syzygy wrote:We may have had this discussion before. It is blatantly not the case that releasing code under the GPL implies permission for the author's name to be listed on the entry form of whatever engine in whatever tournament. What the GPL means is stated in the GPL itself.
You don't need legal permission to write anyones name anywhere.
Oh come on. Fraud is a crime. The ICGA entry form asks you to declare that the persons whose names are listed have given permission.
If someone asks me who is author of Shredder, I can write Stephan Meyer-Kahlen, without consulting Stephan in any way. And Shredder is not even open source. The GPL actually states that it is not possible to put restrictions of any kind on the software, other than that modifications must be released under GPL. Not being allowed to mention the author would be such a restriction.
GPL is about copyright. Entering a rightfully owned program in an ICGA tournament is not an infringement of copyright. But this is separate from the act of fraud just described.
(Not to mention the problem that any author's name can only be listed once in case of ICGA tournaments.)
This doesn't seem to be a problem. Eugene Nalimov, for example, used to be mentioned many times. Many engine's used his EGT probing code. This is a moot point anyway, as I don't think any of the contributors to Stockfish wants to enter an engine of his own. The real problem is exactly the opposite: no one wants to enter an engine at all.
The Hyatt-trick, but that trick cannot be stretched forever.
It is not a moot point, as many engines exist that are very much based on SF.
syzygy wrote:The ICGA entry form asks you to declare that the persons whose names are listed have given permission.
OK, this may not be accurate.
Rule 2 wrote: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. 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 the "author" of a blatant SF clone can enter SF by stating on the entry form that "his" program includes SF code.
I thought there was a rule stating any author may only be involved in one entry, but I cannot find that rule now.
edit: old threads seem to confirm that Rule 2 has always been interpreted as requiring permission. (Such an interpretation seems unlikely to hold up in court, but still.)
syzygy wrote:(Such an interpretation seems unlikely to hold up in court, but still.)
Under domestic authority, the ICGA can do whatever they want - unless it's about specific discrimination items mentioned by anti-discrimination laws.
They can always say "not original enough", but they can't say "too much code by developers from Christmas Islands".
They can do whatever they want so long as the actions are contained within the club boundaries.
They cannot legally slander an entrant, for example.
They could throw him out of their contest for wearing green socks, if they liked.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
syzygy wrote:(Such an interpretation seems unlikely to hold up in court, but still.)
Under domestic authority, the ICGA can do whatever they want - unless it's about specific discrimination items mentioned by anti-discrimination laws.
They can always say "not original enough", but they can't say "too much code by developers from Christmas Islands".
Well, it is rather doubtful if they can interpret their own rules in a way that would lead to a breach of contract as interpreted by a court. But we're not really talking about such a situation here.
leavenfish wrote:and in any case, there is no 'soul' in engine vs engine games. Not really...but seeing a human player go all out for a win...saving a desperate position...stalking, then pouncing - it's things like these that make humans enjoy the game, not a bunch of 'ones and zeroe's' coming into conflict.
If by "soul" you mean "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.", well, that does not exist. If instead you mean "the essence or embodiment of a specified quality.", that does exist, and chess programmers work hard to embed chess knowledge in our programs so they can "stalk and pounce". Programs are not human, but they can be an extension of parts of ourselves.
leavenfish wrote:and in any case, there is no 'soul' in engine vs engine games. Not really...but seeing a human player go all out for a win...saving a desperate position...stalking, then pouncing - it's things like these that make humans enjoy the game, not a bunch of 'ones and zeroe's' coming into conflict.
If by "soul" you mean "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.", well, that does not exist. If instead you mean "the essence or embodiment of a specified quality.", that does exist, and chess programmers work hard to embed chess knowledge in our programs so they can "stalk and pounce". Programs are not human, but they can be an extension of parts of ourselves.
it would be interesting to know if a 'soul' and/or the 'immortal' could be represented by a series of 0s and 1s...
if it can...
then it would take only one instance for a distinction to occur...
and that one time distinction would be able to embody infinity...
I suppose if everything could be represented in binary...
that would make it a very special system...
it would look random and at times repetitive at the same time...
WCSC - World Chess Software Championship (1. und 2. June)
------------------------------------------------------------
The Baron (Richard Pijl)
Chess Ebiz 9 (Bruno Bras)
Deep Shredder (Stefan Meyer-Kahlen)
Jonny (Johannes Zwanzger)
Komodo (Mark Lefler & Larry Kaufman)
Ziggurat (David Norris)
--- Round Robin ---
WCCC - World Computer Chess Championship (3. bis 7. July)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Komodo (reigning champion from the 2016 event)
Jonny (2015 World Computer Chess Champion)
Deep Shredder (2015 World Chess Software Champion)
Chiron (rated 3207 in the CCRL and 3180 in the SSFD list)
This event seems slightly more relevant, now that there is new Big Iron in the room. What do you think it would take to get AlphaZero to participate in the 2018 WCCC, given the format change? Has the qualifying tournament obtained a venue and schedule yet?