Jeremy Bernstein wrote:If you feel that Vasik has done something ethically wrong, you probably should grant that the Ippo people (and Robert Houdart, who didn't take Ippolit unwittingly as a starting point) are doing something ethically wrong, as well.
Here's the glitch; Though Robert Houdart authors Houdini and used ideas from IppoLit, he didn't decompile Rybka. Base on the fact that an accusation was made by Vasik Rajlich but failed to support such "clone claim", I'm now sure that the IppoLit authors did not decompiled Rybka 3. It is unfair to lump Houdini with the Rybka-Fruit issue.
Jeremy Bernstein wrote:I tend to think that both have done exactly what nearly everyone else in the technology industry does: carefully analyze the competitor, steal the best ideas and grab market share. Ethically questionable? Granted. Illegal? Probably not.
Every author, if not all, does this. It is highly probable that the commercial authors are more apt to study other codes since there's an incentive to improve their commercial engines. Now reverse the tables where IppoLit/RobboLito/IvanHoe were on the unjustified and unsupported receiving end, do you think this concept would sit well with the sworn Rybka-Fans-At-All-Costs? No. In fact, people got censored & banned from forums, and banned from playchess; for either voicing their opinions that so much as varied from the moderators & playchess sysops's perceptions. All these without facts other than a 'he said-she said" rule.
Anyway, the exception here is that one author is honest and acknowledges the origins of his engine, the other wasn't quite forthcoming and violates the GPL license by making it close source and commercial. Extensive tests and comparisons from professional computer programmers/chess programmers confirm the Fruit-Rybka similarities.
Another pointer; The "claimed decompiled" Rybka 3 is about 55 ELO weaker than Rybka 4. Houdini 1.5/a is estimated to be roughly 70+ (some tests have it at 50+)ELO over Rybka 4. Paired against Rybka 3, Houdini 1.5/a is roughly 105 ELO over the "claimed-clone" Rybka 3. Where did this increase over Rybka 3 & 4 come from? Lets' assume Robert Houdart actually stole ideas; where did he steal this ideas or 70+ ELO (and 105 Elo over Rybka 3) from? There is currently no engine stronger than Houdini 1.5 itself for Robert Houdart to steal ideas from. It is highly unlikely that a clone of Rybka 3 surpasses its parent, let alone an updated version of Rybka4 which is an updated version.
Robert Houdini deserves a big credit for his genuine work that apparently yeilds greater ELO.
This is unfair to Houdini and why I prefer Houdini should be left out of this Fruit-Rybka mess...created by Vas. The same applies to IppoLit/RobboLito/IvanHoe - since to date, the accuser has not been able to establish facts on his part. I've never seen anything like this; accuse someone of wrong doing then sits back and stays mute. The only reasonable explanation, I see, for the "clone" accusation from Vas is to falsely stain a potential competition. Once that stain is done, even without facts, then the engine would not be tested or used.
Jeremy Bernstein wrote:But both need to be measured with exactly the same stick. The fact that Rybka is commercial and closed-source is irrelevant (well, if Rybka were GPL open-source, none of this would be an issue at all, but you know what I mean).
Jeremy
I seem to recall people (I, myself included) stating that the IppoLits should be given a chance till proven guilty. It didn't happen. It seems now that Rybka is clearly proven beyond doubt that it is, in fact, derived from Fruit in a direct fashion, IvanHoe/IppoLit/ Houdini is now paired with Rybka.
Vas did not consider the
If part that you're considering now. Vas making a GPL-source closed and commercial source matters. All he had to do was not make a GPL source a closed sourced/commercial.
