OpenChess

I don't quote the text here deliberately: Sven got explicit permission for TalkChess, and we should respect that.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=355707

Apart from a non-ambiguous statement that he believes that IPPOLIT is a reverse-engineered Rybka 3 with changes, there's not much new here. Nevertheless, an interesting read.

Jeremy

Sven at least made it clear he is not an objective observer. He goes on to talk about how he believes one program is partial copy of another without a shred of evidence. And yet the program which has be proven to have partially copied from another he does not really believe. Bravo!! Well Done! And then Mr. Vasik Rajlich says he does not have Rybka 3 source code so he can't show proof.

Does anyone actually believe this? I mean Seriously. Perhaps is to give impression R4 is a complete re-write -- I don't really know what's behind it. Plain and simple; I don't believe Vas is being honest when he says he does not have Rybka 3 source. Maybe my imagination is just not that great to picture how he would lose source code to a program that dominated computer chess for years and still continues to do. He says something about copying a GPL program legally (going commercial without releasing the source)...huh?

kingliveson wrote:Sven at least made it clear he is not an objective observer. He goes on to talk about how he believes one program is partial copy of another without a shred of evidence. And yet the program which has be proven to have partially copied from another he does not really believe. Bravo!! Well Done! And then Mr. Vasik Rajlich says he does not have Rybka 3 source code so he can't show proof.

Does anyone actually believe this? I mean Seriously. Perhaps is to give impression R4 is a complete re-write -- I don't really know what's behind it. Plain and simple; I don't believe Vas is being honest when he says he does not have Rybka 3 source. Maybe my imagination is just not that great to picture how he would lose source code to a program that dominated computer chess for years and still continues to do. He says something about copying a GPL program legally (going commercial without releasing the source)...huh?

I suspect that he's splitting hairs and hoping that most people in the chess world have never heard of cvs, subversion or git, or know what they are for. Probably he wasn't using any SCM previous to the release of R3 (which is mega-dumb), and probably he doesn't have the exact source code which was released as R3. I'll bet you that he has that source from about 1 week later, though, after a few minor changes, when he realized that he should zip a copy for safekeeping. Bad development practices? Certainly, but I am 100% sure, 1000% sure, that the source wasn't lost -- it's just not the exact source used for the R3 release.

For his sake, I hope that he started using SCM in the meantime.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: I suspect that he's splitting hairs and hoping that most people in the chess world have never heard of cvs, subversion or git, or know what they are for. Probably he wasn't using any SCM previous to the release of R3 (which is mega-dumb), and probably he doesn't have the exact source code which was released as R3. I'll bet you that he has that source from about 1 week later, though, after a few minor changes, when he realized that he should zip a copy for safekeeping. Bad development practices? Certainly, but I am 100% sure, 1000% sure, that the source wasn't lost -- it's just not the exact source used for the R3 release.

For his sake, I hope that he started using SCM in the meantime.

Always wondered why those who had no stake in the matter made more hay than the guy who does and apparently is in no hurry to prove or fight those who allegedly wronged him. In all, I think Steve B on CCC put it best after Vas' statement that is not really a priority to settle the matter:

it does kinda sorta put things into a bit of perspective

ever since the IPPO engine hit the scene ..the Computer Chess world has been rocked to its core
depending on where you stand on the issue..
friends have become enemies and enemies have become friends
commercial sites have been threatening everyone they can with legal action
new forums are popping up all over the net on a daily basis
testing group members are at each others throats as to test or not
fan boys have risked life and limb to defend their favorite engines
moderators have been besieged from all sides
even entire families have been torn asunder

and during all of this time..
the one man that could have ended this debate.. at any time...with one post..
simply hasn't placed the issue up high enough on his "to do " list

Prioritizing Regards
Steve

kingliveson wrote:Always wondered why those who had no stake in the matter made more hay than the guy who does and apparently is in no hurry to prove or fight those who allegedly wronged him.

I find it amusing that so many take it upon themselves to be injured on Vas' behalf. It's one thing to support him, but to drone on and on when Vas himself has demonstrated a complete lack of interest (which I understand and basically agree with) shows they have no lives at all.

I have not posted anything on the Rybka/Ippolit issue before, my take on the issue is (even thought its all been said before):

I don't understand why Vas cannot provide proof that these IPP family are clones and settle the matter once and for all. The other concern I'd have is what happens when the next new super chess engine/program comes on the scene? Will all the commercial programmers just shout "clone" to save their skins and ruin somebodys reputation?

And not to mention that these IPP engines are not just 'Cut and Paste' copies of Rybka (or any prog).

John

John Blake wrote:I don't understand why Vas cannot provide proof that these IPP family are clones and settle the matter once and for all.

I don't see anything to be gained by doing that, except to ease tension on CCC, and who really cares about that outside of that community? Seriously.

I guess if rybka sales had some correlation with general CCC sentiment, it would make sense. But I find that idea laughable.

emullins wrote:

John Blake wrote:I don't understand why Vas cannot provide proof that these IPP family are clones and settle the matter once and for all.

I don't see anything to be gained by doing that, except to ease tension on CCC, and who really cares about that outside of that community? Seriously.

I guess if rybka sales had some correlation with general CCC sentiment, it would make sense. But I find that idea laughable.

Put in plain English...Vas has not provided such proof as there is NO such proof to provide
Facts are that there is more evidence to support them NOT being what you incorrectly call "clones"
We suspect Vas and backers FEAR IppolIts recognition as legitamate and LEGAL engines as they would have to face them in legitamate competition...and LOSE

Angel wrote:Put in plain English...Vas has not provided such proof as there is NO such proof to provide
Facts are that there is more evidence to support them NOT being what you incorrectly call "clones"
We suspect Vas and backers FEAR IppolIts recognition as legitamate and LEGAL engines as they would have to face them in legitamate competition...and LOSE

And the Ippolit fanboys who drone on about it being legitimate are just as amusing to me.

You want to use the engine? Go ahead, I do too. I even have my own custom tree of it running on FICS 24/7.

emullins wrote:

John Blake wrote:I don't understand why Vas cannot provide proof that these IPP family are clones and settle the matter once and for all.

I don't see anything to be gained by doing that, except to ease tension on CCC, and who really cares about that outside of that community? Seriously.

I guess if rybka sales had some correlation with general CCC sentiment, it would make sense. But I find that idea laughable.

Well, when Strelka issue came up, he provided information that put the case to rest. Unfortunately by him doing so, a gateway opened to his own doings with regards to fruit.