Alexander Schmidt wrote:
Rolf wrote:Could you please tell me how something could be a clone if it's terribly stronger than the original?
If you buy a Volkswagen, give it another colour, an engine with 500hp, new tires, dark windows. It looks completely different, is much faster. But its still a volkswagen and not a Tueschen Motors.
With all respect, also because I know that you are an expert here like Olivier too, but dont you two and many others understand what you are saying here?
The comparison sucks because in cars there are many different strengths and cars are built for many different financial purses. But in computerchess, please try to get that in all its consequences, please, there is no such thing, besides the known tools and features, like what you called here the 500hp engine, that makes it faster. ALL top programs do have already ALL these known speed and power features and tricks. But there is one leader of the pack, that is still much stronger than all others. Now a clone would be if someone built a RYBKA that is even stronger than RYBKA itself, but nobody came with such a monster yet. Why? Because nobody did understand yet how the normal RYBKA is getting his advantage over all others because if someone of the commercials would understand it he would already have tried it for his own "car". But there is no such thing as a stronger than RYBKA itself clone.
So that is the reason why I say, if someone could create such a stronger "clone" than RYBKA herself, THEN that should be tolerated because this someone would have invented somthing very powerful and intelligent. And that shouldnt be forbidden. But now the other way round. All what is a clone and weaker than the best, that is to be seen as a poor copy without own genial additions. And that should be forbidden. Also with all these tries to do harm to the RYBKA programmer. But this could be opposed by also legal remedies.
A clone which isnt stronger than its prior pattern is just a copy and therefore forbidden, but a stronger "clone" has something new by force that outweighs the mere copy by far and that shouldnt be forbidden with the also substantial copy since the personality of the new entity is mainly the new inventions and not the already "known" pattern. To fare in the contrary way it would prevent progress of new inventions because alone the writing a new program from scratch takes almost two years as Bob explained. But computerchess sports isnt about a lame period survival of the best inventors until their own invention then is already surpassed by others. Two years is a lifetime for a genius. You could also force him to go into the army or you could throw him in jail or you expect him to study some university stuff. All this is crazy if you want to see what young talents are able to do in computerchess programming.
Look at Bob, whose genius is eaten up by his classes business. But ok, he might make a living that is much more comfortable than that of those who remain students for decades and who travel to Indonesia and China, only to live the life that cant get spectators other than on the internet. That is all lost time for our talents. My advice to such talents: sell your inventions for the highest price that is possible and then create your future as a scientist, but dont remain in the sphere living for chess. You only live once and it's not worth it.
Anyway, I wish you all all the best. Honestly. Rolf