Random Musings ...

[Albert Silver]

This is a forum, if you were only interested in making personal decisions you would simply make them and stay quiet.

My opinion is that this is not a moral question. The reason being that to apply morals you have to judge a situation using your values. How can you judge something so turbid?
You can only end up with the fanatics on both sides of the argument.

I didn't say I was only interested in making personal decisions, I was answering that one didn't need proof to make a decision. Do you only make decisions based on proof? What if there is no proof, and you still need to make a decision? We make decisions with what we have, which was my contention. In the case of the IPPO debacle, I think the decision to use it, even with proof, will ultimately be a moral/ethical one.

Suppose Vas proves it is a derivative. Do I support using them or not? It will depend on my views on reverse engineering, won't it?

If I think it is fairplay to reverse engineer and use the code for one's own purposes, then I may decide to use it even so, and not because I am acting in what I believe to be an immoral manner, no?

If on the other hand, I think this was wrong, then I may decide to condemn them.

Either way, a moral decision was made. One can perfectly well change one's stance should new information come about that brings a change to what you believe is right or wrong.

[Gino Figlio]

In life you hardly ever get absolute proof of anything, most likely only evidence.
You may have some evidence, strong evidence or no evidence at all.
You may of course choose a path without any evidence supporting you but calling it a moral decision is a big stretch.
It can't be a moral issue when both sides are being dishonest.
You like the guy and choose to trust him, nothing wrong with that but don't tell me it's a moral choice. Where are your morals when your friend tells lies or hides the truth?

[benstoker]

a couple of thoughts regarding the Great Derivatives debate ..


1) Vas in an email recently posted here (with his permission )mentioned that he is not so concerned about the IPPO issue because the main testing groups and organized tournaments dont take the engines seriously(im paraphrasing here)
seems to me that both highly respected testing groups can make a real difference in the computer chess world by at least considering to test these engines or at least notifying Vas that his lack of a clear statement is forcing their hands to begin testing the engines
this just might be the push Vas needs to make a clear and concise statement about IPPO (code similarities etc etc)
i realize this is a hard decision to make but the two groups can really carry the ball here and would perhaps be performing an enormous service to the hobby

The minute the authors of a list decide to do anything in order to force someone to do something they will have made it clear their goal is not longer to test engines, and that their agenda is in fact something else.

actually i did not mean it as a blackmail attempt
i meant it as a good faith concern that the two groups have ..given this point in time
i was thinking along the lines of both groups coming together ,speaking in concert as one and contacting Vas.. asking him to consider making a public comment which can give them at least some assurance that they should not in fact be testing these engines
unless of course the groups still have absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the engines
there does some to be a lack of independence "in appearance"at least if both groups simply refuse to go on testing with nothing concrete to go on at this point
maybe they have some evidence they are relying on that casual observers like myself are not privy to..i dont know


Steve

I tend to view the position a bit differently, but to each his own. On the one hand they have an engine that comes out by anonymous authors who claim they are against capitalism, aim to take from the wealthy and give to the poor, and support the Decembrists. On the other hand you have the author of a well-known engine who claims that this is another ripoff of his work, just as had taken place a couple of years before.

Strelka had all the same earmarks as Ippo: Huge similarities (search and other), but also some significant changes (bitboards and other things IIRC), again, just as here with IPPO.

By now, there are several derivatives of this source with declared authors, but these authors are still building on that shady code. It is true, neither the author of Rybka, nor the authors of Ippo have been forthcoming in detailing evidence one way or the other, so it is a judgment call. Since a similar case *has* happened in the past, and the author of Strelka admitted what he had done, there is a past record that speaks in Vas's favor. With this incomplete information, each one must do as their conscious dictates.

Vas doesn't give a shit. Why do you?

I already said why: "each one must do as their conscious dictates".

I see. It is now a question of morality, the answer resting on whether or not we feel in our bosom a pang of conscience notwithstanding Vas' complete indifference.

No, not "it is now". It always was. Suppose Vas proved it was taken from his code. Do you think anything other than a moral decision is what would define whether one of these rating lists tested it or not?

There you go. There's a temporal and logical condition that must be satisfied before reaching the moral question.

You are mistaken. Proof is required for legality, not morality. We make moral decisions day in and day out, and they are not based on proof. They are based on what we believe. The first judge of who you are and the kind of person you are, is yourself, not others.

