OpenChess

kingliveson wrote: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.

Exactly my point. There's nothing to be gained by providing proof. And there might be a downside-- so don't.

Angel wrote: 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

+1

Angel wrote: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

I think it's inevitable that the engine will face Rybka in a tournament. Initially under the guise of some new engine, because of its current stigma as a clone.

Actions speak louder than words though. What will ultimately lead to its broad acceptance is when people use it and treat it as acceptable. Someone will start his own rating list and not exclude it, that list will gain traction, and the others will have to adapt or die. It's the way of things.

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.

Vas is trying to be cute with language. But anyone with a programming background knows he is not being honest here.

Yep. couldn't care less about rybka blabity-bla

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
....................there's not much new here. Nevertheless, an interesting read.

Jeremy

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?

Just to let you know that my opinion (Who am I ?) on Vasik and his reply to Sven could be diametrically opposite to yours.

About Sven, he has his believes just as me and you and we don't always base our believes on rigorous objective evidence that could may be hard to come by,... just believing...like I believe in A...

Vasik lost his source codes for a sales version of Rybka 3. I would have kept such a source carefully. But accidents do happen and that is all - we all lose some versions of our own programs all the time, that is if you are a chess programmer.

I said on day one (Who am I ?) from gut instinct that Rybka 1.0 /a/b/c had nothing whatever to do with GPL. The proof is clear to me as I wrote Snailchess all by myself. I could incorporate all of the PST and all of the search conditions of Fruit and I don't have to release my source to anyone whether they like it or not.

Vasik's reply to Sven is quite interesting in some manner. He said categorically that Ippolit is "disassembled Rybka with (considerable) changes". I think some would not give credence to his statement. It is a question of believing in words as he did not offer proof.

The other thing he said was the computer chess community would not accept anonymous chess programs. This is quite a convincing statement and Graham Banks would say that is all and everything - nothing more need be said. In general it is common most of us would release our "top" program with our names. The problem with Ippolit's authors is they are Russians! and therefore considered anonymous! and names in Russian are not equal to names in American English and therefore again "anonymous" as most Americans don't read Russian! It is indeed a problem.

But I would accept the Ippolit thing simply because the only proof that Graham Bank has about Ippolit being reversed engineered from Rybka is the "proof is in the pudding" of Vasik's words. If Graham said he is an expert in assembly language and explained he did an experiment and disassembled Rybka 3 to proof his point, it would be more convincing.

Rasjid