On discussing clones

[terminator]

I'm severely confused and don't know what I'm talking about....

I knew there was something odd ....

[Henrik Dinesen]

And you talk about hi-jacking threads? OT here and there...

[Henrik Dinesen]

I agree Bob,

Without doubt, stuff like clone-issues should be discussed in this forum. Mentioning something that "appear to be", "looks like" is better of being treated i a forum like this.
Those who foundles in the dark will soon come to short here, so any "libel" is avoided.
Clone-issues, is well done in this forum, and even the advancement from illigal clone to legal, is also fixed here.
From charter, there's no reason to evavate it.

[geots]

If the general feeling here is that discussing clones is a no-no here, then I am more than willing to take my discussions back to r.g.c.c where while we have to live with excessive noise, we don't have to live with excessive "thought police" running around.

The "no libel" idea is a crock, and is just an excuse to avoid discussing a specific topic that nobody likes. Namely the Rybka came from Fruit discussion. I have my own thoughts which primarily leads me to conclude that there is way to much similarity to be purely based on random chance. I have looked at several open-source programs and never found duplicated piece/square table values as an example. But I'll admit that it is possible to come up with the same values independently, if you think flipping 1,000 heads in a row is something that won't take years at least. It is possible that two different programmers would use the same odd constructs. About the same again as 1,000 heads in a row. But both together? Now it is like 1,000,000 heads in a row.

Regardless of what is done in Rybka of today, R1 _clearly_ has significant parts of fruit included. That's old news. Those that want absolute proof know that such is impossible when anyone can write a 10 line program that will, given enough time, produce source code that is identical with fruit. The fact that this might take a few billion years to happen is not important to them. And given that, absolute proof is not possible. Fortunately, in most court systems, it is not necessary to have a video showing the crime being committed and with a clear facial image of the accused.

Trying to suppress such discussions is a sign of several problems:

(1) "author XXX" can't possibly have copied his program. It is stronger than what was supposedly copied. Argument is pointless, but still is made. And it is more in support of the author than in attacking the claim.

(2) Cowardice. I watched things happen for years at ACM events. And I reported them each time, and finally decided to set up a video camcorder to offer ultimate proof. Jan Louman was the world's worst at interfering in a chess game by using the "move now" key to make the program he was operating move quickly when obvious, or to make it move before it changed to a worse move if a human IM/GM commentator had suggested that the current move being displayed is the obvious choice to win. Most did not want to discuss the topic when this was going on. Which was an indirect approval of the actions. If we are not going to discuss clones, and just stick to the "pablum" (baby cereal that is very bland for those not knowing the word) topics, then this place is not worth saving.

I've always been forthright about where _my_ code came from. It was originally 100% written by myself. Eugene wrote the egtb.cpp code and then let others use it as well,even though it was originally developed in Crafty by him. I am using Pradu's magic move generator idea, others used my rotated bitboard idea and some still do. But we are all quick to give credit to the source of the idea or code... Or "almost all". And many don't like to see proof offered that more was taken than should have been taken. We had this problem in many previous discussoins concerning Crafty clones. But suddenly discussing clones is not acceptable?

This is a crock. This is the major place where enough technically adept people are available to discuss this topic and reach a valid conclusion. And some want to suppress that entirely. Yes, accusing someone of creating a clone is a distasteful discussion. But if it isn't done here, and someone gets away with it, it is _far_ more distasteful, IMHO. And some want to suppress this. Until there is absolute proof. Which they _know_ is the old chicken and egg argument used to close off discussion to develop that kind of proof...

Vas could have taken several actions to avoid this entire mess (with respect to the Rybka discussion). He could have said "yes, I copied parts of Fruit code initially... I have since rewritten those parts and they are mostly gone..." He could have said "yes, I report a fictitious node count and depth value because I wanted to make it more difficult for others to figure out the new idea I have found and am using with great success. I knew that if I showed too much information, someone would discover my trick (this has happened for many programs over the years, dating back to Genius)." But he didn't, and the discussions have pretty well nailed him for doing exactly that. And some don't like it. But most of this has been purely self-inflicted.

