> we already have #2 on the calendar
Since such a big public spectacle was made when #1 was put on the calendar, surely you can tell us the name of program #2?
"Each program must be the original work of the entering developers.
Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing
code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code,
in the details of their submission form.
If the ICGA want to strictly enforce the letter of the law (i.e. their rules), then surely if complaints were laid those engines would need to be disqualified ? Very very harsh, but how can they enforce the rules for some and not others ? Am I right, or just talking through a hole in my head ? In the latter case I'm sure Bob will tell me that
The name of my program:
The authors of this program:
The book author:
The program is operated by:
Estimated strength (ELO):
Short Program Description
(i.e., details opening book databases,
origin of the source code)
I want to apply for a loan computer.
I need an internet connection.
I want to apply for a travel subsidy.
That "short program description" and "authors of the program" seem to be pretty clear, IMHO. Older entry forms used to ask if EGTBs were being used, which format, how many pieces, and such, so that they could provide this in the publicity information kit they prepared. The "Nalimov" question was hashed out years ago and the majority of programmers agreed it was acceptable in these events.
The above statement is so generalized that in Vas' case one could easily argue that Rybka is a unique program owned by it's representing programmer. You might have gotten away with banning Vas if Rybka were Fruit in drag but that just wasn't the case.
The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, would be most proud of you and your clan for the way this was handled. Congrats! But don't stop there on your crusade to weed out the heretics.
At least not to me and those that participate in these events. Seems crystal clear.
> I don't think I want to buy anything from you anymore, Bob!
But don't let that stop you.
> "Original code". How difficult a concept is that to grasp?
"Unique" is the wording, Bob!
Not "original code", Bob!
How difficult a concept is that to grasp, Bob?
2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
So exactly what are you talking about?
This is exactly what I am talking about. This is referring to a "body of work" not just some lines of code. Rybkas originality goes way beyond just 2007! There is no substantial reason to believe without definite proof that other more progressive versions were not even more Rybka unique in their development after 2007.
I think you hate this guy because he is smarter than you! This is you against Vas. Your authority against his abilities!
Bob, i can tell you that no single chess program is "original work".
The times where a chess programmer has "original work" are over.
Even Stockfish developer, Komodo developer , and all others take many concentrate looks into existing source codes to look for ideas and use them in their own programs. So nothing is original today. (ok, i accept that all developer today take care not to copy&paste code but just copy&paste ideas - but dont care about that religion)
Why dont you release Crafty as public domain ?
Why dont you cancel Rule 2 ?
GPL is an artificial vehicle: If you release your source code in a readable and easy to understand manner its public domain and not something like "GPL", even if you repeat it thousand of times or add it at the beginning of each file
(b) I do not see rule 2 going away, because what _programmer_ wants to compete in a tournament with 20-30 robo* clones? How, exactly, is that going to be enjoyable? The cloners don't know what the program does, for the most part (perhaps a few exceptions) so those that are not the exception can't participate in discussions, present papers, sit on a panel that discusses computer chess advances, and such. In short, what is to be gained, from the _real_ programmer's perspective, by opening the floodgates (or clonegates) and letting anything and everything in?
I have not heard one explanation other than the rather lame "We just want the best possible program for our own use. Where it comes from, and how, is irrelevant. Just give me more strength and I am happy."
All future top engines participate from the ideas of fruit/crafty/robbo ...
Do you really want to decide if there were line-copys or just idea-copys?
1. It takes 20-40 years to develop robbo from scratch without looking at existing source codes.
2. It takes less than 1 year to copy/paste stockfish and rewrite (better: hide) all stockfish code.
3. It takes a little more than 1 year to completly write a new engine while simultaneously looking for ideas in any available source code and copy all the ideas in your own program.
4. It takes 1 day do copy/paste stockfish
In my opinion 2. and 3. and 4. are equal.
Then there is the issue of competition. If the ICGA were to eliminate rule 2, what happens? The next WCCC will be nothing but robo* clones. Where everybody has a nearly equal chance of winning. Without having written or debugged anything. What would be the incentive for someone to compete. What would be the incentive for someone to develop a new idea, since immediately, everyone will be able to use it and level the playing field again. Doesn't sound like it would be much fun. That's what make sports so popular, teams are _not_ clones of each other, they have different players and coaches...
