WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[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.

[Don]

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.

But Vas says R1 is clean.

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.

Houdart says it's all original.

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.

I've always maintained that too, but people such as Ed feels that using these ideas makes you a plagiarist. In other words he thinks you are either a hypocrite if you use it, or else you have to concede that any kind of copying whatsoever is good.

My real point is that none of the actual authors have admitted any kind of plagiarizing, even though we know it's being done. We might have disagreements about the degree of copying or who is doing it, but the authors there is agreement that it's wrong (even though they are doing it.)

[Don]

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.

I agree with your sentiment here, but you bring up an issue that is not well understood. You cannot clone the 150 ELO just by cut and paste. You cannot make another Ivanhoe for example by adding the stuff that is different to your own program, you have to copy (either exactly or functionally) major sections of the program. The parts interact in crazy ways and have to be tuned to work together, just like anything really complex has to be. You cannot take your 1963 Ford Falcon beater and improve it simply by bolting on the fuel system used by the top dragster, it won't work.

So there is no shortcut EXCEPT to clone major sections of code. You can try to bolt on parts but generally you have to get out the torch and do some cutting and fitting other changes. In other words you have to do hard work.

So to create a top playing program you HAVE to do major engineering work if you want to be legitimate, otherwise you are just working on someone else's program. You may find ways to IMPROVE someone else's program but it's not the same thing. Taking the top program and finding 50 ELO is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE easier than engineering your own program to be the same strength, even given the richness of ideas that are freely available from looking at chessprogramming wiki and reading the sources of other programs. THIS is why legitimate authors are upset.

I think most of the top authors understand this concept, but even a lot of program authors can be naive about this. And that is also why some equate using ideas that are freely available as being the same as copying sections of code, they make no distinction.

I can tell you that we have tried a LOT of ideas from many programs and only a few of them worked, and almost none worked without modification - or else they inspired idea that were only slightly related.

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.

[rvida]

Taking the top program and finding 50 ELO is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE easier than engineering your own program to be the same strength, even given the richness of ideas that are freely available from looking at chessprogramming wiki and reading the sources of other programs. THIS is why legitimate authors are upset.

+1

[geots]

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?

Norman, in the first place- I have looked at most all tests and matches run by them ag. the capitalist engines in the last 2 years, and Junior has never even been run by them, if it was, it was so far down i did not even notice it in the list.

In the 2nd place, Junior is not even in the top 10 in any "capitalist" rating lists I have seen.

Dailey said they are jealous and show no respect. They are jealous of no one, not like too many that are on this forum. They are not EVEN JEALOUS OF HOUDINI. Suspect, but not jealous. And they have great respect for Richard and Critter as well as Stockfish and Tord and his guys.

My advice to Dailey would be if HE wants their respect, get his foot out of his mouth, shut up and work on his program.

Do you see Richard and Tord running around bitching about everything. NO. They are too busy with their programs- as Dailey is shopping his ego around.


Best Regards Norman,

gts

[hgm]

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...

I'm sure they would. Which is exactly why it has to be forbidden. Because others could of course also release a 150-Elo detuned version of their engine, let a few dozen 'developers' undo the detuning and add somemeaning less changes, and enter them all as 'cooperators' to multiply their chances.

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.

But the important point is that the elephant in question is a naughty animal and intentionally wants to sabotage the rules and wreck the system. It would be plain stupid to accomodate them, because however you will change the rules, it won't change the elephant, and he will still find ways to wreck the new system. It is like saying: "My neighbors hate me so much they throw stones through the glass panes of my front door. So next time I am going to leave for work I will leave it open, so they won't be able to do that anymore". Bad idea...

The main reason the tournament is so devaluated is absence of Stockfish, Komodo, Critter... Had they all been there, I don't think there would have been many complaints other than from incurable fanboys,which should not be taken seriously. Changing the rules in the direction you propose does not do the slightest to cure that problem. And the engines it is intended to open the road for would most likely not come either.