Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / My reaction: Hiarcs forum and to Chess Vibes' open letter
To call a magician a liar (SR)
i love magicians and Vas is certainly one in the best sense of the meaning.
i love magicians and Vas is certainly one in the best sense of the meaning.
I would argue that Houdart's offenses are slightly different, in that Escape Artist is a derivative of a derivative, but considerably aggravated by the fact that his offenses are directly relevant to the present situation in computer chess. With Vas a lot of us can say "let bygones be bygones" but with Robert you have situation that isn't a bygone. This distinction exercises the outrage of those who think the passage of time is morally irrelevant, and the irrelevance of the complaint to the present state of affairs is likewise irrelevant. Wrong is wrong, everything is black or white, all sins no matter when they happened or how egregious must be atoned for. There is a distinctively religious cast to this point of view. Repent, or ye shall burn in Hell!
I don't think either of the gentlemen are blameless. I am prepared to stipulate that both programs started out as derivatives. Personally, I am grateful that both of them are participating in making chess programs stronger. I don't consider either of them liars and blackguards; I don't think either of them are evil; I recognize that both of them have contributed considerably toward making their programs better and stronger. But I guess this is considered the "extremist" position by some.
I don't think either of the gentlemen are blameless. I am prepared to stipulate that both programs started out as derivatives. Personally, I am grateful that both of them are participating in making chess programs stronger. I don't consider either of them liars and blackguards; I don't think either of them are evil; I recognize that both of them have contributed considerably toward making their programs better and stronger. But I guess this is considered the "extremist" position by some.
>I would argue that Houdart's offenses are slightly different, in that Escape Artist is a derivative of a derivative, but considerably aggravated by the fact that his offenses are directly relevant to the present situation in computer chess.
I certainly agree with you Nelson. But I am also certain you could guess "my perspective" is that of "fruit of the poisonous tree".
Assuming Vas did something similar (for argument's sake) do you not see this idea of "his offenses are directly relevant to the present situation in computer chess"... then this is directly applicable to Vas as well?
>With Vas a lot of us can say "let bygones be bygones"
For anyone who does not think I do not wish to say this also... again it is the "you are sadly mistaken". I feel the same way.
Ok so sure do that... but then you have just set a new standard (again assuming Vas did something similar for argument's sake). And by that new standard one must ignore anyone else who has done something similar. Houdart, Decembrist (whatever), the Cuban knucklehead from the last WCCC. All of them receive "absolution".
>Personally, I am grateful that both of them are participating in making chess programs stronger. I don't consider either of them liars and blackguards; I don't think either of them are evil; I recognize that both of them have contributed considerably toward making their programs better and stronger. But I guess this is considered the "extremist" position by some.
I see much truth to this. Where I deviate is when there is an obfuscation of sources that should be documented. "Give credit where credit is due" Then one does not put themselves in the position of becoming a deceiver. I cannot tell you specifically "the wrong" now, as Alan has completely disqualified me as a "poster" here (despite me bolding to you last nite, "it is not about ideas.").
My impression is the ICGA put little energy into fully understanding the scope of this issue and the impact it would have on its own organization let alone on the larger chess community in general. Using archival data is dangerous enough without consideration of evolving out of it some kind of middle ground and a willingness to find a forward thinking , creative problem solving solution-otherwise, it just ends up begging the question of the panels ability to fully grasp and competently find a greater resolve. Some wisdom is in order here!
Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure
future ones.
- Seneca
Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure
future ones.
- Seneca
Aha... now I read from you, it matters on "the amount" one has done something.
You are truly the master of badly chosen analogies. I know you're not an academic, but you do realize that making use of other people's work is encouraged, right? Only people with really big heads pretend they are starting from basic principles. Good research includes making heavy use of other people's work, referencing it, and making some additions, to hopefully end up with something that is better than the sum of the parts. Once again, just like here, it's not plagiarizing if you stick to ideas rather than resorting to cut and paste. I know you don't get it, so you should really consider either sticking with what you know, or posting in the HIARCS forum, where everyone knows everything there is to know about Rybka...
