the end of the strelka affair

[ozziejoe]

I am running a biggish gauntlet and will post results in a few hours. It looks like strelka 2 is stronger than the newest toga, and probably about 15 pnts stronger than rybka beta 1.0 . it is not stronger than rybka of course
j

[gerold]

I am running a biggish gauntlet and will post results in a few hours. It looks like strelka 2 is stronger than the newest toga, and probably about 15 pnts stronger than rybka beta 1.0 . it is not stronger than rybka of course
j

My test show it is somewhat weaker than Rybka beta.

[Ovyron]

My test show it is somewhat weaker than Rybka beta.

What about Rybka Winfinder? I'd be interested in this, since Winfinder is basically a Crippled Rybka 2.2.

[Uri Blass]

I am running a biggish gauntlet and will post results in a few hours. It looks like strelka 2 is stronger than the newest toga, and probably about 15 pnts stronger than rybka beta 1.0 . it is not stronger than rybka of course
j

My test show it is somewhat weaker than Rybka beta.

It is supposed to be better than rybka beta 1.0 based on the comments about 60 elo improvement.

Did you test against 32 bit rybka or against 64 bit version?

Uri

[ozziejoe]

hi uri, I am presently testing 32 bit. It is runiing the guantlet against rybka 2.3.2.a, toga (newest) fruit 051103, shredder 10, and spike. I am not playing it directly against rybka beta 1, but will be able to make an educated guess by how much better it is than rbyka 1.0 (if at all) by comparing it to toga and fruit

J

[Gandalf]

In my 3 minute blitz match against Rybka 2.3.2a x64 the latest Strelka scored 27/80, ahead of Toga, Glaurung, Loop, Spike, and Shredder. It does seem like it has significantly improved from version 1.8.

[Uri Blass]

In my 3 minute blitz match against Rybka 2.3.2a x64 the latest Strelka scored 27/80, ahead of Toga, Glaurung, Loop, Spike, and Shredder. It does seem like it has significantly improved from version 1.8.

In my 3 minutes/40 moves games strelka2.0 beat rybka beta 5.5:4.5

Here is one of the wins of strelka
Rybka blundered by 96...Bd2

The second win shows that strelka2.0 is clearly different than rybka beta
It seems to be optimist about the evaluation(+3 at move 27 but does not see how to make progress)

[Event "URI-AMD, 3'/40+0'/0+0'0"]
[Site "URI-AMD"]
[Date "2008.01.13"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Strelka 2.0 B"]
[Black "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C68"]
[Annotator "-0.05;-0.04"]
[PlyCount "233"]
[TimeControl "40/180:0/0:0/0"]