Let me give an example: If a cloner is able to add 150pts to robo* i would not call him "cloner" and i would invite him to ICGA tournaments. 150 ELO is a proof that this person is not a silly copy&paste cloner and that this person has added some new and intelligent stuff, not only changing some values here and there.
Sure, this person has not the 15 years history of Morsch, Ed Schröder, Marty Hirsch and Richard Lang.. . It it feels like a bit unfair to all the classic programmers that
a newbie (but a very smart newbie) makes a 15 years shortcut . But it just feels like that. Since Fruit Crafty and Robo is visible in source and well documented, everybody should be allowed to start at this point for free
I don't think many, if any, of the current authors would want to compete in such an event. And, of course, nothing prevents someone else from organizing a tournament, somewhat like the "outlaw drag races" where they say "bring whatcha got, and run whatcha brung, no questions asked..."
Of course not. Current competitors do not want to play against Rybka Cluster or Houdini. They would rather play against Pandix and MicroMax.
Good thing because there won't be many spectators when Crafty is playing against Pandix.
(not only Ben Johnson; did you ever see a GPL novel ?)
I think the Case is not that a progammer took pieces of codes from an so called "GPL" program.
The Case is that the world strongest chessengine - fruit (2005) and now robbo and stockfish - is open source.
This - and not copying lines - is the new topic that we have to live with.
Now the word "original work" get a new sense. Today's "original work" should be somehow defined in correlation to the improvements achieved compared to the public-source engines.
Sure, we all don't want to see dozend of robbo*s of more or less equal strength from any parvenu coming along.
The times where a chess programmer has "original work" are over.
And Vas did the same thing without naming the authors of his ideas.He made money with 'HIS' program.
Others like Stockfish-Team said that they borrow codes/ideas from OpenSource programs(with crediting the sources) and publish them under OpenSource conditions...Little didfference to Vas...
If you want to go commercial with a chess engine in the classic way (uci engine for pc) you should add at least 100-150 pts to stockfish .... after this you should rewrite all stockfich lines and go commercial. In my opinion "rewriting all stockfish lines" is not necessary if you add 100-150 pts, since it is just a matter of technic (every student can do this)
Of course, its on you to
- publish your improvements for free for the community as public domain
- close it and earn money.
For the community the first is better, but the second should also be accepted.
Like bob said, i agree with him, that it is not desirable that stupid gys just copy/paste code, change some values , understand nothing, and declare it for its own and participate at tournaments.
GPL is not the right way. GPL destroys peace. For chess-programming "public domain" is the only way if you want to show your source code to everybody.
If you want to get credits: You get credits from the community when you make your source/ideas public.
You get credits if you share your knowledge, if you help other people, if you answer questions ...
If you want to get credits and "thank yous" in the future from everybody who copys your idea/code, you should not release your source code. Please let it closed. Change your job and become a successful medical doctor or something else. Please don't contaminate the community with a GPL Release of your Source-Code/Ideas
>The purpose here is to ensure that each program is unique and is owned by the representing programmer.
I would say that the current debate would do well to focus on what makes a program uniquely ones own rather than fall to arguing about a few lines of code in comparison to the whole of the body of the a man's work.
Hyatt has everyone off on a wild goose chase. He's got everyone sniffing up the wrong tree.
The purpose here is to ensure that each program is unique and is owned by the representing programmer.
There is nothing in that rule that prohibits the use of exploiting ideas for the advancement of chess engine programming. This rule was to keep charlatans from taking chess engines and putting their own names to it and entering them into competition. Rybka was not guilty of that!
What were you and the list of inquisitors thinking when you signed that petition?
Perhaps you guys should have read the rules more carefully instead of imputing your own slant to it just to rob someone of their trophies and lively hood.
Nobody is talking about "ideas" here. The ICCA/ICGA has always been about sharing ideas, that's why they publish a journal 4 times a year. But sharing ideas and copying source code are two _completely_ different things. "We should have read the rules more carefully?" ICGA tournament participants _wrote_ the rules over the ICGA's 35+ years of holding WCCC events...
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill