WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[bob]

The International Computer Games Association (ICGA) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that, in the chess program Rybka, the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs: Crafty and Fruit.

Following the interpretation of rule #2 due to the Rybka-ICGA fiasco we are all plagiarists because we take ideas.

OK, so you are incapable of understanding the logic in even the most simple sentences, is that what you want to tell the world?

Because all readers older than 5 years and not suffering from Downs syndrome of course instantly understand that if you do A, and A is form of B, while C is (perhaps...) another form of B, it does in no way imply you also did C...

Unless one is intentionally dishonest in making such statements, of course. That is what is happening here. "Unlawful possession of a controlled substance" can apply to cocaine, heroin, prescription painkillers, marijuana, etc. Doesn't mean you had 'em ALL in your possession. Means you had at least ONE of them. Again, Ed knows this. It is just another attempt to defend the indefensible.

[bob]

Get it now?

The thing I get you want to stay in your romantic world before 2005. Basically tormenting aspirant chess programmers and force them to write everything from scratch while the established programmers can live in security. As such you want to become an obstacle for progress.

At our age you should be wiser and realize you can't stop the future,

But keep on trying

So the future is based only on copying? And it is easier to let everyone do it than to try to prevent it?

marvellous...

[bob]

Ed's off the deep end for reasons unknown...

You and Don could be twins.

As if you did not understand the topic is about the definition of plagiarism.

Correction, it is about the definition of plagiarism as applied to computer software. Not quite the same thing...

[bob]

According to Ed Shroeder, I would be a hypocrite if I implemented MP on Komodo because it's not my original idea, it would be plagiarism.

Correction, according to the ICGA.

There is absolutely no such opinion within the ICGA. Your statement is false, and you KNOW it is false. The ICGA journal proves that clearly.

The International Computer Games Association (ICGA) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that, in the chess program Rybka, the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs: Crafty and Fruit.

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/rybka ... pionships/

Plagiarism includes ideas.

Not when referring to computer software.

[bob]

Based on what? reading tea leaves? Horoscope? Fortune-teller? You certainly have ZERO supporting evidence to show that most copy and only a few write...

And you also have ZERO supporting evidence to show that most write and only few copy...
And your programming authority has nothing to do with it. It's human nature that is in question...

It is impossible to prove something did NOT happen. It is straightforward to prove that something DID happen. As copying in the case of Rybka.

I do have SOME supporting evidence showing that most write and a few copy. My program is an example. It's not a copy. So there is one example. Gnuchess is another example. Fruit is another example. There are lots of other open-source programs that can / have been examined. So there ARE lots of examples of original code, compared to just a few examples of copied code (excepting things like Toga and such that are declared to be modified copies by their authors, up front and in the open).

[bob]

I have no idea what your asm skills are, but if you think it would be harder to RE a 3000 Elo program than to write one from scratch, you are "way out there in never-never-land". There's an order of magnitude difference between the two efforts, at the very LEAST. With RE being much easier.

You all assume reverse engineering to find out ideas. Reverse engineering to make a new working program is an order of magnitude more difficult.
So if you need for example 1000 hours to get all new ideas from the reverse engineered program and to understand how it works in detail, to get a new working program out of disassembled one that is equally strong and without major bugs requires at least 10000 hours.
However, I'm pretty sure you also know that, but just pretend that you don't get it...

Sorry, but you are dead wrong. Reverse-engineering is first used to backtrack to a C source from a binary. Then you examine the C source to extract the ideas. Or, if you are good enough, you RE back to a readable asm and work with that to understand the ideas. But the source, whether it be asm or C, is ready to compile and/or modify...

No idea what kind of RE YOU are talking about.

[Rebel]

Do you know from any programmers contest where originality is not part of the rules ?

CC is the contest who produces the strongest chess engine on the planet.

An be honest - if you would again work on Rebel or even plan a major rewrite, what would you do ? Starting with Ivanhoe source ? Really ?

Too old

I am from the old generation that likes to writes its own code.

But if I was 18 again living in and grown up in a post Crafty, Fruit, Strelka, Ippo world I likely would not be willing to reinvent dozen of wheels while those wheels are just a few mouse clicks away from me.

We should not greet them with howl and kick them out but invite them in our world with new and solid rules that can stand the pressure of 2011.

[bob]

Here is more irony. In this scenario I could take Houdini, reverse engineer it, and have the same chances as Houdini to win the tournament without a single original line of code. Since I reverse engineered it the source would superficially look different and with the highly relaxed rules you propose nobody could question it. And I could always use the noble statement that "I am standing on the shoulders of giants" if someone noticed the functional similarities.

Stop the BS. For you and 90% or other "original" authors, taking a 3000 elo program reverse engineering it and making a new program (without any change) that is working is an impossible task. Making a RE program that is 3000 elo strong is even more impossible.
Stop talking about things that you don't have a clue about.
Reverse engineering and making a new program that is equally strong or stronger is much harder than writing an original 3000 elo program.
If you thinks it's so easy just try it.
I'm really sick of you spreading that nonsense over and over again.

I have no idea what your asm skills are, but if you think it would be harder to RE a 3000 Elo program than to write one from scratch, you are "way out there in never-never-land". There's an order of magnitude difference between the two efforts, at the very LEAST. With RE being much easier.

Bob-

Neither you, nor Zach, nor Milos have done both...
has anybody?

I suggest none of you can definitively declare the truth in this matter...
not sure why some feel compelled to try, perhaps better to simply move on.

I've certainly written a 3000-level chess program. I have not tried to RE a chess program, although I have done significant RE work in the past on other types of applications. I understand what is needed to do either/both...

[Rebel]

Again, Ed knows this. It is just another attempt to defend the indefensible.

Silly tactics.

[Rebel]

Plagiarism includes ideas.

Not when referring to computer software.

Still waiting when you are going to back-up that statement.