ICGA rule on "clones"

[bob]

DC asked about this rule. Here it is:

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 ode, in the details of their submission form. 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 TD 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 TD (see ICGA Journal vol 29, no2 p94 for interpretation)

[chrisw]

DC asked about this rule. Here it is:

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 ode, in the details of their submission form. 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 TD 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 TD (see ICGA Journal vol 29, no2 p94 for interpretation)

Well, I would challenge this. Source is highly sensitive. In order to be able to insist on seeing source code a very strong case must be made first, with substantial evidence and the opportunity for refutation by the accused programmer.

Anything else and there's the STASI-like opportunity for envious and jealous people to report any program they like in order to cause the programmer trouble.

Evidence before release of source code.

If I was Vas at Beijing, I would have a lawyer available on the other end of a telephone, or present in person, to deal with the icga if they tried this stunt again.

[henkf]

Well, I would challenge this. Source is highly sensitive. In order to be able to insist on seeing source code a very strong case must be made first, with substantial evidence and the opportunity for refutation by the accused programmer.

Why is that? The ICGA is a private club and can basically lay out any rule they want. As an analogy, this board is a private club and doesn't allow freedom of speech, due to the charter. Nothing wrong with that.

Anything else and there's the STASI-like opportunity for envious and jealous people to report any program they like in order to cause the programmer trouble.

Godwin's law kicking in again?

[chrisw]

It's not a private club although I can see from where you get that impression.

Theoretically it's an organistion of chess programmers etc. There's a vote every three years at the tri-annual championship, probably again this year, for el presidente, vice presidente, the "board", etc.

They also have to act reasonably. It is not reasonable to demand a particular program's source on flimsy evidence, nor on the political weight of the ban callers.

Well, I would challenge this. Source is highly sensitive. In order to be able to insist on seeing source code a very strong case must be made first, with substantial evidence and the opportunity for refutation by the accused programmer.

Why is that? The ICGA is a private club and can basically lay out any rule they want. As an analogy, this board is a private club and doesn't allow freedom of speech, due to the charter. Nothing wrong with that.

Anything else and there's the STASI-like opportunity for envious and jealous people to report any program they like in order to cause the programmer trouble.

Godwin's law kicking in again?

[henkf]

The point is you can CHOOSE to become a member of the ICGA, unlike you can choose to become a member of society. Although society rules of course apply, there's nothing wrong with the ICGA to lay out additional rules as long as they are not illegal. If you don't like it don't become a member.

[Harvey Williamson]

If I was Vas at Beijing, I would have a lawyer available on the other end of a telephone, or present in person, to deal with the icga if they tried this stunt again.

As far as I know Vas will not be in Beijing. Rybka is being represented by Hans van der Zijden. The only thing I will be objecting to is the speed he unscrambles his Rubik's Cube.

I doubt Hans will have access to the source code. I know I certainly will not have the Hiarcs source code available.

[chrisw]

If I was Vas at Beijing, I would have a lawyer available on the other end of a telephone, or present in person, to deal with the icga if they tried this stunt again.

As far as I know Vas will not be in Beijing. Rybka is being represented by Hans van der Zijden. The only thing I will be objecting to is the speed he unscrambles his Rubik's Cube.

I doubt Hans will have access to the source code. I know I certainly will not have the Hiarcs source code available.

Absolutely right. The idea they can force source code revelation without strong evidence is outrageous. The more people who decline to take their source code along and come out saying so, the better. Well done Harvey and good luck in the tournament.

[Alexander Schmidt]

The only problem is, the ICGA decides if a hint is strong enough and not you.

Of course I understand if a programmer don't want to show it's sources, if I where Vas, and if Rybka 1.0 is clean, I would simply show the sources to stop the speculations. Especially since Vas said, Strelka is a decompiled Rybka 1, and Strelkas sources are opened. So he had nothing, realkly nothing to lose.

He even can take the chance to show the sources of Rybka 1 to the ICGA in Beijing, then noone can use them and things are cleared up.

[chrisw]

Well, the icga has a board which is elected by members at the Beijing tournament coming up. It's allegedly democratic and subject to the will of members. Most chess programmers and all those attending will be members. The icga can't just do what it wants. imo, it might well be an idea for new blood, they've been recycling the same tired old faces who no longer do comp chess at all for years and years now.

In short, the programmers meeting will have quite a say at Beijing.

The only problem is, the ICGA decides if a hint is strong enough and not you.

Of course I understand if a programmer don't want to show it's sources, if I where Vas, and if Rybka 1.0 is clean, I would simply show the sources to stop the speculations. Especially since Vas said, Strelka is a decompiled Rybka 1, and Strelkas sources are opened. So he had nothing, realkly nothing to lose.

He even can take the chance to show the sources of Rybka 1 to the ICGA in Beijing, then noone can use them and things are cleared up.

[bob]

It's not a private club although I can see from where you get that impression.

Theoretically it's an organistion of chess programmers etc. There's a vote every three years at the tri-annual championship, probably again this year, for el presidente, vice presidente, the "board", etc.

They also have to act reasonably. It is not reasonable to demand a particular program's source on flimsy evidence, nor on the political weight of the ban callers.

That is nonsense. They could _easily_ demand that everyone submit source code along with their entry form, and announce that failure to do so will result in the application being rejected. And there's not a thing anyone could do about it, any more than someone can contest the en passant pawn capture rule.

Well, I would challenge this. Source is highly sensitive. In order to be able to insist on seeing source code a very strong case must be made first, with substantial evidence and the opportunity for refutation by the accused programmer.

Why is that? The ICGA is a private club and can basically lay out any rule they want. As an analogy, this board is a private club and doesn't allow freedom of speech, due to the charter. Nothing wrong with that.

Anything else and there's the STASI-like opportunity for envious and jealous people to report any program they like in order to cause the programmer trouble.

Godwin's law kicking in again?