Fabien's open letter to the community

[thorstenczub]

If rybka is a cloned version of fruit, rybka is not vas rajlichs property.
It belongs fabien.
the money? ???? Belongs .....?????

[Chan Rasjid]

...
Except that there _is_ copied code from fruit, so this pig won't fly. Your basic premise has already been violated (very much NOT to reuse code...) The argument has been that rybka used bitboards, fruit did not, so that it would be impossible to copy code. That is pure nonsense. Search won't change. move ordering won't change. hashing won't change. book code won't change. learning code won't change. move selection code won't change. Overall eval structure and values won't change. Etc. This argument fails the most basic "stink test". ...

I have written a full-featured bitboard program that runs. It seems to me that if we start from some mailbox codes and convert it to bitboard, we just think about what to change. Doing a global search for variables will tell us pretty much what don't need to be changed - and there should be 'much'.

BUT... not many sane person would do a true 're-write' of Fruit to bitboard; there is never a need as knowing how Fruit work is enough - just get the inspiration or hint.

He could have copied 'blocks...' - but I did not see nor did he tell nor could we confirm coincidences don't happen the we cannot explain and...and...

Finally...Rybka was a hit on its debut...and is still very good. Without the 'elementals' from Rybka, no program could hope to get near it no matter how hard an attempt is made...

Rasjid.

[hyatt]

...
Except that there _is_ copied code from fruit, so this pig won't fly. Your basic premise has already been violated (very much NOT to reuse code...) The argument has been that rybka used bitboards, fruit did not, so that it would be impossible to copy code. That is pure nonsense. Search won't change. move ordering won't change. hashing won't change. book code won't change. learning code won't change. move selection code won't change. Overall eval structure and values won't change. Etc. This argument fails the most basic "stink test". ...

I have written a full-featured bitboard program that runs. It seems to me that if we start from some mailbox codes and convert it to bitboard, we just think about what to change. Doing a global search for variables will tell us pretty much what don't need to be changed - and there should be 'much'.

BUT... not many sane person would do a true 're-write' of Fruit to bitboard; there is never a need as knowing how Fruit work is enough - just get the inspiration or hint.

He could have copied 'blocks...' - but I did not see nor did he tell nor could we confirm coincidences don't happen the we cannot explain and...and...

Finally...Rybka was a hit on its debut...and is still very good. Without the 'elementals' from Rybka, no program could hope to get near it no matter how hard an attempt is made...

Rasjid.

I don't believe that for a second. We had chess 4.x for a target, then we had belle, then deep thought, then shredder, all the way thru rybka. Nobody has proven "uncatchable" and I don't believe that is the case with Rybka either. Nor to the successor to the throne, which will happen eventually as it always does...

[thorstenczub]

there is not only the copyright issue.
there is something completely different.

if vas rajlich sold something, that is not his own property,
the customers were betrayed.
so the rybka customers could now demand their money back because
they were lied, fooled and betrayed about the OWNER/property.

i don't know how it is in other countries, but here in germany
somebody who has stolen something, and tries to sell it, is doing a crime.
and the deals that happen, via contract or whatever, are not legal.

so all the deals vas rajlich did, were illegal deals. and the customers
have to be payed back their money because of this !

also... all companies selling products from such a person
have done illegal deals and have to get their money back !

nobody in germany is allowed to sell stolen stuff.

so if by definition rybka is a fruit clone, all the customers have to
be paid back their money, and chessbase or whatever german company who
sold products from vas rajlich, has to pay back the money to the customers.
all deals were illegal.
and german law does not allow those deals to be made.

german law says:

Strafgesetzbuch
Besonderer Teil (§§ 80 - 358)
21. Abschnitt - Begünstigung und Hehlerei (§§ 257 - 262)
Gliederung
§ 259
Hehlerei

(1) Wer eine Sache, die ein anderer gestohlen oder sonst durch eine gegen fremdes Vermögen gerichtete rechtswidrige Tat erlangt hat, ankauft oder sonst sich oder einem Dritten verschafft, sie absetzt oder absetzen hilft, um sich oder einen Dritten zu bereichern, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

(2) Die §§ 247 und 248a gelten sinngemäß.

