What the computer chess community needs to decide

[Don]

3. Ippolito is heavily based on reverse enginnering Rybka 3 and so what?

This is one I can never understand as it is based on the argument "two wrongs make a right". The people who argue it almost all base it on "since Rybka is a ripoff, this one is ok", or... two wrongs make a right. Just my 2 cents.

No.
"heavily based on reverse engineering" software is released all the time in both open source and commercial realms.
The only reason this is even controversial is because the author of the chess engine gets credit for an innovation.

IN private companies, its more like --here : rev. eng software and make program exactly like it.
programmer: ok, boss.

-- no glory - the owner of the company might get sued if found out -- but it still happens.
This whole concept of "right" and "wrong" is new when applied to software piracy as well. I know many otherwise ethical people who have absolutely no problem with downloading illegal pirated software, mp3 etc.

HOWEVER -- rev. engineering is not always illegal unlike software piracy.


I believe credit must be given to those who innovate -- that is Robert deserves credit for making # 1engine but not for anything near a 100% original engine.
With Ippolit I am curious how much is innovation and how much is Rybka 3 rev. eng?
I could care less what people think is right and wrong -- unless we want to start World war 3 on these forums.

Hi Charlie,

I'm glad you brought that up. I came really close to also raising this issue in my original post but I did not want to complicate it and I feel that it's a lesser issue than the primary one. Of course to some people (espeically program authors like myself) it might be considered a more important issue, but it's more a less a subset (in my view) of the original issue.

So one variation of the "so what" point of view might be, "it's ok to base a work heavily on the work of others as long as you don't take credit for someone elses ideas."

That is not my point of view, but it's a possible variation.

I go back to what Mark Uniacke was talking about. To me it's like a kick in the gut to a programmer who worked hard for years on a program when suddenly multiple "authors" who have never previously released a chess program suddenly move to the top by stealing the work of others and avoiding all the hard work.

To give an example, I think I could take one of the best clones and add 50 ELO to it within a few weeks. I think any top 10 programmer could do this. In fact it's clear that any really GOOD programmer can do this, as is witnesses by Houdini and others.

We need to address this issue because it's a matter of whether we want diversity or not. Do we really want a dozen incestuous programs that are basically alike give or take 50 ELO or do we want a variety of programs with different playing styles and strengths?

[paulo]

To give an example, I think I could take one of the best clones and add 50 ELO to it within a few weeks. I think any top 10 programmer could do this. In fact it's clear that any really GOOD programmer can do this, as is witnesses by Houdini and others.

LOL

[bob]

3. Ippolito is heavily based on reverse enginnering Rybka 3 and so what?

This is one I can never understand as it is based on the argument "two wrongs make a right". The people who argue it almost all base it on "since Rybka is a ripoff, this one is ok", or... two wrongs make a right. Just my 2 cents.

Well, what I meant here is that many view this as completely acceptable period, whether Rybka is based on Fruit or not.

But I agree with you. When Ippolitto first came out and was accused of being a Rybka 3 clone the "counter-argument" was that Rybka 3 was also a clone, as if this was somehow relevant, or a justification.

I think it was used in the context of "ho hum... Rybka is also a derivative, so a derivative of a derivative is what, exactly?"

It is interesting to see claims that ip revealed rybka secrets, when rybka contains parts of a program that is GPL open source in the first place. One can't really reveal that which should already, by law, be public. Hard to get too worked up over that. Tournament participation is a completely different issue, of course.

[Sean Evans]

3. Ippolito is heavily based on reverse enginnering Rybka 3 and so what?

This is one I can never understand as it is based on the argument "two wrongs make a right". The people who argue it almost all base it on "since Rybka is a ripoff, this one is ok", or... two wrongs make a right. Just my 2 cents.

What you have here are people wanting *something* for *nothing*.

