Date 2012-01-28 23:38
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
There was no pay for the Rybka case. There would be no pay if an author complained about any other program and provided some credible evidence. Zach/Fadden/Theron all provided evidence that suggested something appeared to be outside the rules. But if you want every program checked, nobody is going to do that for free. It represents a ton of work.
As I said, discussions about rule 2 to make this less painful the next time are under way. Obviously we want to compare source. Just as obviously no one is going to want to provide source unless an investigation has started, because they would worry about it somehow leaking out. We can't depend on it being available "after the event" as one can always claim "I lost it." If we do figure out a workable solution to some sort of software repository, we STILL have the problem of "does this source match the binary that actually is playing?" Whatever happens, there is going to be more effort required. One goal MUST be to minimize this effort otherwise it is not going to be done properly. This will take some time to address and come up with something that everyone will agree to. I have no problem with a central database of source code versions for each competitor. But a commercial author will. And apparently some non-commercial (private) authors also might not be willing. Some for obvious reasons, some just to hide their (assumed) unique ideas from public inspection...
Ask whatever you want. If you prefer private email, that is fine, and when we are finished, you can post whatever you want so long as you keep "context" clear...
We can do it here, on openchess, or at CCC. Doesn't matter to me.
As I said, discussions about rule 2 to make this less painful the next time are under way. Obviously we want to compare source. Just as obviously no one is going to want to provide source unless an investigation has started, because they would worry about it somehow leaking out. We can't depend on it being available "after the event" as one can always claim "I lost it." If we do figure out a workable solution to some sort of software repository, we STILL have the problem of "does this source match the binary that actually is playing?" Whatever happens, there is going to be more effort required. One goal MUST be to minimize this effort otherwise it is not going to be done properly. This will take some time to address and come up with something that everyone will agree to. I have no problem with a central database of source code versions for each competitor. But a commercial author will. And apparently some non-commercial (private) authors also might not be willing. Some for obvious reasons, some just to hide their (assumed) unique ideas from public inspection...
Ask whatever you want. If you prefer private email, that is fine, and when we are finished, you can post whatever you want so long as you keep "context" clear...
We can do it here, on openchess, or at CCC. Doesn't matter to me.
Your message contains something new so that my original idea might become obsolete if you agree if I write, that your little statement what wasnt absolutely clear in the past and for what you had no clear definitions and rules, and therefore if we follow the regulations of our legal system, that nobody should be punished in the aftermath based on new rules. Many have criticised the over 5 yearlong delay of any kind of official ICGA measures. Since you didnt have the whole campaign in authorization by the ICGA?
So I would like to know if you accept the basics insofar as someone after a wronggoing in your understanding cant be condemned if the rules are NOT weLL defined?
As to a direct exchange. How could we do it in say 1 or 1 and a half hour without delays? The email solution contains longer delays. And is without second or third questions which makes a direct exchange so useful. I'm not talking about wordplays or filibustering, but my problem is to crack your selfconfidence that is well supported by tons of knowledge I didnt even hear from. Because I cant prove you wrong in technology but better in your attitude towards the law and the famous innocent until etc you know what I mean.
So I would like to know if you accept the basics insofar as someone after a wronggoing in your understanding cant be condemned if the rules are NOT weLL defined?
As to a direct exchange. How could we do it in say 1 or 1 and a half hour without delays? The email solution contains longer delays. And is without second or third questions which makes a direct exchange so useful. I'm not talking about wordplays or filibustering, but my problem is to crack your selfconfidence that is well supported by tons of knowledge I didnt even hear from. Because I cant prove you wrong in technology but better in your attitude towards the law and the famous innocent until etc you know what I mean.
I don't follow. Rule 2 has existed for 40 years. People have been kicked out of ICGA events when discovered. A couple were prevented from entering. So there has always been such a policy. We've never had a protest this "late" in a program's development. However, I would not think about agreeing to the "OK, if someone gets away with this for 5 years, they get a free pass..."
As far as "rules well defined" I don't see how rule 2 can be any clearer. It has been used for 40 years. There has never been any question in anybody's mind as to exactly what it means.
Only other choice I am aware of is a phone call. I can call if you want...
As far as "rules well defined" I don't see how rule 2 can be any clearer. It has been used for 40 years. There has never been any question in anybody's mind as to exactly what it means.
Only other choice I am aware of is a phone call. I can call if you want...
Bob, you are really nice. Let's have such a direct call after we could find a certain conclusion after this sort of exchange. Because as a lay I need the text lines before my eyes, because I dont have this all in my mind and memory. I can only discuss this in text. Because I'm not that fluent in English. So that would be too complicated. Hey. I have time now for almost 2 hours until 22:00 in Germany, we have now 20:00.
Please let us try this here right now. I will try to make questions in one or two liners which is already difficult for me. And then back and forward. Let's take a look how long the relay really is. it's now exactly 19:59 and I send this right now. First quest comes after this little check.
Please let us try this here right now. I will try to make questions in one or two liners which is already difficult for me. And then back and forward. Let's take a look how long the relay really is. it's now exactly 19:59 and I send this right now. First quest comes after this little check.
It's now 20:05 and you've not given a signal. First question were: for you out of science what is important: the chess of a program or the architecture of the source code? 20:07
20:15 nothing from you
I am not on non-stop. Working on a PhD qualifying exam that I have to give this week...
Sorry.
Sorry.
if you have questions, fire away, I will try to hang around for a bit...
ok let's try it
First question were: for you out of science what is important: the chess of a program or the architecture of the source code?
First question were: for you out of science what is important: the chess of a program or the architecture of the source code?
How are they different? The "code" produces the "chess".
the problems begin for me - already
i read that a really small change in the source already peroduces a different chess
i read that a really small change in the source already peroduces a different chess
why cant we examine the chess differences to start with when we compare two progs?
the "chess" is too abstract.
Here's a simple explanation. If two programs play exactly the same, or almost exactly the same, that is reason to suspect that they are related, and investigate further. Unfortunately, the inverse is not true. If two programs play completely differently, that does NOT mean they are not related. So playing similarly is a hint, nothing more, certainly not convincing proof of anything at all. And by the same token, completely different play also does not convincingly imply the two programs have no code in common, either.
As you can see, that means that this kind of comparison produces what one might call "an observation" but nothing more in terms of real evidence.
Here's a simple explanation. If two programs play exactly the same, or almost exactly the same, that is reason to suspect that they are related, and investigate further. Unfortunately, the inverse is not true. If two programs play completely differently, that does NOT mean they are not related. So playing similarly is a hint, nothing more, certainly not convincing proof of anything at all. And by the same token, completely different play also does not convincingly imply the two programs have no code in common, either.
