jdart wrote:I don't have any problem submitting to this procedure. As Bob noted though its validity as a clone detection mechanism is currently unproven. A relatively small amount of copying could still be enough to constitute a license violation, and make the program unoriginal by most definitions. Personally I think it is a reasonable tradeoff to have a transparent and rapid testing method vs. trying to track down every possible instance of unoriginality. But some further testing might make it more acceptable. E.g. do the various Ippolit or Robbolito family engines test as similar with this method?
--Jon
There were countless of posts regarding this issue over a period of two years and about three figure number of engines have been tested. Most of them by Adam Hair, but at least three other people tried it. Of course, all the robbo family fall in the same branch. Other engines hit "positive" and two of them have been under investigation by the ICGA, for... over a year? Did those investigations stall?
I think that the concept here is, if you bring something functionally and stylistically different (enough), welcome. Otherwise, thanks, but bring something new. The approach needs to be tried. There is absolutely nothing to lose at this point.
Open Source is great if a community works on a common goal, like creating the best operating system in the world.
In a competitive environment open source hurts more than it helps. This is not about giving mankind a strong chess engine, it is a competition and here demanding only open source to participate is not a very smart idea.
For someone like me that entered the scene only a few years ago it looks like the whole trouble started when Fruit became Open Source. I don't think the trouble was intend but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I think the idea idea of Richard and Marcel is good and worth a try
pijl wrote:When the fingerprint of a program is found to be close to the fingerprint of another program or when there is a well-founded other reason to doubt the origin of the program, the tournament organization will start an inquiry where the programmer is obliged to cooperate. Otherwise his entry will not be accepted.
Marcel van Kervinck
Richard Pijl
This is definitely worth a try. My opinion is that you should get rid of the "or when there is a well-founded other reason..." bit. The key to this whole thing working is that it must be totally objective based on the fingerprint analysis. The second part of it introduces opinion, personal opinion and subjectivity, and there is the risk that the whole thing collapses when you introduce those elements. Anyway, good luck !
Edit: Longer term, as engines get stronger and stronger, perhaps they may lose their individuality and the fingerprint analysis may need refinement. But I think we are not too close to that at the moment.
1: How do you enforce condition 5 if you don't have the source?
2: How do you prevent someone from creating a new algorithm if the search time is just 1s? I can always redirect the search to MicroMax if the search time is limited to 1s but goes back to Stockfish otherwise. You don't know unless you can see the source code.
3: How do you define a clone using this method??
Even in a 1 minute search the PV after one second should start with the move from the fingerprint. So you suggest to search the 1st second with micromax and then continue with stockfish ?
I suspect the outcome would look very suspicious if you often after 1 second switch the best move.
tpetzke wrote:Even in a 1 minute search the PV after one second should start with the move from the fingerprint. So you suggest to search the 1st second with micromax and then continue with stockfish ?
I suspect the outcome would look very suspicious if you often after 1 second switch the best move.
Thomas...
No, CSVN conducts tournament with a longer time control, do they? So you can safety hack the engine code to use another search algorithm if the engine is only given a few seconds to think. It will generate a fake fingerprint but it will still play as a champion in a longer time control.
It will generate a fake fingerprint but it will still play as a champion in a longer time control.
Yes sure, but I will show a suspicious disruption in the PV if you switch algorithms in the middle of the search (if this happens often at about the same time)
And if you already start search with your strong algorithm as soon as the thinking time is above 1 second, there is no disruption but you will not have a PV showing your finger print move after 1 second. But this is expected.
