ACCA stance on Ippo, Robbo and such

[K I Hyams]

As a psychologists I am experienced in understanding what people said otherwise I could always ask again.

I don't usually need to resort to emoticons but words fail me on that one.
(':?')(':shock:'jn(':?:')(':lol:'))(':o') (':?:')

Hehe. At least I talk while you put Atomic Bombs on noses of little kids. That's why I cant find you very communicative. Apart from the difference that I crawl into the mind of the people. You hate me for this?

If I think of a suitable reply, I will get back to you.

[bob]

Where do you get that interpretation from? One can release the source under GPL without giving up _any_ rights with regard to entering computer chess events. In ICCA/ICGA/CCT/etc events, the _author_ of the program chooses which version to enter. One can choose to "pass the torch" to a new person, if he wants, and designate that new person as "the author of record". But there is only one author of a program, even if it is a team.

I think the point was that the author himself cannot forbit it. This is different from Crafty, which explicitly forbids this, IIRC.

But of course, sane tournament organizers are free to make up their own limitations on what is allowable to enter.

That was my point. The events I have competed in have "no copies allowed" stipulations in the entry requirements. And the original author of the "line of programs" is the one that would choose which derivative work would be used.

[Peter Skinner]

There is enough evidence to convince a number of CCC members that there is a real possibility that both Rybka and Robbolito are clones. The implications of Rybka being a clone are far more serious than those of Robbolito being a clone. Have you ruled out the possibility that Rybka does not qualify for your tournament because it is a clone?

Can someone give me 100% proof that the current version of Rybka has any code left from Fruit?

If you search back in the archives, I was one of the first (if not the first) to call Rybka a clone of Fruit. I got killed for stating such.

Do I believe previous versions of Rybka contained Fruit? Yes. Do I believe that the current versions contain anything of Fruit? No. Do I believe that Ippolit/Robbo are clones of Rybka? Yes, but I would need something from Vas to absolutely prove it, and nothing has come forward. That in itself is odd.

When clones of Crafty have shown up, Robert provided the proof as to why it was a clone. His code is public for anyone to look at and determine if x was based on y. Vas hasn't done any of this except to claim it is his. Why is offering proof so difficult? Wouldn't it put an end to this whole Ippolit fiasco?

The main criteria of entering the CCT is the author must enter the program. Not just an operator. Rybka has an author. Ippolit doesn't. That is itself excludes Ippolit/Robbo.

Peter

[Peter Skinner]

[quote="mariaclara"] do you really believe ACCA will disqualify a commercial engine from competing?

It seems some people here are working for the benefit of commercial engines . If true, he should be compensated by the commercial engines./quote]

If I had 100% proof that a commercial engine was a clone, I can and would disqualify it from competing in the CCT events. I believe that Charles would do the same.

[kingliveson]

Can someone give me 100% proof that the current version of Rybka has any code left from Fruit?

Do I believe previous versions of Rybka contained Fruit? Yes.

Peter

This makes me laugh out loud, seriously.

[Peter Skinner]

Can someone give me 100% proof that the current version of Rybka has any code left from Fruit?

Do I believe previous versions of Rybka contained Fruit? Yes.

Peter

This makes me laugh out loud, seriously.

Why?

Many programs have started with a code base from TCP then went on to re-write the code to make it their own.

While Rybka in my mind contained Fruit code in the earlier versions, I am 100% confident that there wouldn't be any today.

Peter

[kingliveson]

Can someone give me 100% proof that the current version of Rybka has any code left from Fruit?

Do I believe previous versions of Rybka contained Fruit? Yes.

Peter

This makes me laugh out loud, seriously.

Why?

Many programs have started with a code base from TCP then went on to re-write the code to make it their own.

While Rybka in my mind contained Fruit code in the earlier versions, I am 100% confident that there wouldn't be any today.

Peter

Strelka was claimed to be a clone of Rybka (rightly so to a certain extent), and I have analyzed both the sources of Strelka 2.0 and Fruit 2.1; I have my own belief of what happened. As for the reason that comment is funny, many programmers will read that statement and find it funny because it is rare for a developer to re-write an application from scratch.

Taken from Wikipedia:

Code: Select all

Motivation

   1. When the source code to be able to extend an existing program is not available.
   2. When the source code is available under an incompatible license.
   3. When the code cannot be adapted to a new target platform.
   4. When the existing code has become too difficult to handle and extend.
   5. When the task of debugging the existing code seems too complicated.
   6. When the programmer finds it difficult to understand the source code.

[Rolf]

There is enough evidence to convince a number of CCC members that there is a real possibility that both Rybka and Robbolito are clones. The implications of Rybka being a clone are far more serious than those of Robbolito being a clone. Have you ruled out the possibility that Rybka does not qualify for your tournament because it is a clone?

Can someone give me 100% proof that the current version of Rybka has any code left from Fruit?

If you search back in the archives, I was one of the first (if not the first) to call Rybka a clone of Fruit. I got killed for stating such.

Do I believe previous versions of Rybka contained Fruit? Yes. Do I believe that the current versions contain anything of Fruit? No. Do I believe that Ippolit/Robbo are clones of Rybka? Yes, but I would need something from Vas to absolutely prove it, and nothing has come forward. That in itself is odd.

When clones of Crafty have shown up, Robert provided the proof as to why it was a clone. His code is public for anyone to look at and determine if x was based on y. Vas hasn't done any of this except to claim it is his. Why is offering proof so difficult? Wouldn't it put an end to this whole Ippolit fiasco?

The main criteria of entering the CCT is the author must enter the program. Not just an operator. Rybka has an author. Ippolit doesn't. That is itself excludes Ippolit/Robbo.

Peter

Your desperate try to support Robert is looking odd. What you both miss is that Rybka author is professional while Robert is a free entry with a base at a university incl. the money. So that makes the whole comparison futile. Robert can show what he wants, he has nothing to fear. His dollars roll on. But Vas has the whole gang against him where everybody is eager to borrow from his code. The other commercials and now so innocent people like you, Peter. Hint: if you want to ban Rybka, do the following: demand that everybody who enters opens his source code. That will do it. And for sure Rbert wins.

[hgm]

But of course, sane tournament organizers are free to make up their own limitations on what is allowable to enter.

This is questionable. Unreasonable decisions that can only be explained by arguments that violate applicable law could make you target of a lawsuit. As is happening to the Italian Computer Chess Association.

[Peter Skinner]

Your desperate try to support Robert is looking odd. What you both miss is that Rybka author is professional while Robert is a free entry with a base at a university incl. the money. So that makes the whole comparison futile. Robert can show what he wants, he has nothing to fear. His dollars roll on. But Vas has the whole gang against him where everybody is eager to borrow from his code. The other commercials and now so innocent people like you, Peter. Hint: if you want to ban Rybka, do the following: demand that everybody who enters opens his source code. That will do it. And for sure Rbert wins.

I want to ban Rybka? Where did I state that? Have I ever asked for the Rybka source code?

Why would I do that?

Crafty is a big boy and can win just like anyone else. It doesn't need someone to fix an event for it to happen.

Do I support Robert because I work on the Crafty Team? Of course. Do I get paid? Not a penny.

I am not trying to take money away from anyone. Vas is free to enter Rybka in the CCT like years past. I have _never_ challenged his code. In fact, I have _never_ challenged anyone's code.

Contrary to popular belief, I like Vas. We have conversed on a number of occasions via email or on the ICC chess server. He is quite a likable guy. I hope he does enter this year. Just like I hope Shredder, Junior, Fritz, Naum, Deep Sjeng, Diep, Arasan, Amateur, Petir, Amyan, Fruit, Fritz, Hiarcs, or _any_ other original engine wants to enter.

I like quite a few of the authors and for me, talking to them during the event makes up for giving up my time to organize and run the tournament.

Peter