As you can see, that means that this kind of comparison produces what one might call "an observation" but nothing more in terms of real evidence.
that was not too difficult for me. therefore let's take strength. if a program is way stronger than the other then you have still doubt sorry for being nasty, that it's the same with same codes? I simply dont get this logically
Let's take the first 100+ elo jump in Crafty. Caused by cluster testing. When we released that version, it was actually over +120 better than the previous version. Yet if you diff the sources, the changes are very minimal. Lots of eval term tuning, some minor rewrites for efficiency or changes, few search tweaks. Would you REALLY want to say that the new version is "original"? Or based on the previous version?
That's the key. The source code produces the chess. A small change in the code can produce a big change in the chess, or no change. A big change in the code can produce a big change in the chess, or, again, no change.
The code is like a very precise "recipe". A recipe with (typically) maybe 150,000 lines of ingredients, at the asm language level. Occasionally two different recipes can produce nearly indistinguishable results. I've seen this with things like homemade ice cream, as an example. More often, different recipes produce things that are significantly different in taste, texture, etc.
The code is like a very precise "recipe". A recipe with (typically) maybe 150,000 lines of ingredients, at the asm language level. Occasionally two different recipes can produce nearly indistinguishable results. I've seen this with things like homemade ice cream, as an example. More often, different recipes produce things that are significantly different in taste, texture, etc.
let's assume I understood that. why couldnt we call or define a program that almost always or more frequently beats the other, stronger and hence as a different entity? why the whole source code research?
I can change one line of Crafty, to create Crafty', and play them head to head, and Crafty would win convincingly. Matching in 49,000 out of 50,000 lines...
Bob, could we conclude that if you have 49000 lines identity that you could reveil this with a simpler method than a disempling? forgetting about the open cofde in crafty? I ask it because I want to get to a certain goal in our discussion...
If we have source, a source-to-source comparison is straightforward. If we don't have the source for one, then the RE effort becomes significant, and it takes a lot of time to do what could be done in a week or two with source-to-source...
yes, we had that, and I accept it, but why not relying on the chess?? bob, let me be frank and honest, I dont get this if Rybka is 400 points stronger and you find a line of code that is identical then you throw this program out of a tournament why? because it's so strong? I mean in your classes you have a different regime. 1 line and you are out. but in a sport???
We are not looking for "one line and it's out." We were looking at "MANY lines and it is out." If you look at the ICGA stuff, the early versions were very egregious in the level of copying. For fruit, it was less conspicuous because of the requirement to convert from mailbox to bitboard before it would work. But it was MANY lines of code, not just one. one line and you are out would not work for students. But there are limits as to how MANY lines before they are "out"...
ok, then the question: was the limit clearly defined for being out for the ICGA in the past? I read that it wasnt so clear
Bob?
What we found was above ANY reasonable limit. Suppose you say "no more than 10% of the eval code can match". Rybka 1.0 beta and Fruit were WAY beyond 10%. Beyond 50%.
No one really wants to specify a precise number, because then you have no flexibility. That's why the courts have a sentencing range for criminal convictions, so that the judge can have flexibility to vary the punishment to fit the specific case.
The ICGA rule is "no copying". But no one applies this to single lines of code, because single lines are often "not unique". It is the "set of lines" to evaluate something like passed pawns or king safety that becomes very unique, because there are so many different ways those relatively simple "concepts" can be implemented. (simple in that they take just a few words, in reality one could make a career out of studying king safety by itself, there are so many ways to tackle that).
No one really wants to specify a precise number, because then you have no flexibility. That's why the courts have a sentencing range for criminal convictions, so that the judge can have flexibility to vary the punishment to fit the specific case.
The ICGA rule is "no copying". But no one applies this to single lines of code, because single lines are often "not unique". It is the "set of lines" to evaluate something like passed pawns or king safety that becomes very unique, because there are so many different ways those relatively simple "concepts" can be implemented. (simple in that they take just a few words, in reality one could make a career out of studying king safety by itself, there are so many ways to tackle that).
ok let's stand this as you put it, Bob. before going deeper into that let me make the following thought experiment. say we have two progs and one is 400 Elo stronger. then you look into it and see identity of code in large areas. how would you verbalize where the 400 Elo did come from?
All you can do is compare the two programs very carefully. For example, sometime last year or the year before, we were having a discussion on CCC about razoring vs pruning, and I discovered I had not exactly implemented the AEL stuff quite as Heinz defined it in his dissertation. I decided to clean the code up and fix the discrepancy at the same time. And in doing so I introduced a "bug" because of the way Heinz numbered his plies, putting me off by one. When I tested, the new version was about 40 elo or so BETTER than the original, when there should have been no change (initially) because I first just cleaned up and rewrote the code. I discovered that I was actually doing forward-pruning one ply deeper than Heinz was (4 plies from the tips rather than just 3). If you look at the diff of the two searches, there are only about 3-4 lines that are different. Out of the entire 50,000 lines of code.
Moral of that story? Small changes can produce big results. +400 Elo could be a few small changes, a few big changes, or a combination. Impossible to ascertain without visual inspection.
When I compared my own code, I could see exactly what had happened, and I tested the idea further and got an additional improvement, as well.
Moral of that story? Small changes can produce big results. +400 Elo could be a few small changes, a few big changes, or a combination. Impossible to ascertain without visual inspection.
When I compared my own code, I could see exactly what had happened, and I tested the idea further and got an additional improvement, as well.
BTW, I might be off and on a bit. Got storms rolling through today and tonight. Power blinks, my laptop survives, but network goes away. Static on phone line will disrupt DSL as well...
At first I has missed that part on Crafty. This is really interesting. Again the same question as in the other message. What reason do you have when you are preaching no copying. If someone finds a methos so that a code plays so much stronger, why not giving him the merits for the discovery and ignoring the old question of copying. Because normal copying doesnt make a prog so much steronger. where is the part that you cant accept?
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
Copyright is a strange beast. Despite attempts by the Union Of Chess Programmers to convince us otherwise, copyright does NOT exist primarily to give developers protection and a safe living. The purpose of copyright law is to facilitate new product innovation and development for the benefit of society as a whole. Copyright law thus has two sides, one, to provide an incentive for developers to develop by providing them with a degree of protection from others using their ideas. But it also seeks to prevent development clogging up because innovative ideas are locked up and unusable by others. So the law tries to find a balance, a balance that is under heavy disturbance from current trends.
I have no doubt that publishing stuff as open source and then jumping all over anyone who develops having read or used that open source or ideas from it, is a major deterrent to innovation and further development. In fact society might quite like a modification to copyright law, whereby taking copyrighted material and MASSIVELY improving it (with the help of not having to reinvent wheels) is encouraged. It might, actually almost certainly would, make for much faster development of new, useful products, than without it. And maximisation of society benefit is the key, and the driver of changes to copyright and patent law. Unions of established developers notwithstanding.
