David Levy on Chessvibes

[Harvey Williamson]

Further to David's article http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/attack-of-the-clones/

He has now posted there the details of his proposed forum:

The ICGA Clone and Derivative Investigation Panel

By David Levy

I am pleased to be able to announce the establishment of the ICGA Clone and Derivative Investigation Panel. The founding statutes of the panel are appended below. The Secretariat comprises Robert Hyatt, Mark Lefler and Harvey Williamson.

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com We particularly urge all of you who have taken part in past ICGA (and ICCA) events to join the panel so as to give the benefit of your experience to the discussions that will take place there.

The first matter to be investigated by the panel will be the allegations that have been appearing on various web sites and forums, leading to my recent article “Attack of the Clones” that was published on http://www.chessvibes.com However, the brief of the panel is to examine all allegations of cloning and derivative program creation where a prima facie case has been made and brought to the panel’s attention. This can extend beyond chess, into the realm of the other games contested at the annual Computer Olympiads. In the case of games other than chess appropriate experts will be invited by the ICGA to join the panel.

ICGA Clone and Derivative Investigation Panel

Founding statutes: February 22nd 2011

1 Purpose

The purpose of the Panel shall be to:

[a] Investigate and discuss allegations of cloning or creating a derivative of strategy games programs;

Report to the ICGA as to the veracity or otherwise of such allegations;

[c] Make recommendations to the ICGA as to what action if any should be taken against those found by the Panel to have been guilty of cloning or creating a derivative;

[d] Publish the findings of the Panel.

2 Membership

The Panel shall be open to:

[a] Programmers who have participated in any ICGA or ICCA World Championship
for computer chess or in any Computer Olympiad or in any other computer competitions deemed appropriate by the ICGA.

The office-bearers of the ICGA;

[c] Persons accepted as experts by the ICGA or by a unanimous decision of the Secretariat of the Panel.

Membership may be denied or rescinded to those deemed by the ICGA to have breached the normal ethical bounds expected of members.

Members may only participate under their own name. No anonymous membership or participation in discussions will be permitted.

There shall be no membership fees.

3 Operation of the Panel

[a] The Panel shall conduct its discussions on a Web site forum closed to non-members.

All discussions on the Panel’s web site forum shall be in English.

[c] The Panel’s web site shall be operated and maintained by a person or persons invited by the ICGA to do so.

[d] The day-to-day activities of the Panel shall be managed by a Secretariat of three members of the Panel who shall be invited or approved by the ICGA. The ICGA shall have the right to replace members of the Secretariat at its sole discretion upon giving seven days notice on the forum.

[e] For all general decisions relating to the day-to-day running of the Panel and its forum a majority decision of the Secretariat shall suffice. In any matters deemed by the ICGA to be of an especially crucial or controversial nature the ICGA may overrule a decision of the Secretariat.

[f] Anyone against whom an allegation of cloning or creating a derivative has been made on the forum shall have the right to respond in the forum to each and every posting relating to such allegations, provided that such person is a current member of the forum. In the case of persons who have previously been barred from participating in the forum, for example persons previously found by the Panel to have been guilty of cloning, such persons shall be invited by the Secretariat to present their defence to the Panel as and when the Secretariat feels is appropriate.

[g] The Secretariat shall normally decide when an allegation of cloning or creating a derivative program has been sufficiently investigated and discussed in the forum. At such time the Secretariat shall be responsible for presenting to the ICGA the Panel’s report on the allegations, and on the defence if any offered by those against whom the allegations have been made, and on the findings of the Panel as to the veracity or otherwise of the allegations. The Secretariat’s report to the ICGA shall include its recommendations if any as to what action if any should be taken by the ICGA in respect of sanctions against anyone found by the Panel to have been guilty of cloning or creating a derivative. Before making its decisions the ICGA shall invite the accused to present any comments they might have on the Panel’s findings and recommendations.

[h] The ICGA shall consider the reports and recommendations of the Panel and shall at its sole discretion decide upon what action if any should be taken. The sanctions that the ICGA might take against those found guilty of cloning or creating a derivative include but are not limited to:

Banning the guilty person(s) from participation in future ICGA events for any period deemed appropriate by the ICGA;

[ii] Publicizing, wheresoever it deems appropriate, the allegations and the names of those who have been investigated by the Panel and the findings of the Panel;

[iii] Recommending to other computer event organizers the exclusion of persons who have been found guilty by the Panel.

[iv] Annulling any titles that have already been awarded to programs that have since found by the Panel to have been clones or derivative programs, and demanding the return of any prize money paid to the offending programmer(s).

4 General Matters

[a] These statutes may be changed at any time by the ICGA at its sole discretion, upon the giving of 30 days notice in the forum.

The Panel shall be an advisory body of the ICGA. In all matters of dispute the decision of the ICGA shall be final.

* * * * * * *

[Graham Banks]

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com

Of what use are non-programmers on such a committee?

[Dann Corbit]

I suggest that they should define what a "clone" is.

[K I Hyams]

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com

Of what use are non-programmers on such a committee?

You have stated previously that you are willing to accept a decision, made in a court of law, about whether or not Rybka 1 is a clone of Fruit. You would accept that decision in the full knowledge that the jury which arrives at the decision will have no interest in or knowledge of chess, programming or computer chess. However, you imply that educated and interested laymen are no use on other committees dealing with computer chess related issues.

Do you think that your views are inconsistent in this instance?

My feeling is that, if you can find a lay person of suitable quality, there may be a place for him to provide an objective overview and ask objective questions. It is partly for those reasons that an enormous number of specialist committees have a lay member.

[michiguel]

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com

Of what use are non-programmers on such a committee?

You have stated previously that you are willing to accept a decision, made in a court of law, about whether or not Rybka 1 is a clone of Fruit. You would accept that decision in the full knowledge that the jury which arrives at the decision will have no interest in or knowledge of chess, programming or computer chess. However, you imply that educated and interested laymen are no use on other committees dealing with computer chess related issues.

Do you think that your views are inconsistent in this instance?

My feeling is that, if you can find a lay person of suitable quality, there may be a place for him to provide an objective overview and ask objective questions. It is partly for those reasons that an enormous number of specialist committees have a lay member.

It is hard to imagine that a "lay person" is of suitable quality for this type of task. Graham question is not ridiculous.

Miguel

[bob]

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com

Of what use are non-programmers on such a committee?

You have stated previously that you are willing to accept a decision, made in a court of law, about whether or not Rybka 1 is a clone of Fruit. You would accept that decision in the full knowledge that the jury which arrives at the decision will have no interest in or knowledge of chess, programming or computer chess. However, you imply that educated and interested laymen are no use on other committees dealing with computer chess related issues.

Do you think that your views are inconsistent in this instance?

My feeling is that, if you can find a lay person of suitable quality, there may be a place for him to provide an objective overview and ask objective questions. It is partly for those reasons that an enormous number of specialist committees have a lay member.

It is hard to imagine that a "lay person" is of suitable quality for this type of task. Graham question is not ridiculous.

Miguel

The three original members are not the _only_ ones involved. All three members of what David is calling "the secretariat" could be non-programmers and it would still work just fine since all authors are invited to join in...

[K I Hyams]

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com

Of what use are non-programmers on such a committee?

You have stated previously that you are willing to accept a decision, made in a court of law, about whether or not Rybka 1 is a clone of Fruit. You would accept that decision in the full knowledge that the jury which arrives at the decision will have no interest in or knowledge of chess, programming or computer chess. However, you imply that educated and interested laymen are no use on other committees dealing with computer chess related issues.

Do you think that your views are inconsistent in this instance?

My feeling is that, if you can find a lay person of suitable quality, there may be a place for him to provide an objective overview and ask objective questions. It is partly for those reasons that an enormous number of specialist committees have a lay member.

It is hard to imagine that a "lay person" is of suitable quality for this type of task. Graham question is not ridiculous.

Miguel

I didn't claim that it was ridiculous, did I? Instead, I tried to deal with it for him. In order to do so, I pointed out three things:
1. A possible inconsistency in his attitude to and expectations of a lay person.
2. The fact that it is common practice for expert committees to appoint a lay person.
3. Reasons why expert committees may consider it reasonable to appoint a lay person.

In addition, you will note that I used the phrase "of suitable quality" when referring to the lay person. I would suggest that the suitability of some of the lay people who are available for co-opting onto this committee may be greater than that of those who are likely to find their way onto the jury in which Graham has implicit faith.

[michiguel]

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com

Of what use are non-programmers on such a committee?