Isn't it great... I can download Houdini for *free* and I have to *pay* for Rybka, so Houdini is fine with me, in fact IT IS GREAT WITH ME!!!! Hey, Robert even says Houdini is an *original* program; therefore it must be true. Oh those people that have shown that Houdini is really an IPPO which is really a Rybka...shhhh don't worry about them, just insult them and hopefully they will go away!

Computer chess will stop growing with new ideas if all you have to do is download a program, change the name and the code a *bit* and presto a brand new chess program ?!?!

Don't worry, Robert has big plans for Houdini:

Plan (A) keep changing the code and then go commercial as Chessbase's next flagship engine, you know the one that can beat Rybka.

Plan (B) change the code just enough to get into the WCCC and win...more money that way!

Cordially,

Sean

[bob]

3. Ippolito is heavily based on reverse enginnering Rybka 3 and so what?

This is one I can never understand as it is based on the argument "two wrongs make a right". The people who argue it almost all base it on "since Rybka is a ripoff, this one is ok", or... two wrongs make a right. Just my 2 cents.

Well, what I meant here is that many view this as completely acceptable period, whether Rybka is based on Fruit or not.

But I agree with you. When Ippolitto first came out and was accused of being a Rybka 3 clone the "counter-argument" was that Rybka 3 was also a clone, as if this was somehow relevant, or a justification.

justification of what? Ippolit is not allowed in tournaments probably will never be --
The questions that must be asked :
1. Is Ippolit legal. -- if so then anyone can use it and that is important.
2. Does Ippolit has any innovation at all? -- that interests me -- since I am curious as to how it has developed to be almost equal strength to rybka 4.
3. is it allowed in tournaments? - I guess not since Hyatt answered that.
4.. Of course I am curious also to the real names behind Ippolit --

I have no doubt it is rev. eng. but I am still unclear as to how identical it is to R3. -

That's an interesting question, but also an irrelevant question. To paraphrase Shakespeare, we get "derivative, or not derivative, that is the question..." It doesn't matter how much, just if at all...

[K I Hyams]

When Ippolitto first came out and was accused of being a Rybka 3 clone the "counter-argument" was that Rybka 3 was also a clone, as if this was somehow relevant, or a justification.

When Ippolitto first came out and was accused of being a Rybka 3 clone the "counter-argument" was that Rybka 3 was also a clone, as if this was somehow relevant, or a justification.

You have stated what the “counter- argument” is but you may have done it an injustice by not fully developing it. If Rybka 3 is a clone, then it does not deserve status, meaning entry into tournaments and it does not deserve respect, meaning protection from copying. If other engines are proven to be based on Rybka 3, they should be treated in the same way as Rybka 3, They also deserve neither status nor respect and should be treated simply as objects that are available.

[playjunior]

3. Ippolito is heavily based on reverse enginnering Rybka 3 and so what?

This is one I can never understand as it is based on the argument "two wrongs make a right". The people who argue it almost all base it on "since Rybka is a ripoff, this one is ok", or... two wrongs make a right. Just my 2 cents.

No.
"heavily based on reverse engineering" software is released all the time in both open source and commercial realms.
The only reason this is even controversial is because the author of the chess engine gets credit for an innovation.

IN private companies, its more like --here : rev. eng software and make program exactly like it.
programmer: ok, boss.

-- no glory - the owner of the company might get sued if found out -- but it still happens.
This whole concept of "right" and "wrong" is new when applied to software piracy as well. I know many otherwise ethical people who have absolutely no problem with downloading illegal pirated software, mp3 etc.

HOWEVER -- rev. engineering is not always illegal unlike software piracy.


I believe credit must be given to those who innovate -- that is Robert deserves credit for making # 1engine but not for anything near a 100% original engine.
With Ippolit I am curious how much is innovation and how much is Rybka 3 rev. eng?
I could care less what people think is right and wrong -- unless we want to start World war 3 on these forums.