You are truly the master of badly chosen analogies. I know you're not an academic, but you do realize that making use of other people's work is encouraged, right? Only people with really big heads pretend they are starting from basic principles. Good research includes making heavy use of other people's work, referencing it, and making some additions, to hopefully end up with something that is better than the sum of the parts. Once again, just like here, it's not plagiarizing if you stick to ideas rather than resorting to cut and paste. I know you don't get it, so you should really consider either sticking with what you know, or posting in the HIARCS forum, where everyone knows everything there is to know about Rybka...
Well Alan...
I know we used to have many friendly discussions. And I know I used to look forward to speaking with you in the Engine Room...
I know I never imagined your love of rybka would morph into a venom you would expel at anyone who appeared to disagree with you.
I used to think much higher of you Alan; it is posts like that which are so disappointing. But c'est la vie.
I know we used to have many friendly discussions. And I know I used to look forward to speaking with you in the Engine Room...
I know I never imagined your love of rybka would morph into a venom you would expel at anyone who appeared to disagree with you.
I used to think much higher of you Alan; it is posts like that which are so disappointing. But c'est la vie.
It's not love of Rybka nearly as much as love of established process. There is nothing that has happened here, whatever it was that really happened, that hasn't happened before. If Fabian still owns the copyright for Fruit, and thinks he's been wronged by Vas, there are actions he can take. This can all be done without making up new constructs, such as a "clone", and then setting up a tribunal to decide if Rybka should be labeled as such.
But the most annoying aspect is the whiny moralizing from third parties. These people don't mind, and are probably completely oblivious to the fact that there are really important allegations of software copyright and licence infringement flying around between Google, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, and every other major company. Some of these companies are certainly guilty and many have paid large settlements to resolve previous disputes. Why don't you refuse to use their products on moral grounds?
But the most annoying aspect is the whiny moralizing from third parties. These people don't mind, and are probably completely oblivious to the fact that there are really important allegations of software copyright and licence infringement flying around between Google, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, and every other major company. Some of these companies are certainly guilty and many have paid large settlements to resolve previous disputes. Why don't you refuse to use their products on moral grounds?
> Some of these companies are certainly guilty and many have paid large settlements to resolve previous disputes. Why don't you refuse to use their products on moral grounds?
Excellent question. Should the actions of “a few” determine my response to “the many”? One person commits a crime and the whole organization is now tainted?
The bigger the project is, the more likely this kind of thing is to happen, and the less likely anyone will know about it. So people only get excited about these things when there is a direct challenge from a new competitor in a hot market (think smart phones), or in markets which are totally insignificant (think chess engines).
> You are truly the master of badly chosen analogies. I know you're not an academic, but you do realize that making use of other people's work is encouraged, right? Only people with really big heads pretend they are starting from basic principles. Good research includes making heavy use of other people's work, referencing it, and making some additions, to hopefully end up with something that is better than the sum of the parts. Once again, just like here, it's not plagiarizing if you stick to ideas rather than resorting to cut and paste.
I have been giving some good thought to your position that progress is made on work of others. And that is indeed true. I have even been trying to relate this to music (maybe a bad idea but it is what I know).
As a musician I do study and analyze the works of the past to inform my own work. But (and you state this above) I can't copy others works without giving proper credit (both publicly and financially). I have to take what I have learned and reassemble it and add on to it to make it my work. Music even has fairly clear guidelines as to what one can copyright. Harmony is not able to copyrighted. Melody (and to a certain extent harmonic rhythm) is copyrightable.
Another point in academia is that one mus reference (as you said above) or cite the work of others that they use in their own work and research.
So the problem is (and I don't know the answer) did Vas (and/or Houdart) just copy and dress up someone else's work without giving public and financial credit. OR did they just take the harmony and make their own melody??
