Why don't strong engines enter WCCC?

[Sedat Canbaz]

One has nothing to do with the other. You can be a talented programmer and a code thief at the same time. If I become the richest person in the World by stealing Warren Buffets money, and adding some 20% to it the next year in the stock market, I would still be considered a thief. No one would say: "You really proved you are a good investor, by making 20% where others only made 10% in the same year. Of course you are entitled to keep Warren's billions!"

Nice ...

But, exception Vas...
Almost all authors work in the same way....
They learn, copy and takes codes from others...

And we should be very very naive, if we can't see the reality !!

Of course in the same time,
They have a lot of own original ideas as well

Note also that I can't say: this is a 'thief' for 'number one' engine,
Who is able to improve more than + 50 Elo or +100 Elo or even more... based on original chess engine!

And instead of criticizing the talented programers...
We should congratulate their amazing work, is not ?!

[Sedat Canbaz]

BTW,

I've noticed also that there are some people,
Who underestimate the work of others (programmers, book makers, testers, benchmark creators etc...)

So I have to say for them:

Be careful! Don’t fly too high...
- Or you'll be fed to hawks!
- Or you'll be destroyed in this storms!

And for those who dislike me,
I understand very well why they don't like me:
- They are ill, just because they can't to be like me )))

[hgm]

But, exception Vas...
Almost all authors work in the same way....
They learn, copy and takes codes from others...

This again should count as one of those totally uninformed 'views' that only someone completely ignorant of programming could have.

Most programmers are not 'code thiefs', which shamelessly make literal copies of other programs as a convenient starting point for their own work, and then pass it off as their own.

It is really not different from any other area of technology. If you design and build cars, they will all have wheels, brakes and an internal-combustion engine. Knowledge of the general principles of how these things work is public domain, and everyone is allowed to use them. What is illegal is to sneak into your competitors office, steal his blueprints for the engine, and then put that engine in the cars of your own brand. This will always be illegal, no matter how much better your car is than the one of the company you are stealing from. It does not matter if you can make it go 400 km/hr faster by using magnetic levitation in stead of wheels. You still stole the engine design.

There is no 'magic' amount of Elo that you have to add before you must be forgiven that an engine contains 'stolen parts'. It is just like with investing stolen money. It does not matter whether you increased the stolen sum by 20%, or doubled it. No law will ever make the stolen money your own because you exceded some magical percentage of profit you made on it. In fact most laws would forfeit the entire sum, including profits, as proceeds from criminal activity.

[Uri Blass]

Nice ...

But, exception Vas...
Almost all authors work in the same way....
They learn, copy and takes codes from others...

I believe that many authors do not copy and take code from others(note that there is a difference between taking code and learning and taking ideas).

Note that I am not convinced that Vas took code from fruit.
I am sure that he learned from fruit and took ideas and I am sure that every programmer of top programs learn from the code of the best free programs and take ideas from them.

Uri

[Uri Blass]

But, exception Vas...
Almost all authors work in the same way....
They learn, copy and takes codes from others...

This again should count as one of those totally uninformed 'views' that only someone completely ignorant of programming could have.

Most programmers are not 'code thiefs', which shamelessly make literal copies of other programs as a convenient starting point for their own work, and then pass it off as their own.

It is really not different from any other area of technology. If you design and build cars, they will all have wheels, brakes and an internal-combustion engine. Knowledge of the general principles of how these things work is public domain, and everyone is allowed to use them. What is illegal is to sneak into your competitors office, steal his blueprints for the engine, and then put that engine in the cars of your own brand. This will always be illegal, no matter how much better your car is than the one of the company you are stealing from. It does not matter if you can make it go 400 km/hr faster by using magnetic levitation in stead of wheels. You still stole the engine design.

There is no 'magic' amount of Elo that you have to add before you must be forgiven that an engine contains 'stolen parts'. It is just like with investing stolen money. It does not matter whether you increased the stolen sum by 20%, or doubled it. No law will ever make the stolen money your own because you exceded some magical percentage of profit you made on it. In fact most laws would forfeit the entire sum, including profits, as proceeds from criminal activity.

It is clearly different because people who use code of fruit or stockfish do not sneak into the competitor office.

My opinion is that it is better to have rules that every code that is free to download is simply public domain.

It is the same as correspondence chess.
You cannot expect people not to use computers in correspondence games so the ICCF decided to allow people to use chess engines and not to have rules that you are not allowed to use them when it is obvious that rules like that are going to give advantage to cheaters and cheating is too easy.

[Sedat Canbaz]

But, exception Vas...
Almost all authors work in the same way....
They learn, copy and takes codes from others...

This again should count as one of those totally uninformed 'views' that only someone completely ignorant of programming could have.

Just to make it more clear,
Actually you are ignorant, that you can't see the reality!!
And I am not surprised that a such view is coming from you )) !

Once more I say,
-Vas's engine (Rybka) belongs to the most original ones!!!
-And I don't care too much what programmers (including you) will say for Rybka !

And I repeat again,
Almost all top programmers learn, study, copy ideas and even codes from others...
And in the same time their engines are based on own original ideas as well
Of course I can't be sure how much is the percentage of their own work...

And nowadays is very hard to find X top engine:
- to be created without copying ))!!
- and to be 100 % based on own ideas !

And If I was an engine developer...
With a big possibility I would prefer their way...

Note also that those all ideas did not come from Mars ))

But however, I agree with Robert Hyatt's statement,
Before 1970 years, there was no copying !

Probably due to,
In those period of time: mostly of the programmers had no computers )!

One thing more,
To see I am right or wrong,
Just is needed the engines to be tested without books,
Then you will see the relationship and similarities ...!!
Many engines have exactly same opening code up 4-5 moves!!
And who claims that his engine is 100% original:
- What kind of own ideas is that ???

And as I mention before,
I am looking for such engine,when without book:
Which will be able to to play up to 7-8 moves: B90 Sicilian Najdorf opening
Note: B90 Sicilian Najdorf opening is the strongest opening for both sides !!

Thanks in advance

[hgm]

Once more I say,
-Vas's engine (Rybka) belongs to the most original ones!!!
-And I don't care too much what programmers (including you) will say for Rybka !

Well, so you do not only exhibit yourself as naive and ignorant, but also as thick and conceited by proclaiming yourself an expert in areas you have not the slightest knowledge of. What else is new...

Of course you are perfectly entitled to live inside your bubble. You just should not be surprised that hardly anyone takes you serious here, and some of the less-refined actually ridicule you. You set yourself up as such an easy target. You seem to perceive this as that people 'hate you'.

[Sedat Canbaz]

I believe that many authors do not copy and take code from others(note that there is a difference between taking code and learning and taking ideas).

Uri

Hmm...I did not know that )))

Btw,
I think Movei is created via copying, right ?


1)I started by copying some names of variables and name of functions from tscp but at that point
I had no working code(only variables and empty functions and few arrays when I needed to add code for it).

For more details:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=40

[Sedat Canbaz]

Once more I say,
-Vas's engine (Rybka) belongs to the most original ones!!!
-And I don't care too much what programmers (including you) will say for Rybka !

Well, so you do not only exhibit yourself as naive and ignorant, but also as thick and conceited by proclaiming yourself an expert in areas you have not the slightest knowledge of. What else is new...

Of course you are perfectly entitled to live inside your bubble. You just should not be surprised that hardly anyone takes you serious here, and some of the less-refined actually ridicule you. You set yourself up as such an easy target. You seem to perceive this as that people 'hate you'.

Ok, ok...take it easy...)))

You are the best programmer in the world that I have ever seen !!

Are you happy now and are you satisfied?? ))

I wish you good luck,
Sedat

[hgm]

The problem is not to make me happy, but to make a good and convincing impression on all other people that read here. I can assure you that the also above statement in their eyes will not do much for your credibility.

The whole idea that engines must be original because they have an original playing style is utterly flawed. Most parts of an engine do not affect playing style at all, and could be identical between two engines with very different style. Indeed, there are engines with user-adjustable style. It just doesn't have anything to do with originality of the code, as you seem to assume. It's like saying "I cannot have stolen this car engine, because my car is bought mainly by young male bachelors, while the competitor's is a family car"...