{W=18.0 ply; 1,568kN/s B=17.0 ply; 275kN/s} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4.
Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4 {Both last book move} Nf6 {-0.04/11 6
} 8. Nc3 {-0.05/13 4} Bd7 {(Bf8-c5) -0.11/11 4} 9. Bg5 {(Bc1-f4) -0.02/12 3}
Bc5 {(0-0-0) -0.14/11 3} 10. O-O-O {-0.05/13 6} Ng4 {-0.12/12 6} 11. Bh4 {
-0.08/13 3} f6 {-0.18/12 7} 12. h3 {-0.08/13 6} Ne5 {0.01/11 2} 13. f4 {
-0.11/13 4} Nc4 {-0.15/10 2} 14. Rd3 {(Bh4-f2) -0.12/13 10} O-O-O {-0.19/10 4}
15. g4 {(Rh1-g1) -0.09/13 16} Rhe8 {-0.13/10 7} 16. Rhd1 {(g4-g5) -0.12/13 7}
Bd6 {(b7-b5) -0.28/10 4} 17. Nde2 {-0.07/13 4} Be7 {-0.21/10 3} 18. Nd4 {
-0.07/13 8} h5 {-0.21/11 5} 19. gxh5 {(e4-e5) -0.27/14 5} Rh8 {-0.35/12 4} 20.
e5 {-0.07/14 6} Rxh5 {-0.38/12 4} 21. e6 {0.05/14 5} Be8 {-0.12/12 5} 22. Bf2 {
0.04/13 3} c5 {(Be7-d6) -0.07/11 5} 23. Nde2 {0.15/14 5} Rxd3 {-0.12/12 3} 24.
cxd3 {(Rd1xd3) -0.03/15 9} Nd6 {-0.41/10 1} 25. Rg1 {-0.10/14 4} Bf8 {
-0.26/12 4} 26. Ng3 {-0.03/14 3} Rxh3 {-0.22/12 3} 27. Bxc5 {0.03/14 6} b6 {
-0.23/12 4} 28. Ba3 {-0.03/14 6} Kd8 {-0.01/11 4} 29. f5 {(Kc1-c2) -0.05/13 5}
Bc6 {-0.12/10 5} 30. Kd2 {(Kc1-c2) 0.00/13 3} Bb7 {(Rh3-h2+) -0.31/10 5} 31.
Bxd6 {0.00/13 3} Bxd6 {-0.24/12 4} 32. Nge2 {0.00/13 4} Bf8 {
(Rh3-h7) -0.24/12 5} 33. Rg4 {(Ne2-f4) 0.00/13 3} Ke8 {(Rh3-h2) -0.29/12 7} 34.
Ne4 {(Rg4-d4) -0.10/14 11} Rh2 {(Rh3-h5) -0.28/11 4} 35. Ke3 {0.00/12 1} c5 {
-0.17/11 6} 36. b3 {0.00/14 9} Ba8 {(Bb7-c6) -0.14/11 6} 37. N2c3 {
(a2-a3) 0.03/13 3} Bc6 {(b6-b5) -0.19/11 5} 38. Rg1 {(Ke3-f4) 0.00/13 4} Rh3+ {
(Ke8-e7) -0.19/12 8} 39. Rg3 {0.00/13 1} Rh4 {-0.19/13 7} 40. Rf3 {0.00/14 8}
Rh2 {-0.11/13 17} 41. Kf4 {(Rf3-f2) 0.00/15 8} Ke7 {-0.10/11 6} 42. Kg4 {
(Rf3-f1) 0.00/15 5} a5 {(Rh2-g2+) -0.06/11 5} 43. Re3 {0.00/14 3} Rc2 {
(Rh2-g2+) 0.00/11 3} 44. Re2 {(Re3-f3) 0.11/14 4} Rc1 {0.00/13 13} 45. Rh2 {
0.08/13 4} b5 {0.00/12 4} 46. Rf2 {(Rh2-h7) 0.00/13 4} Rg1+ {0.00/10 1} 47. Kh5
{(Kg4-h4) 0.00/14 5} Kd8 {(Rg1-h1+) -0.11/10 3} 48. Kh4 {(Rf2-d2) 0.00/12 5}
Be7 {(Rg1-e1) -0.12/9 1} 49. Ng3 {(Kh4-h3) 0.05/13 7} Rc1 {(Be7-d6) -0.23/10 4}
50. Nge4 {(Nc3-e4) -0.03/14 10} g5+ {-0.15/10 4} 51. fxg6 {0.19/14 11} f5+ {
0.19/11 6} 52. Kh3 {0.35/14 3} Rh1+ {0.05/12 5} 53. Kg2 {0.49/15 5} Rh6 {
0.33/12 4} 54. g7 {0.42/14 4} Rg6+ {0.43/13 5} 55. Kf1 {0.48/16 3} fxe4 {
0.35/14 4} 56. Rf8+ {0.39/15 1} Kc7 {0.09/15 3} 57. g8=Q {0.38/17 6} Rxg8 {
0.39/16 4} 58. Rxg8 {0.38/17 2} exd3 {0.43/15 4} 59. Ke1 {0.38/16 2} Kd6 {
0.49/15 7} 60. Kd2 {0.48/15 1} c4 {0.58/14 3} 61. bxc4 {(a2-a4) 0.45/16 5} bxc4
{0.24/13 2} 62. Rg4 {0.26/15 3} Kc5 {0.18/13 4} 63. Nd1 {0.38/15 3} Bb5 {
0.27/13 3} 64. a3 {(Rg4-g6) 0.22/15 9} Kd6 {(a5-a4) 0.42/13 5} 65. Ne3 {
(Nd1-c3) 0.39/15 5} Kxe6 {0.18/15 4} 66. Re4+ {0.38/16 3} Kd7 {0.18/16 3} 67.
Nxc4 {0.28/17 5} Bxc4 {0.18/17 1} 68. Rxc4 {0.28/20 2} Bxa3 {0.18/19 1} 69.
Kxd3 {(Rc4-d4+) 0.28/21 3} Bd6 {(Kd7-d6) 0.18/21 1} 70. Kd4 {(Rc4-g4) 0.42/23 3
} Be7 {(Kd7-e6) 0.18/24 3} 71. Kd5 {(Kd4-c3) 0.42/22 1} Bb4 {0.18/24 2} 72. Rc6
{(Kd5-e4) 0.42/24 3} Be7 {(Kd7-e7) 0.18/25 1} 73. Ra6 {0.66/22 3} Bb4 {
(Be7-d8) 0.18/26 2} 74. Ra7+ {0.66/18 1} Ke8 {(Kd7-d8) 0.18/27 2} 75. Rc7 {
(Kd5-e4) 0.66/22 4} Kd8 {0.18/28 7} 76. Rb7 {(Rc7-c1) 0.66/23 4} Kc8 {
(Bb4-c3) 0.18/26 2} 77. Rh7 {(Rb7-a7) 0.66/25 6} Bc3 {(Kc8-d8) 0.18/26 3} 78.
Rf7 {(Kd5-e4) 0.66/23 5} Bb4 {(Kc8-d8) 0.18/27 3} 79. Ra7 {(Kd5-e4) 0.66/25 7}