I have no doubt that publishing stuff as open source and then jumping all over anyone who develops having read or used that open source or ideas from it, is a major deterrent to innovation and further development. In fact society might quite like a modification to copyright law, whereby taking copyrighted material and MASSIVELY improving it (with the help of not having to reinvent wheels) is encouraged. It might, actually almost certainly would, make for much faster development of new, useful products, than without it. And maximisation of society benefit is the key, and the driver of changes to copyright and patent law. Unions of established developers notwithstanding.
That is what we, as programmers, want to see. Original programs. Each programmer competing against each other programmer. Why would I want to compete in a drag race if someone copies my motor, and adds a new transmission, or copies my motor and transmission, and just adds a new body, or just adds a somewhat better suspension?
The fun of competing is that you, yourself, are doing the competing. I don't see much attractiveness in copying something someone else wrote and then seeing if I can improve that any.
The fun of competing is that you, yourself, are doing the competing. I don't see much attractiveness in copying something someone else wrote and then seeing if I can improve that any.
oh no, what a mess
let me continue with another experiment. say we have two progs and you reveil identity. and the one is 400 Elo stronger. is that a reasonable situation or is it nonsense? I want to find out how you evaluate the class of a code. could I say that the code of Vas is better than the one of Fabien? next point would be what does it mean if we forbid copying? ssorry but I want to progress and time is ruling. sorry for the bad weather over there.
let me continue with another experiment. say we have two progs and you reveil identity. and the one is 400 Elo stronger. is that a reasonable situation or is it nonsense? I want to find out how you evaluate the class of a code. could I say that the code of Vas is better than the one of Fabien? next point would be what does it mean if we forbid copying? ssorry but I want to progress and time is ruling. sorry for the bad weather over there.
What is the issue here? Strength or program? For rule two, it is about not copying code. Doesn't matter whether what you copy is stronger, weaker, or the same strength. So we need to separate these two issues as they are unrelated. If someone copies a book, and changes just a few things and makes it a far less interesting story, is that STILL a copyright violation where 90% of the original text was unchanged? Or, same copying but now the story is far more interesting and it becomes a best seller. What about that 90% he didn't write? Still OK?
That's why mixing copying and results does not make any sense. You know what copying means. So do I. If something is copied, that is simply wrong. Or illegal. Or both.
That's why mixing copying and results does not make any sense. You know what copying means. So do I. If something is copied, that is simply wrong. Or illegal. Or both.
Bob says that mixing up the topics strength and copying makes no sense. However that is what I am trying to make people understand, namely that computerchess tournaments as a sport are about strength.
Bob, again a terrific thought experiment and please think this through.
Says we have Crafty or Fruit or any other program and someone makes an identical copy, just for the reason of this experiment, and then we find out that the copy is 400 Elo ponts stronger. You have that? Now we have at least these possibilities for an explanation.
A) Someone who made the copy must have programming skills in computerchess that makes him a Wch. That is how I would link Vas to. If your results are valid.
B) You claim that this is a true copy and that this is forbidden. Of course this would be silly to express, because see A) how could it be a copy if it's 400 Elo stronger?
I am really deeply concerned about the way people are discussing this trivial contradiction. Denial of reality and power delusions come to mind.
The moral for me is that in a competitive sport we must look at the very specific factors (variables) because take athletics, where the doping problem isnt just something linked with strength but also with sanity problems. If that were without danger why not getting the most and best out of an individual sports member? In computerchess we dont have the sanity issue. Hence it would be foolish to forbid a program that is 400 Elo points stronger than the rest. Also your argument fails if you say that nobody wants to play against the "same" that plays under different names. With what Rybka should be confounded? She's a singular entity. And more. You dont compete at all, so what are you talking about? Ok, then it's a play about power in a social peer group. You want that your definitions to win. Basically the actual state in the ICGA board is that of whiners whining about the strength advantage of a program that they cant beat. That's all. I mean computerchess shouldnt be confounded with cricket. Something with thousand rules and a game for seniors, a game without inner dynamics. Computerchess is always under construction alone due to the hardware aspects. As a sport especially among commercial players it becomes a sort of Darwinian competition about the strongest who will then be sold to thousands of chessplayers for training and assistance. It is silly and stupid to artificially limit the strength down to a kindergarden level. Nothing against such a competition. We already have the outdated play with operators who move for boardcomputers, but for the benefits of computer sciences it should be supported that computerchess is actually played at best on clusters over the internet. Instead of forbiding this, the ICGA should support it because such a staff isnt there because they are born royals, perhaps David Levy thinks that, because he's hungry and wants to have some meals at the location, but in reality a staff is existing to manage the factors of the actual reality without fascistoid* crap. So, either David adapts to reality (with clusters , internet with the best players available) or we must seek a new chairman.
I thought after Graz with the scandals that we would agree that this sort of time-consuming nonsense might be good for seniors but not for the best computerchess of thr actual season. I mean you are a man of the internet. Not true?
see *) What is fascistoid and wrong?
Answer: that tournament directors undemocratically decide in style of dictators who the want to have in a tournament and whom they want to single out. In a way these little Napoleons all suffer of the tic already David had shown as President of the ICGA.
Bob, again a terrific thought experiment and please think this through.
Says we have Crafty or Fruit or any other program and someone makes an identical copy, just for the reason of this experiment, and then we find out that the copy is 400 Elo ponts stronger. You have that? Now we have at least these possibilities for an explanation.
A) Someone who made the copy must have programming skills in computerchess that makes him a Wch. That is how I would link Vas to. If your results are valid.
B) You claim that this is a true copy and that this is forbidden. Of course this would be silly to express, because see A) how could it be a copy if it's 400 Elo stronger?
I am really deeply concerned about the way people are discussing this trivial contradiction. Denial of reality and power delusions come to mind.
The moral for me is that in a competitive sport we must look at the very specific factors (variables) because take athletics, where the doping problem isnt just something linked with strength but also with sanity problems. If that were without danger why not getting the most and best out of an individual sports member? In computerchess we dont have the sanity issue. Hence it would be foolish to forbid a program that is 400 Elo points stronger than the rest. Also your argument fails if you say that nobody wants to play against the "same" that plays under different names. With what Rybka should be confounded? She's a singular entity. And more. You dont compete at all, so what are you talking about? Ok, then it's a play about power in a social peer group. You want that your definitions to win. Basically the actual state in the ICGA board is that of whiners whining about the strength advantage of a program that they cant beat. That's all. I mean computerchess shouldnt be confounded with cricket. Something with thousand rules and a game for seniors, a game without inner dynamics. Computerchess is always under construction alone due to the hardware aspects. As a sport especially among commercial players it becomes a sort of Darwinian competition about the strongest who will then be sold to thousands of chessplayers for training and assistance. It is silly and stupid to artificially limit the strength down to a kindergarden level. Nothing against such a competition. We already have the outdated play with operators who move for boardcomputers, but for the benefits of computer sciences it should be supported that computerchess is actually played at best on clusters over the internet. Instead of forbiding this, the ICGA should support it because such a staff isnt there because they are born royals, perhaps David Levy thinks that, because he's hungry and wants to have some meals at the location, but in reality a staff is existing to manage the factors of the actual reality without fascistoid* crap. So, either David adapts to reality (with clusters , internet with the best players available) or we must seek a new chairman.
