WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[bob]

Houdini is not just a simple copy of Rybka 4.1 since it is over 50 ELO stronger !

Wow..he modified it.

Try to gain 50 ELO out of Rybka 4.1 and then we discuss.

You are a drag-racer. Your goal is to run the first sub-3.75 second quarter mile in top fuel. Where would you rather start:

(1) from scratch;

(2) Worsham's 3.75 record-holding dragster, when you only have to figure out a way to gain another .25 seconds... As opposed to figuring out how to even GET to 3.75 first.

That's the point..

[bob]

Houdini is not just a simple copy of Rybka 4.1 since it is over 50 ELO stronger !

Wow..he modified it.

Try to gain 50 ELO out of Rybka 4.1 and then we discuss.

What does it matter? That legitimises a derivative?? If I modified it..tuned it for 50 or 100 elo it makes it right?? Is that your point?

You miss the original statement !
By doing copy/past/release, do dont get over 50 ELO improvement

It DOES get you the preceding +3000 Elo however, as opposed to starting from scratch...

[bob]

3) "and has violated the GPL. "
No, Houdini does not violate any software license, and does not contain any GPL-licensed code. The only third-party code included in Houdini is the Gaviota and Nalimova EGTB code.

Unless you are secretly the sole author of Robbolito, I don't see how that bit in bold could possibly be true.

And isn't Robbolito source only available under the GPL license?

[edit: Another question, is the Nalimov code the same code found in Crafty, or some other implementation? Because that code needs a license/permission direct from Eugene Nalimov... Did you secure that permission for Houdini?]

You are correct about the Nalimov stuff. It is NOT GPL, or PD. It has a very specific copyright and requires written permission to use...

[Don]

Houdini is not just a simple copy of Rybka 4.1 since it is over 50 ELO stronger !

Wow..he modified it.

Try to gain 50 ELO out of Rybka 4.1 and then we discuss.

You are a drag-racer. Your goal is to run the first sub-3.75 second quarter mile in top fuel. Where would you rather start:

(1) from scratch;

(2) Worsham's 3.75 record-holding dragster, when you only have to figure out a way to gain another .25 seconds... As opposed to figuring out how to even GET to 3.75 first.

That's the point..

They don't get that because they don't respect what we do. Some of them simply are used to being gifted with free software and now feel entitled to taking and have no respect for the givers (except when they are takers like themselves.) I occasionally get hate email by someone who didn't like Komodo or had a problem with it, apparently they feel that I have been negligent in my responsibility to provide them with free stuff at their demand. No good deed goes unpunished, right?

Here is something else that exposes their illogical and twisted thinking:

1. The Ippo's claim to be fresh and original.
2. Vas claims to be fresh and original.
3 Houdart claims to be fresh and original.

But even the clone advocates know they are all liars! They are putting all their energy into a defense and justification of cloning which nobody has admitted to! How ridiculous is that?

So I think we need to completely end the discussion on whether it's ok to copy someone else's code because that is not the issue here. They say they didn't copy code, we proved that they did. The accused are not trying to justify code copying so why do we care about an issue that has not even been raised? In fact the accused seem to feel the SAME WAY we do about code copying, they have made statements condemning the practice, they say they don't do it themselves, so what is there to debate here?

[marcelk]

But most "authors" want a fair competition without clones/derivatives, where everyone writes their own program and then we compete head-to-head with each other on as level a playing field as we can define...

This position is not an obvious majority opinion anymore from the tri-ennial ICGA meeting this week where this was a lengthy agenda point. A fair group of participating programmers present have expressed they want the rules to be updated. One line of thinking is that attribution plus added value should be sufficient to compete, instead of 100% originality.

Even I have proposed updating the rules. But I have not seen anyone that would say "copy and attribute and you are OK."

That could be because you were not present, not because these opinions are not discussed among the participating programmers.
'Attribution' can for example to be understood as getting recognized as co-author on equal footing and sharing the accolades. If you use open-sourced Houdofish as your base line and your entry wins, the Houdofish team is co-winner. If you want to be sole winner, then just don't re-use Houdofish's code but write your own. If another team wants to use Houdofish also, that is fine as long as they have added >150 elo by themselves as well as you did.

Provided the copying is legal ofcourse. If the Houdofish team doesn't want this to happen with their code, but still wishes to publish their sources, they can apply a more restrictive "Crafty-like" license and the code is off-limits in tournaments.

Easy to copy, hard to create.

If we would want to reward effort, we should also ban the use of compilers. Or ask hand-punched paper tape entries only.
Some think it should not be about effort but about what it brings on the board.

The "added value" clause is completely hopeless. Why add a rule that can't be enforced? What is "added value"? Elo? "How is it measured?" ICC? Obviously can't be in real tournaments since you have to show added value before competing, you have to compete to show added value. "How much added value"? 50 Elo? 100 Elo? Again, how will this be measured. You can't use ICC/FICS. It is trivial to manipulate ratings there to show whatever you want...

I'm not an expert but I've heard of a program called 'bayeselo', many rating lists seem to use it.
If that doesn't work they could always throw in the 'expert opinion' clause popularized by rule 2.

As I said, unenforceable rules are worse than no rules...

Yes indeed, and that would be another fine reason to update them.

