Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted.

[thorstenczub]

Maybe this is a valid point. I feel like the anonymity of the program gives me the right to do this. If a real author stepped forward, obviously I would never make an accusatory statement without careful documentation.

He may mean this:

I have this guy by the balls.It does not matter even if Ippo is not a clone, as soon as he reveals himself I will slap him with a lawsuit -- What you dont know is that he was an ex-employee who worked with the code and signed a contract preventing from using any ideas or code of Rybka.

These contracts are quite common and legal. Many times, a programmer cannot even re-use his own work -- the code, ideas and implementation all belong to the company ..

-- sounds plausible ?

Yes. It smells something like that. It could also be the case that the missing source never belonged to Vas for a similarly interesting reason. It would explain all the tap dancing.

So what you guys are suggesting is:

1. Vas did not write R3
2. He hired someone to write it for him.
3. This person broke his contract and released it.
4. As soon as he names himself he will be in a lot of trouble.
5. This explains why Vas has kept quiet.

Interesting theory.

close to the truth.
1.Vas did not write Rybka. he is only a salesman like Ossi weiner.
2.he hired someone to write it.
3.when there was an argument about money or whatever, the
original programmer took the codes/sources (he had licenced them to
vas, but they were his) and left the company.
vas was without sources. could not make any updates because he was
never the owner of the sources. only the salesman.
4.the programmer put HIS sources online as freeware
to damage vas sales.

[govert]

5. The missing sources makes it hard for Vas to release bugfixes for Rybka 3, and delays the release of Rybka 4
6. Maybe Rybka 4 is a clone of Ippolit!

[benstoker]

Maybe this is a valid point. I feel like the anonymity of the program gives me the right to do this. If a real author stepped forward, obviously I would never make an accusatory statement without careful documentation.

He may mean this:

I have this guy by the balls.It does not matter even if Ippo is not a clone, as soon as he reveals himself I will slap him with a lawsuit -- What you dont know is that he was an ex-employee who worked with the code and signed a contract preventing from using any ideas or code of Rybka.

These contracts are quite common and legal. Many times, a programmer cannot even re-use his own work -- the code, ideas and implementation all belong to the company ..

-- sounds plausible ?

If he actually knows that the ippo author is an ex-employee who signed a non-disclosure agreement, then what the hell difference does it make whether the guy reveals himself or not to the public? In that hypothetical, he knows who it is, has a breach of contract claim, and could do something about it. That is clearly not the case.

On the other hand, what he says clearly implies that he feels he has the right to make undocumented accusatory statements because the authors are anonymous. In other words, he feels he can say ippo is a clone without justifying his accusation merely because the author(s) is/are anonymous.

[orgfert]

If he actually knows that the ippo author is an ex-employee who signed a non-disclosure agreement, then what the hell difference does it make whether the guy reveals himself or not to the public? In that hypothetical, he knows who it is, has a breach of contract claim, and could do something about it. That is clearly not the case.

It could be the case. He could know it. But knowing it and being able to prove it to the satisfaction of a court are two different things.

[orgfert]

If he actually knows that the ippo author is an ex-employee who signed a non-disclosure agreement, then what the hell difference does it make whether the guy reveals himself or not to the public? In that hypothetical, he knows who it is, has a breach of contract claim, and could do something about it. That is clearly not the case.

It could be the case. He could know it. But knowing it and being able to prove it to the satisfaction of a court (or anyone else for that matter) are two different things.

[Taner Altinsoy]

Maybe this is a valid point. I feel like the anonymity of the program gives me the right to do this. If a real author stepped forward, obviously I would never make an accusatory statement without careful documentation.

He may mean this:

I have this guy by the balls.It does not matter even if Ippo is not a clone, as soon as he reveals himself I will slap him with a lawsuit -- What you dont know is that he was an ex-employee who worked with the code and signed a contract preventing from using any ideas or code of Rybka.

These contracts are quite common and legal. Many times, a programmer cannot even re-use his own work -- the code, ideas and implementation all belong to the company ..

-- sounds plausible ?

Yes. It smells something like that. It could also be the case that the missing source never belonged to Vas for a similarly interesting reason. It would explain all the tap dancing.

So what you guys are suggesting is:

1. Vas did not write R3
2. He hired someone to write it for him.
3. This person broke his contract and released it.
4. As soon as he names himself he will be in a lot of trouble.
5. This explains why Vas has kept quiet.

Interesting theory.

close to the truth.
1.Vas did not write Rybka. he is only a salesman like Ossi weiner.
2.he hired someone to write it.
3.when there was an argument about money or whatever, the
original programmer took the codes/sources (he had licenced them to
vas, but they were his) and left the company.
vas was without sources. could not make any updates because he was
never the owner of the sources. only the salesman.
4.the programmer put HIS sources online as freeware
to damage vas sales.

Interesting indeed. But where does Rybka 4 gets in the picture? I mean if he were not able to write Rybka 3 and had someone else write it to him and if he didn't have the code how did he create rybka4? On the other hand if we say he was fully capable of writing Rybka 3 this explains how Rybka came to be but then why would he have someone else to write Rybka 3 for him?

[Charles]

Maybe this is a valid point. I feel like the anonymity of the program gives me the right to do this. If a real author stepped forward, obviously I would never make an accusatory statement without careful documentation.

He may mean this:

I have this guy by the balls.It does not matter even if Ippo is not a clone, as soon as he reveals himself I will slap him with a lawsuit -- What you dont know is that he was an ex-employee who worked with the code and signed a contract preventing from using any ideas or code of Rybka.

These contracts are quite common and legal. Many times, a programmer cannot even re-use his own work -- the code, ideas and implementation all belong to the company ..

-- sounds plausible ?

If he actually knows that the ippo author is an ex-employee who signed a non-disclosure agreement, then what the hell difference does it make whether the guy reveals himself or not to the public? In that hypothetical, he knows who it is, has a breach of contract claim, and could do something about it. That is clearly not the case.

On the other hand, what he says clearly implies that he feels he has the right to make undocumented accusatory statements because the authors are anonymous. In other words, he feels he can say ippo is a clone without justifying his accusation merely because the author(s) is/are anonymous.

No, he can't prove it.. The author of Ippo is "Igor + company" how can Vas prove that one of them worked for him ? He can't so he waits for them to slip up and reveal themselves.

[Charles]

Maybe this is a valid point. I feel like the anonymity of the program gives me the right to do this. If a real author stepped forward, obviously I would never make an accusatory statement without careful documentation.

He may mean this:

I have this guy by the balls.It does not matter even if Ippo is not a clone, as soon as he reveals himself I will slap him with a lawsuit -- What you dont know is that he was an ex-employee who worked with the code and signed a contract preventing from using any ideas or code of Rybka.

These contracts are quite common and legal. Many times, a programmer cannot even re-use his own work -- the code, ideas and implementation all belong to the company ..

-- sounds plausible ?

Yes. It smells something like that. It could also be the case that the missing source never belonged to Vas for a similarly interesting reason. It would explain all the tap dancing.

So what you guys are suggesting is:

1. Vas did not write R3
2. He hired someone to write it for him.
3. This person broke his contract and released it.
4. As soon as he names himself he will be in a lot of trouble.
5. This explains why Vas has kept quiet.

Interesting theory.

close to the truth.
1.Vas did not write Rybka. he is only a salesman like Ossi weiner.
2.he hired someone to write it.
3.when there was an argument about money or whatever, the
original programmer took the codes/sources (he had licenced them to
vas, but they were his) and left the company.
vas was without sources. could not make any updates because he was
never the owner of the sources. only the salesman.
4.the programmer put HIS sources online as freeware
to damage vas sales.

Interesting indeed. But where does Rybka 4 gets in the picture? I mean if he were not able to write Rybka 3 and had someone else write it to him and if he didn't have the code how did he create rybka4? On the other hand if we say he was fully capable of writing Rybka 3 this explains how Rybka came to be but then why would he have someone else to write Rybka 3 for him?

which is why below might be closer to the truth - even a good programmer could do with a little help!

1. Vas wrote most of the code.
2. He hired someone to assist -- making him sign a contract not to use code or ideas contained.
3. The guy being a good programmer understood Rybka 3 enough to reuse some of the ideas he had seen earlier possibly with the help of rev. eng or with actual source.
4. Even if Ippolit is not a clone, it breaks the contract if it contains the ideas of Rybka 3 -- Note that if just a regular person rev. eng Rybka 3 and uses ideas the engine is legal and NOT a clone. But this is not the case with an ex-employee - it depends on what the contract is.
5. Vas suspects this person but cannot prove it. He finds the code strangely similar and so right away calls it a clone hoping the person will reveal himself in an attempt to disprove this and then get hit by the lawsuit

6. This explains why Vas not only has kept quiet but is not too specific whether Ippolit has considerable changes, or is an obvious clone. -- To him it is obvious this person had knowledge of Rybka 3 and broke the contract.

[thorstenczub]

Interesting indeed. But where does Rybka 4 gets in the picture? I mean if he were not able to write Rybka 3 and had someone else write it to him and if he didn't have the code how did he create rybka4? On the other hand if we say he was fully capable of writing Rybka 3 this explains how Rybka came to be but then why would he have someone else to write Rybka 3 for him?

Rybka4 is not made by the same programmer who did Rybka3.

when the programmer of rybka3 left the company and left vas without sources,
without possibility to do anything, no updates etc.
vas was mainly "busy" making sure the "clones" = freeware versions that came from the programmer who did rybka3, should have no impact on his sales.
this was done by censoring the name of the engines in his forum,
in other commercial forums such as CCC and hiarcs forum.

also it was important to forbid people to use these engines on playchess.com.

vas hired a new programmer for doing rybka4.
he used sources of rybka232 and continued them to the rybka4 version we have now.

[Harvey Williamson]

this was done by censoring the name of the engines in his forum,
in other commercial forums such as CCC and hiarcs forum.

Naming of the engines was never banned on the Hiarcs forum just promotion of and links. There are several discussions about them.