Oh, I see now. Whatever 'moral decision' any of us makes about Vas or ippo* has absolutely nothing to do with the proof or lack therof concerning the code pilfering. In fact, whether or not it's stolen code is now irrelevant! We don't need to know now. Because we can all make a 'moral decision' about it utterly blind to the actual TRUTH. Hooray!

Well, if this is the way you wish to debate, then so be it.

You're right. How can you debate when truth is irrelevant to you and all that matters is your privately known morality.

[Albert Silver]

In life you hardly ever get absolute proof of anything, most likely only evidence.
You may have some evidence, strong evidence or no evidence at all.
You may of course choose a path without any evidence supporting you but calling it a moral decision is a big stretch.
It can't be a moral issue when both sides are being dishonest.
You like the guy and choose to trust him, nothing wrong with that but don't tell me it's a moral choice. Where are your morals when your friend tells lies or hides the truth?

You are correct in that I like him and choose to trust him, however, as mentioned previously, his prior claim in similar circumstances was vindicated, so it isn't based purely on air.

[Roger Brown]

There seems to be some confusion. I am neither suggesting, much less telling you, what you should do. I explained *my* perspective.

I do think the issue with the rating lists, as opposed to private users, is inevitably more complicated, simply because there is an implicit legitimacy lent to what is tested, that is not implied with a private user.

As to why anyone should act according to their morals in any situation, that is unconditionally not my decision to make.

Hello Albert,

Agreed.

Now add something to this mix:

You are morally convinced about the correctness of some decision you have come to.

You are also in a position to dictate/influence/affect how others respond to this same moral choice.

How does that square with your unconditional acceptance that each person is their moral centre of action?

Just curious....

Later.

[Gino Figlio]

Albert, I call that good friendship but don't try to rationalize it into something else.

[Steve B]

You say the commercial sites are heavily moderated. As you know on the Hiarcs forum discussion of the current situation has never been banned or the naming of the engines concerned. The Rybka forum takes the untenable position of denying they even exist, unless you have made 500 posts then you can enter the inner sanctum

Seen now that REALLY is a hidden forum
that is a huge leap from our EOF and CTF which can be read by all members. any clue why they have a forum hidden to its regular members but open to only those with 500 posts?
is it similar to our CTF where non-chess computer topics are discussed?

i am a member there but i have very few posts so i did not even know this forum existed

Clandestine Regards
Steve

[Harvey Williamson]

You say the commercial sites are heavily moderated. As you know on the Hiarcs forum discussion of the current situation has never been banned or the naming of the engines concerned. The Rybka forum takes the untenable position of denying they even exist, unless you have made 500 posts then you can enter the inner sanctum

Seen now that REALLY is a hidden forum
that is a huge leap from our EOF and CTF which can be read by all members. any clue why they have a forum hidden to its regular members but open to only those with 500 posts?

i am a member there but i have very few posts so i did not even know this forum existed

Clandestine Regards
Steve

That is probably a question you should ask them I do not want to be a pseudo spokesman for them. It does avoid endless flame wars as the debate in that hidden forum is generally of high quality. However I don't like the concept of it.

[Sven]

How can you debate when truth is irrelevant to you and all that matters is your privately known morality.

Nowhere did Albert state that truth were irrelevant for him. Saying so appears like deliberately misquoting him, and is therefore a poor way of debating. Albert's point was that a decision *can* be made without having any proof, which means without knowing the truth. He also stated that knowing the truth *can* influence a decision that has already been made, in the sense of possibly reconsidering the decision. Deriving "irrelevance of truth" from that statement simply lacks logical correctness.

Sven

[Steve B]

You say the commercial sites are heavily moderated. As you know on the Hiarcs forum discussion of the current situation has never been banned or the naming of the engines concerned. The Rybka forum takes the untenable position of denying they even exist, unless you have made 500 posts then you can enter the inner sanctum

Seen now that REALLY is a hidden forum
that is a huge leap from our EOF and CTF which can be read by all members. any clue why they have a forum hidden to its regular members but open to only those with 500 posts?

i am a member there but i have very few posts so i did not even know this forum existed

Clandestine Regards
Steve

That is probably a question you should ask them I do not want to be a pseudo spokesman for them. It does avoid endless flame wars as the debate in that hidden forum is generally of high quality. However I don't like the concept of it.

Thats OK thanks
endless flame wars can be ended by the moderators ..but like i said
commercial sites can impose whatever restricitons they want i guess
personally i would rather post in a ..lower quality ..but "open to all members" forum


Would never join a forum that would stoop so low as to accept me as a member Regards
Steve