Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 19:18:53 01/29/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2006 at 19:27:04, Uri Blass wrote: >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. That's a bit tough Uri, considering the secondary search. -elc.
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.