Music even has fairly clear guidelines as to what one can copyright. Harmony is not able to copyrighted. Melody (and to a certain extent harmonic rhythm) is copyrightable.
Wow! I never knew this! Thanks!
So the problem is (and I don't know the answer) did Vas (and/or Houdart) just copy and dress up someone else's work without giving public and financial credit. OR did they just take the harmony and make their own melody??
In the case of Rybka, Vas acknowledged Fabien's contributions in a number of areas; Clean code, handling fail high conditions, etc. Of course using these ideas is fair game. There are suggestions that Vas, who may have been using a Crafty framework for his early work, may have switched to a fruit framework prior to R1B. This would have resulted in many similar structures, even if he rewrote all of the code. The framework defines how the software modules interface with each other, and software interfaces are generally not covered by copyright protection. Many people give Vas a hard time about using many of the same ideas as in Fruit, but this is clearly fair game.
In the case of the other top engine, Robert acknowledges contributions from the comrades, from stockfish, and from crafty. Whether he used just ideas from these sources or copied code is beyond my abilities to discern.
Wow! I never knew this! Thanks!
So the problem is (and I don't know the answer) did Vas (and/or Houdart) just copy and dress up someone else's work without giving public and financial credit. OR did they just take the harmony and make their own melody??
In the case of Rybka, Vas acknowledged Fabien's contributions in a number of areas; Clean code, handling fail high conditions, etc. Of course using these ideas is fair game. There are suggestions that Vas, who may have been using a Crafty framework for his early work, may have switched to a fruit framework prior to R1B. This would have resulted in many similar structures, even if he rewrote all of the code. The framework defines how the software modules interface with each other, and software interfaces are generally not covered by copyright protection. Many people give Vas a hard time about using many of the same ideas as in Fruit, but this is clearly fair game.
In the case of the other top engine, Robert acknowledges contributions from the comrades, from stockfish, and from crafty. Whether he used just ideas from these sources or copied code is beyond my abilities to discern.
I'm curious. What was the first version of Rybka that went on sale?
I'm not sure. I think it was version 2 though.
It was Rybka 1 Beta.
Jeremy
Jeremy
Wrong. Rybka 1 Beta was free. Everyone on the chessbase server had it within 24 hours, and nobody paid for it. Are all of your posts this reliable?
My bad. It was Rybka 1 UCI, following the 24-hour free availability of R1B.
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=466792
R1B, 5 Dec 2005
R1UCI, 12 Dec 2005 (http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=469234)
IPCCC, late Dec 2005
Now, let's take a second to talk about your issue with impugning the character of anyone you don't agree with. I would say that my posts are 99% more reliable than those of, say, sidserious. Of course, you agree with him, so we pass over his (numerous) factual errors and omissions in silence, don't we?
And you were wrong, too. By the way.
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=466792
R1B, 5 Dec 2005
R1UCI, 12 Dec 2005 (http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=469234)
IPCCC, late Dec 2005
Now, let's take a second to talk about your issue with impugning the character of anyone you don't agree with. I would say that my posts are 99% more reliable than those of, say, sidserious. Of course, you agree with him, so we pass over his (numerous) factual errors and omissions in silence, don't we?
And you were wrong, too. By the way.
Your post contains an unwarranted insult and will be deleted if reported.
You're right. I got carried away. Post edited.
Well, I'm partially responsible for pushes his buttons and will make a concerted effort to show respect and consideration to his posts in the future.
Jerry,
You need to learn to stop slipping into personal attack out of frustration. It is self depreciating-and shows a lack of confidence in your own position. Quite frankly I'm not happy with my responses toward you either.
You need to learn to stop slipping into personal attack out of frustration. It is self depreciating-and shows a lack of confidence in your own position. Quite frankly I'm not happy with my responses toward you either.
I tried!
