Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted.

[kingliveson]

And I choose the name , we already have a Flip Side so The Edge was the next logical step.

Requirement for access is 500 posts, though Jeremy was granted special access on request.

And this would be the next logical step in censorship, from your point of view?

I hereby respectfully request access to the Rybka Sub-Forum know as The Edge.

If I need to make this request in a more formal way please let me know.

Lol, I think am on a blacklist and would not be granted access. Though I did stop posting there months ago.

[kingliveson]

Nelson on rybkaforum:

By Nelson Hernandez Date 2010-06-13 21:06

Folks, I have to direct you to http://www.open-chess.org. A new site on computer chess by Rybka dissidents, among whom I am not one. Yet there is information there that needs to be aired out.

BB has written and Zach Wegner has published a .pdf there that does a very, very detailed analysis of Rybka 3 vs. Ippolit in one narrow program aspect after another. I promise you, it will be a perception-altering experience. The long document is a fine bit of investigation and forensic programming.

It seems we cannot talk of Ippolit and its successors as clones any more. There are many, many fundamental structural differences within the code and, yes, some similarities. But practically nothing is identical or appears to be copied, and what little evidence there is BB has pointed out himself.

My conclusion: there is no way we should talk about that whole group of programs as clones. It seems all of them should be tested on CEGT and CCRL. They appear to be legitimate, even if their authors (and BB, for that matter) remain anonymous. I have to say, I am writing these words with regret--but my integrity compels me to conclude that you simply cannot dismiss a rival as a clone without evidence, and finally we have solid, objective and ample technical evidence to the contrary.

Felix: before you censor this, go read it yourself. I'm serious! And if you censor it anyway please PM me and explain your reasoning. I accept that this is the Rybkaforum, but we ought to first be dedicated to truth, then Rybka!

Vas' response:

By Vasik Rajlich Date 2010-06-16 07:38

> But practically nothing is identical or appears to be copied

Really?

> my integrity compels me to conclude that you simply cannot dismiss a rival as a clone without evidence

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.

Anyway, I can accept some disagreement about this point.

> and finally we have solid, objective and ample technical evidence to the contrary.

I can assure you that you don't.

Vas

My view of Mr. Nelson Hernandez has been altered a great deal after reading the above statement. Are you sure someone did not hack his account?

[Uly]

And this would be the next logical step in censorship, from your point of view?

No, actually, I'm against all the censorship that goes on at Rybka Forum and other places, that's why I'm so happy that OpenChess was created.

However, the decision of not allowing clone talk was of a higher order, and all my complains about the forum policy were unfruitful. It was either The Edge, or not allowing clone talk at all on Rybka Forum.

I hereby respectfully request access to the Rybka Sub-Forum know as The Edge.

It was a request from a member that already has access to the edge, Jeremy and other member were having a discussion about clones on the main section, so when the thread was moved they couldn't continue it, two members from the edge requested access for those members respectively, and they are the only exceptions.

In my opinion, all people that already know about the clones should have access to the edge, but I can't do anything about it.

[kingliveson]

And this would be the next logical step in censorship, from your point of view?

No, actually, I'm against all the censorship that goes on at Rybka Forum and other places, that's why I'm so happy that OpenChess was created.

However, the decision of not allowing clone talk was of a higher order, and all my complains about the forum policy were unfruitful. It was either The Edge, or not allowing clone talk at all on Rybka Forum.

I hereby respectfully request access to the Rybka Sub-Forum know as The Edge.

It was a request from a member that already has access to the edge, Jeremy and other member were having a discussion about clones on the main section, so when the thread was moved they couldn't continue it, two members from the edge requested access for those members respectively, and they are the only exceptions.

In my opinion, all people that already know about the clones should have access to the edge, but I can't do anything about it.

Strange statement in light of what we know.

[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 ?

[Chan Rasjid]

...
Most modern engines use qsearch, various pruning techniques - negascout, etc etc. See the list on all the named algorithms at the chess programming wiki site. I don't think any of the ideas on the chess programming wiki are copyrighted - i.e., everybody is free to use negascout, SEE, aspiration windows, iterative deepening, etc.

So what/where is that little jewel in IPPOLIT that is at once responsible for its strength and too close to Rybka to be freely used like all the other standard chess engine algorithms?

Can you please post the question in the programming section as I too want to know which is the jewel

I think it is correct ideas cannot be copyrighted. I see no logical basis how there could be justification for restriction to the freedom to use ideas. So all parameter values that are in Fruit that determines its evaluation and search could be used verbatim by anyone and Vasik could have started that way and it is wholly acceptable. So there is no question at all about the legitimacy of the beginning of Rybka.

from wiki:-

The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used [in a copy-paste sense], modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work,"

Only a derivative work like Toga need to open its source. Rybka has absolute right to be closed.

The question of the jewel is this. Vasik clearly knows what it was that gave his program that clear lead over all other engines. When he sees the sources of Ippolit, he immediately says :-
" Oh my ! Impossible. It has all the very secret elements that only I know... No way.. ".
So he make a statement in his Forum:-
" Ippolit is a clone of Rybka 3. ... I now consider the sources of Ippolit mine... etc..."
It is acceptable to him and his supporters but not to many. He would then be indirectly saying others could not have discovered the same critical elements independenly.

The fact of reverse engineering is most often it cannot be proven. No way that Vasik could have given proof of reverse engineering if someone come forward to acknowledge the authorship of Ippolit. There can only be talk of strong evidence and great likelihood.

Rasjid

[Chan Rasjid]

...
Working on premises that Rybka is a legal and legitimate program; an engineer obtains a Rybka binary being a scientist interested in advancement of computer chess -- disassembles it, uses ideas found combined with new ones to produce a stronger program, and then releases the source to the community. We are not talking about code copying line for line, but rather expression of ideas which is legal.

The problem is the sources and the method which we use to obtain something and contribute for the benefit of a community at large. That the end and the intention of an act is right does not mean the act is not questionable.

Rasjid

[orgfert]

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.

[Harvey Williamson]

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.

[Charles]

Or even more simple:

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.



And finally, if none of this is true and the person never signed a contract or worked for Rybka then we should expect the Ippolit people to reveal themselves quite soon,, since it is looking likely that there is no cloning eveidence.