Hi Charlie,

I'm glad you brought that up. I came really close to also raising this issue in my original post but I did not want to complicate it and I feel that it's a lesser issue than the primary one. Of course to some people (espeically program authors like myself) it might be considered a more important issue, but it's more a less a subset (in my view) of the original issue.

So one variation of the "so what" point of view might be, "it's ok to base a work heavily on the work of others as long as you don't take credit for someone elses ideas."

That is not my point of view, but it's a possible variation.

I go back to what Mark Uniacke was talking about. To me it's like a kick in the gut to a programmer who worked hard for years on a program when suddenly multiple "authors" who have never previously released a chess program suddenly move to the top by stealing the work of others and avoiding all the hard work.

To give an example, I think I could take one of the best clones and add 50 ELO to it within a few weeks. I think any top 10 programmer could do this. In fact it's clear that any really GOOD programmer can do this, as is witnesses by Houdini and others.

We need to address this issue because it's a matter of whether we want diversity or not. Do we really want a dozen incestuous programs that are basically alike give or take 50 ELO or do we want a variety of programs with different playing styles and strengths?

Could you? Say, take Stockfish and improve it by 50 points within a month. Wouldn't this be a wonderful contribution? You take it add +50, then the other top-10 guy takes over from you and so on. Within a year we would have +500 ELO from where we started!

[frcha]

I go back to what Mark Uniacke was talking about. To me it's like a kick in the gut to a programmer who worked hard for years on a program when suddenly multiple "authors" who have never previously released a chess program suddenly move to the top by stealing the work of others and avoiding all the hard work.

Agreed. But this can only happen if MOST PEOPLE do not understand the issues involved or just dont care who gets credit for hard work.

To give an example, I think I could take one of the best clones and add 50 ELO to it within a few weeks. I think any top 10 programmer could do this. In fact it's clear that any really GOOD programmer can do this, as is witnesses by Houdini and others.

I am not sure of this.. Why then can't Vas release Rybka 5 that is 50 elos more than the best clone

We need to address this issue because it's a matter of whether we want diversity or not. Do we really want a dozen incestuous programs that are basically alike give or take 50 ELO or do we want a variety of programs with different playing styles and strengths?

No, if you are referring to competitions and tournaments Which is why its going to be difficult deciding which programs can participate .



I tend to agree with you on the whole, but on the flip side I do not like the idea of banning discussions of ippolit either.

[Don]

In my opinion is quite simple, if someone picks a top engine and can improve that engine substantially, e.g., +50 Elo, deserves full credit from the CC community.

No, this is quite wrong. Let me refer you the words of Mark Uniacke, which I think almost all (legitimate) program authors would subscribe to.

He said this: " Because it is incredibly easier to clone and derive than to write your own chess engine. It takes many thousands of hours of hard work and testing to
produce an original top level chess program, so it should come as no surprise that there are those who prefer to avoid this work by stealing the work of others."

His point refutes your notion that he deserves full credit.

As long as there is added value and credits are given to the base engines this is what it matters. Important is new ideas.

The particular case of Houdini is a good example, +70 to +100 Elo difference from R4 and credits given to Ippolito, Stockfish and others. With this I'm not saying Houdini started from an existing source code or was written from scratch, I really don't care.

Today Robert Houdart deserves the medal of honor, hope tomorrow that medal can be given to someone else who is able to add +100 Elo to Houdini.

Paulo

[paulo]

In my opinion is quite simple, if someone picks a top engine and can improve that engine substantially, e.g., +50 Elo, deserves full credit from the CC community.

No, this is quite wrong. Let me refer you the words of Mark Uniacke, which I think almost all (legitimate) program authors would subscribe to.

He said this: " Because it is incredibly easier to clone and derive than to write your own chess engine. It takes many thousands of hours of hard work and testing to
produce an original top level chess program, so it should come as no surprise that there are those who prefer to avoid this work by stealing the work of others."

His point refutes your notion that he deserves full credit.

No, it does not refute my notion.
Please re-read my post.