> The main problem is the hypocrisy in the rybka team in going after Houdart and the ipps for what likely is the same thing the happened with Rybka and Fruit.
+1
If anything, Vas needs to be punished for his arrogance.
That's an interesting argument but if the allegations are true you should be thanking Hyatt and Letouzey instead of Rajlich. The entire chess community owes them gratitude.
No, because there was a substantial stall in the computer chess community until after Rybka was released, and the advances among MANY programs didn't occur until after Rybka had already made considerable gains beyond those of Rybka 1.0 Beta, and then again when Rybka's internals were published. I think that people other than Vas had pretty much milked Crafty and Fruit for all they were worth.
You can't rewrite the past, still desirable to know the truth at least for those who are able to change the future. The future chess programmers.
Yes, one thing that will hopefully come out of this is new, clearer rules. Also, something else: certainly Vas's advance was incredibly huge--if his inclusion of some Fruit code was actually intentional (something else that is important in trying to figure out how to handle the case), then what about the potential moral justification in wanting to make some money off of his ideas? Under the law as currently known, he would not be able to do this...and this is wrong. Thus, he would have been left with two choices, since Fabien had gone into retirement and was unheard from for five years: (a) create his own program, with Fruit as a template and try to eliminate as much of Fruit as possible, or (b) keep his ideas and thoughts to himself, with no gain for anyone.
Well, I think the rules are clear for programmers otherwise the letter to ICGA would not exist.
I am not in any position to pass judgment on morals to anybody. I am a rybka customer. I support and buy Aquarium. I support and play the WBCCC. Those are my reasons to visit this forum. I will not have any problems buying rybka 5 in the future even if the outcome within the ICGA is unfavorable to Mr. Rajlich because that is beyond my concern.
I'm not a programmer but I can see how using ideas was always valid. Mr. Rajlich could have simply done that and provided credit to his sources from the start. We don't know if he copied code for sure. I don't want to give advice to anyone. We all have to deal with the consequences of our actions.
I am not in any position to pass judgment on morals to anybody. I am a rybka customer. I support and buy Aquarium. I support and play the WBCCC. Those are my reasons to visit this forum. I will not have any problems buying rybka 5 in the future even if the outcome within the ICGA is unfavorable to Mr. Rajlich because that is beyond my concern.
I'm not a programmer but I can see how using ideas was always valid. Mr. Rajlich could have simply done that and provided credit to his sources from the start. We don't know if he copied code for sure. I don't want to give advice to anyone. We all have to deal with the consequences of our actions.
Well, I think the rules are clear for programmers otherwise the letter to ICGA would not exist.
Nonsense. The rules for software development are not different in the chess engine field than they are anywhere else, and the ICGA panel is made up of people who, in general, know less than nothing about software IP rights. Having had the unfortunate experience of hearing several of the grand inquisitors pontificate on this matter, I am absolutely certain that their conclusions will not be worth the paper they are printed on.
If Vas used copied code that was not in the public domain in R1B, shame on him. But until there is something definitive that shows that this is indeed the case, I will remain skeptical. If indeed it is shown to have happened, the copyright holder may have recourse, but all the rest of the busybodies will still have no standing in the matter.
Nonsense. The rules for software development are not different in the chess engine field than they are anywhere else, and the ICGA panel is made up of people who, in general, know less than nothing about software IP rights. Having had the unfortunate experience of hearing several of the grand inquisitors pontificate on this matter, I am absolutely certain that their conclusions will not be worth the paper they are printed on.
If Vas used copied code that was not in the public domain in R1B, shame on him. But until there is something definitive that shows that this is indeed the case, I will remain skeptical. If indeed it is shown to have happened, the copyright holder may have recourse, but all the rest of the busybodies will still have no standing in the matter.
> If Vas used copied code that was not in the public domain in R1B, shame on him.
What about if Vas copied code that IS in the public domain? Are you saying that GPL is not something that would stand the test of a court case if challenged?
