Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:27:04 01/29/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2006 at 19:04:37, Ryan B. wrote: >On January 29, 2006 at 18:34:47, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 29, 2006 at 18:17:28, Ryan B. wrote: >> >>>On January 29, 2006 at 13:44:28, Orlando Mouchel wrote: >>> >>>>I agree with you! >>>>Ans I saw others similarities with Fruit/Toga. >>>>I had for a certain time noticed it, in spite of unpleasant responses on other >>>>forums. >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Orlando >>> >>>Yes, that is a very sensitive subject. If not very careful about discussing >>>such things the very loyal Rybka fan base can get very aggressive. >>> >>>Ryan >> >>If you do not give examples then it seems that you are simply jealous of rybka's >>success and your post show no evidence. >> >>You need to post diagrams and examples for claims like: >>"The eval is actually very fruit like." from you and later: >>"I saw others similarities with Fruit/Toga." from Orlando >> >>If you do not do it you are not convincing >> >>Note that I understood that you talked only about comparing size of evaluation >>between fruit and rybka but the response of orlando suggests that it is also >>about content of evaluation. >> >>Uri > >I can not just start posting Rybka code without considering the legal >implications. Also it must be considered that Fruit was open source and the >ideas are free. It is not worth proving someone used something free at the >expense of getting sued. As for the jealousy issue, I do not know where that >comes from. I thought that I was being helpful giving some insight about what >is inside Rybka. Before disassembling my theory was that the size was because >of a bunch of food crates to keep the little Turk inside fed. > >Ryan The combination of your words and the words of Orlando did not claim it but they can cause people to suspect that rybka is a fruit clone because too much similiarity means a clone. There are 2 possible reasons for these claims: 1)You really discovered a lot of similiarity after disassembling rybka 2)Being jealous I do not claim that 2 is correct but only that posting about similiarity without posting the evidence can cause that impression and I believe that it is the main reason for unpleasant responses. Note that I thought that similiarity can be demonstrated based on analysis of positions and not only based on diassembling and it may be interesting if somebody can show similiarity between fruit and rybka based on analysis of chess positions that is certainly not illegal. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.