1
2
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
since the mighty rybka is banned and i dont want to let the blood sucking mob win . i decided to make a new chess program called Serial chess . im too late to stop them this year but next year ill take the title . since rybka will no longer be there it should be a whole easier to win . plus im going to enforce the rules so that i can narrow the field down even more . maybe by the time the tourn actually begins there will only be me and crafty . if i dont win ill at least come in 2nd place .
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
I would claim all other participants are in violation of rule 2 and ask for disqualification. When Crafty doesn't participate, you should be the undisputed new ICGA champion
Just to make it clear, you can't just say "I think everyone has copied code." You will _always_ have to offer some sort of credible evidence that supports that, to get an investigation started. Now if you have actual supporting evidence, go for it, although we can only take one program at a time, and we already have #2 on the calendar.
> 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?
I'm pretty sure the next engine is going to be Loop.
Oh yeah, that's right; that wouldn't be surprising in the least bit--the ponderhit coincidence stats for that one have been known for awhile.
I gather that form my readings over at talkchess.
Like I said in the other post - any engine that uses Nalimov code (which is game-playing code written by another author) and did not disclose this fact on the entry form, is in breach of rule #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
"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
Actually, if you look at the ICGA entry form, this specific question is asked:
The name of my program:
The authors of this program:
The book author:
The program is operated by:
Estimated strength (ELO):
Hardware used:
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 name of my program:
The authors of this program:
The book author:
The program is operated by:
Estimated strength (ELO):
Hardware used:
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.
For the Triennial World Championship event all participants are required to bring source code of their program. This code must be made available to the Tournament Director (or designate) for scrutiny in case of dispute. The purpose here is to ensure that each program is unique and is owned by the representing programmer.
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.
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.
That doesn't sound "generalized" to me. Sounds like a specific statement in a rule. "unique" is not vague. "owned by the representing programmer" is not vague.
At least not to me and those that participate in these events. Seems crystal clear.
At least not to me and those that participate in these events. Seems crystal clear.
It doesn't imply anything close to what you are insinuating it would have to be to be unique.
"Original code". How difficult a concept is that to grasp? You write it, it is original. You copy it from someone else, it is not. I don't see why this has to turn into a battle of twisted definitions of very simple-to-understand words...
Yeah! You seem to have your own take on how things are defined, I don't think I want to buy anything from you anymore, Bob!
![[za]](/mwf/v12/flags/za.png "South Africa")
> I don't think I want to buy anything from you anymore, Bob!
Me, and Mirriam Webster, and several others certainly don't seem to agree with you.
But don't let that stop you.
But don't let that stop you.
Being a scientist, you should know more than anyone of the dangers of quoting Merriam Webster. Perhaps creationism is a "theory" on par with or better than evolution, too? After all, in common society, a theory is only something resembling a guess...
When the definition is reasonable, I don't see a problem. And clearly the one I quoted was "spot on" with what we, the programmers, wanted to allow in ICGA tournaments...
Well...some of the programmers...made clear after the fact...
Who? Oh, you mean _one_ of the programmers? He knew. He just didn't think he would get caught.
> "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?
Rule 2:
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.
"original work".
So exactly what are you talking about?
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.
"original work".
So exactly what are you talking about?
"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."
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!
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!
If you would copy/paste correctly, you would have included that "e.g." in front of the sentence you quoted. That says "for example, this is a way cloning may be detected. It does _not_ say "this is the only way cloning can be detected..."
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. ...
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
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
(a) I didn't release Crafty as public domain, because at the time it was the strongest open-source chess engine around. And I did not want it to pollute every chess tournament and rating list with dozens of clones. We had enough as it were.
(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."
(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."
I agree with you bob. But do you think that GPL and "rule 2" is the right way ?
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.
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.
remember, it is not only what I think that matters here. The rules we compete under in ICGA events were written by the programmers involved. There is merit in allowing "anything goes". IE if we eliminate patent laws and copyright laws, the world would change. The first thing would be that innovation would almost go away, because what is the incentive if you spend a lot of money and time developing an innovation, and everyone is free to copy and profit from it without the costs? You paid the costs, everyone shares in the profit. Innovation goes around the bowl and down the hole.
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...
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...
I would not eliminate rule 2 without replacement, but rewrite it. Yes its important _not_ to say welcome to simple robo* clones.
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
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
As I said, one can make this case. The question is, do the current competitors want to deal with that kind of competition. The answer, to date, has been "no". Doesn't mean it will never change, since this event _is_ for the competitors...
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..."
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..."
The question is, do the current competitors want to deal with that kind of competition. The answer, to date, has been "no".
Of course not. Current competitors do not want to play against Rybka Cluster or Houdini. They would rather play against Pandix and MicroMax.
Of course not. Current competitors do not want to play against Rybka Cluster or Houdini. They would rather play against Pandix and MicroMax.
I am willing to play against _ONE_ of any program on the planet. But just _ONE_ in a single tournament. You, as a non-competitor, will apparently never grasp that point. And there, I don't care. This is about the competitors, not the spectators...
You, as a non-competitor, will apparently never grasp that point. And there, I don't care. This is about the competitors, not the spectators...
Good thing because there won't be many spectators when Crafty is playing against Pandix.
Good thing because there won't be many spectators when Crafty is playing against Pandix.
So you are clairvoyant as well? How many watched the olympic summer games after Ben Johnson was banned? Seemed like a bunch to me. And I watched...
Only you would consider watching Crafty play Pandix to be in the same league as the Summer Olympics.
Only a non-competitive loser would be unable to see the comparison for what it really was. Any game my program plays is important to me. Other authors feel the same. We don't _care_ what _you_ think, for the record.
That's fine. There's even a word for it. Irrelevant.
I could have said that I guess. So "your opinion is irrelevant to the chess program authors of the ICGA."
And your point is?
asked and answered, already.
So there is no point. As expected.
Its not good to make compares to other parts of life. Ben Johnson is incomparable to that what actual is happening here in our cc-world.
(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.
(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.
I have not seen a GPL novel, but I have seen a copyrighted novel. I've read thousands of 'em. Computer software is treated differently than a novel, by the way. Even in the beginning of the long form of the US copyright law, they address this very issue in the definition of terms section.
Bob, i can tell you that no single chess program is "original work".
The times where a chess programmer has "original work" are over.
And Vas did the same thing without naming theauthors 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...
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...
Yes, thats different.
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
or
- 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
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
or
- 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.
How did I pull that off when I didn't _start_ the process in the first place???
I'm willing to bet that if you weigh what Watkins found up against what is uniquely Rybka as a body of work then Vas will have not broken this rule established by the ICGA-
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.
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.
You would be wrong. The ICGA looked at the evidence and +did+ decide that rule 2 was broken.
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...
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...
1
2
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill