rybka 1.0 and plaggerism: has the case been compiled yet

[Zach Wegner]

You do realize that part of "building the case" was done _right_ here. As were prior clone discussions about other programs such as Le Petite, Voyager, Bionic, to name some that were copied from my program. This is the right place to discuss this. It is a "discussion forum" where lots of technically competent people participate... So discussions should not happen on a discussion forum until after the discussions are completed???? How, then, can that happen. How can people join in and participate if they don't know there is something to participate in?

This angle of the discussion is a bit hard to digest...

I would tend to agree, as I would not have gotten involved at all unless it was raised here.

[Terry McCracken]

(one does not say person X has a brain, without implying person Y has no brain .


best
j

You couldn't be further from the truth since in reality it is Rolf who implied I was unable to think logically, that I'm of no consequence to the debate.

This has already been resovled as far as I'm concerned.

1-0

[kranium]

I for one have not been 'pouring through the code' trying to provide evidence. i have done nothing in regard to this topic for the last month. i've been working on websites, my business, and cyclone 2.0, without any thought to this issue.

I do want to point out that it all started as a simple discussion motivated by Rick Faddens post, and Vas's declaration that Strelka was his own software.
the issue started as a simple discussion, not as a smear campaign.

it was a question begging to be asked:
if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, confirmed by Vas himself, w/ apparent agreement by CEGT and CCRL)
and since the Strelka source code was released with abundant Fruit code in it..., isn't it logical, fair, and correct to question the legitimacy of both Strelka and Rybka?

the chess community has said no:
to paraphrase: "we want 100% proof. what has been disasembled and shown is only UCI parser stuff, non-critical engine AI code, etc. and besides, Vas is respected and liked, and has stated it is clean."

I can and have accepted the chess communities decision, and have moved on 100%, and urge everyone to do the same.

Norm

[Graham Banks]

I have a lot of respect for those involved, but I abhor the way they went about their project.

Just curious, what exactly did we/they do?

It seems to me that whatever genuine efforts anybody had in this were drowned in an ocean of inane argumentation. IOW, neither side was fully to blame for what ensued.

You should build a watertight case and then present it rather than making accusations beforehand.

You do realize that part of "building the case" was done _right_ here. As were prior clone discussions about other programs such as Le Petite, Voyager, Bionic, to name some that were copied from my program. This is the right place to discuss this. It is a "discussion forum" where lots of technically competent people participate... So discussions should not happen on a discussion forum until after the discussions are completed???? How, then, can that happen. How can people join in and participate if they don't know there is something to participate in?

This angle of the discussion is a bit hard to digest...

The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.

Regards, Graham.

[Rolf]

You do realize that part of "building the case" was done _right_ here. As were prior clone discussions about other programs such as Le Petite, Voyager, Bionic, to name some that were copied from my program. This is the right place to discuss this. It is a "discussion forum" where lots of technically competent people participate... So discussions should not happen on a discussion forum until after the discussions are completed???? How, then, can that happen. How can people join in and participate if they don't know there is something to participate in?

This angle of the discussion is a bit hard to digest...

I would tend to agree, as I would not have gotten involved at all unless it was raised here.

Why cant this be done this way: to examine everything we needed help from experts and others, so please who wants to join us we meet on page so and so and this should be posted here. But to talk about how Vas could have possibly stolen, violated and such, this is a smear campaign that shouldnt happen here in CCC. Also not from such former number one's like Theron. He even went for details when he asked himself why he couldnt steal likewise because his moral wouldnt allow this. I mean is this so difficult to understand as a form of character assassination? Why dont you realise that this isnt tolerable to do here? In private he can say what he likes. But this doesnt belong into CCC.

[ozziejoe]

I think this is reasonable Zach, and perhaps one of the few, non-repetitive statements in this thread. I (and i'm sure others) will stay patient as you construct the arguments. I am eager to see what you come up with and how Vas responds.

By the way, if, as some suggest, the evidence is already sufficient, maybe this evidence should be sent to Vas. The only thing i would say is that you should be darn sure that your evidence is compelling, such that Vas or Fabien will be moved by your conclusions (because i think it would be a little unfair for them to respond to a continous stream of questions). If the case is not yet sufficient, then I will be keen to see what Zach comes up with, if he can find the time


edit: i should add that I do nto think VAs and Fabien are the ultimate arbitrators of this issue. I'd just like to see how they respond before drawing firm conclusions. of course if they fail to respond to the letter, then I'll have to draw conclusions on what is available

best
J

I'd rather not go into much detail here at the risk of starting another flame war, but here is the basic situation:

1. There has been additional findings since the last ones were publicly posted.
2. I have had very little time to work on it, as I have about 10 other projects that I am actively involved in. It's going pretty slow.
3. I haven't talked much with the other "investigators" in the past few weeks.
4. I don't know how long it will take to get everything assembled. Decompiling in itself is pretty tedious, but that cannot compare to creating a whole web page documenting it all.