You have stated previously that you are willing to accept a decision, made in a court of law, about whether or not Rybka 1 is a clone of Fruit. You would accept that decision in the full knowledge that the jury which arrives at the decision will have no interest in or knowledge of chess, programming or computer chess. However, you imply that educated and interested laymen are no use on other committees dealing with computer chess related issues.

Do you think that your views are inconsistent in this instance?

My feeling is that, if you can find a lay person of suitable quality, there may be a place for him to provide an objective overview and ask objective questions. It is partly for those reasons that an enormous number of specialist committees have a lay member.

It is hard to imagine that a "lay person" is of suitable quality for this type of task. Graham question is not ridiculous.

Miguel

The three original members are not the _only_ ones involved. All three members of what David is calling "the secretariat" could be non-programmers and it would still work just fine since all authors are invited to join in...

That is not related to GB question. It is related to the panel, not the secretariat.

Miguel

[michiguel]

Those chess programmers and others who are interested in joining the panel may apply at http://www.icga.wikispaces.com

Of what use are non-programmers on such a committee?

You have stated previously that you are willing to accept a decision, made in a court of law, about whether or not Rybka 1 is a clone of Fruit. You would accept that decision in the full knowledge that the jury which arrives at the decision will have no interest in or knowledge of chess, programming or computer chess. However, you imply that educated and interested laymen are no use on other committees dealing with computer chess related issues.

Do you think that your views are inconsistent in this instance?

My feeling is that, if you can find a lay person of suitable quality, there may be a place for him to provide an objective overview and ask objective questions. It is partly for those reasons that an enormous number of specialist committees have a lay member.

It is hard to imagine that a "lay person" is of suitable quality for this type of task. Graham question is not ridiculous.

Miguel

I didn't claim that it was ridiculous, did I?

I did not claim you did, did I? "G question is not ridiculous" is my assertion. In fact, I adopt it as my question too.

Instead, I tried to deal with it for him. In order to do so, I pointed out three things:
1. A possible inconsistency in his attitude to and expectations of a lay person.
2. The fact that it is common practice for expert committees to appoint a lay person.
3. Reasons why expert committees may consider it reasonable to appoint a lay person.

The question is relevant. There must be a _really_ good reason to appoint a lay person to a technical committee. I do not see any valid one in this case. OTOH, I may find a valid reason to appoint someone to witness the process, as long as it does not have neither voice or vote.

Miguel

In addition, you will note that I used the phrase "of suitable quality" when referring to the lay person. I would suggest that the suitability of some of the lay people who are available for co-opting onto this committee may be greater than that of those who are likely to find their way onto the jury in which Graham has implicit faith.

[K I Hyams]

The question is relevant. There must be a _really_ good reason to appoint a lay person to a technical committee. I do not see any valid one in this case. OTOH, I may find a valid reason to appoint someone to witness the process, as long as it does not have neither voice or vote.

Your interpretation is too narrow, this is not just a technical committee; its remit is far more wide ranging than that. I quote Part 3, Section h, Subsections [j], [ii], [iii] and [iv].


“[h] The ICGA shall consider the reports and recommendations of the Panel and shall at its sole discretion decide upon what action if any should be taken. The sanctions that the ICGA might take against those found guilty of cloning or creating a derivative include but are not limited to:

[j] Banning the guilty person(s) from participation in future ICGA events for any period deemed appropriate by the ICGA;

[ii] Publicizing, wheresoever it deems appropriate, the allegations and the names of those who have been investigated by the Panel and the findings of the Panel;

[iii] Recommending to other computer event organizers the exclusion of persons who have been found guilty by the Panel.

[iv] Annulling any titles that have already been awarded to programs that have since found by the Panel to have been clones or derivative programs, and demanding the return of any prize money paid to the offending programmer(s).”


Lay men are used as minority appointees on all sorts of committees which have complex remits, including the boards of companies, boards dealing with hospital policy and boards dealing with the appointment and professional behaviour of teachers and doctors.

There are a number of reasons why lay men are considered beneficial to such committees. The two possible reasons that I gave in a previous post are that they may offer an objective overview and ask objective questions. In addition, they may bring to the committee relevant areas of expertise and experience that are unlikely to be available from the specialists. Legal and financial expertise are two possibilities in this particular case and in all of the cases listed above.

For those reasons, a high quality lay man is likely to offer far more to a committee than a low quality professional. In fact, if there are already enough high quality professionals, a high quality lay man will offer more to a committee than one extra high quality professional. This particular committee has the opportunity to co-opt a high quality lay man