could somebody please explain why reverse engineering wrong

[michiguel]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

And what if the reason he is so rich is because he got my money under false pretences by promising a free update/bugfix which he never delivered?

I think that argument is ridiculous. I have never bought an engine *because* of a possible update. This would imply the engine was starting much worse than I wanted, and I was paying in the hopes it might fulfill my expectations. Rybka 3 came with a HUGE 100 Elo improvement of Rybka 232a, which was still, at that time, the strongest engine around by far, with only Naum4 even competitive. It is sold in 3 formats: CB, Aquarium, and of course the pure UCI engine.

AFAIK, the first two make no claims whatsoever of any updates, and it is essentially a WYSIWYG, so buyers who purchased one of those certainly had no expectations other than the engine being what it claimed to be: the strongest engine in the world by far, which it was.

I have been buying engines and chess programs for a LONG time. My first non-streamline engine (i.e. not Chessmaster and co., and not a standalone like my Excel 68000) was Mchess. It was *very* expensive, but as also king on a 386. Then followed Chess Genius, Fritzs, Hiarcs, and many others. As any enthusiast, I followed the results, and if the engine was at least competitive with the top brass, as per published results (SSDF was king then), it would appear on my To Buy list. With a bit of luck, they would be added to my Owned Engines list.

In all these years, the engine that came with the single largest Elo edge, not attributed to hardware, was Fritz 5. When it appeared on SSDF with a monstrous 70+Elo edge over number 2, it was a bit of a shock. 70 Elo.... wow. On average, a super successful new release would come with 40 Elo over previous versions AT MOST. Many times not even that. Shredder 8 had exactly zero elo over 7.04 despite the ply count showing it was reaching 4-5 plies more than its predecessor. In terms of outdoing its promises, and enormously so, Rybka is the undisputed king. Each version 100 Elo or so over the previous one, and all the while maintaining an enormous lead over the others. It is simply unheard of. Rybka 3 was no different, and fulfilled the Elo edge as well as the complaints that earlier Rybkas were quite weak at king attacks and finding combinations.

If you wish to claim that you would have preferred to be using Ryba 232a or another even weaker engine all this time, feel free, but I won't believe you.

I buy a car. It doesn’t run smoothly (although it has more power than last year’s model). The manufacturer can’t or won’t fix it. So I do some reverse engineering and I improve the fuel injection system. The car now runs much smoother and has more power too. I now publish free of charge information about the modification for the benefit of other owners of this model of car. Is the ethically wrong?

This analogy would resemble the current issue if RL was made available to R3 users only. To follow this, you are making the *actual car* available for download so everybody can have a free one and screw the competition.

Miguel

[slobo]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

And what if the reason he is so rich is because he got my money under false pretences by promising a free update/bugfix which he never delivered?

I think that argument is ridiculous. I have never bought an engine *because* of a possible update. This would imply the engine was starting much worse than I wanted, and I was paying in the hopes it might fulfill my expectations. Rybka 3 came with a HUGE 100 Elo improvement of Rybka 232a, which was still, at that time, the strongest engine around by far, with only Naum4 even competitive. It is sold in 3 formats: CB, Aquarium, and of course the pure UCI engine.

AFAIK, the first two make no claims whatsoever of any updates, and it is essentially a WYSIWYG, so buyers who purchased one of those certainly had no expectations other than the engine being what it claimed to be: the strongest engine in the world by far, which it was.

I have been buying engines and chess programs for a LONG time. My first non-streamline engine (i.e. not Chessmaster and co., and not a standalone like my Excel 68000) was Mchess. It was *very* expensive, but as also king on a 386. Then followed Chess Genius, Fritzs, Hiarcs, and many others. As any enthusiast, I followed the results, and if the engine was at least competitive with the top brass, as per published results (SSDF was king then), it would appear on my To Buy list. With a bit of luck, they would be added to my Owned Engines list.