First, Over the past 18 months, GPL has had a few successes in protecting open source code, so now there are precedents. One guy even got damages (I think it was $100K).
Second, public domain means the rights owner has given up everything, including copyright. So if Vas did copy software that was in the public domain, there is no harm, no foul. Please note that it is possible (not likely) that Fabian used some software that was in the public domain, and if Vas copied this and used it in R1B, that would be fine, even if he copied it from Fruit. Note that Vas has stated that he used public domain software in R1B, although I don't think he went into what this code did.
Second, public domain means the rights owner has given up everything, including copyright. So if Vas did copy software that was in the public domain, there is no harm, no foul. Please note that it is possible (not likely) that Fabian used some software that was in the public domain, and if Vas copied this and used it in R1B, that would be fine, even if he copied it from Fruit. Note that Vas has stated that he used public domain software in R1B, although I don't think he went into what this code did.
> GPL has had a few successes in protecting open source code, so now there are precedents. One guy even got damages (I think it was $100K).
Do you know more specifics on this? This is very interesting--was it the "copier" or the "person being copied" that was awarded the money? (This may sound like a stupid question, but I just want to be sure given the wording of your statement.)
http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/69401.html?wlc=1299447315
It wasn't GPL, but it was open source, where someone else grabbed the code, used it, and tried to hide what he had done. GPL actually has very little in the way of supporting precedents, given its popularity.
It wasn't GPL, but it was open source, where someone else grabbed the code, used it, and tried to hide what he had done. GPL actually has very little in the way of supporting precedents, given its popularity.
In that case, I don't understand how this is consistent with your "Second" statement in your previous reply--it would seem to contradict the "no harm, no foul" idea.
Open source is NOT synonymous with public domain. You do not need to give up copyright protection or forgo a license to go open source. Public domain, where you relinquish all rights to a work is an entirely different matter.
The engine chess community does owe them gratitude, but not for targeting Rybka. Their contributions lie elsewhere.
Jeroen, your logic doesn't make much sense to me. It something like : "I see people speeding every day on the free way, so I really shouldn't be fined by the police now".
It's like calling the police for allegedly _illegal_
high-speeding during F1 sports events.
Or another stupid example:
guess the French 2CV private club freaks
(in our context the Opensource guys in science around Hyatt)
held a Tribunal (of that Levy sort)
to prove that F1 winner bolides used unfair tech to beat the 2CV.
The professional & commercial Closedsource Rybka is F1 while
Crafty & Fruit are the French 2CV museum archaeopteryx!
high-speeding during F1 sports events.
Or another stupid example:
guess the French 2CV private club freaks
(in our context the Opensource guys in science around Hyatt)
held a Tribunal (of that Levy sort)
to prove that F1 winner bolides used unfair tech to beat the 2CV.
The professional & commercial Closedsource Rybka is F1 while
Crafty & Fruit are the French 2CV museum archaeopteryx!
If there is alleged cheating in F1. F1 will investigate it and give out amy punishments it feels are required. Therefore in the same way as the Olympic committe investiagted Ben Jonson after he had won his medals and stripped him of his titles as well as banning him from future events. Why should the ICGA not investigate similar claims about Chess engines?
The above examples can also lead to Civil or Criminal prosecutions.
The above examples can also lead to Civil or Criminal prosecutions.
This is more like RBR-Renault being judged by a committee consisting of Lotus-Cosworth, HRT-Cosworth, and Virgin-Cosworth.
I guess you have not looked who is on the panel? The majority have no commercial interest in Chess and a growing number are experts with no direct interest in Computer Chess. Who sits on an F1 panel?
I honestly don't see how Ben Johnson's case which was dealt with in a timely fashion within a year of its occurrence (1988-89). Juxtaposing it up against this current issue seems to be a stretch- this happened 6-7 years ago.
It would be a really good analogy if the people who judged Johnson were the same guys who would be getting the gold medals he forfeited...
Bad comparison. There is no rule against speeding in F1. I guess it is true then ... one more example of a fan boy that has no clue ... or are you deliberately throwing all logic out of the window ? I actually shouldn't bother to react. My mistake. Except maybe for one thing. For your info, the last question was rhetorical.
Ok, then tell me what rule Vas should have violated. I dont know you but for the argument let me take you for an academic student, ok? Then you must not confuse science and pro sports in a ICGA tournament. Where is the rule, please show me and all readers, where is it and what does it say, that a programmer at the beginning of his career is forbidden to make experiments with openly offered material, a dding something in one version, in the next another stuff, always wanting to find out how things are working together through the results in a tournament of O. Deville?
Are you in favor of creativity or are the rules somehow for you the absolute hype? From your arguments I can conclude that you are what is called a beancounter. You dont seek big ideas, novelties and change, but you would always contact a functioneer or the police if the idea were totally allowed and free of charge. Look, with such an obsession you cant be creative. The Americans call the best method trial and error. Perhaps you make mistakes, you act against a rule, maybe, but honestly, do you really believe that you become World Champion by your violations of certain rules? All this was 6 years ago. Now we have Rybla 4.1, do you really believe that Rybka 4.1 ist illegal because of one or three broken rules in a private tournament of one Oliver Deville? BTW there is no human individual who never made mistakes. I bet even David Levy makes them some of the time. I'm pretty certain.. All the best for your future. Almost no mistakes.
Are you in favor of creativity or are the rules somehow for you the absolute hype? From your arguments I can conclude that you are what is called a beancounter. You dont seek big ideas, novelties and change, but you would always contact a functioneer or the police if the idea were totally allowed and free of charge. Look, with such an obsession you cant be creative. The Americans call the best method trial and error. Perhaps you make mistakes, you act against a rule, maybe, but honestly, do you really believe that you become World Champion by your violations of certain rules? All this was 6 years ago. Now we have Rybla 4.1, do you really believe that Rybka 4.1 ist illegal because of one or three broken rules in a private tournament of one Oliver Deville? BTW there is no human individual who never made mistakes. I bet even David Levy makes them some of the time. I'm pretty certain.. All the best for your future. Almost no mistakes.
Same supposition for you Rolf (I don’t know you, however, for the sake of this argument let me assume you are an academic student, or have been one, ok? )… you please answer this:
You write an academic paper or thesis or dissertation. In this academic paper, you copy verbatim a number of sentences / sections of another student’s paper / thesis without giving proper credit to this person (no footnotes / endnotes / references / bibliography indicating you used this person’s work). Anyone reading your paper would naturally assume the copied but unreferenced sections were your work.
Based on the above premise, tell me what I could reasonably expect to happen to you at one of your German universities, given a professor recognizes that you have copied someone else’s work, when you have submitted this paper as your own work.
You write an academic paper or thesis or dissertation. In this academic paper, you copy verbatim a number of sentences / sections of another student’s paper / thesis without giving proper credit to this person (no footnotes / endnotes / references / bibliography indicating you used this person’s work). Anyone reading your paper would naturally assume the copied but unreferenced sections were your work.
Based on the above premise, tell me what I could reasonably expect to happen to you at one of your German universities, given a professor recognizes that you have copied someone else’s work, when you have submitted this paper as your own work.
In the old books of a Chinese thinker of the Ming dynasty, I found the following verse, perhaps this helps.
you must not confuse science and pro sports in a ICGA tournament
What a load of crap ... quoting pseudo intelligent and artificial aphorisms when real argumentation is missing. Not very credible indeed. I give up. Wasting my time with you.
Just put him on your ignore list like everyone else does.
Excellent tip! Thanks!
Attachment: Capture.JPG - ...silence is golden (18k)
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / My reaction: Hiarcs forum and to Chess Vibes' open letter
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill