Page 4 of 7
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:37 pm
by Steve B
bob wrote:Steve B wrote:bob wrote:
David contacted me about the issue and about the tribunal idea. The goal is not to provide court cases, but to decide whether a program should be allowed to compete in CC events...
hopefully also under consideration by the ICGA tribunal will be past WCCC events that Rybka participated in and won
the ICGA does have jurisdiction over its own events
it seems to me that if it is decided that Rybka violated the GPL and is Derived from Fruit and therefore ineligible to compete in future events..then it follows that Rybka should be stripped of the title of World Champion in every WCCC event it competed in and won..and second place finishers in those years need to be awarded the title
a decision by the ICGA that only deals with future events and at the same time leaves past WCCC titles to remain as they are now.. will not be a fair result
IMHO Regards
Steve[/quote
That could possibly happen, although I am not sure it is particularly significant. The benefit for winning a WCCC occurs in the following year when the advertising "buzz" is strong. 3-4-5 years after the fact, it won't mean a thing to most folks. Very much as sometimes happens in NCAA football where wins are either vacated or changed to a loss depending on the punishment... But the championship has already been enjoyed for several years, influenced recruiting for several years, influenced donations for several years, etc. All of that can't be undone...
True
however being able to continue to market an engine with statements like"
"Winner of 5 consecutive WCCC titles" do have an impact on current and future sales
it will also help/boost future sales of 2nd place finishers who can now claim a title from 2007-2010
actually my interest in the status of previous titles arises from nothing more then "setting the record straight" and doing the right thing
if alot of this was known at the time..and not only coming to ICGA attention now..years after the fact...would Rybka have been allowed to compete in the WCCC at that time?
I think if the answer to that question is.. NO
then the title ought to be removed
setting the record books "straight" does have some meaning
Regards
Steve
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:29 pm
by Frank Quisinsky
Hi Slobo,
yes, also possible!
Important is to set an example.
Topic is keyed up / overbid!
Best
Frank
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:03 pm
by bob
Steve B wrote:bob wrote:Steve B wrote:bob wrote:
David contacted me about the issue and about the tribunal idea. The goal is not to provide court cases, but to decide whether a program should be allowed to compete in CC events...
hopefully also under consideration by the ICGA tribunal will be past WCCC events that Rybka participated in and won
the ICGA does have jurisdiction over its own events
it seems to me that if it is decided that Rybka violated the GPL and is Derived from Fruit and therefore ineligible to compete in future events..then it follows that Rybka should be stripped of the title of World Champion in every WCCC event it competed in and won..and second place finishers in those years need to be awarded the title
a decision by the ICGA that only deals with future events and at the same time leaves past WCCC titles to remain as they are now.. will not be a fair result
IMHO Regards
Steve[/quote
That could possibly happen, although I am not sure it is particularly significant. The benefit for winning a WCCC occurs in the following year when the advertising "buzz" is strong. 3-4-5 years after the fact, it won't mean a thing to most folks. Very much as sometimes happens in NCAA football where wins are either vacated or changed to a loss depending on the punishment... But the championship has already been enjoyed for several years, influenced recruiting for several years, influenced donations for several years, etc. All of that can't be undone...
True
however being able to continue to market an engine with statements like"
"Winner of 5 consecutive WCCC titles" do have an impact on current and future sales
it will also help/boost future sales of 2nd place finishers who can now claim a title from 2007-2010
actually my interest in the status of previous titles arises from nothing more then "setting the record straight" and doing the right thing
if alot of this was known at the time..and not only coming to ICGA attention now..years after the fact...would Rybka have been allowed to compete in the WCCC at that time?
I think if the answer to that question is.. NO
then the title ought to be removed
setting the record books "straight" does have some meaning
Regards
Steve
Had not considered that issue (winner of 5 consecutive...) and it's a point well-taken...
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:37 pm
by Frank Quisinsky
Hi Bob,
I understand fully what you wrote. So far we have a lot of _standards_ !!
Examples:
1. UCI
2. WB
3. Nalimov TBs
4. GaviotaBases
5. PGN
... others
What do you think about a new "MAIN" page to chess programming?
Example:
Bitboards: Ideas by Alexandro Damiani, Prof. Robert Hyatt, additional ideas by ...
Code examples:
...
Nalimov: Basic code examples with the hint ... for using you need the permission by Andrew and Eugene.
Hash-Tables:
Ponder-Code Examples:
Null-Move
MTD(f)
I am sure that the programmers of AnMon or SOS will give examples from the own sources. Ideas by Aske Plaat & ...
and so one ...
Each programming idea should be public with examples!
After all I know the additional sources by Larry Kaufmann for Rybka are never free available and it seems that today the idea is included in different other engines!
This one will give us the information: Cloned!
Or ...
If 90% from the search the same we know from Fruit ...
Cloned!
With changes in eval only or rewriting a good known source code in bitboards ... a new engine isn't created. You are the expert, but what I mean is ...
A clear webpage with a collection of the main basic ideas in computer chess programming with examples.