Kb8 {(Kc8-d8) 0.18/26 4} 80. Rg7 {(Ra7-d7) 0.66/25 7} Kc8 {(Bb4-c3) 0.18/28 8}
81. Kc4 {(Kd5-e4) 0.66/25 4} Bd6 {(Kc8-d8) 0.18/28 4} 82. Rf7 {
(Rg7-a7) 0.66/24 4} Bb4 {(Kc8-d8) 0.18/26 2} 83. Rh7 {(Rf7-f5) 0.66/26 5} Kb8 {
(Kc8-d8) 0.18/27 1} 84. Rd7 {(Rh7-h8+) 0.66/25 3} Kc8 {0.18/27 2} 85. Ra7 {
0.66/27 4} Kd8 {0.18/28 3} 86. Kd4 {(Ra7-h7) 0.66/26 4} Ke8 {(Bb4-d6) 0.18/26 1
} 87. Ke5 {(Kd4-e4) 0.66/25 4} Kf8 {(Ke8-d8) 0.18/25 1} 88. Ke6 {
(Ke5-e4) 0.67/20 2} Bc3 {(Bb4-e1) 0.18/24 1} 89. Rf7+ {(Ra7-a8+) 0.66/21 3} Kg8
{0.18/23 1} 90. Rc7 {(Rf7-f4) 0.66/23 5} Bb4 {(Bc3-d4) 0.30/24 98} 91. Kf6 {
0.91/22 4} a4 {(Bb4-d2) 0.30/23 2} 92. Rc4 {1.04/22 4} Bd2 {0.30/23 1} 93. Rxa4
{1.05/23 3} Bc3+ {0.30/23 1} 94. Kg6 {(Kf6-e6) 1.05/25 4} Kf8 {0.30/23 1} 95.
Ra7 {(Ra4-a8+) 1.05/26 4} Ke8 {0.30/24 1} 96. Kf5 {(Ra7-a6) 1.04/25 3} Bd2 {
(Bc3-d4) 0.30/21 1} 97. Ke6 {(Ra7-a8+) 5.91/26 4} Kf8 {5.36/24 2} 98. Rf7+ {
6.00/26 3} Kg8 {5.36/27 3} 99. Kf6 {6.02/28 4} Be1 {(Bd2-e3) 5.36/28 2} 100.
Kg6 {6.02/27 3} Bg3 {5.36/29 3} 101. Rf3 {6.03/26 3} Bh2 {5.36/29 41} 102. Rh3
{(Rf3-f2) 6.07/25 3} Bg1 {5.36/20 2} 103. Rh1 {(Rh3-g3) 6.16/24 3} Bd4 {
5.36/20 3} 104. Rd1 {(Rh1-h4) 6.11/21 3} Bb6 {5.36/18 2} 105. Rd6 {
(Rd1-b1) 6.25/21 6} Ba5 {(Bb6-c7) 5.36/16 2} 106. Ra6 {6.25/20 6} Bd8 {
5.36/14 2} 107. Ra8 {6.21/16 3} Kf8 {5.36/11 1} 108. Rxd8+ {6.07/12 2} Ke7 {
0.01/0 0} 109. Rd5 {#11/20 2} Ke6 {5.36/11 1} 110. Rf5 {6.59/13 10} Kd6 {
5.36/12 4} 111. Kf7 {6.72/13 9} Kc6 {(Kd6-c7) 320.00/11 0} 112. Ke7 {
(Kf7-e6) #8/12 1} Kc7 {320.00/9 0} 113. Rf6 {(Rf5-c5+) #7/10 0} Kb7 {
(Kc7-c8) 320.00/5 0} 114. Kd7 {#4/6 0} Kb8 {320.00/3 0} 115. Kc6 {#3/4 0} Ka7 {
0.01/0 0} 116. Rf8 {#2/2 0} Ka6 {0.01/0 0} 117. Ra8# {#1/1 0} 1-0

[Event "URI-AMD, 3'/40+0'/0+0'0"]
[Site "URI-AMD"]
[Date "2008.01.13"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Strelka 2.0 B"]
[Black "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B84"]
[Annotator "0.62;0.28"]
[PlyCount "205"]
[TimeControl "40/180:0/0:0/0"]

{W=11.6 ply; 997kN/s B=10.3 ply; 66kN/s} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e6 7. O-O Be7 8. f4 O-O 9. Be3 Qc7 {Both last book move}
10. Qe1 {0.62/12 8} Nbd7 {(Nb8-c6) 0.28/9 2} 11. Qg3 {0.68/11 4} Nc5 {
(g7-g6) 0.23/9 1} 12. Bf3 {1.08/12 5} h5 {(g7-g6) 0.29/10 4} 13. Nb3 {
(Ra1-d1) 0.75/12 6} Ncd7 {(h5-h4) 0.31/9 4} 14. Rad1 {(a2-a4) 1.00/11 5} Re8 {
0.23/10 7} 15. a4 {(h2-h3) 0.90/11 5} h4 {(Ra8-b8) 0.27/11 12} 16. Qf2 {
0.99/12 4} Rb8 {(Nd7-f8) 0.20/10 3} 17. Ba7 {(a4-a5) 1.09/13 3} Ra8 {0.23/10 1}
18. a5 {1.20/13 5} h3 {(Qc7-c4) 0.28/10 3} 19. gxh3 {1.02/12 9} Qc4 {
(Nd7-f8) 0.29/10 3} 20. Be3 {1.56/12 3} Qc7 {0.38/11 11} 21. Qg3 {
(Kg1-h1) 1.40/12 5} Kh8 {(Nd7-c5) 0.39/10 5} 22. Rf2 {(Kg1-h1) 1.62/12 4} Kg8 {
(g7-g6) 0.45/10 3} 23. Rg2 {2.10/12 1} Bf8 {0.72/12 6} 24. h4 {2.33/14 6} Kh8 {
0.76/11 5} 25. h5 {2.39/13 5} Qb8 {(Nf6-g8) 0.88/11 10} 26. h6 {2.73/14 22} g6
{1.26/11 7} 27. Qh4 {(Be3-d4) 3.06/13 13} Be7 {0.88/10 5} 28. Qf2 {
(Rg2-g5) 3.06/12 6} Rf8 {(Qb8-c7) 1.21/10 7} 29. Rg3 {(Nc3-a4) 3.03/11 7} Kh7 {
(Qb8-c7) 1.15/9 5} 30. Rh3 {(Be3-d4) 3.05/10 3} Rg8 {(Qb8-c7) 0.99/10 11} 31.
Kh1 {(Nc3-a4) 2.98/11 8} Kh8 {(Qb8-c7) 0.90/10 8} 32. Rg3 {(Qf2-e2) 2.91/11 5}
Kh7 {(Be7-f8) 1.03/10 6} 33. Qg2 {(f4-f5) 3.02/10 4} Bf8 {(Qb8-c7) 1.25/10 6}
34. Qh3 {(f4-f5) 2.98/12 9} Be7 {(Qb8-c7) 1.26/10 6} 35. Kg1 {(f4-f5) 3.08/10 2
} Kh8 {0.88/8 2} 36. Qg2 {(Rg3-g5) 2.99/11 5} Bf8 {(Qb8-c7) 1.15/10 4} 37. f5 {
2.86/11 4} Ne5 {1.58/10 8} 38. fxg6 {2.86/10 1} fxg6 {(Rg8xg6) 1.70/10 5} 39.
Be2 {(Nc3-a4) 3.21/11 4} Qc7 {(Bf8-e7) 1.40/9 4} 40. Rf1 {(Nc3-a4) 3.45/13 5}
Be7 {1.90/11 7} 41. Bb6 {(Be3-g5) 3.25/13 5} Qb8 {1.87/10 6} 42. Nd2 {
3.26/13 10} Bd7 {1.97/11 4} 43. Nc4 {3.28/12 5} Be8 {(Bd7-c6) 1.86/10 3} 44.
Bd4 {(Qg2-h3) 3.17/12 7} Qc7 {1.96/10 5} 45. Nb6 {(Qg2-h3) 3.21/12 4} Rb8 {
2.24/10 4} 46. Qh3 {3.04/12 7} Bd7 {(Be8-f7) 2.26/9 4} 47. Rd1 {
(Be2-g4) 3.15/11 8} Bc8 {(Rb8-e8) 2.23/9 5} 48. Kh1 {(Nb6xc8) 3.30/10 5} Nc6 {
2.22/9 3} 49. Be3 {(Nb6xc8) 3.28/11 3} Ne5 {(Nc6xa5) 2.13/10 7} 50. Rg2 {
