Vas, Hyatt, Levy, ICGA, WCCC, Confusion and Nausea

[hgm]

The point of course is that the rules are not ambiguous to anyone exept you. You seem to have unusual difficulty grasping the concept 'original'.

[Terry McCracken]

As long as my interpretation is the same as that of IGCA, there is only a single person BS-ing in this thread.

Where you can read the official ICGA interpretation of the rules (on ICGA website there is nothing but the rules themselves)???

As far as I can see your interpretation is the same as Bob's nothing more nothing less. So you actually want to say that Bob=ICGA?
In that case I congratulate you coz you just proved my point. (L'etat C'est Moi - Louis XIV aka Bob Hyatt)

Not just Bob, Devid Levy et al.

I think they know what it's intended meaning is.

If they know why they don't clearly write it instead of having couple of ambiguous and badly defined rules?
But then there would be no possibility to have a main non-written rule which is the only rule applied in reality:
"Program is original if Bob decides so!"

Milos you are arguing far below your level.

[wgarvin]

If they know why they don't clearly write it instead of having couple of ambiguous and badly defined rules?
But then there would be no possibility to have a main non-written rule which is the only rule applied in reality:
"Program is original if Bob decides so!"

Sure, there is some inherent gray area in what is an "original work" and what is not. You're asking for a precise technical definition of a concept that is not very precise or technical. Vas asked for the same thing in that interview by Nelson Hernandez. But its probably not possible. Whether something is "original" or not is a subjective determination, so in some cases it will be obvious to everyone that a program is or isn't "original", and in other cases opinions may vary and it will end up being somebody's judgement call -- the TD, the ICGA board, etc.

Copyright law struggles with the same issues, and in the most ambiguous cases, there's no way to know until a judge or jury decides.

For programmers entering an ICGA tournament however, there's a much simpler way to make sure you're on solid ground. If you think you might be in this "grey area" and want to know if re-using something will make your program "not original" from their point of view, you could just ask the organizer of the tournament in advance. (Although, if you have to ask at all, you probably shouldn't copy that code and should just write your own...)

[bob]

With the previously posted evidence that shows Houdini came from Robolito/Ivanhoe/etc, there is no chance it will be admitted. In fact, the ICGA denied entry to a copy of Robo already. Any entrant from an unknown author will get scrutiny. Always has.

Since Robbo/Ippo/Ivanhoe is PUBLIC DOMAIN participation with a program based on them is fully in accordance with the rules. Otherwise all programs containing at least a line of public domain code (Crafty included) should be immediately banned.

By banning a program based on a public domain code ICGA is braking its own rules and demonstrates that it is a puppet organization guided from the shadow by Hyatt using Levy (a heavily compromised guy with a huuuge bag of dirty laundry) as a pawn.

Not so fast. First the new program must have written permission from the original author. That seems to be a problem since there appear to be no "real authors" (Fischer, really???) Also, if the code came from something like Rybka, then it is _not_ public domain code, and that is yet another problem...

[bob]

Unfair, you say? If you can't even tell the tournament organizers who wrote the code, then its pretty obvious that you can't just make use of that code and then pretend the result is your original work. The only way it should qualify as "original work" is if you include all of the people who originally wrote it as team members when entering the tournament. To do that, you not only need to know who they are--you also need their permission.

So following your interpretation of the rules Crafty and Bob Hyatt should be banned since he is using public domain code without proper referencing (many things from Knuth are there and Knuth is only mentioned regarding rnd generator, there are also other things if you don't know them just search the forum - as Bob likes to say).
So much about hypocrisy...

And tournament organizers and ICGA panel is just an oxymoron. There is only 1 man who decides about everything. Others are just puppets (or commercials following just their own money interest). This is valid in all the autocratic systems and certainly in the organization called ICGA.

And one more thing, one way to have a PUBLIC DOMAIN code is in case author is unknown (if you don't know this write "public domain" in google). If author is unknown it is impossible to cite it. Following your interpretation of the rules it would be impossible to use any public domain code where authors are not known (or not known with certainty) which is the majority of public domain code.
So much about logic...

The only way it should qualify as "original work" is if you include all of the people who originally wrote it as team members when entering the tournament. To do that, you not only need to know who they are--you also need their permission.

So if authors of the code are dead you can't use it, right? What a load of BS.

Of course rules are one thing, but their interpretation is completely different animal. Especially if you have one man only who decides...

You keep twisting things. The only code copied from Knuth is the random number generator. No other code is copied _anywhere_. Is that really so hard to grasp. "code". not "ideas". Ideas are fine to share or copy.

The rest of WG's statement is not about "logic" but about conforming to ICGA rules.

[bob]

Rule #2 says that. And if you don't want to contest it, don't waste our time whining about it here...

Rule #2 mentions absolutely nothing about the permission to use code. Not a single word. So what you write is just your BS interpretation of the rules.

And nobody invited you to discuss so you are free to leave whenever you want. I, on the other hand, choose to stay whether you like it or not.

And to repeat, let us see some recent Craft's WCCC application form. I really wonder what's inside.

Reference to EGTB from nalimov, magic move generator from Pradu. There is nothing else other than the random generator which has been in many C libraries already...

Edit: Scratch magic. I have not played in a WCCC event with the magic move generator code. And when I played in them, I did not even use Eugene's EGTB code either. Easy to find that information for Jakarta, Paris, which I think are the only two I remember being in... Maybe there was another one along the way, but not since magic...

[mhull]

Rule #2 says that. And if you don't want to contest it, don't waste our time whining about it here...

Rule #2 mentions absolutely nothing about the permission to use code. Not a single word. So what you write is just your BS interpretation of the rules.

And nobody invited you to discuss so you are free to leave whenever you want. I, on the other hand, choose to stay whether you like it or not.

And to repeat, let us see some recent Craft's WCCC application form. I really wonder what's inside.

Reference to EGTB from nalimov, magic move generator from Pradu. There is nothing else other than the random generator which has been in many C libraries already...

Edit: Scratch magic. I have not played in a WCCC event with the magic move generator code. And when I played in them, I did not even use Eugene's EGTB code either. Easy to find that information for Jakarta, Paris, which I think are the only two I remember being in... Maybe there was another one along the way, but not since magic...

Crafty was in the WCCC at Ramat Gan (2004), Reykjavik (2005) and Torino (2006) operated by Peter Berger.