Now ...
A new programmer will use this webpage.
He can wrote in his readme:
I am using for my chess engine:
1. Bitboards with little changes (have a look on ... link to the new webapge)
2. Nalimov endgame databases with the permission by Eugene and Andrew (got it: February 22nd, 2011).
3.
4.
and so one!
That's what I mean. It should be possible to collect with examples the main ideas we have. If secret ideas included in a chess engine or the main parts to 90% the same compare to a basic engine the program is a clone!
Sources must be checked before an official computer chess tourney started.
Such a page with all information about programming should be develops for the future! A big order for the best programmers we have today!
Best
Frank
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:06 pm
by Rolf
Steve B wrote:
if alot of this was known at the time..and not only coming to ICGA attention now..years after the fact...would Rybka have been allowed to compete in the WCCC at that time?
I think if the answer to that question is.. NO
then the title ought to be removed
setting the record books "straight" does have some meaning
Regards
Steve
I dont understand what you mean. What have Rybka3 and Rybka 4 to do with R1beta? Except the Rybka name. How do you want to prove it today? Personally I find it rather improbable that the ICGA should not have read the CCC at the time. More, I am pretty sure that the ICGA got information in tons about an alleged state of Rybka. But at the time the ICGA had not the same attention than right now. Even now it's not clear if tribunals are the best that could happen. We'll see what happens.
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:00 am
by Tom Barrister
Rolf wrote:
What have Rybka3 and Rybka 4 to do with R1beta? Except the Rybka name. .
They're programmed by the same person. If he's guilty of cheating with Rybka 1, then the tribunal can take the position that any accomplishments achieved thereafter should be stripped. There's plenty of precedent with that in sports.
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:55 pm
by mar
Either sue Rajlich whoever has the right to do so or shut up. This witch hunt starts to get annoying. Would go after Rybka if it was #2 or #3? I really doubt that. Hypocrisy. Jealousy.
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:37 pm
by bob
Frank Quisinsky wrote:Hi Bob,
I understand fully what you wrote. So far we have a lot of _standards_ !!
Examples:
1. UCI
2. WB
3. Nalimov TBs
4. GaviotaBases
5. PGN
... others
What do you think about a new "MAIN" page to chess programming?
Example:
Bitboards: Ideas by Alexandro Damiani, Prof. Robert Hyatt, additional ideas by ...
Code examples:
...
Nalimov: Basic code examples with the hint ... for using you need the permission by Andrew and Eugene.
Hash-Tables:
Ponder-Code Examples:
Null-Move
MTD(f)
I am sure that the programmers of AnMon or SOS will give examples from the own sources. Ideas by Aske Plaat & ...
and so one ...
Each programming idea should be public with examples!
After all I know the additional sources by Larry Kaufmann for Rybka are never free available and it seems that today the idea is included in different other engines!
This one will give us the information: Cloned!
Or ...
If 90% from the search the same we know from Fruit ...
Cloned!
With changes in eval only or rewriting a good known source code in bitboards ... a new engine isn't created. You are the expert, but what I mean is ...
A clear webpage with a collection of the main basic ideas in computer chess programming with examples.
Now ...
A new programmer will use this webpage.
He can wrote in his readme:
I am using for my chess engine:
1. Bitboards with little changes (have a look on ... link to the new webapge)
2. Nalimov endgame databases with the permission by Eugene and Andrew (got it: February 22nd, 2011).
3.
4.
and so one!
That's what I mean. It should be possible to collect with examples the main ideas we have. If secret ideas included in a chess engine or the main parts to 90% the same compare to a basic engine the program is a clone!
Sources must be checked before an official computer chess tourney started.
Such a page with all information about programming should be develops for the future! A big order for the best programmers we have today!
Best
Frank
The idea sounds good in theory, but likely problematic in practice. Updating this thing will take some significant time. Time most are not willing to divert from their engine, which is always the problem...
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:38 pm
by bob
mar wrote:Either sue Rajlich whoever has the right to do so or shut up. This witch hunt starts to get annoying. Would go after Rybka if it was #2 or #3? I really doubt that. Hypocrisy. Jealousy.
Hardly. Several non-number-1's have been exposed as clones or derivatives over the years. So your point is not a point at all, just a blunt stick.
Re: David Levy asked for opinions
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:15 pm
by Tom Barrister
mar wrote:Either sue Rajlich whoever has the right to do so or shut up. This witch hunt starts to get annoying. Would go after Rybka if it was #2 or #3? I really doubt that. Hypocrisy. Jealousy.
Nobody appointed you the captain here.
Glad you asked your question, though. Yes, I'd go after Rybka 2, 3, and 4. I'd want to see the source for those as well, to see what other code had been stolen from various places (if any). A man who copies an engine almost as-is (never mind that it was rewritten for bitboards and whatever else) probably won't have any scruples about copying other things in the future. It wouldn't surprise me if Rybka 2, 3, and 4 contained some unauthorized near-verbatim source from elsewhere.