Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / My 2 cents on the Rybka - Fruit GPL violation (if any)
Thanks, but are you really authorized to speak for ICGA? I doubt it.
Therefore I will ask a similar question on this issue: Are you authorized to speak for Rybka/Vas? I doubt it. Your opinion would not change the hard facts & truth showing Rybka to be a clone of Fruit+Crafty to overturn the ban verdict.
Therefore I will ask a similar question on this issue: Are you authorized to speak for Rybka/Vas? I doubt it. Your opinion would not change the hard facts & truth showing Rybka to be a clone of Fruit+Crafty to overturn the ban verdict.
The ban and verdict are only important to people with very brown noses, and it's obvious that you are unable to comprehend the facts. But you know what they say, ignorance is bliss.
The ban and verdict are only important to people with very brown noses, and it's obvious that you are unable to comprehend the facts. But you know what they say, ignorance is bliss.
Ah come-on Ban for Life, not with the attacks if one's point of view differs from yours. You're better than this!
You're missing the point: banning Rybka is NOT important to anyone except to send a message out there to other dishonest authors. It has to do with ethics and integrity. Obviously those supporting such unethical and dishonest practices are the very same people opposing this ban and attacking those who encourage honesty and truthfulness. Evidently those refusing to support such dubious acts by Rybka are seen as ignorant. Very humoring.
Ah come-on Ban for Life, not with the attacks if one's point of view differs from yours. You're better than this!
You're missing the point: banning Rybka is NOT important to anyone except to send a message out there to other dishonest authors. It has to do with ethics and integrity. Obviously those supporting such unethical and dishonest practices are the very same people opposing this ban and attacking those who encourage honesty and truthfulness. Evidently those refusing to support such dubious acts by Rybka are seen as ignorant. Very humoring.
There are rules for software spelled out in copyright and licenses. People do business under these rules and their protections are just as available to chess engine developers as any other software developer. When you deviate and go to academic standards, as occurred here, you end up with Pandix winning tournaments. In the end, the big loser here will not be Rybka, it will be the ICGA, which has banned the top engines from competing.
There are rules for software spelled out in copyright and licenses. People do business under these rules and their protections are just as available to chess engine developers as any other software developer. When you deviate and go to academic standards, as occurred here, you end up with Pandix winning tournaments. In the end, the big loser here will not be Rybka, it will be the ICGA, which has banned the top engines from competing.
So your argument is Rybka shouldn't have been banned on the basis of its strength rather than its apparent bad ethics & dishonesty regarding it's origins? Well then, that about sums it up, doesn't it? It's perfectly okay for Rybka to engage in unethical & dishonest manner as long as its the strongest commercial engine.
I guess this is where the divide stands. Some prefer honesty & good ethical conduct even though their product might not be the best. Others just don't understand this golden rule and want the strongest commercial engine at all costs, even if obtained through dishonest means.
But then again, let's let time tell if ICGA will lose-out because Rybka is banned.
So your argument is Rybka shouldn't have been banned on the basis of its strength rather than its apparent bad ethics & dishonesty regarding it's origins? Well then, that about sums it up, doesn't it? It's perfectly okay for Rybka to engage in unethical & dishonest manner as long as its the strongest commercial engine.
I guess this is where the divide stands. Some prefer honesty & good ethical conduct even though their product might not be the best. Others just don't understand this golden rule and want the strongest commercial engine at all costs, even if obtained through dishonest means.
But then again, let's let time tell if ICGA will lose-out because Rybka is banned.
So your argument is Rybka shouldn't have been banned on the basis of its strength rather than its apparent bad ethics & dishonesty regarding it's origins? Well then, that about sums it up, doesn't it? It's perfectly okay for Rybka to engage in unethical & dishonest manner as long as its the strongest commercial engine.
No. Now you're being silly. I said that they should have used commercial rules for determining whether Rybka was a legal engine. I am convinced it would be found to be perfectly legitimate if it were tried in a real courtroom, rather than in the mickey mouse house.
I guess this is where the divide stands. Some prefer honesty & good ethical conduct even though their product might not be the best. Others just don't understand this golden rule and want the strongest commercial engine at all costs, even if obtained through dishonest means.
Very sanctimonious, but there are far bigger disputes that involve your cell phone, your TV, your car, etc. The difference is, these are handled in a professional manner.
But then again, let's let time tell if ICGA will lose-out because Rybka is banned.