I thought after Graz with the scandals that we would agree that this sort of time-consuming nonsense might be good for seniors but not for the best computerchess of thr actual season. I mean you are a man of the internet. Not true?
see *) What is fascistoid and wrong?
Answer: that tournament directors undemocratically decide in style of dictators who the want to have in a tournament and whom they want to single out. In a way these little Napoleons all suffer of the tic already David had shown as President of the ICGA.
All that is well and good. But the "idea" here is that programmers compete with each other vicariously through their computer programs. That's the thing that drives "most of us". (probably all of us actually, but some seem to live a little farther down the "low moral path" and think that things can be "bent" a bit. If someone copies Crafty and makes it 400 Elo stronger, it is STILL a copy, unless ALL of the original code was rewritten so that it is now not a copy. If you can produce a 400 elo gain in Crafty, WHY was it necessary to copy it to start with? First though I would have is that anyone that could do that might well be able to find better ways of doing things than I found. Why not start from scratch and let your creativity loose from the beginning. "To the man who has a hammer, everything looks like a nail." If you copy Crafty, you get a hammer. There MIGHT be better approaches to many of the things I did, but you start off in a straitjacket, you lose the opportunity to be even more creative.
So, WHY did you copy to start with? Only one viable answer. "To save time."
"There are no shortcuts to Carnegie Hall. Just lots of practice."
This is not about "strength." Otherwise, I will ask for the umpteenth time, "Why was no one complaining about Deep Thought and Deep Blue?" Why was no one complaining about chess 4.x / Cyber 176, or Belle, or Cray Blitz? They were ridiculously strong compared to almost all peers of their time. Yet no complaints, accusations, or anything. Of course, we all exchanged source code frequently, so we would know. But it never happened. So why are you SO CONVINCED that this is about strength today? Why is it ONLY today that suddenly everyone wants to see the strongest eliminated? Simple answer: That's a bogus suggestion with no supporting evidence. Until you can address why no one has complained about "the one at the top" prior to this, your assumption won't hold water nor merit discussion. It is also not about 5 years. DT burst on to the scene in 1987, and in 1997 it was STILL the strongest computer chess player by at least 300-400 Elo. Nobody else produced a FIDE performance rating of well beyond 2650 in that time frame, and that was just deep thought. DB was far stronger.
So it isn't about being on top, it isn't about being on top for 5 years. What is it about? Simple cheating...
So, WHY did you copy to start with? Only one viable answer. "To save time."
"There are no shortcuts to Carnegie Hall. Just lots of practice."
This is not about "strength." Otherwise, I will ask for the umpteenth time, "Why was no one complaining about Deep Thought and Deep Blue?" Why was no one complaining about chess 4.x / Cyber 176, or Belle, or Cray Blitz? They were ridiculously strong compared to almost all peers of their time. Yet no complaints, accusations, or anything. Of course, we all exchanged source code frequently, so we would know. But it never happened. So why are you SO CONVINCED that this is about strength today? Why is it ONLY today that suddenly everyone wants to see the strongest eliminated? Simple answer: That's a bogus suggestion with no supporting evidence. Until you can address why no one has complained about "the one at the top" prior to this, your assumption won't hold water nor merit discussion. It is also not about 5 years. DT burst on to the scene in 1987, and in 1997 it was STILL the strongest computer chess player by at least 300-400 Elo. Nobody else produced a FIDE performance rating of well beyond 2650 in that time frame, and that was just deep thought. DB was far stronger.
So it isn't about being on top, it isn't about being on top for 5 years. What is it about? Simple cheating...
So, WHY did you copy to start with? Only one viable answer. "To save time."
So it isn't about being on top, it isn't about being on top for 5 years. What is it about? Simple cheating...
Here in this last message, Bob, you have reveiled your sort of spindoctor's cheat. You have it all wrong if one compares to what you already declared back in the 90s in rgcc along the quotes MvK has given. So the first phrase above is a cheat of your own former stand. It's all a game about having the power (and you are confusing this with justice I suppose) to make definitions at your will. If you call it save of time then I contradict your try to invent a factual cheating with your own old declaration that Crafty code is intended to be taken for beginners. If you had said so in the past it looks weird if now your are blackmailing a specific guy for alleged moral cheating. However you are cheating now if you are claiming that the guy hat it in a released version. No, he had it in his many pilot studies not in released and sold versions. I still demand that you take back the evil propaganda cheat against Vas. As Theron might have taken this wrong train at the start of the yearlong campaign by having access of the pre-released experimental versions because he might have communicated with Deville as both are French, when he should have known the former declarations you had made on rgcc.
Bob, let me summarize this also with the debate in the wikileaks thread here in the rybkaforum and the many contributions of Miguel, Ed, Trotsky, Jeroen and Vas himself. (Some real expert might do a complete summary in terms of programming speech because this is not my field, I can only grasp the differring statements.)
Taken your argumentation as a whole (in total or as Ganzheit in German) you had the same cheat (in your definition) in Crafty, if that ever had any relevance at all.
You've also missed the meaning of my thought experiment with a complete Crafty copy PLUS 400 Elo stronger. What it should mean was that it could never have happened this way.
Vas did never copy the total Crafty because if he had done so, he wouldnt have found the air to breathe for the jump of 400 Elo. Yes he saved time only to later completely writing his own original code. Only you ands lakays come running with the outlandish fingerpointing that such a process should be called cheating contradicting your own public invitation to begin this way as a newcomer.
I always accused you of being into lynch justice and witchhunting. So I ask you if you really believe that you are following legal justice if you once invited young ones to take Crafty just to begin with if actually you call it cheating. This is definitely all driven by your own contradictory will which is the base of lynching.
In context of this special thread title I see you as another example where a programmer lost contact to reality if he isnt clear about his own actions in different times.
All that with the disclaimer that I could have it all wrong as an outside observer. So please dont beat the hell out of me like Walter does.
So it isn't about being on top, it isn't about being on top for 5 years. What is it about? Simple cheating...
Here in this last message, Bob, you have reveiled your sort of spindoctor's cheat. You have it all wrong if one compares to what you already declared back in the 90s in rgcc along the quotes MvK has given. So the first phrase above is a cheat of your own former stand. It's all a game about having the power (and you are confusing this with justice I suppose) to make definitions at your will. If you call it save of time then I contradict your try to invent a factual cheating with your own old declaration that Crafty code is intended to be taken for beginners. If you had said so in the past it looks weird if now your are blackmailing a specific guy for alleged moral cheating. However you are cheating now if you are claiming that the guy hat it in a released version. No, he had it in his many pilot studies not in released and sold versions. I still demand that you take back the evil propaganda cheat against Vas. As Theron might have taken this wrong train at the start of the yearlong campaign by having access of the pre-released experimental versions because he might have communicated with Deville as both are French, when he should have known the former declarations you had made on rgcc.
Bob, let me summarize this also with the debate in the wikileaks thread here in the rybkaforum and the many contributions of Miguel, Ed, Trotsky, Jeroen and Vas himself. (Some real expert might do a complete summary in terms of programming speech because this is not my field, I can only grasp the differring statements.)
Taken your argumentation as a whole (in total or as Ganzheit in German) you had the same cheat (in your definition) in Crafty, if that ever had any relevance at all.
You've also missed the meaning of my thought experiment with a complete Crafty copy PLUS 400 Elo stronger. What it should mean was that it could never have happened this way.
Vas did never copy the total Crafty because if he had done so, he wouldnt have found the air to breathe for the jump of 400 Elo. Yes he saved time only to later completely writing his own original code. Only you ands lakays come running with the outlandish fingerpointing that such a process should be called cheating contradicting your own public invitation to begin this way as a newcomer.
I always accused you of being into lynch justice and witchhunting. So I ask you if you really believe that you are following legal justice if you once invited young ones to take Crafty just to begin with if actually you call it cheating. This is definitely all driven by your own contradictory will which is the base of lynching.
In context of this special thread title I see you as another example where a programmer lost contact to reality if he isnt clear about his own actions in different times.
All that with the disclaimer that I could have it all wrong as an outside observer. So please dont beat the hell out of me like Walter does.
1. What "cheat" is employed in Crafty? Specifics, please, not the vague nonsense type stuff. The license agreement for Crafty has not changed in a LONG time. Way before Fruit came along. Way before Vas copied Crafty to make the early versions of Rybka. But even WITHOUT the license agreement, I don't believe you can find a single computer science student that would opine "copying code and then claiming it to be your own original work is perfectly acceptable." It was bad enough that he copied the code. But then he claimed it was 100% original - his code. That stretches the facts beyond the breaking point.
2. Vas absolutely copied Crafty. Proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Absolutely irrefutable. His +400 took a copy of the Fruit search and eval. One could start today with gnuchess 5.0, and then in a couple of months copy the source for Robolito and get well over +400 Elo. All without doing anything original.
3. I have NEVER invited "young ones" to copy crafty and compete with it. Not once. I told many they could use it as a starting point for their efforts, so that they start with something that works, and then they can replace/rewrite each component as they see fit, until they end up with an original program.
2. Vas absolutely copied Crafty. Proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Absolutely irrefutable. His +400 took a copy of the Fruit search and eval. One could start today with gnuchess 5.0, and then in a couple of months copy the source for Robolito and get well over +400 Elo. All without doing anything original.
3. I have NEVER invited "young ones" to copy crafty and compete with it. Not once. I told many they could use it as a starting point for their efforts, so that they start with something that works, and then they can replace/rewrite each component as they see fit, until they end up with an original program.
1. What "cheat" is employed in Crafty? Specifics, please, not the vague nonsense type stuff.
BTW thanks again for the answers however serious troubles to digest your evitation of discussing the already made contradictions by others, e.g. Ed for example. Since I'm anything but a technical expert let me sum up this in raough mode. You with your Crafty are using all kind of stuff from former inventors. Dont you agree? That makes it a cheat if you claim that if Vas does the same (and above all NB that we are talking about pilot study versions of later Rybka!) and even participated in tournaments, and that this were therefore a criminal offense. But Vas has already made clear that the whole chapter of the pilot study times is private and he will comment later. In the meantime people can examine what is wrong in Crafty always referring to your condemnation of pilot study versions.
The license agreement for Crafty has not changed in a LONG time. Way before Fruit came along. Way before Vas copied Crafty to make the early versions of Rybka. But even WITHOUT the license agreement, I don't believe you can find a single computer science student that would opine "copying code and then claiming it to be your own original work is perfectly acceptable." It was bad enough that he copied the code. But then he claimed it was 100% original - his code. That stretches the facts beyond the breaking point.
Again, this is a sub-optimal statement considering your public declarations in rgcc of the 90s. (see the evidence given by MarcelcK.). I understood your text as an invitation to use Crafty. No limits at all. Here you reveil now a very strange attitude that was also noted by Trotsky. You are proud of your open source and especially for teaching newcomers reasons and now you argue that you get angry if people just do what you have told them only because they use it to create a program that plays chess mountains higher than yours. Your example of students would only hold water if you gave us a quote from one of your best who also surpassed your level. Again, we are not talking about legitimate programplayers but pilot study experiments. To deny that sifference makes you look weird. All IMO of course as in the thread title above.
2. Vas absolutely copied Crafty. Proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Absolutely irrefutable. His +400 took a copy of the Fruit search and eval. One could start today with gnuchess 5.0, and then in a couple of months copy the source for Robolito [sic!] and get well over +400 Elo. All without doing anything original.
This point reveils the evil you have participated in the ignoring of a crime as a provocation in the classical understanding of our community. I told you the basic crime early enough but you didnt react. The crime is that you and interested bigots like Theron waited for such a development of stolen Rybka source by anonn vilains to then later having the argument you are now using in this debate against the Rybka author. All the hippo robbo shit is criminal and evil but you tolerated it because you are chasing after Rybka. Are you completely autistic in your blindness for that evil now? Your whole point number 2 is nonsense because Vas at his beginnings had no program that he could adopt to deliver the plus of 400 Elo after he allegedly should have taken Fruit. If I speak of 400 Elo I am talking about Vasik's own creativity _after_ the start with allegedly Crafty and Fruit. What kind of Robbo should Vas have taken at the time to then fly well above all the models he had used to begin with? Please also technical evidence so that more technical experts like Ed etc, could analyse your statements. Thanks.
3. I have NEVER invited "young ones" to copy crafty and compete with it. Not once. I told many they could use it as a starting point for their efforts, so that they start with something that works, and then they can replace/rewrite each component as they see fit, until they end up with an original program.
This is the next idea from your actual mindframe to obfuscate the evil you've participated to create with your open source. What should a newcomer do after he has started as you've told them? Shouldnt they test their entity in a tournament environment to see what happens? What is the evil if the entity then doesnt bevome first or second but 40th? Why it's your business to comment on such a practice before anything other than nitpicking peanuts like little errors had hapened? Is it really a private joy for you to at first feed the innocent and then criminalizing him if he comes slighty off the main road? Here again I see an already mentioned wrong in your thinking. You seem to liken being a police officer who is collecting bills for slight oversights. It's like an obsession for you. Apparently you cant imagine what you would possibly do if you were again the newcomer. Your time was totally different then. No business interests other than the mega factories building the huge computers. But also then it was all about the chess that could be played with these forces. Except that the chess wasnt really high classed then.