(3) Der Versuch ist strafbar.

so the companies or whoever BOUGHT something from vas rajlich company
has the duty to bring this product to the police, explain the crime
(telling the police that he NOW found out that this is a STOLEN product that is property
of another programmer) and ask the police to investigate.

also i doubt vas rajlich could EVER participate with his program in germany.
because german law could arrest him. the crime for selling something that
is not your property has a punishment up to 5 years in prison or money-punishment.

[BB+]

Looks like "Rolf" is now back posting on CCC. Fabien will bite I suspect...

Rolf length posts as well...... I wasn't gonna crack out the nacho's but hey.....it's the weekend. And if licking is the order of the day. I'd prefer to lick a nacho. You know what's so funny about this thread? Talk.....all talk......no action...... no resolution.....just a lot of woffle.....

All we need is Richard Stickles to enter the fray and then the mess is complete......

Anyone for salsa?

Our users have posted a total of 269559 articles
We have 1062 registered users
The newest registered user is Richard Stickles

[Kevin Frayer]

Looks like "Rolf" is now back posting on CCC. Fabien will bite I suspect...

Rolf length posts as well...... I wasn't gonna crack out the nacho's but hey.....it's the weekend. And if licking is the order of the day. I'd prefer to lick a nacho. You know what's so funny about this thread? Talk.....all talk......no action...... no resolution.....just a lot of woffle.....

All we need is Richard Stickles to enter the fray and then the mess is complete......

Anyone for salsa?

Our users have posted a total of 269559 articles
We have 1062 registered users
The newest registered user is Richard Stickles

Richard Stickles mysteriously showed up over at the PlayChess engine room last night, how strange.

Still no recent Harvey sightings, humm.

Hope Harvey is not in the dog house.

Is Richard over there to take over again, inquiring minds want to know?

[kingliveson]

There are several reasons that some of us care, none of which are financial in nature.

(1) We have requirements for tournament participation. No derivative works allowed. Yet we have been sucker-punched with this for a few years now. There's little point in going back and voiding wins and titles as is often done in college athletics here in the US. But there is interest in correcting the overall record with respect to who did what.

(2) A chess program is a lot of work. It is _FAR_ easier to copy someone else's program and make a few changes and call that your own. There is an ethical component that some of us want to follow carefully.

(3) In academia, credit should always be given where it is due. In my code, you can certainly find who suggested what idea, for those that have made suggestions. One doesn't sneak in, copy an existing program, and then suddenly become a "peer". I (and most others) worked my way up, getting my brains beat out by Belle, Chess 4.x, and such, until I finally caught up to them with hard work and good hardware. There is a feeling of accomplishment one gets by doing things that way. And others respect you for expending the effort. Today it is more about instant gratification. Which is sad. Doping. HGH/steroids. Do things the easy way...

Rybka 1.0 is no longer officially competing. Is there anyone bold enough (if this continues to be an issue) to bring it up to the ICGA when Rybka 4 or later versions tries to enter?

This was why I asked what the ultimate end game was. While Kevin's response to the matter argues for fairness and fairplay, you argue from an integrity stance.

We've been arguing about this matter now for over 3 years to no resolute. At what point do we say it's time to move on...

I would not want to see Rybka banned from ICGA events. The reason? In 1989 I really did not want to go to the WCCC event. I had no doubt who was going to win (deep thought) and the trip to Canada was fairly expensive and at a bad time. But I went because I had won the past 2 WCCC events and felt that it was necessary to show up so that if DT won, it would have won in a tournament where we participated, so that there would be none of the "They might not have won had the Cray T90 played...". Rybka is currently the best, based on tournaments, I'd hate to see it be forced to step aside so that tournaments beyond that point alway would have an * beside the winner's name.

That being said, it would be nice to at least close the issue on where it came from. I would be perfectly happy if Fabien/Vas simply wrote "Yes, Rybka is substantially a copy of fruit, with 5 years worth of changes. Fruit is not going to participate in future events, and we agree that Rybka will therefore be allowed as the successor to fruit." Then all is clean, everyone knows where it came from, and we can move on. I doubt that will happen, but it would represent a clean closure of the issue.