I'm sure the next WCCC will be thrilling. Maybe Hiarcs will play against Pandix.
No. Now you're being silly. I said that they should have used commercial rules for determining whether Rybka was a legal engine. I am convinced it would be found to be perfectly legitimate if it were tried in a real courtroom, rather than in the mickey mouse house.
I guess this is where the divide stands. Some prefer honesty & good ethical conduct even though their product might not be the best. Others just don't understand this golden rule and want the strongest commercial engine at all costs, even if obtained through dishonest means.
Very sanctimonious, but there are far bigger disputes that involve your cell phone, your TV, your car, etc. The difference is, these are handled in a professional manner.
But then again, let's let time tell if ICGA will lose-out because Rybka is banned.
I'm sure the next WCCC will be thrilling. Maybe Hiarcs will play against Pandix.
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
You dau:"Strelka is shown to be closely related to Fruit than to Rybka. "
This is simply wrong.
I already showed that Strelka is closely related to Rybka based on comparing analysis of strelka and Rybka in some closed positions with no tactics at the time of releasing strelka1.8.
I showed almost the same evaluation(something like difference of 0.02) and the same difference after fail high and fail low.
I showed that Strelka also shared the same bug with Rybka that fruit does not share based on analyzing the opening position when white starts without a queen.
I remember that people showed that strelka1.8 and Rybka1 beta have exactly the same analysis in king vs king positions.
It was clear for everybody that strelka is based on rybka and nobody even needed to look at the source code of the programs to do it.
I did not find something close to it in comparing analysis of Rybka1 beta and fruit or in comparison of strelka1.8 and Fruit.
This is simply wrong.
I already showed that Strelka is closely related to Rybka based on comparing analysis of strelka and Rybka in some closed positions with no tactics at the time of releasing strelka1.8.
I showed almost the same evaluation(something like difference of 0.02) and the same difference after fail high and fail low.
I showed that Strelka also shared the same bug with Rybka that fruit does not share based on analyzing the opening position when white starts without a queen.
I remember that people showed that strelka1.8 and Rybka1 beta have exactly the same analysis in king vs king positions.
It was clear for everybody that strelka is based on rybka and nobody even needed to look at the source code of the programs to do it.
I did not find something close to it in comparing analysis of Rybka1 beta and fruit or in comparison of strelka1.8 and Fruit.
Sure seems that way...
Not much sense in me being here... not many willing to listen and discuss with reason. You make an sincere effort to have a sincere discussion and you get people like turbo not able to compliment you w/o insulting you at the same time (unless it was Majd with the showy display of bravado... which I did not see in either one of our posts... just some discussion).
Had my daughter look at some of the things posted here... she reads for a while then says, "dad... you remember the West Wing episode when Josh Lyman starts answering some online posts at lemonlyman.com and Donna warns him not to, then C.J. finds out and is ready to kill him?... Well... you're like Josh and I'm like Donna telling you to get out of there now."
===================================
CJ Cregg: Let me explain something to you, this is sort of my field. The people on these sites: they're the cast of One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest. The muumuu wearing Parliament smoker? That's Nurse Ratched. When Nurse Ratched's unhappy the patients are unhappy. You? You're McMurphy! You swoop in there with your card games and your fishing trips...
Josh: I didn't swoop in! I came in exactly the same way everybody else did.
CJ: Well, now I'm telling you to open the ward room window and climb on out before they give you a pre-frontal lobotomy and I have to smother you with a pillow.
Josh: You're Chief Brom...
CJ: I'm Chief Bromden yes at this particular moment. I'm assigning an intern from the press office to that website. They're going to check it every night before they go home. If they discover you've been there, I'm going to shove a motherboard so far up your ass...what?!
Josh: Well, technically, I outrank you...
CJ: So far up your ass!!
===========================================
I think she's right... this is really a huge waste of time (just like watching that B Science Fiction movie... can be fun but a waste of time when there is so many other good things you could be doing).
I've said this before... and I'll say it again... it is like "Lord of the Flies" here.
So before "C.J" comes down on me or someone here gives me a "pre-frontal lobotomy"...
Not much sense in me being here... not many willing to listen and discuss with reason. You make an sincere effort to have a sincere discussion and you get people like turbo not able to compliment you w/o insulting you at the same time (unless it was Majd with the showy display of bravado... which I did not see in either one of our posts... just some discussion).
Had my daughter look at some of the things posted here... she reads for a while then says, "dad... you remember the West Wing episode when Josh Lyman starts answering some online posts at lemonlyman.com and Donna warns him not to, then C.J. finds out and is ready to kill him?... Well... you're like Josh and I'm like Donna telling you to get out of there now."
===================================
CJ Cregg: Let me explain something to you, this is sort of my field. The people on these sites: they're the cast of One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest. The muumuu wearing Parliament smoker? That's Nurse Ratched. When Nurse Ratched's unhappy the patients are unhappy. You? You're McMurphy! You swoop in there with your card games and your fishing trips...
Josh: I didn't swoop in! I came in exactly the same way everybody else did.
CJ: Well, now I'm telling you to open the ward room window and climb on out before they give you a pre-frontal lobotomy and I have to smother you with a pillow.
Josh: You're Chief Brom...
CJ: I'm Chief Bromden yes at this particular moment. I'm assigning an intern from the press office to that website. They're going to check it every night before they go home. If they discover you've been there, I'm going to shove a motherboard so far up your ass...what?!
Josh: Well, technically, I outrank you...
CJ: So far up your ass!!
===========================================
I think she's right... this is really a huge waste of time (just like watching that B Science Fiction movie... can be fun but a waste of time when there is so many other good things you could be doing).
I've said this before... and I'll say it again... it is like "Lord of the Flies" here.
So before "C.J" comes down on me or someone here gives me a "pre-frontal lobotomy"...
Watchman, I for one appreciate the finality of this whole matter.
It makes no sense for a neighbour to accuse his/her neighbour of something, which by the way is not proven to be so, yet all the while doing the same thing he/she accused another of doing.
If people cannot truly see the hypocrisy, nothing else will. The same hypocrisy indulged by the supporters. As for the motives of an accuser, that is one thing. As for the motives of the defenders of an accuser, despite no prove from an accuser & despite the glaring evidence , that is another.
It makes no sense for a neighbour to accuse his/her neighbour of something, which by the way is not proven to be so, yet all the while doing the same thing he/she accused another of doing.
If people cannot truly see the hypocrisy, nothing else will. The same hypocrisy indulged by the supporters. As for the motives of an accuser, that is one thing. As for the motives of the defenders of an accuser, despite no prove from an accuser & despite the glaring evidence , that is another.
You can't post one decent example here? Why not? Talk about a weak case. Not a single solid example of copied Fruit code in Rybka on this site.
> You can't post one decent example here? Why not? Talk about a weak case. Not a single solid example of copied Fruit code in Rybka on this site.
Like I said before, there are plenty resources now available on the internet plus several individual investigations. Anyone can pull them off the internet.
Pathetic! No examples. Not a single one.
No examples. Not a single one.
> Pathetic!
Putting the actual evidence showing Rybka benefited from Fruit + Crafty aside; how would you now describe the actions of Vas when he accused an engine was a clone of Rybka but refuses to porvide "No examples"? "Not a single one"?
"Pathetic", right?
Yet he wants all the world to believe him. Of course those with brute selfishness, perverseness, and wickedness would imbibe such unsubstantiated words and action.
He's innocent until proven guilty, and you have no proof. None whatsoever. Can't show a single section of copied code. Pathetic!
>how would you now describe the actions of Vas when he accused an engine was a clone of Rybka but refuses to porvide "No examples"? "Not a single one"?
>"Pathetic", right?
Touché Prima! Well done!
Bra-vo!
Poor Alan
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
This is a silly argument. Simply take Zach's report, which is on the ICGA wiki. It shows _exact_ code matches. Isn't that what you are asking for? It shows a couple of odd things in fruit that made it into Rybka 1.0 beta. The crafty - rybka evidence shows much more. I find it funny that you can only say "show it _here_." But if someone did, you would then say "no, show it _here_." (where "here" is a new post.)
It is all in the report and the various supporting documents. To claim that there is none is not even reasonable enough to call it ridiculous. It is much worse. Not everyone is going to hold your hand, spoon-feed you everything, even hold your wee-wee when you need to go to the bathroom. Grown men do all of those things for themselves, and it is _not_ that hard to do any of 'em.
It is all in the report and the various supporting documents. To claim that there is none is not even reasonable enough to call it ridiculous. It is much worse. Not everyone is going to hold your hand, spoon-feed you everything, even hold your wee-wee when you need to go to the bathroom. Grown men do all of those things for themselves, and it is _not_ that hard to do any of 'em.
Not silly at all. This is an elaborate hoax. There are thousands of posts here, and no copied code from Fruit. Of course you will jump and down and say this has already been decided, but the "substantial" copying from Fruit has not been shown, and there is no reason to believe it exists. I congratulate you on your skills in deception but the reality is that there is no evidence for your claim.
Feel free to prove me wrong by posting "substantial" copied code down below. There is plenty of room. Thanks.
Feel free to prove me wrong by posting "substantial" copied code down below. There is plenty of room. Thanks.
Feel free to go read the report and look at the supporting documents. I am not going to hold your wee-wee for you.
Been there, done that, verified that there is no "substantial" copying from Fruit.
This is an elaborate hoax that you've perpetuated. Congratulations!
This is an elaborate hoax that you've perpetuated. Congratulations!
If you have "been there and done that" you would not make the statement "there is no substantial copying." So either you have _not_ "been there, and done that" or else you are so prejudiced that no amount of proof is convincing. Either way, that is _your_ problem, not mine. Nor the ICGA's.
There was a hoax, for sure. It went on for over 5 years until it was exposed by the ICGA investigation.
There was a hoax, for sure. It went on for over 5 years until it was exposed by the ICGA investigation.
Your investigation was a fraud. There is no "substantial" copied code, so nobody can find it and copy it here. It simply does not exist. Your delusions won't conjure it up. And people are beginning to see through your protestations to the contrary. At some point, you either have to put up, or shut up. You are well past that point. Show the evidence, if you can.
ICGA rules do not say "substantial code copying". US copyright law does not mention "substantial code copying". So WHAT is your point here?
We have _already_ shown the evidence. If I took the time to post it here, you'd come up with equally ridiculous arguments. "It is too lengthy for anyone to understand, post only the key parts..." and such nonsense. It is publicly available. Read it. Stop whining for you bottle of formula and go find it.
We have _already_ shown the evidence. If I took the time to post it here, you'd come up with equally ridiculous arguments. "It is too lengthy for anyone to understand, post only the key parts..." and such nonsense. It is publicly available. Read it. Stop whining for you bottle of formula and go find it.
Here are some facts for you_ Bob!
Yankees' Jeter Reaches 3,000 Hits With Home Run-
The Space Shuttle is on it's last space mission-
Former First Lady Betty Ford Dies At 93-
Bob Hyatt pleads for posters to stop posting dissenting views on ICGA's disgracefully biased report and ruling-that banned world class programmer Vasik Rajlich.
Yankees' Jeter Reaches 3,000 Hits With Home Run-
The Space Shuttle is on it's last space mission-
Former First Lady Betty Ford Dies At 93-
Bob Hyatt pleads for posters to stop posting dissenting views on ICGA's disgracefully biased report and ruling-that banned world class programmer Vasik Rajlich.
OK, some other facts:
1. Rybka 1.6.1 was essentially a _total copy_ of Crafty version 19.x. Vas then made some changes to that code. And used it to compete in cct 6. He has repeatedly stated that _all_ versions of rybka were 100% original, including early versions.
2. Rybka 1.0 beta contains code from Fruit that handles UCI parsing. Code that sets up for calling search including making time allocation decisions and such. Code from the evaluation that was rewritten to use bitboards, but which is otherwise equivalent to about 75% of Fruit's evaluation, maybe a bit more. Yes, 1.0 beta has new stuff in the eval. To go with the copied code from Fruit. yes, it contains new stuff in search, go to with the copied code from Fruit.
3. The ICGA investigated this issue and rules that copying was done, which violates ICGA rule 2 for tournament participation, and they stripped Rybka of any titles earned in ICGA tournaments since the program violated rule 2. They also have banned future participation, for obvious reasons.
Those, too, are _facts_. Although I know you don't like 'em, and are going to claim they are anything but fact...
But too many have read the program and changed their minds. Initially, Rybka supporters were everywhere. Now you are down to a very small group. Hopefully, as your senses return and your eyes open, some of the last vestiges will finally "see the light" as well. Of course you can't see anything until you actually open your eyes and look...
1. Rybka 1.6.1 was essentially a _total copy_ of Crafty version 19.x. Vas then made some changes to that code. And used it to compete in cct 6. He has repeatedly stated that _all_ versions of rybka were 100% original, including early versions.
