Censorship in Computer Chess

[kingliveson]

Censorship in Computer Chess
By Kevin Frayer

In the past few weeks there has been an increase attempt to silencing open discussion in computer chess. Several controversial issues that have been with us for some time have come to a boiling point. The author of Rybka has announced he will not make repairs to his last engine release Rybka 3 as promised. He has also implied that customers cannot expect an updated engine from him this year. It has been over 16 months since the release of his last engine.

Soon after Rybka 3 was made available to the public, it was discovered that there were quite a few serious bugs in the software. I am not going to document these here. However, one example is the non-functioning persistent hash that is still being advertised as a selling point by the marketers of this software. Having said all this, it is still true this chess engine is the strongest commercial program available.

So, what is the problem? For me, the problem is the stagnation of chess playing software. The advanced users of chess engines all expected a slow but sure increase of playing strength. In 16 months, the world of computer chess has seen none. This is where the censorship starts coming into play.

In software development, it is accepted practice to build on the work of others. Now, I am not saying this means copying the work of others and claiming it as one’s own. But rather, as in most scientific endeavors, accepting good ideas as advancements and incorporating them into the next generation of work. The author of Rybka, it is believed did just this. His strong program did not emerge full blown into existence—it incorporated within its structure the work of nearly 50 years of developing chess playing software. When he used these ideas from those that came before him, not one of the established engine authors complained. They immediately realized he had made improvements and praised his accomplishment.

Now he is stuck and others wish to take over where he left off, but his supporters are claiming intellectual property rights, to what amounts to the last 50 years of chess software development. It is clear that this is all about money. The author of Rybka has aligned himself with large commercial entities; it is in their interest to see that others do not advance chess engine development beyond what currently exists.

In the misguided belief that not permitting speech on the chess servers and forums will make the problem just go away, censorship has been instituted. The term that is being used to justify this censorship is “Promoting Theft of Intellectual Property”. Black lists of engines that are considered clones are being circulated. These engines are not allowed to play online and their names cannot be spoken in chat or on many of the discussion forums. At the same time, no proof is being offered that these new programs have in anyway violated anyone’s copyrights. To ask for that proof will in fact get you labeled as supporter of illegal activity. Many paying customers have had their accounts privileges diminished or muted, including myself for merely complaining about the censorship.

Trying to divest commercial interests and politics from international computer chess is like trying to bake a cake without using eggs—it can be done, but you probably will not like the results. Nobody is for abolishing a software author’s intellectual property rights. The ability to prosper from one’s work is a powerful incentive to produce and improve products. But in the same vein, let’s not stifle scientific advancement to maintain a monopoly.

In response to recent players abuse by commercial interests, a Computer Chess Player Association has been purposed. This Association would speak collectively for its members in the arena of international computer chess—attempting to foster an environment of free speech and fair play. Please visit www.frayerchess.com for suggestions and comments about CCPA.

[DomLeste]

Same post again aint we repeating ourselves we all know what happened to Frayer and his comments. Whats the point of posting another thread? Dont we already have 24 page one for Frayer? Keep flaming the fire.. while guys get personal and go nowhere with this subject boring! Either you guys have evidence or just dont post. All i see hear about this problem is all talk..no solutions.

Computer Chess Player Association - thats a good start if its independant.


DONT SING IT, BRING IT...

Groundhog day once again on CCC.....