Fabien's open letter to the community

[Jeremy Bernstein]

KWIM?

No, I had to look up KWIM on the internet.

...

Yes, I know what you mean, I still dislike acronyms

Senses of humor are running low this week. CCC, IMO, KWIM. Get it?

Jeremy

[Uly]

Senses of humor are running low this week

No, I just found it ironic that I didn't Know What KWIM Meant

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Q: Why don't you include Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines on your rating list?
CCRL: Those engines are suspicious. Vasik Rajlich said they are clones of Rybka.

Q: Why don't you allow mention of Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines on your forum?
Rybkaforum: Those engines are suspicious. CCRL doesn't list them.

Q: Why don't you allow participation of Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines on your online chess platform?
Harvey Williamson: Those engines are suspicious. Vasik Rajlich said they are clones of Rybka, and they're not listed by CCRL.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it is a cooperation with a very clear profile. CCRL's objection to the accusation that they behave as a "tastemaker" is ingenuous. Harvey's objection to the accusation that he oversteps his authority, as well. One hand washes the other.

Jeremy

Your reply would have been valid if the CCRL or yourself hadn't taken such an outspoken position in the debate.

As you probably know very well, the Rybka forum defines a "clone" as an engine that doesn't appear on "the professional rating lists like CEGT or CCRL". This shows how the CCRL and CEGT have been instrumental in skewing this whole issue in the favor of one (commercially motivated) point of view.

Robert

To put this in context (as the link in the original was not copied over), this is from the text of "Rules in the forum (read before posting)" [by Felix Kling on Dec 28 2009] for the Computer Chess section of the Rybka forum. http://www.rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka ... ?tid=14541

For those of you, who want to check which engines are clones and which aren't, I recommend looking at the professional rating lists like CEGT (http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/) or CCRL (http://computerchess.org.uk/). They check new engines, don't test clones and are independent. The lists are updated regularly, so you can expect them to be up to date. Also the engine's appearance (description on the website, engine name and so on) indicates if it's a serious engine or just a clone.

This was essentially the reason I have made some not so complimentary comments about CCRL. When you couple that text with behaviour of some so called independent testers, it begs the question...

All that said, they are a private group and can do as they wish.

[kingliveson]

Almost ruined my keyboard by spilling fruit juice I was drinking after reading the following comments.
So he would immediately stop testing Rybka 1.0. Of course this has nothing to do with 2.x, 3, and 4.
Though no evidence was needed to ban other programs...

Graham Banks wrote:


Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists ....

Recommended for post of the month!

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Almost ruined my keyboard by spilling fruit juice I was drinking after reading the following comments.
So he would immediately stop testing Rybka 1.0. Of course this has nothing to do with 2.x, 3, and 4.


Recommended for post of the Month!

Graham Banks wrote:


Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists ....

There's a lot of spit-take-quality stuff on TalkChess right now. A small selection:

Your unconditional banning of some engines has made real evidence unnecessary.

Only for those who think a list is evidence. But no, the list is consequence.
_________________
Gabor

But no! You're actually full of shit. Moving on...

VR used Fruit code. Noone who looked at the facts can disagree.

Wrong. Fabien just wrote he disagreed. "Reading" or "re-writing" is not "using" code in the normal meaning of the word.

Maybe everything is rewritten, but that would still be a GPL violation.

Wrong again. Copyrights do not extend to rewrite.

What I wrote many times is: We cannot say if this was a GPL violation or not as long as Fabien doesn't complain.

OK, so you are not only wrong on all counts now, you were wrong many times before. Nice to let us know. If it is a GPL violation follows from examining the Fruit code and the Rybka binary. Fabien's opinion on this is completely irrelevant. Justice in this world is done by facts, not by opinions of people who are considered important or respected. And legal action can only be taken by the FSF, as they own the copyrights, and Fabien is no longer an interested party.

Now he complained, now we know Rybka is illegal.

Only those that cannot understand what they read 'know' this...

But... Ippolit stole code, of course. I know it because I know it. Because I do.

Jeremy

[kingliveson]

There's a lot of spit-take-quality stuff on TalkChess right now. A small selection:

Your unconditional banning of some engines has made real evidence unnecessary.

Only for those who think a list is evidence. But no, the list is consequence.
_________________
Gabor

But no! You're actually full of shit. Moving on...

VR used Fruit code. Noone who looked at the facts can disagree.

Wrong. Fabien just wrote he disagreed. "Reading" or "re-writing" is not "using" code in the normal meaning of the word.

Maybe everything is rewritten, but that would still be a GPL violation.

Wrong again. Copyrights do not extend to rewrite.

What I wrote many times is: We cannot say if this was a GPL violation or not as long as Fabien doesn't complain.

OK, so you are not only wrong on all counts now, you were wrong many times before. Nice to let us know. If it is a GPL violation follows from examining the Fruit code and the Rybka binary. Fabien's opinion on this is completely irrelevant. Justice in this world is done by facts, not by opinions of people who are considered important or respected. And legal action can only be taken by the FSF, as they own the copyrights, and Fabien is no longer an interested party.

Now he complained, now we know Rybka is illegal.

Only those that cannot understand what they read 'know' this...

But... Ippolit stole code, of course. I know it because I know it. Because I do.

Jeremy

In all, I don't really care what most of these characters say, but it's a bit disappointing to read intellectual dishonesty coming from those whom you respect for their work in the chess community.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

In all, I don't really care what most of these characters say, but it's a bit disappointing to read intellectual dishonesty coming from those whom you respect their work in the chess community.

Whether you respect these characters or not, your Szots, Mullers, Banks all influence the discourse. Explicitly by pretending to be authorities on anything but running engine matches on overclocked hardware in their rec rooms. And implicitly by pretending that the rating lists derived from said matches are vehicles of objectivity, particularly in terms of their engine selection. These clowns have invested a lot of public credibility in their opinions, and it's no wonder that they've got blinders on while trying to maintain that credibility in the face of this new "information".

Jeremy

p.s. Before orgfert says it, I don't claim to be an authority on anything related to computer chess, either. But I am intellectually honest.

[thorstenczub]

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it is a cooperation with a very clear profile. CCRL's objection to the accusation that they behave as a "tastemaker" is ingenuous. Harvey's objection to the accusation that he oversteps his authority, as well. One hand washes the other.

Jeremy

there is "dirt" that goes not away even if you wash your hands more often.

[thorstenczub]

Whether you respect these characters or not, your Szots, Mullers, Banks all influence the discourse.

[...]

These clowns have invested a lot of public credibility in their opinions, and it's no wonder that they've got blinders on while trying to maintain that credibility in the face of this new "information".

Jeremy

p.s. Before orgfert says it, I don't claim to be an authority on anything related to computer chess, either. But I am intellectually honest.

very well said.
their main job is to save the status quo. there own status too of course.

[orgfert]

their main job is to save the status quo. there own status too of course.

There has only ever been one status quo of concern (which is common to everyone) and that is for one's own ego status. There was never a need to manufacture a mythology of commercial interest at Talkchess. Realizing that makes it easier to not hate people and benefit from whatever good they do contribute. Unless one's own ego status is in the way.