2. Rybka 1.0 beta contains code from Fruit that handles UCI parsing. Code that sets up for calling search including making time allocation decisions and such. Code from the evaluation that was rewritten to use bitboards, but which is otherwise equivalent to about 75% of Fruit's evaluation, maybe a bit more. Yes, 1.0 beta has new stuff in the eval. To go with the copied code from Fruit. yes, it contains new stuff in search, go to with the copied code from Fruit.
3. The ICGA investigated this issue and rules that copying was done, which violates ICGA rule 2 for tournament participation, and they stripped Rybka of any titles earned in ICGA tournaments since the program violated rule 2. They also have banned future participation, for obvious reasons.
Those, too, are _facts_. Although I know you don't like 'em, and are going to claim they are anything but fact...
But too many have read the program and changed their minds. Initially, Rybka supporters were everywhere. Now you are down to a very small group. Hopefully, as your senses return and your eyes open, some of the last vestiges will finally "see the light" as well. Of course you can't see anything until you actually open your eyes and look...
1) Rybka 1.6.1 has never been available to me or anyone I know, and is generally irrelevant. It was a crappy engine and won't be missed.
2) Rybka 1.0 Beta does not contain "substantial" code sections from Fruit. A few lines here and there are not significant. The evaluation is not the same, and does not include copied code from Fruit. The search is not the same and does not include copied code from Fruit.
3) The ICGA was marginally relevant before this decision and is now completely irrelevant. The decision was a tribute to revisionist historians everywhere. Now we can read how Hiarcs won the competition in 2008, after getting crushed by Rybka. You must be so proud!
2) Rybka 1.0 Beta does not contain "substantial" code sections from Fruit. A few lines here and there are not significant. The evaluation is not the same, and does not include copied code from Fruit. The search is not the same and does not include copied code from Fruit.
3) The ICGA was marginally relevant before this decision and is now completely irrelevant. The decision was a tribute to revisionist historians everywhere. Now we can read how Hiarcs won the competition in 2008, after getting crushed by Rybka. You must be so proud!
2. Again, the word "substantial" is a word you want to squeeze into both the ICGA rule 2, and copyright law. But nonetheless, there is _significant_ code copying in Rybka 1.0 beta, and that's enough.
3. You don't get to declare who is relevant and who is not, so your point #3 is beyond irrelevant, as none of the ICGA members give a hoot whether you think, this is an organization that was created for computer chess research and development, _not_ for computer chess program users and proponents. So declare what you want, it _is_ a meaningless gesture.
3. You don't get to declare who is relevant and who is not, so your point #3 is beyond irrelevant, as none of the ICGA members give a hoot whether you think, this is an organization that was created for computer chess research and development, _not_ for computer chess program users and proponents. So declare what you want, it _is_ a meaningless gesture.
- Nobody cares less about ICGA rule number 2 than I do.
- Substantial and substantially similar are words and phrases used by the circuit appeals court rulings which define copyright infringement for software. You should learn to read.
- That said, FSF isn't in the business of upholding copyright. They would be crazy to go after Vas, who is ready, willing and able to defend himself, while not having deep pockets.
- I don't attempt to declare the ICGA irrelevant, but rather point this out as a fact. Computer chess advancement isn't taking place there anymore, and the WCCC is now a joke.
- Substantial and substantially similar are words and phrases used by the circuit appeals court rulings which define copyright infringement for software. You should learn to read.
- That said, FSF isn't in the business of upholding copyright. They would be crazy to go after Vas, who is ready, willing and able to defend himself, while not having deep pockets.
- I don't attempt to declare the ICGA irrelevant, but rather point this out as a fact. Computer chess advancement isn't taking place there anymore, and the WCCC is now a joke.
![[hr]](/mwf/v12/flags/hr.png "Croatia")
> - Nobody cares less about ICGA rule number 2 than I do.
>
> - Nobody cares less about ICGA rule number 2 than I do.
But that is all this is. An ICGA ruling. It is nothing more or nothing less. Vas agreed to abide by that rule.
> They would be crazy to go after Vas, who is ready, willing and able to defend himself, while not having deep pockets.
Then why didn't he defend himself against ICGA?
I'm sure we will hear from Vas at some point. When we do, I would be very surprised to hear that the ICGA is an important part of his life, and I wouldn't be surprised if their requests simply never made it close to the top of his to-do list. The lack of a Chessbase story on this matter strongly implies that their is something in the works, most likely Cloud Rybka, and it is easy to imagine that Vas wasn't interested in spending any time with this type of distraction.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
Well said, Alan. Besides, the ICGA is already of 0.0000% importance to chess players, so nothing changes. They only have left a few chess programmers, whom they will entertain with a WCCC in Tilburg with zero live coverage. Nobody will notice, nobody will care.