[Rolf]

I think this is reasonable Zach, and perhaps one of the few, non-repetitive statements in this thread. I (and i'm sure others) will stay patient as you construct the arguments. I am eager to see what you come up with and how Vas responds.

By the way, if, as some suggest, the evidence is already sufficient, maybe this evidence should be sent to Vas. The only thing i would say is that you should be darn sure that your evidence is compelling, such that Vas or Fabien will be moved by your conclusions (because i think it would be a little unfair for them to respond to a continous stream of questions). If the case is not yet sufficient, then I will be keen to see what Zach comes up with, if he can find the time

edit: i should add that I do nto think VAs and Fabien are the ultimate arbitrators of this issue. I'd just like to see how they respond before drawing firm conclusions. of course if they fail to respond to the letter, then I'll have to draw conclusions on what is available
best
J

Let me try to answer. This doesnt belong into CC but psychology and social life.

What you want just to see, I would never give you if I were now or formerly a commercial.

What you expect is unreal to the core.

In that regard youshould please re-read all the threads about the topic and if I were Vas I wouldnt show you anything. I wouldnt care what you then make for consequences. You could sue me. Well, I would just laugh at it. Because - Joseph - Vas has already answered all that. He say he hasnt done anything forbidden. Period.

The rest is the campaign here. It's our problem here in CCC.

[bob]

Bob, the question is, why you insist that this is your playing field if Crafty isnt involved this time at all.

I do not know what you are talking about. Uri said something to the effect that it is quite likely that two different programmers could produce the same blocks of code and finding such was not a sign of plagiarism. That I do know something about, and such a statement is simply incorrect. And I made that point repeatedly. And that was the _only_ point I tried to continue making. If there are significant similarities between any two programs, it is _not_ the result of pure chance.

Are you the guy who these guys could always hire to spend hours of work to chase someone who still couldnt be proven of having done anything wrong other than that he was inspired and took some ideas from Fabien for his three year old first version! In the meantime all have read Fruit, are they too uninspired to use it? But again if nothing comes out of it what have you to do in this business? Dont you think that your status could suffer if nothing comes out? Again, I'm only speaking about a non-Crafty case. And Bob, the insinuative insulting tone in messages from CT and Norm isnt inexistent through mere hand-waving. It's fact. And this was necessary to do with your support and without your critic? Why?

I don't care whether my "status" suffers or not. The people it might "suffer" with do not particularly mean anything to me anyway, so who cares? My point was, and still is, both clear and accurate. Duplicate code does _not_ happen by chance. Anyone that believes it does is delusional at best, dishonest at worst. Which is irrelevant.

I have seen some of the evidence presented and it strikes me as suspect. I have said that, and only that. I will wait until the whole picture is presented and then form an opinion.

[GenoM]

The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.

Regards, Graham.

I hope that with your statements above you were not saying that its more acceptable to accuse freeware authors than commercial ones.
I hope that with your statements above you were not giving indulgence to possible cloners who have gone commercial.
I hope that with your statements above you weren't against free discussions here.
May be its time to get a difference between "free discussion" and "smear campaign".

[bob]

I have a lot of respect for those involved, but I abhor the way they went about their project.

Just curious, what exactly did we/they do?

It seems to me that whatever genuine efforts anybody had in this were drowned in an ocean of inane argumentation. IOW, neither side was fully to blame for what ensued.

You should build a watertight case and then present it rather than making accusations beforehand.

You do realize that part of "building the case" was done _right_ here. As were prior clone discussions about other programs such as Le Petite, Voyager, Bionic, to name some that were copied from my program. This is the right place to discuss this. It is a "discussion forum" where lots of technically competent people participate... So discussions should not happen on a discussion forum until after the discussions are completed???? How, then, can that happen. How can people join in and participate if they don't know there is something to participate in?

This angle of the discussion is a bit hard to digest...

The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.

Regards, Graham.

I'll say it again. This is _the_ place to build such a "water tight case". Email doesn't work well for such discussions as new people can not join in and offer additional help. I'd never have developed a decent testing approach had I not started the discussions in the programmer's message board here, because I would have had no idea who to contact to make suggestions...