Actually it's about World Class chess in Rybka. Way above the Fruit and Crafty or Shredder&Junior generations. You seem having ignored the news of that chess. Just joking a bit.
The actual top chess entity is a mix out of top software with strongest hardware. So we are back to the old days of super power computers. "Only" difference is that actually it's about real competitive chess, not hot air for the mega houses high buildings without a clue of chess. When even David Levy drew and won bets. Let's face reality, Bob.
BTW thanks again for the answers however serious troubles to digest your evitation of discussing the already made contradictions by others, e.g. Ed for example. Since I'm anything but a technical expert let me sum up this in raough mode. You with your Crafty are using all kind of stuff from former inventors. Dont you agree? That makes it a cheat if you claim that if Vas does the same (and above all NB that we are talking about pilot study versions of later Rybka!) and even participated in tournaments, and that this were therefore a criminal offense. But Vas has already made clear that the whole chapter of the pilot study times is private and he will comment later. In the meantime people can examine what is wrong in Crafty always referring to your condemnation of pilot study versions.
The license agreement for Crafty has not changed in a LONG time. Way before Fruit came along. Way before Vas copied Crafty to make the early versions of Rybka. But even WITHOUT the license agreement, I don't believe you can find a single computer science student that would opine "copying code and then claiming it to be your own original work is perfectly acceptable." It was bad enough that he copied the code. But then he claimed it was 100% original - his code. That stretches the facts beyond the breaking point.
Again, this is a sub-optimal statement considering your public declarations in rgcc of the 90s. (see the evidence given by MarcelcK.). I understood your text as an invitation to use Crafty. No limits at all. Here you reveil now a very strange attitude that was also noted by Trotsky. You are proud of your open source and especially for teaching newcomers reasons and now you argue that you get angry if people just do what you have told them only because they use it to create a program that plays chess mountains higher than yours. Your example of students would only hold water if you gave us a quote from one of your best who also surpassed your level. Again, we are not talking about legitimate programplayers but pilot study experiments. To deny that sifference makes you look weird. All IMO of course as in the thread title above.
2. Vas absolutely copied Crafty. Proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. Absolutely irrefutable. His +400 took a copy of the Fruit search and eval. One could start today with gnuchess 5.0, and then in a couple of months copy the source for Robolito [sic!] and get well over +400 Elo. All without doing anything original.
This point reveils the evil you have participated in the ignoring of a crime as a provocation in the classical understanding of our community. I told you the basic crime early enough but you didnt react. The crime is that you and interested bigots like Theron waited for such a development of stolen Rybka source by anonn vilains to then later having the argument you are now using in this debate against the Rybka author. All the hippo robbo shit is criminal and evil but you tolerated it because you are chasing after Rybka. Are you completely autistic in your blindness for that evil now? Your whole point number 2 is nonsense because Vas at his beginnings had no program that he could adopt to deliver the plus of 400 Elo after he allegedly should have taken Fruit. If I speak of 400 Elo I am talking about Vasik's own creativity _after_ the start with allegedly Crafty and Fruit. What kind of Robbo should Vas have taken at the time to then fly well above all the models he had used to begin with? Please also technical evidence so that more technical experts like Ed etc, could analyse your statements. Thanks.
3. I have NEVER invited "young ones" to copy crafty and compete with it. Not once. I told many they could use it as a starting point for their efforts, so that they start with something that works, and then they can replace/rewrite each component as they see fit, until they end up with an original program.
This is the next idea from your actual mindframe to obfuscate the evil you've participated to create with your open source. What should a newcomer do after he has started as you've told them? Shouldnt they test their entity in a tournament environment to see what happens? What is the evil if the entity then doesnt bevome first or second but 40th? Why it's your business to comment on such a practice before anything other than nitpicking peanuts like little errors had hapened? Is it really a private joy for you to at first feed the innocent and then criminalizing him if he comes slighty off the main road? Here again I see an already mentioned wrong in your thinking. You seem to liken being a police officer who is collecting bills for slight oversights. It's like an obsession for you. Apparently you cant imagine what you would possibly do if you were again the newcomer. Your time was totally different then. No business interests other than the mega factories building the huge computers. But also then it was all about the chess that could be played with these forces. Except that the chess wasnt really high classed then.
Actually it's about World Class chess in Rybka. Way above the Fruit and Crafty or Shredder&Junior generations. You seem having ignored the news of that chess. Just joking a bit.
The actual top chess entity is a mix out of top software with strongest hardware. So we are back to the old days of super power computers. "Only" difference is that actually it's about real competitive chess, not hot air for the mega houses high buildings without a clue of chess. When even David Levy drew and won bets. Let's face reality, Bob.
For me a critical issue is "does Hyatt WANT Vas to be guilty"? Something that separates say, Ed, from Hyatt, is just basic humanity. For our good sense of the human condition and belief in humanity, surely we would prefer if an alleged crime should turn out to be just an error in judging or misreading of evidence? So when Vas talks of "typing own code" the public reaction is a separator; if you want to believe in humanity and that people talk truth, then you will find the obvious way to interpret "typing own code" and "original". If you WANT him to be guilty, then you play word games and misquoting and refuse to accept reasonable explanations.
It is of course now easy to see that Hyatt MUST enforce that Vas is guilty, else Hyatt falls off a reputational and professional cliff; but, I ask, did he ever WANT anything else? Because, as Ed and others say: this case is read from one of two positions, VIG or VII, you get from the evidence what you seek.
It is of course now easy to see that Hyatt MUST enforce that Vas is guilty, else Hyatt falls off a reputational and professional cliff; but, I ask, did he ever WANT anything else? Because, as Ed and others say: this case is read from one of two positions, VIG or VII, you get from the evidence what you seek.
The answer is "no". I don't "want" anyone to be guilty of violating rule 2. Never have. It is a giant pain in the a$$ for EVERYONE when it happens, there are always "debates" about each case, and the "process" has nothing to do with chess or computer chess. It is not about "humanity" or "compassion" or any such emotionally-based issues. It is simply about fair competition with everyone following exactly the same set of rules. The very thing that makes competition fair and enjoyable for all.
For the "typing own code" you only have to explain one huge contradiction to "win me over on that issue" (your claim we are intentionally misrepresenting what he wrote).
1. He clearly claimed, even recently, that Strelka was a reverse-engineered Rybka. Reverse-engineering is a process based on pure copying of code.
2. He then clearly stated that if the Strelka guys had "hand-typed all the strelka code" then it was "original at the source code level."
