World Computer Chess Championship ?

[Rebel]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

What Bob is doing (questioning Stockfish and calling Richard a cloner) is scaring newcomers not to enter. I am sure the HGM in this universe is able to grasp it. Else go to the super market, some advertise with discount on EQ stimulators this week and try again.

[hgm]

I am sure no one is taking Bob serious. Are you? And I don't see what that has to do with rule #2. Why would newcomers care if others violate rule #2? Even if there are thousands of them, and they are all found out, and Bob nails them to a tree for display... Because you know whether you copied anything yourself.

[bhlangonijr]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

What Bob is doing (questioning Stockfish and calling Richard a cloner) is scaring newcomers not to enter. I am sure the HGM in this universe is able to grasp it. Else go to the super market, some advertise with discount on EQ stimulators this week and try again.

Ed, please let me try to understand what is in your mind about your "limits".

Do you want them (ICGA) to create a rule like: "On how much a programmer can safely take from another program without been caught."?? and then define a percentage based on the total size of the program, for example? Is that the kind of limit you are talking about? LOL

[Rebel]

I am sure no one is taking Bob serious. Are you? And I don't see what that has to do with rule #2. Why would newcomers care if others violate rule #2? Even if there are thousands of them, and they are all found out, and Bob nails them to a tree for display... Because you know whether you copied anything yourself.

Your reasoning is based on the assumption all programmers are in agreement with the Rybka verdict. You know that is not true.

[Rebel]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

What Bob is doing (questioning Stockfish and calling Richard a cloner) is scaring newcomers not to enter. I am sure the HGM in this universe is able to grasp it. Else go to the super market, some advertise with discount on EQ stimulators this week and try again.

Ed, please let me try to understand what is in your mind about your "limits".

Do you want them (ICGA) to create a rule like: "On how much a programmer can safely take from another program without been caught."?? and then define a percentage based on the total size of the program, for example? Is that the kind of limit you are talking about? LOL

Typical youthful (and thus forgivable) over self confidence underestimating the intellect of the person he is talking too as if that person has not thought through the issue himself.

Notable you yourself subscribed to the new CSVN rule that uses similarity detector as the base of acceptance. It comes without prejudices, human errors, removes possible conflicting interests, is total impartial and weeds out the derivatives.

[BubbaTough]

I am sure no one is taking Bob serious. Are you? And I don't see what that has to do with rule #2. Why would newcomers care if others violate rule #2? Even if there are thousands of them, and they are all found out, and Bob nails them to a tree for display... Because you know whether you copied anything yourself.

Your reasoning is based on the assumption all programmers are in agreement with the Rybka verdict. You know that is not true.

Its very clear that a lot of people, particularly new authors, do not know what is copying and what is not. Everyone knows whether they cut and paste stuff, but that is not the standard definition of copying these days. Bob has said numerous times that the whole thing is a gray area (which I agree with) so by definition its practically impossible for an author to know for sure what the committee will find. If we had more examples, including some "innocent" verdicts that generated similar documentation as the Rybka situation, one could get a feel for what is OK and what is not, kind of like case-law. Of course, I doubt even the innocent would like to have their program innards publicly exposed like that unless its already open-source.

One suggestion I have (which I am not even sure I endorse and is far from a complete solution) would be that cut-off dates for entries be months ahead, and there be a pre-event protest period open to other entrants that would have a different deadline so the issue can be resolved before plane tickets and such are bought. Any protest brought during the actual tournament would have to be accompanied by evidence that the protest is due to moves played during the tournament, not pre-existing suspicions. In addition I would recommend a protest window: if you don't protest an engine by a certain point, it is too late. That way authors don't have to fear being hanged in effigy 6 years later, and any effect that may have on their actual careers.

-Sam

[bhlangonijr]

Typical youthful (and thus forgivable) over self confidence underestimating the intellect of the person he is talking too as if that person has not thought through the issue himself.

I really didn't mean that. I know you are a wise person that's why I am making fun of your position on that matter. You know this is a VERY complicated issue while still demanding from ICGA a complete and magical solution. The originality of a work cannot be verified by an automaton or a simple formula. It must be verified case by case with the aid of a judge and a group of experts.

So what is your contribution for the matter? What is your suggestion to solve this? Mind that bashing the organization that tries to solve the issue is not a contribution, it's just noise.

Notable you yourself subscribed to the new CSVN rule that uses similarity detector as the base of acceptance. It comes without prejudices, human errors, removes possible conflicting interests, is total impartial and weeds out the derivatives.

[Rebel]

I am sure no one is taking Bob serious. Are you? And I don't see what that has to do with rule #2. Why would newcomers care if others violate rule #2? Even if there are thousands of them, and they are all found out, and Bob nails them to a tree for display... Because you know whether you copied anything yourself.

Your reasoning is based on the assumption all programmers are in agreement with the Rybka verdict. You know that is not true.

Its very clear that a lot of people, particularly new authors, do not know what is copying and what is not. Everyone knows whether they cut and paste stuff, but that is not the standard definition of copying these days. Bob has said numerous times that the whole thing is a gray area (which I agree with) so by definition its practically impossible for an author to know for sure what the committee will find. If we had more examples, including some "innocent" verdicts that generated similar documentation as the Rybka situation, one could get a feel for what is OK and what is not, kind of like case-law. Of course, I doubt even the innocent would like to have their program innards publicly exposed like that unless its already open-source.

One suggestion I have (which I am not even sure I endorse and is far from a complete solution) would be that cut-off dates for entries be months ahead, and there be a pre-event protest period open to other entrants that would have a different deadline so the issue can be resolved before plane tickets and such are bought. Any protest brought during the actual tournament would have to be accompanied by evidence that the protest is due to moves played during the tournament, not pre-existing suspicions. In addition I would recommend a protest window: if you don't protest an engine by a certain point, it is too late. That way authors don't have to fear being hanged in effigy 6 years later, and any effect that may have on their actual careers.

-Sam

As usual, good suggestion.

[syzygy]

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

In the case of Houdini, I don't believe there is any doubt someone would protest. Would you disagree with that, particularly in light of everything that has been discovered on OpenChess???

Why do you start about Houdini. You throw all kinds of words at Ed when he mentions that he already expected you to have an issue with Stockfish. The "very likely that someone would protest quickly" was directed at Stockfish and Critter, not at Houdini. Scroll up.

[bob]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

Thanks for your insane clarification of Catch 22: "you can't take anything, idea, code, because we own, apply and control Rule #2 on you, depending whether you are "one of us" or "we like you""

It seems crystal clear indeed that the position of these Rule #2 Police and assorted ICGA hacks can be summed up in one sentence.

"It is not theft when we do it."

He did not say you can't take any ideas. That is the continual hyperbole that keeps getting injected to try to distort the discussion. You can not take code, either literally or non-literally. If you want to define something as a very specific set of ideas, implemented in a very specific way, in a very specific order, then that "something" you defined is NOT an idea...