Naum's status is unknown to me. If it is a clone, it will be discovered. If not, so much the better. But not allowing the discussion here really tends to render CCC as irrelevant. If that is the goal, you are getting there. If not, you need to re-think what is going on. I know that in the many terms I have served as a moderator, we _never_ cut off these kinds of discussions. This is a recent "bad idea". And I'll bet I have served as a moderator more than any other person here. Food for thought...

The only problem i have seen with these clone discussions as of late is they are not really "On Discussing Clones" as they are titled, but rather really in the end only "Let's Discuss Vas and Proving Rybka Is A Clone". No matter what the title reads, that is what certain people will not rest until they have proved, and convinced everyone else, and got Vas to admit it. And that just aint gonna happen.

[hawkeye]

One aspect of this that has not been mentioned are the clones that are legal under the GPL and how some of the writers of these clones are tormented so badly that they nearly stop writing the prog.

Just recently a new Fruit clone was written.The programmer was so tormented by others that he nearly stopped the project. This prog is amongst the strongest freeware engines out there and was legal and all and yet was nearly stopped because of someone or somebody being foolish.

I could understand the witch hunt so to speak if the programmer was trying to go commercial with it.But he freely told of the fact that it was based on Fruit,and released the source.

I guess this goes back to that old saying that"no good deed goes unpunished".

best wishes all, steve

[Christopher Conkie]

Just recently a new Fruit clone was written.

Which one? (whilst I observe you with a lowercase name...btw do not be afraid)

programmer was so tormented by others that he nearly stopped the project.

Who? Norman?

This prog is amongst the strongest freeware engines out there and was legal and all and yet was nearly stopped because of someone or somebody being foolish.

Who was being foolish? Also Fruit IS strong......

I could understand the witch hunt so to speak if the programmer was trying to go commercial with it.

You could not understand a witch hunt even though it was based on Fruit?

Fruit is/was commercial. Even in its free days it had a license. The old GPL chestnut, but it still had rules about its usage.

But he freely told of the fact that it was based on Fruit,and released the source.

Good, he cannot sell it then without permission. He cannot enter it in tournaments without permission.

I guess this goes back to that old saying that"no good deed goes unpunished".

Tell us what is good about copying without permission from the rightful owner?

wishes all, steve

Same to you, lowercase Steve. I too wish for a new series of MASH.

[hawkeye]

I have been under the impression that there was no permission needed to modify and or distribute software that was released under the GPL so long as it met the rules of the GPL?And does not the GPL not allow all of that?

best wishes all, steve

[Christopher Conkie]

I have been under the impression that there was no permission needed to modify and or distribute software that was released under the GPL so long as it met the rules of the GPL?And does not the GPL not allow all of that?

best wishes all, steve

It does not meet the requirement of tournament organisers, who wish for no two of the same in their tournaments. GPL does not matter in as such that, interest does matter........

It depends whether you are trying to legitimise something as opposed to trying to allow something that is not legitimate.

Why would you be so keen to legitimise what is not allowed (by those who seek originality)?

Having fun.....changing what you like is fun. Just don't say it is original, because it is not.

[Graham Banks]

Perhaps they could post here to let us know.

That decline was/is very clear to see.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there are more chess engines being programmed now than ever before (and that's without counting the derivatives).

Cheers, Graham.

[rebel777]

No, you just decide what can be discussed.

I think the mod-team did the right thing Bob, deleting a bad rumor without evidence. The mod-team doesn't oppose strong clone discussions as long as it comes with data. It's all about ethics which was one of the main reasons for the foundation of this place, to get rid of harmful noise with the intend to hurt people.

In the hypothetical case Vince would spread the rumor you bought your professor status on the internet without providing data you would gladly be served by mod action. When it comes with evidence that would change the matter, wouldn't it?

And that's the crux of the issue at hand.

Ed