Both of those statements can not possibly be true, given the slant you want me to believe. So to take YOUR interpretation, If the strelka guys typed their "own code" then it was original, but then his claim in statement 1 is completely false. Or if the strelka guys did copy his code by RE, then his claim in statement 2 is completely false.
Please reconcile the two statements so there is no conflict. All the while using Webster's dictionary for definitions of words you use, so we don't get into "Alice through the looking glass" or "an alternate universe where every physical law is different so that our physics 101 does not hold true over there" and such...
All you have to do is explain/reconcile the conflict to end this particular part of the debate...
For the "typing own code" you only have to explain one huge contradiction to "win me over on that issue" (your claim we are intentionally misrepresenting what he wrote).
1. He clearly claimed, even recently, that Strelka was a reverse-engineered Rybka. Reverse-engineering is a process based on pure copying of code.
2. He then clearly stated that if the Strelka guys had "hand-typed all the strelka code" then it was "original at the source code level."
Both of those statements can not possibly be true, given the slant you want me to believe. So to take YOUR interpretation, If the strelka guys typed their "own code" then it was original, but then his claim in statement 1 is completely false. Or if the strelka guys did copy his code by RE, then his claim in statement 2 is completely false.
Please reconcile the two statements so there is no conflict. All the while using Webster's dictionary for definitions of words you use, so we don't get into "Alice through the looking glass" or "an alternate universe where every physical law is different so that our physics 101 does not hold true over there" and such...
All you have to do is explain/reconcile the conflict to end this particular part of the debate...
You with your Crafty are using all kind of stuff from former inventors. Dont you agree? That makes it a cheat if you claim that if Vas does the same (and above all NB that we are talking about pilot study versions of later Rybka!) and even participated in tournaments, and that this were therefore a criminal offense. But Vas has already made clear that the whole chapter of the pilot study times is private and he will comment later. In the meantime people can examine what is wrong in Crafty always referring to your condemnation of pilot study versions.
Crafty uses some IDEAS created by others. Some created by myself. Rybka copied CODE written by others. That is not the "same thing" by any established measurement method. He copied code, which violates both copyright law and ICGA rule 2 (as used in ACCA/CCT events) with respect to versions prior to 1.0 beta. For versions 1.0 beta and beyond, he copied fruit's eval as a starting point, and over the next couple of years, modified parts of it extensively, but leaving other parts alone. In 1.0 beta it was a near-perfect copy. By 2.3.2a it had less of fruit remaining than in the beginning, but it STILL had more fruit code than any other chess program, by a wide statistical margin... As shown in Mark's analysis.
As far as what Marcel posted, read it carefully. It absolutely does NOT say "copy this code and use it to compete." The license agreement never allowed that, because I was ALWAYS familiar with icga rule 2, which has not changed significantly in 40 years, in intent.
Your nonsense about "evil" and "waiting for such a development like stolen Rybka..." doesn't really deserve comment. I did not "wait for anything." I have not "tolerated the ippo/etc stuff" because I don't have to deal with it. To date, only one "robo clone" has attempted entry into an icga event and it was summarily denied because it was robo* with a couple of score value changes... As far as "what should newcomers do?" They should obey tournament rules. I consider that a pretty simple concept. Barring that, they should obey Crafty's license. And we are not talking 1990's, either, we are talking middle 2000's as to when Vas did his copy/paste stuff...
For you and 4-5 others here, it seems to be "strength, strength, and strength" as the three key things one should look at to determine originality. It doesn't work like that, fortunately...
Crafty uses some IDEAS created by others. Some created by myself. Rybka copied CODE written by others. That is not the "same thing" by any established measurement method. He copied code, which violates both copyright law and ICGA rule 2 (as used in ACCA/CCT events) with respect to versions prior to 1.0 beta. For versions 1.0 beta and beyond, he copied fruit's eval as a starting point, and over the next couple of years, modified parts of it extensively, but leaving other parts alone. In 1.0 beta it was a near-perfect copy. By 2.3.2a it had less of fruit remaining than in the beginning, but it STILL had more fruit code than any other chess program, by a wide statistical margin... As shown in Mark's analysis.
As far as what Marcel posted, read it carefully. It absolutely does NOT say "copy this code and use it to compete." The license agreement never allowed that, because I was ALWAYS familiar with icga rule 2, which has not changed significantly in 40 years, in intent.
Your nonsense about "evil" and "waiting for such a development like stolen Rybka..." doesn't really deserve comment. I did not "wait for anything." I have not "tolerated the ippo/etc stuff" because I don't have to deal with it. To date, only one "robo clone" has attempted entry into an icga event and it was summarily denied because it was robo* with a couple of score value changes... As far as "what should newcomers do?" They should obey tournament rules. I consider that a pretty simple concept. Barring that, they should obey Crafty's license. And we are not talking 1990's, either, we are talking middle 2000's as to when Vas did his copy/paste stuff...
For you and 4-5 others here, it seems to be "strength, strength, and strength" as the three key things one should look at to determine originality. It doesn't work like that, fortunately...
It's good that we have this "debate" I'm progressing further and further into what you have wrong, Bob. Others of course have seen this already before me. You have a strange ideosyncratic perception of what exactly you call wrong concerning copying or competing. You are unwilling to allow yourself a quick look into the process of creating something. As if you had never created something yourself. But you had and therefore this is strange.
Also your obsession of a particular version where you could link a wrongdoing. However thaqt version was so premature that it isnt worth to even talk about it even if there had been something wrong. I mean if you were a 16 year old boy with such a tic I could understand you but not as a senior expert, more a special expert for the whole history of computerchess. You argue as if the mentioned rules were important to prevent criminal delinquencies, and I can only repeat it in calm words, also if you ignore it, the fact that you did never show interest for the other top players in commercial competition at the ICGA events does prove that you have a bias which is a serious wrong for you as a scientist. You have lost all respect we should show you for your past achievements. Today you are behaving like an obsessed nitpicker but who is biased for the benefit of the other commercials. The only scapegoat you made up, is your intimate enemy goal, Vasik. This is a shame. Sorry but this is the truth.
What is also very apparent in your record. You are humiliating people who themselvess have not your let's call it brutal macho hanky panky. Two examples, the peaceful, reflective Dann Corbit and now also Ed Schroder. Both in our league as far as older age is concerned. You disrespect their dignity. What is spoiling your alleged ethical intention to reveil wrong attitudes in Vas. What you have shown is already above the potential mistakes you accused Vas of. I'm so sorry for such a result in sum. BTW for these character defects the Levy kind of guys have engaged you in the smear against Vas. It's a very sad end. Because you spoil the whole act of creativity in young programmers in computerchess instead of supporting their talents. It's such a pity.