In all these years, the engine that came with the single largest Elo edge, not attributed to hardware, was Fritz 5. When it appeared on SSDF with a monstrous 70+Elo edge over number 2, it was a bit of a shock. 70 Elo.... wow. On average, a super successful new release would come with 40 Elo over previous versions AT MOST. Many times not even that. Shredder 8 had exactly zero elo over 7.04 despite the ply count showing it was reaching 4-5 plies more than its predecessor. In terms of outdoing its promises, and enormously so, Rybka is the undisputed king. Each version 100 Elo or so over the previous one, and all the while maintaining an enormous lead over the others. It is simply unheard of. Rybka 3 was no different, and fulfilled the Elo edge as well as the complaints that earlier Rybkas were quite weak at king attacks and finding combinations.

If you wish to claim that you would have preferred to be using Ryba 232a or another even weaker engine all this time, feel free, but I won't believe you.

I buy a car. It doesn’t run smoothly (although it has more power than last year’s model). The manufacturer can’t or won’t fix it. So I do some reverse engineering and I improve the fuel injection system. The car now runs much smoother and has more power too. I now publish free of charge information about the modification for the benefit of other owners of this model of car. Is the ethically wrong?

John,

your logic is simply magnificent.
Of course it is not ethically wrong.

[John Conway]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

And what if the reason he is so rich is because he got my money under false pretences by promising a free update/bugfix which he never delivered?

I think that argument is ridiculous. I have never bought an engine *because* of a possible update. This would imply the engine was starting much worse than I wanted, and I was paying in the hopes it might fulfill my expectations. Rybka 3 came with a HUGE 100 Elo improvement of Rybka 232a, which was still, at that time, the strongest engine around by far, with only Naum4 even competitive. It is sold in 3 formats: CB, Aquarium, and of course the pure UCI engine.

AFAIK, the first two make no claims whatsoever of any updates, and it is essentially a WYSIWYG, so buyers who purchased one of those certainly had no expectations other than the engine being what it claimed to be: the strongest engine in the world by far, which it was.

I have been buying engines and chess programs for a LONG time. My first non-streamline engine (i.e. not Chessmaster and co., and not a standalone like my Excel 68000) was Mchess. It was *very* expensive, but as also king on a 386. Then followed Chess Genius, Fritzs, Hiarcs, and many others. As any enthusiast, I followed the results, and if the engine was at least competitive with the top brass, as per published results (SSDF was king then), it would appear on my To Buy list. With a bit of luck, they would be added to my Owned Engines list.

In all these years, the engine that came with the single largest Elo edge, not attributed to hardware, was Fritz 5. When it appeared on SSDF with a monstrous 70+Elo edge over number 2, it was a bit of a shock. 70 Elo.... wow. On average, a super successful new release would come with 40 Elo over previous versions AT MOST. Many times not even that. Shredder 8 had exactly zero elo over 7.04 despite the ply count showing it was reaching 4-5 plies more than its predecessor. In terms of outdoing its promises, and enormously so, Rybka is the undisputed king. Each version 100 Elo or so over the previous one, and all the while maintaining an enormous lead over the others. It is simply unheard of. Rybka 3 was no different, and fulfilled the Elo edge as well as the complaints that earlier Rybkas were quite weak at king attacks and finding combinations.

If you wish to claim that you would have preferred to be using Ryba 232a or another even weaker engine all this time, feel free, but I won't believe you.

I buy a car. It doesn’t run smoothly (although it has more power than last year’s model). The manufacturer can’t or won’t fix it. So I do some reverse engineering and I improve the fuel injection system. The car now runs much smoother and has more power too. I now publish free of charge information about the modification for the benefit of other owners of this model of car. Is the ethically wrong?

This analogy would resemble the current issue if RL was made available to R3 users only. To follow this, you are making the *actual car* available for download so everybody can have a free one and screw the competition.

Miguel

No. I said I publish the information (source code). I don't make the *actual car* available.

[slobo]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

And what if the reason he is so rich is because he got my money under false pretences by promising a free update/bugfix which he never delivered?

I think that argument is ridiculous. I have never bought an engine *because* of a possible update. This would imply the engine was starting much worse than I wanted, and I was paying in the hopes it might fulfill my expectations. Rybka 3 came with a HUGE 100 Elo improvement of Rybka 232a, which was still, at that time, the strongest engine around by far, with only Naum4 even competitive. It is sold in 3 formats: CB, Aquarium, and of course the pure UCI engine.