(Nb6xc8) 3.33/10 5} Bd7 {(Ne5-c6) 2.29/9 3} 51. Bf4 {(Nb6xd7) 3.41/12 9} Bc8 {
(Rb8-e8) 2.49/10 8} 52. Rf1 {3.88/11 3} Nfd7 {(Ne5-c6) 2.80/9 4} 53. Nxc8 {
3.97/10 1} Rbxc8 {2.84/11 5} 54. Qxe6 {3.87/10 1} Bh4 {(Nd7-c5) 2.84/10 2} 55.
Nd5 {3.96/10 2} Qc6 {(Qc7xa5) 2.90/10 5} 56. c3 {(b2-b4) 4.16/10 3} Rcf8 {
(Rc8-e8) 2.85/9 4} 57. Rgg1 {(Qe6-h3) 3.96/11 7} Re8 {(Bh4-d8) 2.81/10 4} 58.
Qh3 {3.36/11 2} Bd8 {2.84/9 1} 59. b4 {3.33/11 7} Nf6 {2.89/9 5} 60. Bxe5 {
3.17/11 1} dxe5 {2.82/9 2} 61. Qd3 {2.90/12 7} Re6 {(g6-g5) 2.78/9 3} 62. c4 {
(Nd5xf6) 3.31/10 3} g5 {2.71/10 7} 63. Kg2 {(b4-b5) 3.06/10 5} Nh7 {2.40/10 8}
64. Rf7 {(b4-b5) 2.97/11 3} Rxh6 {2.36/9 2} 65. Qg3 {(Rg1-f1) 2.74/12 13} Qe6 {
(Qc6-g6) 2.13/10 2} 66. Rf5 {2.69/12 3} Re8 {2.20/10 3} 67. Rgf1 {
(Be2-g4) 2.59/12 5} Nf6 {2.33/10 4} 68. Qf2 {(Be2-g4) 2.59/11 3} Rf8 {2.06/9 3}
69. Kg1 {(Qf2-a7) 2.57/11 4} g4 {(Kh8-h7) 2.21/9 6} 70. Qg3 {2.64/11 5} Re8 {
2.20/10 6} 71. Qg2 {(Qg3-e3) 2.67/11 2} Rg8 {2.06/9 3} 72. c5 {2.13/11 5} Rgg6
{(Nf6-h5) 2.18/10 6} 73. Bc4 {(Rf1-d1) 2.50/11 5} Qe8 {2.23/10 4} 74. R5f2 {
(Qg2-g3) 2.37/11 4} Kh7 {(Qe8-a4) 1.98/9 5} 75. Ba2 {(Rf2-d2) 2.13/11 9} Kg7 {
1.83/9 5} 76. Ne3 {2.23/11 2} Rh3 {1.68/10 4} 77. Nf5+ {2.20/10 1} Kh7 {
1.73/11 4} 78. Kh1 {(Rf2-d2) 2.23/11 3} Qa4 {(Qe8-b5) 2.00/10 11} 79. Rb2 {
(Rf2-d2) 2.22/10 2} Qa3 {1.89/10 6} 80. Bc4 {(Rf1-b1) 1.96/10 2} Bc7 {1.63/10 6
} 81. Bf7 {2.22/12 5} Rg5 {2.45/10 3} 82. Ng3 {2.81/12 4} Ng8 {
(Kh7-g7) 3.11/10 4} 83. Qd2 {(Rb2-d2) 4.39/12 5} Rg7 {4.69/12 15} 84. Bb3 {
5.80/12 4} Bxa5 {(Kh7-h8) 4.69/11 3} 85. bxa5 {6.03/11 1} Qxc5 {4.74/11 5} 86.
Nf5 {6.26/11 2} Rxb3 {6.18/12 13} 87. Rxb3 {6.78/11 1} Qc4 {6.24/11 3} 88. Qe1
{8.21/12 4} g3 {7.02/12 10} 89. Rff3 {8.41/12 5} Rg5 {9.69/13 62} 90. Rxg3 {
10.38/12 5} Rxf5 {9.69/12 7} 91. exf5 {(Rg3-h3+) 10.38/11 3} Qd5+ {9.42/9 3}
92. Kg1 {12.26/11 3} Qc5+ {(Qd5-d4+) 16.12/12 26} 93. Qe3 {17.35/11 1} Qd6 {
(Qc5xe3+) 320.00/6 0} 94. Rxb7+ {#10/6 0} Ne7 {320.00/5 0} 95. Rh3+ {#9/5 0}
Kg8 {320.00/4 0} 96. Qg5+ {(Qe3-g3+) #8/4 0} Qg6 {0.01/0 0} 97. fxg6 {#7/3 0}
Nc6 {0.01/0 0} 98. Rh8+ {#6/1 0} Kxh8 {0.01/0 0} 99. Qh5+ {(Qg5-h4+) #5/1 0}
Kg8 {0.01/0 0} 100. Qh7+ {#4/1 0} Kf8 {0.01/0 0} 101. Qg7+ {#3/1 0} Ke8 {
0.01/0 0} 102. Qf7+ {#2/1 0} Kd8 {0.01/0 0} 103. Qg8# {#1/1 0} 1-0

[Rolf]

I should note that your are just making a cliam here, and then repeating it. this does not constitute evidence. Indeed, some of the things that have been said about vas and rybka in this thread border on slander. The claims seem to be unsupported by evidence but mostly meant to hurt him and his business.

It does not matter how many people sarcastly repeat fruit = rybka. This is not evidence.


Vas has been devoted to chess (as an international master) and programming for quite some time, and deserves some benefit of the doubt, until their is evidence. I can say from a chess playing perspective that rybka does not play much like fruit and right from the begining killed fruit 2.2. (much better than the version vas was said to be stealing from). Rybka right from the beginning played like no program i'd ever seen. that is the only evidence i have. It is not iron clad, but it is something. Strelka, in contrast, played just like rybka, even down to the odd errors.

In my view, the current evidence points to strelka being a clone of rybka, and to rybka being something distinctive and new. This is not total proof, but it does fall into the category of evidence i think. It is the best we have.

best

Joseph

I not against Rybka, but I also not against Strelka. And if you speak that Strelka a clone I approve, that it precisely same clone as well as Rybka. They simply have one parent.

No this is untrue. Because otherwise O didnt hide like a crook! That alone is the proof for the evil he has done and he has some support now.

For development computer chess Osipov has made much more than Vas, and it is absolutely free-of-charge.

With doping the athletes run faster and jump much higher. That development is what you have in mind? This is crooked logic. IMO.

[Rolf]

I should note that your are just making a cliam here, and then repeating it. this does not constitute evidence. Indeed, some of the things that have been said about vas and rybka in this thread border on slander. The claims seem to be unsupported by evidence but mostly meant to hurt him and his business.

It does not matter how many people sarcastly repeat fruit = rybka. This is not evidence.


Vas has been devoted to chess (as an international master) and programming for quite some time, and deserves some benefit of the doubt, until their is evidence. I can say from a chess playing perspective that rybka does not play much like fruit and right from the begining killed fruit 2.2. (much better than the version vas was said to be stealing from). Rybka right from the beginning played like no program i'd ever seen. that is the only evidence i have. It is not iron clad, but it is something. Strelka, in contrast, played just like rybka, even down to the odd errors.

In my view, the current evidence points to strelka being a clone of rybka, and to rybka being something distinctive and new. This is not total proof, but it does fall into the category of evidence i think. It is the best we have.

best

Joseph

I not against Rybka, but I also not against Strelka. And if you speak that Strelka a clone I approve, that it precisely same clone as well as Rybka. They simply have one parent.

No this is untrue. Because otherwise O didnt hide like a crook! That alone is the proof for the evil he has done and he has some support now.

For development computer chess Osipov has made much more than Vas, and it is absolutely free-of-charge.

It is hard to compare because Osipov could not do what he did without Vas.

Uri

Sorry, Uri, but I must say this: it's absolutely uninteresting and well allowed that O is based on Vas. What makes the case a criminal is not that he took the code but that he has stolen it without permission and mention. This is the crime and if you now are highly interested in this illegal product, you participüate and support criminal activities. You should therefore be forbidden to participate in the CCT10.

[Orlov]

I should note that your are just making a cliam here, and then repeating it. this does not constitute evidence. Indeed, some of the things that have been said about vas and rybka in this thread border on slander. The claims seem to be unsupported by evidence but mostly meant to hurt him and his business.

It does not matter how many people sarcastly repeat fruit = rybka. This is not evidence.


Vas has been devoted to chess (as an international master) and programming for quite some time, and deserves some benefit of the doubt, until their is evidence. I can say from a chess playing perspective that rybka does not play much like fruit and right from the begining killed fruit 2.2. (much better than the version vas was said to be stealing from). Rybka right from the beginning played like no program i'd ever seen. that is the only evidence i have. It is not iron clad, but it is something. Strelka, in contrast, played just like rybka, even down to the odd errors.

In my view, the current evidence points to strelka being a clone of rybka, and to rybka being something distinctive and new. This is not total proof, but it does fall into the category of evidence i think. It is the best we have.

best

Joseph

I not against Rybka, but I also not against Strelka. And if you speak that Strelka a clone I approve, that it precisely same clone as well as Rybka. They simply have one parent.

No this is untrue. Because otherwise O didnt hide like a crook! That alone is the proof for the evil he has done and he has some support now.

For development computer chess Osipov has made much more than Vas, and it is absolutely free-of-charge.

With doping the athletes run faster and jump much higher. That development is what you have in mind? This is crooked logic. IMO.

We speak with you in different languages. Osipov and Vas have made one and too, using source code of fruit. Only Vas made it for money. Osipov made it absolutely free. Osipov and Vas have one doping - fruit.