I agree with ICGA tournament rule about derivative work especially in this age of source code proliferation.

There's a greater chance of Apophis striking planet Earth than Fabien/Vas agreeing Rybka is Fruit with 5 years worth of changes. I am quite convinced that there's enough evidence showing Rybka 1.0 used and derived many parts from Fruit.

Rybka 2 in all likeliness has enough Fruit to raise questions -- though I have not personally verified this, and have no desire to do so.

As for Rybka 4, given the publicity and controversy over Fruit, I doubt seriously Vas would be that reckless to still leave traces (code chunks). So I don't personally believe Rybka 4 is a Fruit derivative or 5 years worth of changes. This is not saying Fruit ideas may not still be present. Ideas of course are legal to use by all software standards that I've come across.

[kingliveson]

Looks like "Rolf" is now back posting on CCC. Fabien will bite I suspect...

Rolf length posts as well...... I wasn't gonna crack out the nacho's but hey.....it's the weekend. And if licking is the order of the day. I'd prefer to lick a nacho. You know what's so funny about this thread? Talk.....all talk......no action...... no resolution.....just a lot of woffle.....

All we need is Richard Stickles to enter the fray and then the mess is complete......

Anyone for salsa?

Our users have posted a total of 269559 articles
We have 1062 registered users
The newest registered user is Richard Stickles

Richard Stickles mysteriously showed up over at the PlayChess engine room last night, how strange.

Still no recent Harvey sightings, humm.

Hope Harvey is not in the dog house.

Is Richard over there to take over again, inquiring minds want to know?

Not sure which is worst, Chris C and I agreeing or ...

[Chris Whittington]

there is not only the copyright issue.
there is something completely different.

if vas rajlich sold something, that is not his own property,
the customers were betrayed.
so the rybka customers could now demand their money back because
they were lied, fooled and betrayed about the OWNER/property.

i don't know how it is in other countries, but here in germany
somebody who has stolen something, and tries to sell it, is doing a crime.
and the deals that happen, via contract or whatever, are not legal.

so all the deals vas rajlich did, were illegal deals. and the customers
have to be payed back their money because of this !

also... all companies selling products from such a person
have done illegal deals and have to get their money back !

nobody in germany is allowed to sell stolen stuff.

so if by definition rybka is a fruit clone, all the customers have to
be paid back their money, and chessbase or whatever german company who
sold products from vas rajlich, has to pay back the money to the customers.
all deals were illegal.
and german law does not allow those deals to be made.

german law says:

Strafgesetzbuch
Besonderer Teil (§§ 80 - 358)
21. Abschnitt - Begünstigung und Hehlerei (§§ 257 - 262)
Gliederung
§ 259
Hehlerei

(1) Wer eine Sache, die ein anderer gestohlen oder sonst durch eine gegen fremdes Vermögen gerichtete rechtswidrige Tat erlangt hat, ankauft oder sonst sich oder einem Dritten verschafft, sie absetzt oder absetzen hilft, um sich oder einen Dritten zu bereichern, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

(2) Die §§ 247 und 248a gelten sinngemäß.

(3) Der Versuch ist strafbar.

so the companies or whoever BOUGHT something from vas rajlich company
has the duty to bring this product to the police, explain the crime
(telling the police that he NOW found out that this is a STOLEN product that is property
of another programmer) and ask the police to investigate.

also i doubt vas rajlich could EVER participate with his program in germany.
because german law could arrest him. the crime for selling something that
is not your property has a punishment up to 5 years in prison or money-punishment.

"steal" is not an appropriate word in a civil case. Steal refers to criminality, something against the law for which the police could become involved. The most you have here is copyright infringement, the police would not become involved.

[Chris Whittington]

If rybka is a cloned version of fruit, rybka is not vas rajlichs property.
It belongs fabien.
the money? ???? Belongs .....?????

actually it belongs FSF. The fact that the source is open and published massively decreases the "property/ownership" concept, as does the licence to publish, albeit with inclusion of source, as does all the potential for confusion thrown up by use of code or use of ideas