AFAIK, the first two make no claims whatsoever of any updates, and it is essentially a WYSIWYG, so buyers who purchased one of those certainly had no expectations other than the engine being what it claimed to be: the strongest engine in the world by far, which it was.

I have been buying engines and chess programs for a LONG time. My first non-streamline engine (i.e. not Chessmaster and co., and not a standalone like my Excel 68000) was Mchess. It was *very* expensive, but as also king on a 386. Then followed Chess Genius, Fritzs, Hiarcs, and many others. As any enthusiast, I followed the results, and if the engine was at least competitive with the top brass, as per published results (SSDF was king then), it would appear on my To Buy list. With a bit of luck, they would be added to my Owned Engines list.

In all these years, the engine that came with the single largest Elo edge, not attributed to hardware, was Fritz 5. When it appeared on SSDF with a monstrous 70+Elo edge over number 2, it was a bit of a shock. 70 Elo.... wow. On average, a super successful new release would come with 40 Elo over previous versions AT MOST. Many times not even that. Shredder 8 had exactly zero elo over 7.04 despite the ply count showing it was reaching 4-5 plies more than its predecessor. In terms of outdoing its promises, and enormously so, Rybka is the undisputed king. Each version 100 Elo or so over the previous one, and all the while maintaining an enormous lead over the others. It is simply unheard of. Rybka 3 was no different, and fulfilled the Elo edge as well as the complaints that earlier Rybkas were quite weak at king attacks and finding combinations.

If you wish to claim that you would have preferred to be using Ryba 232a or another even weaker engine all this time, feel free, but I won't believe you.

I buy a car. It doesn’t run smoothly (although it has more power than last year’s model). The manufacturer can’t or won’t fix it. So I do some reverse engineering and I improve the fuel injection system. The car now runs much smoother and has more power too. I now publish free of charge information about the modification for the benefit of other owners of this model of car. Is the ethically wrong?

This analogy would resemble the current issue if RL was made available to R3 users only. To follow this, you are making the *actual car* available for download so everybody can have a free one and screw the competition.

Miguel

Are you serious?
He was not working on his own upgrade as Vasik's employee.

Now, if you want to compete using money as a stimulator, you have to work for free on another car model, and if it is good enough, you could count on money in the future.

[Albert Silver]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

And what if the reason he is so rich is because he got my money under false pretences by promising a free update/bugfix which he never delivered?

I think that argument is ridiculous. I have never bought an engine *because* of a possible update. This would imply the engine was starting much worse than I wanted, and I was paying in the hopes it might fulfill my expectations. Rybka 3 came with a HUGE 100 Elo improvement of Rybka 232a, which was still, at that time, the strongest engine around by far, with only Naum4 even competitive. It is sold in 3 formats: CB, Aquarium, and of course the pure UCI engine.

AFAIK, the first two make no claims whatsoever of any updates, and it is essentially a WYSIWYG, so buyers who purchased one of those certainly had no expectations other than the engine being what it claimed to be: the strongest engine in the world by far, which it was.

I have been buying engines and chess programs for a LONG time. My first non-streamline engine (i.e. not Chessmaster and co., and not a standalone like my Excel 68000) was Mchess. It was *very* expensive, but as also king on a 386. Then followed Chess Genius, Fritzs, Hiarcs, and many others. As any enthusiast, I followed the results, and if the engine was at least competitive with the top brass, as per published results (SSDF was king then), it would appear on my To Buy list. With a bit of luck, they would be added to my Owned Engines list.

In all these years, the engine that came with the single largest Elo edge, not attributed to hardware, was Fritz 5. When it appeared on SSDF with a monstrous 70+Elo edge over number 2, it was a bit of a shock. 70 Elo.... wow. On average, a super successful new release would come with 40 Elo over previous versions AT MOST. Many times not even that. Shredder 8 had exactly zero elo over 7.04 despite the ply count showing it was reaching 4-5 plies more than its predecessor. In terms of outdoing its promises, and enormously so, Rybka is the undisputed king. Each version 100 Elo or so over the previous one, and all the while maintaining an enormous lead over the others. It is simply unheard of. Rybka 3 was no different, and fulfilled the Elo edge as well as the complaints that earlier Rybkas were quite weak at king attacks and finding combinations.

If you wish to claim that you would have preferred to be using Ryba 232a or another even weaker engine all this time, feel free, but I won't believe you.

I buy a car. It doesn’t run smoothly (although it has more power than last year’s model). The manufacturer can’t or won’t fix it. So I do some reverse engineering and I improve the fuel injection system. The car now runs much smoother and has more power too. I now publish free of charge information about the modification for the benefit of other owners of this model of car. Is the ethically wrong?

This analogy would resemble the current issue if RL was made available to R3 users only. To follow this, you are making the *actual car* available for download so everybody can have a free one and screw the competition.

Miguel

No. I said I publish the information (source code). I don't make the *actual car* available.

Right, the source code is the car (the engine). Now, is this fixed source code only available to Rybka buyers? Or will everyone now be able to use this fixed Rybka even if they are not legitimate owners of it?

[michiguel]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

And what if the reason he is so rich is because he got my money under false pretences by promising a free update/bugfix which he never delivered?

I think that argument is ridiculous. I have never bought an engine *because* of a possible update. This would imply the engine was starting much worse than I wanted, and I was paying in the hopes it might fulfill my expectations. Rybka 3 came with a HUGE 100 Elo improvement of Rybka 232a, which was still, at that time, the strongest engine around by far, with only Naum4 even competitive. It is sold in 3 formats: CB, Aquarium, and of course the pure UCI engine.

AFAIK, the first two make no claims whatsoever of any updates, and it is essentially a WYSIWYG, so buyers who purchased one of those certainly had no expectations other than the engine being what it claimed to be: the strongest engine in the world by far, which it was.

I have been buying engines and chess programs for a LONG time. My first non-streamline engine (i.e. not Chessmaster and co., and not a standalone like my Excel 68000) was Mchess. It was *very* expensive, but as also king on a 386. Then followed Chess Genius, Fritzs, Hiarcs, and many others. As any enthusiast, I followed the results, and if the engine was at least competitive with the top brass, as per published results (SSDF was king then), it would appear on my To Buy list. With a bit of luck, they would be added to my Owned Engines list.

In all these years, the engine that came with the single largest Elo edge, not attributed to hardware, was Fritz 5. When it appeared on SSDF with a monstrous 70+Elo edge over number 2, it was a bit of a shock. 70 Elo.... wow. On average, a super successful new release would come with 40 Elo over previous versions AT MOST. Many times not even that. Shredder 8 had exactly zero elo over 7.04 despite the ply count showing it was reaching 4-5 plies more than its predecessor. In terms of outdoing its promises, and enormously so, Rybka is the undisputed king. Each version 100 Elo or so over the previous one, and all the while maintaining an enormous lead over the others. It is simply unheard of. Rybka 3 was no different, and fulfilled the Elo edge as well as the complaints that earlier Rybkas were quite weak at king attacks and finding combinations.

If you wish to claim that you would have preferred to be using Ryba 232a or another even weaker engine all this time, feel free, but I won't believe you.

I buy a car. It doesn’t run smoothly (although it has more power than last year’s model). The manufacturer can’t or won’t fix it. So I do some reverse engineering and I improve the fuel injection system. The car now runs much smoother and has more power too. I now publish free of charge information about the modification for the benefit of other owners of this model of car. Is the ethically wrong?

This analogy would resemble the current issue if RL was made available to R3 users only. To follow this, you are making the *actual car* available for download so everybody can have a free one and screw the competition.

Miguel

No. I said I publish the information (source code). I don't make the *actual car* available.

You are comparing it to a situation in which they are making the product available.

Let's be more clear. Your analogy has nothing to do with the RL-R3 case.

Miguel

[lmader]

An interesting and sometimes perfectly legal approach for using reverse engineering to copy a design is known as "Clean room design" or "Clean room engineering". This technique has been employed to legally reverse engineer CPUs, BIOS etc.

So... reverse engineering isn't always "wrong".

Here's an article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

Quote from the article:
Clean room design (also known as the Chinese wall technique) is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights and trade secrets associated with the original design. Clean room design is useful as a defense against copyright and trade secret infringement because it relies on independent invention. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions.

Another quote addressing direct disassembly:
During production, Connectix unsuccessfully attempted a Chinese wall approach to reverse engineer the BIOS, so its engineers disassembled the object code directly. Connectix's successful appeal maintained that the direct disassembly and observation of proprietary code was necessary because there was no other way to determine its behavior.

[CRoberson]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

Money is not directly involved in this process. And sometimes it is not involved even indirectly.

What is in fact, involved in this process is one's knowledge and one's hability of interpretation (imagination). The reverse-engineer must imagine what the resulting mess of code is doing and how does it work.

Not really. He could decompile and recompile. In that case, all would be in one source file. Hmm, that is exactly what IPPO is - all one source file.
Nobody writes that much code in one source file especially when it is a group of people working together simultaneously.

[F.Huber]

Not really. He could decompile and recompile. In that case, all would be in one source file. Hmm, that is exactly what IPPO is - all one source file.
Nobody writes that much code in one source file especially when it is a group of people working together simultaneously.

But also nobody would then remove such important features like e.g. multiPV or SMP support - what sense should that make?

PS, I forgot one more: EGTB support.

[CRoberson]

i have been thinking about ths lately, and i am not even sure why reverse engineering an engine (in this case) is so wrong. when something comes along that is such an improvement on its predecessors it seems only natural to me that people would want to figure out how it is working, and to look to make improvements on said engine. is this not the basis of all technological advancements?

i have been thinking about this lately, and i am not even sure why stealing money (in this case) is so wrong. when someone comes along who is so much richer than other people it seems only natural to me that people would want take all his money, and to look to make more out of it. is this not the basis of all respectable entrepreneurship?

vp

And what if the reason he is so rich is because he got my money under false pretences by promising a free update/bugfix which he never delivered?

I think that argument is ridiculous. I have never bought an engine *because* of a possible update. This would imply the engine was starting much worse than I wanted, and I was paying in the hopes it might fulfill my expectations. Rybka 3 came with a HUGE 100 Elo improvement of Rybka 232a, which was still, at that time, the strongest engine around by far, with only Naum4 even competitive. It is sold in 3 formats: CB, Aquarium, and of course the pure UCI engine.

AFAIK, the first two make no claims whatsoever of any updates, and it is essentially a WYSIWYG, so buyers who purchased one of those certainly had no expectations other than the engine being what it claimed to be: the strongest engine in the world by far, which it was.

I have been buying engines and chess programs for a LONG time. My first non-streamline engine (i.e. not Chessmaster and co., and not a standalone like my Excel 68000) was Mchess. It was *very* expensive, but as also king on a 386. Then followed Chess Genius, Fritzs, Hiarcs, and many others. As any enthusiast, I followed the results, and if the engine was at least competitive with the top brass, as per published results (SSDF was king then), it would appear on my To Buy list. With a bit of luck, they would be added to my Owned Engines list.

In all these years, the engine that came with the single largest Elo edge, not attributed to hardware, was Fritz 5. When it appeared on SSDF with a monstrous 70+Elo edge over number 2, it was a bit of a shock. 70 Elo.... wow. On average, a super successful new release would come with 40 Elo over previous versions AT MOST. Many times not even that. Shredder 8 had exactly zero elo over 7.04 despite the ply count showing it was reaching 4-5 plies more than its predecessor. In terms of outdoing its promises, and enormously so, Rybka is the undisputed king. Each version 100 Elo or so over the previous one, and all the while maintaining an enormous lead over the others. It is simply unheard of. Rybka 3 was no different, and fulfilled the Elo edge as well as the complaints that earlier Rybkas were quite weak at king attacks and finding combinations.

If you wish to claim that you would have preferred to be using Ryba 232a or another even weaker engine all this time, feel free, but I won't believe you.

I buy a car. It doesn’t run smoothly (although it has more power than last year’s model). The manufacturer can’t or won’t fix it. So I do some reverse engineering and I improve the fuel injection system. The car now runs much smoother and has more power too. I now publish free of charge information about the modification for the benefit of other owners of this model of car. Is the ethically wrong?

This analogy would resemble the current issue if RL was made available to R3 users only. To follow this, you are making the *actual car* available for download so everybody can have a free one and screw the competition.

Miguel

No. I said I publish the information (source code). I don't make the *actual car* available.

Now, you have it right. Publishing the bugfix is fine. Publishing reverse engineered commercial code is wrong.