Also your obsession of a particular version where you could link a wrongdoing. However thaqt version was so premature that it isnt worth to even talk about it even if there had been something wrong. I mean if you were a 16 year old boy with such a tic I could understand you but not as a senior expert, more a special expert for the whole history of computerchess. You argue as if the mentioned rules were important to prevent criminal delinquencies, and I can only repeat it in calm words, also if you ignore it, the fact that you did never show interest for the other top players in commercial competition at the ICGA events does prove that you have a bias which is a serious wrong for you as a scientist. You have lost all respect we should show you for your past achievements. Today you are behaving like an obsessed nitpicker but who is biased for the benefit of the other commercials. The only scapegoat you made up, is your intimate enemy goal, Vasik. This is a shame. Sorry but this is the truth.
What is also very apparent in your record. You are humiliating people who themselvess have not your let's call it brutal macho hanky panky. Two examples, the peaceful, reflective Dann Corbit and now also Ed Schroder. Both in our league as far as older age is concerned. You disrespect their dignity. What is spoiling your alleged ethical intention to reveil wrong attitudes in Vas. What you have shown is already above the potential mistakes you accused Vas of. I'm so sorry for such a result in sum. BTW for these character defects the Levy kind of guys have engaged you in the smear against Vas. It's a very sad end. Because you spoil the whole act of creativity in young programmers in computerchess instead of supporting their talents. It's such a pity.
I don't recall "disrespecting Dann." He initially said Rybka was not a copy. He was somewhat surprised to find he was wrong. He didn't like the outcome, still. Can't do anything about that. He was not a computer chess program author, nor competitor...
One has no "dignity to disrespect" when he intentionally distorts and dissembles as Ed is doing...
One has no "dignity to disrespect" when he intentionally distorts and dissembles as Ed is doing...
Bob, I followed your somewhat brutal exchange. Dann argued that if Rybka were a copy then practically all were a copy because of the ingredients taken from forefathers. I understood it as if he thought that the Rybka bashing were hypocricy. Basically Dann Corbit brought me to the trivial rejection by asking the simple question what the other competitors would look like if you would put their ingredients under microscope. And that is exactly the point where you are biased and want factually to protect them which is a shame from a scientist. Assume only the possibility we would find some "1.6.1" version say in an early Riderskerk little tournament and the guy would send you the code. We would then have a similar debate like right now. NB only a single finding would already prove that in a development such a thing might have happened without the need for us to then scapegoating the otherwise completely honest and very successful author and for all banning him for life. That is in my eyes lynch justice and we shouldnt tolerate such a wrong.
There is a world of difference between copying ideas and copying source code, as I have repeatedly stated.
If Dann doesn't "get the difference" then there is little I can say...
He's free to look at my source, and compare it to others. There might be a small match in one or two places when comparing crafty to another program. Nothing on the level of Crafty/Rybka 1.6.1 or Fruit 2.1 / Rybka 1.0 beta, however. In more complex code, you won't find any matches at all unless stuff was copied...
If Dann doesn't "get the difference" then there is little I can say...
He's free to look at my source, and compare it to others. There might be a small match in one or two places when comparing crafty to another program. Nothing on the level of Crafty/Rybka 1.6.1 or Fruit 2.1 / Rybka 1.0 beta, however. In more complex code, you won't find any matches at all unless stuff was copied...
Bob, things are getting more complicated, your ally Watkins is now claiming that nobody ever had accused Vas of having copied source code. He elaborates that even Vas hasnt correctly understood the allegations. In truth it's about making a derived thing which is now the new island of hope of evil character assassination for MW!
Could we have a short clarification from the Don himself (Corleone)?
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1788&p=15943#p15943
I think it's good if we have a new thread for that one. Is it the final forfeit for Bob & allies?
Could we have a short clarification from the Don himself (Corleone)?
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1788&p=15943#p15943
I think it's good if we have a new thread for that one. Is it the final forfeit for Bob & allies?
You are mischaracterizing what Mark has said. The ICGA report did not attempt to prove that a copyright violation had occurred. It was solely looking at the ICGA protest relative to rule 2. however, if you look at all the ICGA evidence, particularly the simple-to-grasp crafty 19.x evidence, copying WAS proven beyond a shadow of any doubt...
No forfeit at all. We don't have to meet "copyright violation" standards to enforce rule 2. that was his point. Probably a reference to Dalke's comment that it seems clear that rule 2 was broken, but not so clear about non-literal copying issues...
No forfeit at all. We don't have to meet "copyright violation" standards to enforce rule 2. that was his point. Probably a reference to Dalke's comment that it seems clear that rule 2 was broken, but not so clear about non-literal copying issues...
"It was solely looking at the ICGA protest relative to rule 2."
I think it is about time to challenge your assertion that the panel was set up to look at "Rule 2"
The ICGA wiki states:
1 Purpose
The purpose of the Panel shall be to:
[a] Investigate and discuss allegations of cloning or creating a derivative of strategy games programs;
Report to the ICGA as to the veracity or otherwise of such allegations;
[c] Make recommendations to the ICGA as to what action if any should be taken against those found by the Panel to have been guilty of cloning or creating a derivative;
[d] Publish the findings of the Panel.
which mentions not the Rule 2. The ICGA finalised on Rule 2 because the evidence was too weak to support anything further. It is too weak to support Rule 2, of course, but that's another matter. If you could have proven copyright (cloning or derivative) you would have, but you opted for plagiarism and rule 2 instead. Weak case. And shoots your "code copying" assertions in the foot.
I think it is about time to challenge your assertion that the panel was set up to look at "Rule 2"
The ICGA wiki states:
1 Purpose
The purpose of the Panel shall be to:
[a] Investigate and discuss allegations of cloning or creating a derivative of strategy games programs;
Report to the ICGA as to the veracity or otherwise of such allegations;
[c] Make recommendations to the ICGA as to what action if any should be taken against those found by the Panel to have been guilty of cloning or creating a derivative;
[d] Publish the findings of the Panel.
which mentions not the Rule 2. The ICGA finalised on Rule 2 because the evidence was too weak to support anything further. It is too weak to support Rule 2, of course, but that's another matter. If you could have proven copyright (cloning or derivative) you would have, but you opted for plagiarism and rule 2 instead. Weak case. And shoots your "code copying" assertions in the foot.
For the record, the original protest filed with the ICGA, in part:
We believe as an unauthorized Fruit derivative Rybka's entry into ICGA events has been contrary to the ICGA rules and the rules of fair play.
We ask the ICGA to carefully review the evidence, assess its validity, and act accordingly.
SO, as I said, THAT is what we were asked to investigate. "Contrary to the ICGA rules..."
We believe as an unauthorized Fruit derivative Rybka's entry into ICGA events has been contrary to the ICGA rules and the rules of fair play.
We ask the ICGA to carefully review the evidence, assess its validity, and act accordingly.
SO, as I said, THAT is what we were asked to investigate. "Contrary to the ICGA rules..."
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill