Goodbye Talkchess

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Locked
rainhaus
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:26 pm

Re: Goodbye Talkchess

Post by rainhaus » Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:55 pm

Sam Hull:
"The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance -"

Graham Banks
In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy
This was the part of the message that I misinterpreted. My understanding was that any post praising the strength or qualities of the engines in question was actually encouraging members to acquire them.
------------------

Good evening Sam,
I don't know if Graham's italic mode should mean a literal citation of the mentioned guidance. If so, I probably would have interpreted it like he did. A link is only a link and nothing else, but "any other encouragement" means not only a link, isn't it. In addition, "encouragement" is a fuzzy term which opens all kind of interpretation. An "acquirement" is already done by a simple free download. "Questionable legitimacy" is a very diffuse instruction which everybody will interpret suiting best to individual intentions.
In a nutshell, this kind of guidance is a prime example how not to do by a responsible leadership, management or ownership . If there must be instructions from top at all than I would recommend a very concrete verbalisation. In particular, when a dutiful bustling executive guy like Graham has to be instructed what can and what cannot be done.
Ok, the quoted guidance was transformed now into a diplomatic misunderstanding. However, its contents are still floating around. Therefore I would like to ask you a personal question.
To be allowed is another thing than only to be tolerated. Who knows it, some wonderful New Zealand morning I'll find myself deleted or banished because Graham wasn't well instructed!
Since a few months I'm presenting in this forum my Great Gambit Tournament with the participation of FireBird, -now Fire-, one of the Ippolit/Igorrit adaptions. In your eyes and considering the owners intentions of this site: is my tournament an encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy which should be aggressively removed ?

Rainer

Albert Silver
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by Albert Silver » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:03 pm

bob wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
bob wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it.

(...)

When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it.
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

bob
Posts: 20348
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by bob » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:28 pm

Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
bob wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.
It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."
And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?
Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.
If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it.

(...)

When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it.
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
So, again, the "thought police" strikes? If Vas were to offer proof that Ip* was a clone, I'd take that at face value. I am not sure what course one should take _after_ that point. For example, "Is a clone of a clone" any worse than just "a clone"? If you want to shut down the "clone of a clone", what do you do with the original "clone"?

The "clone of a clone" is an issue I have not given a lot of thought to. 5 years ago I would have thought that anyone suggesting this might happen needed medication, and lots of it. Yet here we are.

So if proof is offered, my position will instantly be "OK, IP* is a clone of Rybka 3." Btyond that, I don't know. Clearly, Rybka1 contains big chunks of fruit code, even though parts are converted to bitboards. Copied code is copied code, still. Clearly Rybka3 is better than fruit, so it has been changed a lot. Should it be legal for competition? I've never said otherwise. Ferret started out as a big piece of gnuchess according to Bruce. But it was so much stronger there was lots of obvious work done. Legal?: Now we have new versions of IP* almost daily. Stronger each version. Are they OK in light of past cases? Not?

This is about as clear as mud. One big conclusion can be reached however, plagiarism should be avoided, then all the questions disappear. I have not come to any conclusion about "life beyond proving ip* is a clone". At least we could put that issue to rest and know that ip* and friends don't belong in any competitions. But there is still a "Rybka issue" as well, that almost everyone has ignored. Which is a bit strange since the fruit->rybka issue is just as important as the rybka->ip* issue, IMHO. Yet everyone ignores the former and focuses exclusively on the latter. Why do you suppose that is, logically??? I can't come up with anything other than "unnatural bias".

Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:22 pm

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by Roger Brown » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:29 pm

Albert Silver wrote:
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.



Hello Albert Silver,

Forget about Dr. Hyatt.

What about the rest of us?

I certainly do not want Vas to reveal anything detrimental to his program's dominant position. Is that the only alternative? Why not show some of the parts that are non-detrimental that were already exposed in Ippo (given that his interpretation of the facts is correct) for the rest of us to see?

However you make it sound as if the rest of us could not be convinced.

I can.

Show us, please.

Zero dishonesty or hypocrisy from my side.

Later.

lmader
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:20 am
Location: Sonora, Mexico

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by lmader » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:31 pm

Albert Silver wrote:The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.

I think that generally speaking you are pretty reasonable fellow. Regardless of your position on the status of some of the controversial engines, I think you have very high ethical standards, which is commendable. But I also think that you are straying into the unreasonable with characterizing Dr. Hyatt in this way. He is also an extremely reasonable and professional fellow (as far as I can tell), and the issues here can become subtle; not always amenable to a realistic understanding based on one liners like that.

My standard disclaimer - I don't really have a vested interest in arguing, I'm just trying to advocate for keeping things reasonable and forthright.
"The foundation of morality is to have done, once for all, with lying; to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." - T. H. Huxley

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

BREAKING NEWS Bob was just check-mated by Al

Post by Rolf » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:42 pm

Albert Silver wrote: The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
Thanks Albert. Your English is better than mine, but in the details I share your arguments. I was 100% certain all the time, now for almost 4 years, that the whole presentation that started with the team Bob & Theron, later Zach and above all clone-King Norm Schmidt, is scientifically and ethically unsound and pure envie and hate. Still, they couldnt and will never succeed, to do to Vas what you now have reached with Bob, I mean, you just check-mated Bob. Tip to hat and thanks for your cooperation.

CCC will live on and prosper, because the truth will always win in the end!

P.S. If Vas made R4 only 20 points stronger than R3, and R4 after 2 years is still winner in all classes, what does that mean, that Vas is stronger than everybody else here around!
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

benstoker
Posts: 342
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:05 am

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by benstoker » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:58 pm

Albert Silver wrote: The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
You seem quite satisfied with accepting and advocating an unproven accusation. The accuser is relieved of any obligation to prove his claims because such proof would expose a secret. Do you have any standard of proof at all? Or is mere accusation enough, by you, to prove a claim?

Albert Silver
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by Albert Silver » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:01 pm

lmader wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.
I've followed the clone discussion madness pretty carefully, including Dr. Hyatt's contributions to the conversations. From what I have read of his posts, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of his positions. It looks to me like you are taking a relatively isolated statement out of context to try to create the implication that he condones stealing other people's work. That just isn't the case. I think you know that.

I think that generally speaking you are pretty reasonable fellow. Regardless of your position on the status of some of the controversial engines, I think you have very high ethical standards, which is commendable. But I also think that you are straying into the unreasonable with characterizing Dr. Hyatt in this way. He is also an extremely reasonable and professional fellow (as far as I can tell), and the issues here can become subtle; not always amenable to a realistic understanding based on one liners like that.

My standard disclaimer - I don't really have a vested interest in arguing, I'm just trying to advocate for keeping things reasonable and forthright.
The quote I gave was not taken out of context. It was related to the Strelkas, but as you can clearly see, there was no Fruit issue in the argumentation back then.

Back then he stated it was fair game to reverse engineer Rybka, not because he believed it was a Fruit clone, but because Vas was a secretive author.

I gave a clean, untouched quote, exactly as stated. Since it explicitly says that reverse engineering is a fair way to expose an author's work because he had the audacity to be secretive... I see no reason why anyone would bother to try and prove anything since it has already been declared a fair way of doing things.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

Albert Silver
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Ji there Talkchess forum!

Post by Albert Silver » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:09 pm

Roger Brown wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
The point is this: it wouldn't make one iota of difference even if he DID offer you this evidence. You have already made it clear that independently of the so-called Fruit affair, and even if the Ippos were PROVEN to be clones, you believe that reverse engineering a secretive author's work in order to level the playing field is a FAIR WAY to force him to expose his secrets.



Hello Albert Silver,

Forget about Dr. Hyatt.

What about the rest of us?

I certainly do not want Vas to reveal anything detrimental to his program's dominant position. Is that the only alternative? Why not show some of the parts that are non-detrimental that were already exposed in Ippo (given that his interpretation of the facts is correct) for the rest of us to see?

However you make it sound as if the rest of us could not be convinced.

I can.

Show us, please.

Zero dishonesty or hypocrisy from my side.

Later.
I don't have access to his code, nor any sway in this matter. In my talks with Vas, he has come across as a very down-to-earth guy, who knows that it is a losing battle to try and stamp out every cloner or pirate. It would be an endless fight, and let us face it: hopeless. Would proving anything stop it from happening again? It is the price of being the best IMHO. One sure doesn't see a long list of top engines being cloned. I'm sure that the day some other engine starts dominating the field, we'll find a whole new breed of non-Rybka clones.

The last I spoke, he had come to terms that these things were pretty much unavoidable, so best to just continue his work and live his life. Frankly, I wish I had some of his equanimity.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Talkchess

Post by Rolf » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:17 pm

bob wrote: Personally, I am busy enough and have enough to do working on my program and am not willing to waste time trying to resolve the issue. not my job, as the saying goes.
I have thousands of question to prove that your position isnt working. Look e.g.:

- when you claim zeitnot is it really true? Then why do you invest so much time to be present against Vas whenever the debate begins?

- when you claim neutralism how then could you deal with people like Norman who is a proven cloner?

- you claim honesty but how can you tolerate "invisible" people (Hippo...)

- you claim that you had always proven with data when you accused a cloner, then why do you ignore the difference between the dsata of open source and business?

Is that all sound in your eyes? Not in mine.

But excuse me, Bob, the most striking argument against you is what I mentioned often enough. You are paid by university and in your spare time, you do things for Crafty, which is a great thing! But as a married man why dont you respect the different problems for a talented programmer, a World Champ BTW, just for reasons of respect? How could you dare to set equal you living standards with his? In short why do you pretend a position that is sober when you neglect Vasik's different stances?

And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue. Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys dont interest you at all? Couldnt you add some clear statementsa for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computerchess for me...
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Locked