The core of the question is if the current generation of programmers/members want a tournament that calls itself the WCCC to be one with the strongest legal programs or one with the strongest 100.0%-original ones. In the 1970s this distinction didn't exist but now it is there and it appears to stay. The question how to make understandable/enforceable/etc rules for the desired format is only a secondary question, not a primary one.

In case the ICGA wants remain the place for original programs only (which is a possible outcome), I agree that "Computer Chess Olympiad" is a way more appropriate label for this tournament than "WCCC".

[Milos]

1. The Ippo's claim to be fresh and original.
2. Vas claims to be fresh and original.
3 Houdart claims to be fresh and original.

Answer is quite simple actually:
1. Ippo is as original as Komodo, R3 is RE, ideas are taken, new program is written.
2. R1 and R2 are not, R3 almost certainly clean code wise, therefore according to your "free taking of ideas is ok" motto, is also original.
3. Houdini 1 and 1.5 in smaller matter are certainly not original, but are completely legal. There is chance the Hounding 2.0 is clean code wise, but I seriously doubt it.

Regarding 1. and 2. and Bob's rotated bitboards, table coefficients (not acquired by tuning) are certainly not something that violates copyright, therefore doesn't violate originality assumption either.

[hgm]

If another team wants to use Houdofish also, that is fine as long as they have added >150 elo by themselves as well as you did.

I don't think this would solve anything. It would in fact make matters worse. Because the cloning issue would still exist w.r.t. this 'added' code worth the 150 Elo. I would legally use the Houdofish code and acknowledge that, but would clone the 150 extra Elo's, taking it from open-source as well (if Houdofish was GPL), or by reverse engineering. And it would be far harder to establish the originality of the 150 Elo addition hidden between the Houdofish code.

The currentrules are much more consistent: The Houdofish team would have to decide who they want to back, and that one can enter.

The real problem is not that the strongest programs are not allowed to enter by the current rules. The problem is that their authors have no interest to enter. Nothing precluded Stockfish to enter... And perhaps also Ippolit.

[kranium]

The Ippo people, or at least Milos seems to be jealous and contemptuous of Junior's title and thinks that Junior should not have been shown any honor for the win. They don't respect anyone but themselves and they have the over-inflated EGO's.
If you look at the "real" authors you will see there is no such infighting among them.

I get your 'spin' Don...but it won't work.

The 'Ippo people' are 'real' authors, every bit as much as you...
very methodical and documented development, innovations galore, a complete table-base solution, java GUIs, etc.
(the list goes on and on, i won't waste space here)

and they're publishing a program that's stronger than Komodo (source code included!) for free...
while remaining anonymous... i.e. taking no individual credit for anything.

taking note of your endless anti-ippolit propaganda,
the question begs to be asked:
who's jealous, contemptuous (and/or over-inflated ego) here...you or them?

[Terry McCracken]

Houdini is not just a simple copy of Rybka 4.1 since it is over 50 ELO stronger !

Wow..he modified it.

Try to gain 50 ELO out of Rybka 4.1 and then we discuss.

You are a drag-racer. Your goal is to run the first sub-3.75 second quarter mile in top fuel. Where would you rather start:

(1) from scratch;

(2) Worsham's 3.75 record-holding dragster, when you only have to figure out a way to gain another .25 seconds... As opposed to figuring out how to even GET to 3.75 first.

That's the point..

They don't get that because they don't respect what we do. Some of them simply are used to being gifted with free software and now feel entitled to taking and have no respect for the givers (except when they are takers like themselves.) I occasionally get hate email by someone who didn't like Komodo or had a problem with it, apparently they feel that I have been negligent in my responsibility to provide them with free stuff at their demand. No good deed goes unpunished, right?

Here is something else that exposes their illogical and twisted thinking:

1. The Ippo's claim to be fresh and original.
2. Vas claims to be fresh and original.
3 Houdart claims to be fresh and original.

But even the clone advocates know they are all liars! They are putting all their energy into a defense and justification of cloning which nobody has admitted to! How ridiculous is that?

So I think we need to completely end the discussion on whether it's ok to copy someone else's code because that is not the issue here. They say they didn't copy code, we proved that they did. The accused are not trying to justify code copying so why do we care about an issue that has not even been raised? In fact the accused seem to feel the SAME WAY we do about code copying, they have made statements condemning the practice, they say they don't do it themselves, so what is there to debate here?

I put in bold what sums it up in a nutshell.

The whole debate is nothing more than noise.

The forum is filled with spoiled, ungrateful leechers.

[marcelk]

If another team wants to use Houdofish also, that is fine as long as they have added >150 elo by themselves as well as you did.

And it would be far harder to establish the originality of the 150 Elo addition hidden between the Houdofish code.

The currentrules are much more consistent: The Houdofish team would have to decide who they want to back, and that one can enter.

The Houdofish team might prefer to be listed in more than one entry (like Nalimov). And if it is really really good, why not let them increase their chances this way by letting their genes spread... :-)

The real problem is not that the strongest programs are not allowed to enter by the current rules. The problem is that their authors have no interest to enter

There are different ways to describe the same elephant. Another is unwillingness to be transparent towards the TD regarding origins, and yet another is the difficulty of verifying originality even with source code provided.