What the computer chess community needs to decide

[bob]

Ivanhoe smp was more buggy than a termite hill.

Chris

Were the bugs in Ivanhoe ones that would affect the Elo rating on a single core? I wonder whether bug fixes alone could account for the higher Houdini rating. Also, the rating jump in Houdini 1.5 corresponds in time to the addition of LMR at PV nodes in Ivanhoe. Assuming this was copied into the latest Houdini, this could account for the large speedup and much of the Elo gain. What do you think?

I would think anything is possible. Going from decompiled assembly back to a high-level language is certainly complex. And time-consuming. It would be quite easy to imagine that many minor bugs were introduced during this translation process...

[K I Hyams]

I spoke of a dirty campaign because it went on and on and was never meant to find the issue in a court trial.

You don’t like clones, I don’t like clones. Clones are exposed the whole time. There are a number of reasons why exposing clones is useful for the community.

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

I am disappointed that you chose to ignore my question about a possible past court case between you and Ed Schroder. I am genuinely interested and I am sure that others who read these posts would also be interested. My understanding is that it was Schroder who prosecuted you, not you who prosecuted Schroder. You were in no position to prosecute Schroder.

If Schroder had to prosecute you, then it is Rajlich who has to prosecute Bob. You should have focussed on Rajlich for not prosecuting Bob rather than Bob for not prosecuting Rajlich.

You talk about it going “on and on”. There are a number of reasons for that, all of which have been pointed out to you. In fact, I have personally pointed out to you that you are partly responsible for one of them because your obsessive posting on the subject kept it in the public eye.

So, it was just hypocrisy and character defamation.

I don’t know why you used the word hypocrisy. However if Rajlich sold code that he was not entitled to sell, then words that have been used to describe his behaviour are best described as truthful rather than character defamation. If he subsequently lied about what he did then the word “liar” legitimately comes to mind.

No matter to what lays could express on the net or even what a professor could rant without exact informations on all important levels of legal relevance, a creative business guy like Vas does it right.

The professor to whom you refer has possibly more expertise in spotting plagiarism within chess programs than anyone else on this planet. He simply dealt with what he saw. He has made it absolutely clear to you that his interest in the matter is partly academic and partly one of justice. The difference between legality and justice has been made clear to you and Bob has told you that he has no legal interest whatsoever.

The consequences of every post that you right on the question of whether or not Rajlich used code illegally do Rajlich more damage. You claim that your interest is in defending Rajlich and yet you continue to provoke posts that damage his image. You used the word “hypocrisy”. I wonder whether it is you who is guilty of hypocrisy.

[bob]

I spoke of a dirty campaign because it went on and on and was never meant to find the issue in a court trial.

You don’t like clones, I don’t like clones. Clones are exposed the whole time. There are a number of reasons why exposing clones is useful for the community.

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

I am disappointed that you chose to ignore my question about a possible past court case between you and Ed Schroder. I am genuinely interested and I am sure that others who read these posts would also be interested. My understanding is that it was Schroder who prosecuted you, not you who prosecuted Schroder. You were in no position to prosecute Schroder.

If Schroder had to prosecute you, then it is Rajlich who has to prosecute Bob. You should have focussed on Rajlich for not prosecuting Bob rather than Bob for not prosecuting Rajlich.

You talk about it going “on and on”. There are a number of reasons for that, all of which have been pointed out to you. In fact, I have personally pointed out to you that you are partly responsible for one of them because your obsessive posting on the subject kept it in the public eye.

So, it was just hypocrisy and character defamation.

I don’t know why you used the word hypocrisy. However if Rajlich sold code that he was not entitled to sell, then words that have been used to describe his behaviour are best described as truthful rather than character defamation. If he subsequently lied about what he did then the word “liar” legitimately comes to mind.

No matter to what lays could express on the net or even what a professor could rant without exact informations on all important levels of legal relevance, a creative business guy like Vas does it right.

The professor to whom you refer has possibly more expertise in spotting plagiarism within chess programs than anyone else on this planet. He simply dealt with what he saw. He has made it absolutely clear to you that his interest in the matter is partly academic and partly one of justice. The difference between legality and justice has been made clear to you and Bob has told you that he has no legal interest whatsoever.

The consequences of every post that you right on the question of whether or not Rajlich used code illegally do Rajlich more damage. You claim that your interest is in defending Rajlich and yet you continue to provoke posts that damage his image. You used the word “hypocrisy”. I wonder whether it is you who is guilty of hypocrisy.

Here is the "bottom line"...

(1) I believe that Rolf _finally_ realizes that Rybka 1 beta is a derivative work based on Fruit. And that later Rybka versions almost certainly contain parts of Fruit, all the way to the present version(s).

(2) He probably realizes, now, that at least in the US, and in most international jurisdictions, the person that brings a suit has to have legal standing. He has to be damaged. Or accused. Or whatever. A third party can't bring a suit on behalf of someone else, with the exception of class-action where one person can bring a suit on behalf of others, so long as he, too, was damaged.

(3) So, he is now using the age-old defence a speeder uses in a court, "Your honor, I was only keeping up with prevailing traffic speeds so as to not form an obstruction which would be dangerous. The state trooper picked me out of the crowd and gave me a ticket, and let everyone else go. That isn't fair." The judge responds "so what? you broke the law. A single trooper can't pull over 50 cars, he has to pick one, which will likely slow the others down for a while. You won the lottery. Pay the fine. <BAM> next case..."

He is going to try every argument, regardless of how unsound they might be, to keep this "conspiracy theory" alive and well.

[bob]

Both - Rybka author and Cray Blitz author stated that a) one could easily detect copies by putting the codes (how much from what parts is my question) side by side and b) that this had been done with Fruit code and Rybka 1 beta code (for what time exactly this had been done and what is the potential offense at that exact time is my question).

The above means that both, Vas and Bob are somewhat comedians because they insinuate simplicity where in truth the task begins.

Putting codes side by side and detecting similarities or identities is useless if you dont define what it would look like if some relevant problem were beginning and what for example is just an artefakt. Hence identical codes isnt the verdict yet but the start of a deeper examination.

The only thing that is "useless" here is these continued rants by someone that admittedly does not understand any of the technical details involved.

(a) it is quite easy to compare two source-code programs to look for potential plagiarism.

(b) we have no source for Rybka 1 beta. Vas refused to release any of it. So a harder task is to take the binary and produce the source. That is a non-trivial task. But once it has been done, then (a) applies and the comparison is not
difficult at all.

(b) has been done for chunks of Rybka 1 beta. And (a) has also been done and matches have been found. There's nothing that can be said that invalidates that.

In addition to the meaning of identities or similarities we have the legal question what exactly is defined offense for the time in question. Of course this would be the relevant question in a court and long before because without relevance there is no case at all.

Copyright law was violated when parts of Fruit were copied without permission. GPL was violated when the modified version was released/sold without the source code being included...

The naivety of the whole approach to these two problem parts is extremely high. Because we recall the many periods of different attitudes Fabien's handling at the time. If something had been taken, in what exact period of time was it relevant for a forbidden act in a legal sense.

For copyright law, I believe the term is 70 years beyond the death of the author, in US copyright law. I don't think we have reached that point yet. "Project Gutenberg" is converting old books whose copyright has expired into an electronic copy for the new rage in e-readers (kindle, nook, etc).

I fully support George's message from a judge, there will never be a court case for this question, unless some people had too much money to be wasted.

I was taught, in about the 5th grade, that any statement with the word always, or with the word never, was always false. I pointed out the contradiction in that statement and got into trouble for it. But it applies. Never is a long time. One definition of "never" is 27 years, since ins 1970 the consensus was that a computer would "never" beat the world championship. I believe never arrived in 1997.

[Rolf]

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

Dont be so over-witty. You miss the main part of my critic and this is now all too clear. If the professor certainly had no own damage, the four musqetiers should have informed Fabien then if it had been a serious standpoint and not just a campaign. Since Fabien allegedly had the damage. I for one dont believe this. Just like I think that Vas didnt do something wrong. On the other hand the programs are all derivates from each other. A scientist should examine them all before he is scapegoating something in particular. That's basic. But you already knew that. So, then you also know where the idea of a hypocrisy is coming from. It's just not kosher science.

[benstoker]

Both - Rybka author and Cray Blitz author stated that a) one could easily detect copies by putting the codes (how much from what parts is my question) side by side and b) that this had been done with Fruit code and Rybka 1 beta code (for what time exactly this had been done and what is the potential offense at that exact time is my question).

The above means that both, Vas and Bob are somewhat comedians because they insinuate simplicity where in truth the task begins.

Putting codes side by side and detecting similarities or identities is useless if you dont define what it would look like if some relevant problem were beginning and what for example is just an artefakt. Hence identical codes isnt the verdict yet but the start of a deeper examination.

The only thing that is "useless" here is these continued rants by someone that admittedly does not understand any of the technical details involved.

(a) it is quite easy to compare two source-code programs to look for potential plagiarism.

(b) we have no source for Rybka 1 beta. Vas refused to release any of it. So a harder task is to take the binary and produce the source. That is a non-trivial task. But once it has been done, then (a) applies and the comparison is not
difficult at all.

(b) has been done for chunks of Rybka 1 beta. And (a) has also been done and matches have been found. There's nothing that can be said that invalidates that.

In addition to the meaning of identities or similarities we have the legal question what exactly is defined offense for the time in question. Of course this would be the relevant question in a court and long before because without relevance there is no case at all.

Copyright law was violated when parts of Fruit were copied without permission. GPL was violated when the modified version was released/sold without the source code being included...

The naivety of the whole approach to these two problem parts is extremely high. Because we recall the many periods of different attitudes Fabien's handling at the time. If something had been taken, in what exact period of time was it relevant for a forbidden act in a legal sense.

For copyright law, I believe the term is 70 years beyond the death of the author, in US copyright law. I don't think we have reached that point yet. "Project Gutenberg" is converting old books whose copyright has expired into an electronic copy for the new rage in e-readers (kindle, nook, etc).

I fully support George's message from a judge, there will never be a court case for this question, unless some people had too much money to be wasted.

I was taught, in about the 5th grade, that any statement with the word always, or with the word never, was always false. I pointed out the contradiction in that statement and got into trouble for it. But it applies. Never is a long time. One definition of "never" is 27 years, since ins 1970 the consensus was that a computer would "never" beat the world championship. I believe never arrived in 1997.

Why Vas doesn't give a shit:

1) His engine became Top Dog and people will buy it for that reason alone, regardless of the fact that it is an improvement upon some open source code.

2) Even if he violated copyright law, he knows and everybody else knows that copyright law in the context of chess engines is not even an academic question. No, it's relegated to a far lower status, the angry ramblings of bloggers. Ain't nobody ever gonna ever never ever never ever ever sue Vas or anybody else for "copyright violation" of a chess engine. It won't happen. It makes no economic sense whatsoever.

3) Vas is crying all the way to the bank.

[Rolf]

(a) it is quite easy to compare two source-code programs to look for potential plagiarism.

(b) we have no source for Rybka 1 beta. Vas refused to release any of it. So a harder task is to take the binary and produce the source. That is a non-trivial task. But once it has been done, then (a) applies and the comparison is not
difficult at all.

(b) has been done for chunks of Rybka 1 beta. And (a) has also been done and matches have been found. There's nothing that can be said that invalidates that.

Of course it can. If I recall this right then the code of Fruit was free for a certain time then. If that is correct, doesnt this change the whole question and what about illegaly taking the binaries and producing the source? Is everything allowed if you have certain suspicions? Instead of sueing someone you have the legitimation to such a dubious method instead of officially seeking the verdict of a judge? That is all why I say that you play judge and everything. Not you personally but your group. Am I wrong? Because when do you examine the other closed programs to find out what they have taken? In some special chunks? Did you define exactlx from when on a chunk is a copy and enough for the final judgement about a bigger program?

[Roger Brown]

Of course it can. If I recall this right then the code of Fruit was free for a certain time then. If that is correct, doesnt this change the whole question and what about illegaly taking the binaries and producing the source? Is everything allowed if you have certain suspicions? Instead of sueing someone you have the legitimation to such a dubious method instead of officially seeking the verdict of a judge? That is all why I say that you play judge and everything. Not you personally but your group. Am I wrong? Because when do you examine the other closed programs to find out what they have taken? In some special chunks? Did you define exactlx from when on a chunk is a copy and enough for the final judgement about a bigger program?

Hello Rolf,

I am guilty of a crime.

You can catch me but in doing so, four other similar criminals will escape.

You therefore do what exactly?

You really need to stop this line of argument. It is morally bankrupt and illogical, as it does not say that Vas is innocent - it only says that if he is under a cloud then all must be under a cloud.

Sigh.

I really must stop feeding you....

Later.

[Damir]

Troll ?

[gerold]

(a) it is quite easy to compare two source-code programs to look for potential plagiarism.

(b) we have no source for Rybka 1 beta. Vas refused to release any of it. So a harder task is to take the binary and produce the source. That is a non-trivial task. But once it has been done, then (a) applies and the comparison is not
difficult at all.

(b) has been done for chunks of Rybka 1 beta. And (a) has also been done and matches have been found. There's nothing that can be said that invalidates that.

Of course it can. If I recall this right then the code of Fruit was free for a certain time then. If that is correct, doesnt this change the whole question and what about illegaly taking the binaries and producing the source? Is everything allowed if you have certain suspicions? Instead of sueing someone you have the legitimation to such a dubious method instead of officially seeking the verdict of a judge? That is all why I say that you play judge and everything. Not you personally but your group. Am I wrong? Because when do you examine the other closed programs to find out what they have taken? In some special chunks? Did you define exactlx from when on a chunk is a copy and enough for the final judgement about a bigger program?

When Fruit came out it was free and source was free for the taking.
Shortly after Vas released free Rybka to a few testers(i was one that
got the first release of Rybka beta) Vas didn't say he used Fruit
code at that time. Rybka beta was around 100 elo stronger than the strongest engine at that time. In just a few days people said Vas had used Fruit code for his new program. Then Vas admitted that he had used idea's Fruit and other programs for the basis of Rybka.
At that time Fabien was not happy that Vas used his program as a starting point. Later he said it was ok because Fruit at that time was open source. Fabien than upgraded his engine and put it up for sale.
Later he decided to give that same program away free.
Vas has been selling his program for quite sometime and never released the source from the first Rybka beta that some say he is required to do. The above is what i can remember about this issue.

Best,
Gerold.