A very interesting story I can tell you, is that during one of my WCCC visits in the 1990's the ICGA offered me money to attend to Advances in Computer Chess. It appeared they had invited Japanese speakers, but the hall was rather empty with almost no one interested. To give the Japanese the idea there was a lot of interesting public, they tried to get people into the hall by offering them money. I was one of the chosen people, but kindly refused. From that point I have never taken the ICGA seriously anymore.
Also recall the WCCC where Vas and Gian-Carlo Pascutto had written cluster software and the ICGA suddenly changed the rules to make the WCCC a uniform platform. But only for chess, not other disciplines, as that would hurt some programmer friends. This is wat the ICGA is all about: favour a few, put computer chess in backwardation.
A cloud Rybka wouldn't surprise me, that would be the next step in the development of computer chess. I hope you are right!
A very interesting story I can tell you, is that during one of my WCCC visits in the 1990's the ICGA offered me money to attend to Advances in Computer Chess. It appeared they had invited Japanese speakers, but the hall was rather empty with almost no one interested. To give the Japanese the idea there was a lot of interesting public, they tried to get people into the hall by offering them money. I was one of the chosen people, but kindly refused. From that point I have never taken the ICGA seriously anymore.
Also recall the WCCC where Vas and Gian-Carlo Pascutto had written cluster software and the ICGA suddenly changed the rules to make the WCCC a uniform platform. But only for chess, not other disciplines, as that would hurt some programmer friends. This is wat the ICGA is all about: favour a few, put computer chess in backwardation.
A cloud Rybka wouldn't surprise me, that would be the next step in the development of computer chess. I hope you are right!
Absolutely amazing to hear you (and others) talk about ICGA "pre-conviction" and "post-conviction"
How y'all would sing and dance around the night bonfire, under the stars, in a frenzy praising Vas and Rybka's victory at the WCCCs.
Now... Vas is banned and it's "ICGA is stupid" "ICGA is irrelevant" "No one cares about ICGA".
I must say either way, it is a sight to see (this "forum's" behaviour).
Isn't that a contradiction Jeroen? Hurt some -> favour a few... should it not be "hurt some to favour the rest"?
And you think this unique to ICGA? C'mon Jeroen. Or something you may have watched on TV (hasn't been done there)? Don't be naïve and use that noggin of yours to think.
How y'all would sing and dance around the night bonfire, under the stars, in a frenzy praising Vas and Rybka's victory at the WCCCs.
Now... Vas is banned and it's "ICGA is stupid" "ICGA is irrelevant" "No one cares about ICGA".
I must say either way, it is a sight to see (this "forum's" behaviour).
>as that would hurt some programmer friends. This is wat the ICGA is all about: favour a few,
Isn't that a contradiction Jeroen? Hurt some -> favour a few... should it not be "hurt some to favour the rest"?
>To give the Japanese the idea there was a lot of interesting public, they tried to get people into the hall by offering them money.
And you think this unique to ICGA? C'mon Jeroen. Or something you may have watched on TV (hasn't been done there)? Don't be naïve and use that noggin of yours to think.
Hey Jeroen,
This has been a very interesting process for me. The most interesting part related to the banning of Chris W. Supposedly this was done because he is was considered a "bomb thrower", but this is certainly not evident from his writings on this forum (and he isn't even close to Bob or me in this regard). What is evident is that he is an extremely2 smart guy, and doesn't necessarily believe everything that he hears and reads. Of course it's not surprising that this type of independent thinking individual would be persona non grata on the panel.
I won't miss the ICGA, but I do hope that a replacement for the WCCC pops up over the next few years. As you know, it's fun to have a no-holds-barred competition where people use the best software, best hardware, and best books to compete. Mainly what is missing here of course is a sponsor. Unfortunately, the most obvious candidates (i.e. the hardware manufacturers), have too much experience with the madness in this community to be willing to give this a shot, even though it would provide great advertising in several key developing markets (in particular, China and India).
As far as Cloud Rybka, I have been fighting the use of cloud software in my own organization, but my cohorts have been telling me that I will lose this battle, and I can see they are probably right. So maybe Cloud Rybka has more going for it than I originally imagined. It will be interesting to see what this looks like a few months from now. I'm imagining that Chessbase will provide some time as part of their one year licenses to get people to try it out. If the service is good, the engine is strong, and the price-point is right, maybe people will migrate to this new model. If so, I think Vas and Chessbase will have a pretty good head start over the rest of the field, especially the people that are spending a lot of their time thinking about what happened in 2005 rather than about future trends. I'm sure we both know how expensive it can be to make investment decisions while looking in the rear-view mirror!
Regards,
Alan
This has been a very interesting process for me. The most interesting part related to the banning of Chris W. Supposedly this was done because he is was considered a "bomb thrower", but this is certainly not evident from his writings on this forum (and he isn't even close to Bob or me in this regard
). What is evident is that he is an extremely2 smart guy, and doesn't necessarily believe everything that he hears and reads. Of course it's not surprising that this type of independent thinking individual would be persona non grata on the panel. I won't miss the ICGA, but I do hope that a replacement for the WCCC pops up over the next few years. As you know, it's fun to have a no-holds-barred competition where people use the best software, best hardware, and best books to compete. Mainly what is missing here of course is a sponsor. Unfortunately, the most obvious candidates (i.e. the hardware manufacturers), have too much experience with the madness in this community to be willing to give this a shot, even though it would provide great advertising in several key developing markets (in particular, China and India).
As far as Cloud Rybka, I have been fighting the use of cloud software in my own organization, but my cohorts have been telling me that I will lose this battle, and I can see they are probably right. So maybe Cloud Rybka has more going for it than I originally imagined. It will be interesting to see what this looks like a few months from now. I'm imagining that Chessbase will provide some time as part of their one year licenses to get people to try it out. If the service is good, the engine is strong, and the price-point is right, maybe people will migrate to this new model. If so, I think Vas and Chessbase will have a pretty good head start over the rest of the field, especially the people that are spending a lot of their time thinking about what happened in 2005 rather than about future trends. I'm sure we both know how expensive it can be to make investment decisions while looking in the rear-view mirror!
Regards,
Alan
> As far as Cloud Rybka, I have been fighting the use of cloud software in my own organization, but my cohorts have been telling me that I will lose this battle, and I can see they are probably right. So maybe Cloud Rybka has more going for it than I originally imagined. It will be interesting to see what this looks like a few months from now. I'm imagining that Chessbase will provide some time as part of their one year licenses to get people to try it out. If the service is good, the engine is strong, and the price-point is right, maybe people will migrate to this new model.
Is everyone here neglecting the competitive nature of top users? How will cloud Rybka (giving everyone the same or almost the same hardware speed) appeal to them? Or am I missing something?
This is a good question. Cloud based engines seem likely to shrink the customized differences that we know and love. I think that Vas realized this and believed that by offering a large set of tools for using the engine, users would still have the ability to differentiate their analysis methods from others using the same engine.
But as we all know, if there is one engine that is way better than the rest, it's very hard to avoid using it. So if Cloud Rybka can be shown to be 100 Elo better than Houdini, I think it has a reasonable chance. At 150 Elo, I think it would be a slam dunk. We'll see...
But as we all know, if there is one engine that is way better than the rest, it's very hard to avoid using it. So if Cloud Rybka can be shown to be 100 Elo better than Houdini, I think it has a reasonable chance. At 150 Elo, I think it would be a slam dunk. We'll see...
It is still my understanding that Vas will continue UCI versions of Rybka-that is the impression that I am getting. They might be far and few between -but still will keep coming.
> It is still my understanding that Vas will continue UCI versions of Rybka-that is the impression that I am getting.
That's music to my ears, but ... you base this on what exactly? Thanks!
Well, we will have to wait and see what transpires.
But this will surely kill any interest in playchess and correspondence players? How big (how important - I know we like to think of us as the key customers, but ...) this customer base is anyway?
![[pr]](/mwf/v12/flags/pr.png "Puerto Rico")
Hello Alan.
Don't you think Chessbase and/or Rajlich should do some Public Relations to erase or divert the controversy about code coding? It could be bad for business with all the bad press Rybka got.
Don't you think Chessbase and/or Rajlich should do some Public Relations to erase or divert the controversy about code coding? It could be bad for business with all the bad press Rybka got.
Is it bad press? I notice that Chessbase is still selling Rybka 4...there must be a reason for this. :-)
There are some who believe that any form of notoriety is good. In any event, this incident won't have any bearing on the future Chessbase / Rybka collaboration on Cloud Rybka, no matter how sure Bob is that this is just a tweaked version of Crafty.
