

This is a leading cause of piracy. When you add DRM, proprietary hardware, and phone home stuff into your programs, the "benign" version you buy turns out to be vastly more cumbersome to use than a hacked one which has no crazy restrictions and is therefore more useful.

Making it a few hundred ELO stronger than the clones would make the argument moot. (This applies for renting all the same)

[bob]

It is only legally questionable when legitimate proof of the clone claim is provided. That would _not_ be hard to do. If it _is_ a clone, how would it reveal any Rybka secrets since Robo* apparently has them inside already. So exactly what justification can be given for Vas _not_ providing some clear-cut examples of identical code? I can't think of a single valid explanation, unless Robo is not really a clone.

There is a difference because how else for you it had any importance that Vas claimed Strelka? Only then you began your argument although the Osipov figure had said the same before and after the claim from Vas. I am not alawyer but perhaps for you the difference is that without the claim you would do something which you shouldnt do but with the claim you can exploit it. Sorry it's more a question from my side, not at all a critic or anything like this against you. But you must know the difference. Please explain it.

I don't know what you are talking about. Vas claimed Strelka to be his code. Someone compared this to fruit and said "aha, lots of copied/similar code". That started the discussion. Later others went directly to Rybka 1 binary and compared to fruit. End of that story.

Here, Vas has only claimed Robo* is a clone. No proof. No nothing. Makes the claim absolutely meaningless.

You misunderstand. THe point is if data from Vas would have any impact. Strelka showed a different result, he was even more accused. Same now. What all are asking you now is look at the code (without allowance from Vas) and join Don and PLEASE then help to get over the mess, Bob. Save computerchess now. Please.

Of course, if he has even more to "hide" then you could be correct. But then that would not exactly be flattering for him, would it? You can't have it all ways. This either falls on one side of the line or the other. We know what happened with Rybka 1 and fruit. And no amount of hand-waving and such is going to change that at all. We don't yet know what happened with Robo* and Rybka 3. And I suspect we are not going to know. What that implies I don't know, and don't care.