I use crafty 23.4.

I have rybka4

It's true that derivative things aren't always bad, but it's also true that in competitions, simply copying another's efforts is not fair. Fairness is one of the greatest strengths of chess as a game, and it's not in the spirit of chess to cheat in the way that Rybka appears to have. Therefore: Boo Hiss to Rybka. 

hello

I am teacher in a priamary school . therefore my holidays is stu.. and sun day I am very instresting in chess plays game  please join with me and play chanllange . I don't understantard what about  this team in detail. and  I will try learning this side everything wiht help me . bye bye.right now I want to play many unrate game but I don" t find it . I am a new mamber . where ? my firends? please accept me.please I will try but I can't do it.

I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness.

i still love rybka but .............................................

Ban all computers from human chess playing.

As much as we love chess, it is more important for society to progress toward goodness than for society to progress toward perfect chess theory. Because of this, the actions involved in the making of Rybka represent a far great regression for humanity than a progression. 

Crazychessplaya states, "Applying general principles to specific cases does not always make sense. OPancoast3's assertion that "the legal and societal issues of copyright and patent are separate, and necessarily temporary in nature"  should not be used as an excuse to break the existing laws, whenever one feels like it."

...nor did I say it should.  I know nothing of programming or IT codes.  I do not pretend to know how much of something needs to be used before copyright is violated. Nor how long bits of code must exist before they become indellibly embedded as part of the "general knowledge" of IT professionals.  I do know that throughout human history ideas have been built upon by artists, musicians, philosophers, scientists, engineers, etc.  In, the past there was often a blurring of lines between "homage" and theft except in cases of outright forgery.  A copy of a Rembrandt drawing, passed of as the original is clearly illegal while an acknowledged "copy" is not.  In music, composers often "borrow" musical phrases (and more) in original works, and it is considerred a "tribute." Musical compositions are constantly given different arrangements that the original composer may, or may not, approve of. 

If Rybka's developer knowingly used source code from others, clearly he should have acknowledged it.  Also courts and experts may decide if, and what, penalties to apply.   But what about unknowing use.  In writing and speaking how often do we use phrases originated by others without even realising it?  I, for one will not make a judgement in this case.  That is for others.  I will continue to use both Rybka and Fritz in my work.  They are the best tools I can afford.

Applying general principles to specific cases does not always make sense. OPancoast3's assertion that "the legal and societal issues of copyright and patent are separate, and necessarily temporary in nature"  should not be used as an excuse to break the existing laws, whenever one feels like it. Such approach is a step towards anarchy, and is ultimately a danger to all that a democratic society holds dear: voting rights, the right to free speech, etc.

It is not impossible to have both progress and a strict adherence to copyright laws at the same time. As a matter of fact, the progress taking place today, in general, is in line with copyright laws. Sure, there are infringements now and then, especially in the IT industry. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking response, OPancoast3!  It did provoke good thinking in me, personally -- which I appreciate.

As Alfred Korzybski pointed out in his development of "general semantics" (look it up), The difference between "mankind" and animals is the function of "time-binding" (as opposed to just space-binding or chemical-binding, which humans also do).  In other words all of human progress is built on the work of those who came before.  The legal and societal issues of copyright and patent are separate, and necessarily temporary in nature.  Otherwise progress wound be illegal and how stupid would that be.  It is our nature to build on the work of others.  It should also be our nature to give credit where credit is due.  But how many of you know where your own knowledge and beliefs originated.  The world of technology is more complicated than any one person can possibly comprehend.  People used to believe that programs like Rybka or Fritz, etc. would spell the death of chess.  Instead there are more players than ever before.  We need to complain less and appreciate & enjoy more.

iam going to try and get my money back

i still l0ve rybka ... m0re p0wer

I would think they would jump on the opportunity, because they created Rybka's biggest rival engine, Fritz.

I haven't seen this reported on the Chessbase news site.  I wonder why they are so slow in telling everyone.  Perhaps because they sell the software?

Let's cut Caliquelira some slack, due to a life-long, ummm, indoctrination with regards to "progress":

@ caiquelira

Wonder why all these laws whose made, thinking that was progress... What a bunch of nonsense ! We should break all the laws and make this planet a big chaos, THAT will be progress.

To all who say what Vas Rajlich did was ok because it is "progress":

Stealing is not progress! You and others who think like you need to change the way you think or GET OUT OF OUR CHESS WORLD and filling it with filth! Please! Don't ruin the game with your messed up morals.