Lusakan wrote: The answer is obvious. Where does the greatest good for the greatest number lie? again the answer is obvious.
You are correct, the answer is obvious. In fact, it is so blindingly obvious that the possibility that your post is a troll crosses my mind. However, I will bite anyway.
Bob and Fabian were kind enough to release source code for products which were, at the time of their release, cutting edge. Bob has a competitive streak and he was aware that to release source code would make his engines uncompetitive. Despite that fact, he chose to release it anyway for the good of the community. Both of them released their product with licences that explain their wishes. Both of them deserve/need to have their wishes respected, for a number of reasons. Those who abuse the trust and the terms of the licences of such people discourage the next generation from being so generous and they do the whole community a disservice.
You are correct, the answer is obvious. It is blindingly obvious. In fact, it is so blindingly obvious that the possibility that your post is a troll crosses my mind. However, I will bite anyway.
Yeh, so blind that you missed most of what I wrote. Why not keep quite when you have nothing to say?
Bob and Fabian were kind enough to release source code for products which were, at the time of their release, cutting edge. Bob has a competitive streak and he was aware that to release source code would make his engines uncompetitive yet he chose to release it anyway, for the good of the community. Both of them released their product with licences that explain their wishes. Both of them deserve to have their wishes respected, for a number of reasons. Those who abuse the trust and the terms of the licences of such people discourage the next generation from being so generous and they do the whole community a disservice.
To be honest I would have prefered that these two gentlemen had kept their code to themselves rather than release it. They take with the left hand what they pretend to give with the right hand. They are like a king who kills his heirs. Like someone who takes cattle to graze but muzzles them. I dont see any kindness or ultruism there. Bob a kind man? come on, dont abuse words.
fern wrote:and it is not logical to save time, in this as in anything, making use of what has been previously developped instead of reinventing the wheel?
Did not the other guys tried the same thing?
If Vas took, nobody else did?
If they did, why they did not invent kind of Rybka themselves?
which is the virtue of repeating a work already done AND offered as free source?
Looks like the virtue has been Vas wasting two years to do the same thing already done and available to all hands.
Fern
All that the thing is very simple:
the programs used by Vas are free if used for creation of another free programs, but they are not free for gaining titles in competitions (without giving due credits) and for making profit (without sharing the money).
Ok?
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
I think this question is fundamentally a legal one, not a technical or competitive one.
This is where big diferences emerge because it hinges on two questions: 1. Are laws an end in themselves or can they be evaluated in relation to how well they serve a purpose higher than themselves? 2. What purposes if any are served by this law? If there are several purposes can they be ranked? These questions should be asked about ICGA rule 2 and Fruit/Crafty licence stuff.
This is a debate between means and ends. Which is more important? I think a balanced view is important. Sometimes it is good to insist that approved means be followed in persuing desired ends. At other times the approved means are a stumbling block to the desired ends. In which case the approved means are outdated and need to be challenged in the interest of progress.
Take Nelson Mandela he was legitimately jailed for 27 years for breaking a perfectly valid law passed by a valid parliament in a soveraign state where he was a citizen. The problem is that that law existed to protect an unjust apartheid state. If you ask me to choose between that type of law enforcement and Mandela I would choose Mandela the criminal any day for the simple reason that he represents progress.
I believe nothing is absolute and that exceptional circumstances require exceptional treatment. Frankly the tunnel vision being exibited on this issue by very smart guys makes me wonder.The case for Rybka's Exceptionalism can not be contested. What computer chess interests are saved by erasing Rybka from the championship record? Are we going to delete high quality rybka games from chess databases and opening books in favour of sub-standard games by law abiding engines? No we wont because Rybka has established itself as a fact on the ground.
Take the Rybka case with regard to the purpose of computer chess. When everything is said and done which engine represents progress at this point in time- the law abiding Crafty (well there is a debate on whether Fruit is original given a 54% functionally equivalent code overlap with crafty which Fabian will regret if the Rybka banning precedent he initiated is upheld) or the law breaking Rybka? The answer is obvious. Where does the greatest good for the greatest number lie? again the answer is obvious.
These are the reasons that make me come down on the side of Rybka in this debate regardless of what any rule says because computer chess and customers get value for money when we let Vas and Rybka be, but get a raw deal when Bob and his friends get their pound of flesh from Vas. From where I stand this is a no-brainer.
I think this question is fundamentally a legal one, not a technical or competitive one.
This is where big diferences emerge because it hinges on two questions: 1. Are laws an end in themselves or can they be evaluated in relation to how well they serve a purpose higher than themselves? 2. What purposes if any are served by this law? If there are several purposes can they be ranked? These questions should be asked about ICGA rule 2 and Fruit/Crafty licence stuff.
This is a debate between means and ends. Which is more important? I think a balanced view is important. Sometimes it is good to insist that approved means be followed in persuing desired ends. At other times the approved means are a stumbling block to the desired ends. In which case the approved means are outdated and need to be challenged in the interest of progress.
Take Nelson Mandela he was legitimately jailed for 27 years for breaking a perfectly valid law passed by a valid parliament in a soveraign state where he was a citizen. The problem is that that law existed to protect an unjust apartheid state. If you ask me to choose between that type of law enforcement and Mandela I would choose Mandela the criminal any day for the simple reason that he represents progress.
I believe nothing is absolute and that exceptional circumstances require exceptional treatment. Frankly the tunnel vision being exibited on this issue by very smart guys makes me wonder.The case for Rybka's Exceptionalism can not be contested. What computer chess interests are saved by erasing Rybka from the championship record? Are we going to delete high quality rybka games from chess databases and opening books in favour of sub-standard games by law abiding engines? No we wont because Rybka has established itself as a fact on the ground.
Take the Rybka case with regard to the purpose of computer chess. When everything is said and done which engine represents progress at this point in time- the law abiding Crafty (well there is a debate on whether Fruit is original given a 54% functionally equivalent code overlap with crafty which Fabian will regret if the Rybka banning precedent he initiated is upheld) or the law breaking Rybka? The answer is obvious. Where does the greatest good for the greatest number lie? again the answer is obvious.
These are the reasons that make me come down on the side of Rybka in this debate regardless of what any rule says because computer chess and customers get value for money when we let Vas and Rybka be, but get a raw deal when Bob and his friends get their pound of flesh from Vas. From where I stand this is a no-brainer.
I think that, when we make our judgements, we should distinguish Vas and Rybka, because Vas is a human who had and still has his intentions, while Rybka doesn´t. Yes, after the process of reverse engenieering transformation, innocent, without any intention, Rybka has become very importante for the Chess Community.
On the other side we have its creator, a human being who is not innocent because he had intentions. And his intentions have not been any progress of the Chess Community. His only intention has been making a good profit, as much as possible, without even sharing it with others, who made it possible to him to use their ideas and create a good product to be sold.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
I think this question is fundamentally a legal one, not a technical or competitive one.
This is where big diferences emerge because it hinges on two questions: 1. Are laws an end in themselves or can they be evaluated in relation to how well they serve a purpose higher than themselves? 2. What purposes if any are served by this law? If there are several purposes can they be ranked? These questions should be asked about ICGA rule 2 and Fruit/Crafty licence stuff.
This is a debate between means and ends. Which is more important? I think a balanced view is important. Sometimes it is good to insist that approved means be followed in persuing desired ends. At other times the approved means are a stumbling block to the desired ends. In which case the approved means are outdated and need to be challenged in the interest of progress.
Take Nelson Mandela he was legitimately jailed for 27 years for breaking a perfectly valid law passed by a valid parliament in a soveraign state where he was a citizen. The problem is that that law existed to protect an unjust apartheid state. If you ask me to choose between that type of law enforcement and Mandela I would choose Mandela the criminal any day for the simple reason that he represents progress.
I believe nothing is absolute and that exceptional circumstances require exceptional treatment. Frankly the tunnel vision being exibited on this issue by very smart guys makes me wonder.The case for Rybka's Exceptionalism can not be contested. What computer chess interests are saved by erasing Rybka from the championship record? Are we going to delete high quality rybka games from chess databases and opening books in favour of sub-standard games by law abiding engines? No we wont because Rybka has established itself as a fact on the ground.
Take the Rybka case with regard to the purpose of computer chess. When everything is said and done which engine represents progress at this point in time- the law abiding Crafty (well there is a debate on whether Fruit is original given a 54% functionally equivalent code overlap with crafty which Fabian will regret if the Rybka banning precedent he initiated is upheld) or the law breaking Rybka? The answer is obvious. Where does the greatest good for the greatest number lie? again the answer is obvious.
These are the reasons that make me come down on the side of Rybka in this debate regardless of what any rule says because computer chess and customers get value for money when we let Vas and Rybka be, but get a raw deal when Bob and his friends get their pound of flesh from Vas. From where I stand this is a no-brainer.
So cheating is OK? Copyright law should be ignored? And from here on, we should allow 30 rybka-derivatives into each and every online chess tournament, and in every ICCA WCCC event?
Because this is "either - or". Either you ban all copying, or you allow everyone to copy. I don't think there is really a decision to make here, it is obvious.
fern wrote:Still nobody asnwer my question: that code he took is that important to make Rybka what it is?
What Prof Hyatt answered seems like a good answer to me.
With this one "extra step" privelage, he was able to come first in the "race".
Otherwise he could not have done enough, during his time allowance.
Today Rybka 1 would never have been worth it, nor will Rybka 4 or 5 be worth much in 5 years from now, whatever may have happened.