> no matter how sure Bob is that this is just a tweaked version of Crafty.
It must be a bitch to know it was there all the time, so much ELO hidden in Crafty, it just needed right tweaks here and there, and Bob never found it!
Bob is just a few french fries short of a happy meal when it comes to Vas and Rybka.
+2
I never thought I would be looking forward to the release of the Cloud project -but, it will reduce the ICGA to nothing more than the hissing crackling back ground noise of atmospheric static in an otherwise evolving world of greater computer chess possibilities.
I never thought I would be looking forward to the release of the Cloud project -but, it will reduce the ICGA to nothing more than the hissing crackling back ground noise of atmospheric static in an otherwise evolving world of greater computer chess possibilities.
You should learn to understand what the "substantially similar" wording is actually saying, as opposed to claiming it says what you want it to say. Then we get back to a more normal method of discussing things where everybody uses a well-understood set of terms that eliminate ambiguity. You are _intentionally_ trying to insert ambiguity by using ridiculous interpretations of perfectly clear statements...
Substantial similarity is explained in gory detail in the circuit court rulings. You are such an egomaniac that you just can't accept that it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. The courts won't have this problem.
I specifically asked an attorney friend of mine for his interpretation of that "substantially similar" phrase. He gave me a couple of examples for "substantially similar."
You make a perfect copy of a Red Dodge Viper you have access to, the only thing is, you don't make any red copies. You only make purple and white ones. The two cars are "substantially similar." You decide to change the body style in places, but use the same drive train, same interior, same everything. "substantially similar". I gave him an explanation of the fruit/rybka eval comparison, explaining how the board representations would change things. He told me that the metric was that "are the important/significant parts present in both, differing only in that one aspect of how you determine what is on what square?" If the answer is yes, the two are "substantially similar." The car explanation and the code explanation seem pretty clear, and certainly fit what the typical layperson would think.
If you want to continue to create your own language, where words mean what you want them to mean but vary from the usual definition, you are certainly free to do so. And for the folks that "just fell off the turnip truck" you might score a point here and there. But not with the rest of us.
You make a perfect copy of a Red Dodge Viper you have access to, the only thing is, you don't make any red copies. You only make purple and white ones. The two cars are "substantially similar." You decide to change the body style in places, but use the same drive train, same interior, same everything. "substantially similar". I gave him an explanation of the fruit/rybka eval comparison, explaining how the board representations would change things. He told me that the metric was that "are the important/significant parts present in both, differing only in that one aspect of how you determine what is on what square?" If the answer is yes, the two are "substantially similar." The car explanation and the code explanation seem pretty clear, and certainly fit what the typical layperson would think.
If you want to continue to create your own language, where words mean what you want them to mean but vary from the usual definition, you are certainly free to do so. And for the folks that "just fell off the turnip truck" you might score a point here and there. But not with the rest of us.
Once again, you are ignoring the precedent setting circuit court rulings on software copyright infringement standards in favor of irrelevant analogies that have nothing to do with copyright. I will urge you again to read the rulings, knowing full well that you won't bother, and if you did, you would not be able to accept them because they are not in line with what has been formulated between your two ears.
The fact of the matter is that any software copyright infringement case will be determined based on precedent, and the precedent sets a very high bar, where several large companies were unable to prevail, even though some copying definitely occurred. Whether I score any points with people reading this thread isn't really relevant.
The fact of the matter is that any software copyright infringement case will be determined based on precedent, and the precedent sets a very high bar, where several large companies were unable to prevail, even though some copying definitely occurred. Whether I score any points with people reading this thread isn't really relevant.
There have been _plenty_ of successful copyright infringement court cases. Ditto for GPL cases, even though you personally believe the GPL can't be enforced legally.
Believe what you want... If this happens to end up in court, it will be a "slam dunk". But we won't know until it happens. Let's just wait on the FSF and Fabien to make that decision.
As far as the rest of the discussion, the ICGA investigation is over. A ruling has been made. Punishment imposed. It is _over_ and isn't going to change.
Believe what you want... If this happens to end up in court, it will be a "slam dunk". But we won't know until it happens. Let's just wait on the FSF and Fabien to make that decision.
As far as the rest of the discussion, the ICGA investigation is over. A ruling has been made. Punishment imposed. It is _over_ and isn't going to change.
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / My 2 cents on the Rybka - Fruit GPL violation (if any)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill