What the computer chess community needs to decide

[bob]

I had never studied the source of another engine in my life, when I wrote my engines. Not even TSCP. (Except for the WinBoard protocol driver, because it was a faster way to learn WB protocol than reading the official protocol specs. But I don't consider a protocol driver part of the 'engine'.)

Wow, amazing statement IMHO. If you don't look at the state-of-the-art engines how can you improve your CC knowledge to apply to your engines?
Can you imagine, for example, a surgeon saying something similar, that he never looked at all to recent developed practices and techniques?

Can you imagine a surgeon making a new laparoscope and then claiming to the world, look what I just created from scratch... Even though he copied the design from company X and only added a second camera to get a stereo view rather than the usual flat one?

Right. He would do that...

[bob]

Several I think:

http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/chess.html

Oh well he shouldn't have responded. In my original post I said NO CURRENT author (engines that are still being developed TODAY).

And you are wrong. Crafty is still being developed today. My first program played its first move in October 1968, a tad before there were _any_ published source codes for chess engines. At the time, the only program that was fairly well known was Greenblatt's and he did not distribute the source code back then. I learned alpha/beta from a research paper published by Newell, Simon and Shaw. So certainly some (many actually) of us started from scratch and put in the effort required to move up the charts...

[lkaufman]

Even if I didn't believe Houdini started as disassembled code, it is accepted that ideas from other programs may be used, but not code or numerical tables. If someone has learned of some new ideas by disassembly and is willing to share these ideas with the community, we all benefit together. We just don't do disassembly ourselves.

It remains amazing that you're actively pushing people on this Forum to disassemble another top engine to obtain information.
Love your "we just don't do disassembly ourselves"...

How else would we prove that Houdini started as a member of the Ippo family, unless someone disassembles it?

I note though that Ivanhoe seems to have experienced a similar large Elo jump between version 47 and 49 in roughly the same time period, and I wonder if this is coincidence or not.

What "Elo jump" between Ivanhoe 49 and 47 are you talking about? What ratings or results is your claim based on?
Are you aware that:
A) the Ivanhoe version numbers are counting downwards;
B) most people seem to think that the more recent compile 47 is less good than the older 49; (Martin Thoresen was questioned by some for having used the "less good" version 47 in the recent TCEC Division I).
C) a study of the Ivanhoe 47/49 codes would show you that hardly anything has changed in the engine and that no Elo change is to be expected.

My own test confirmed the claim that 49 was stronger than 47, but I was unaware that Ivanhoe counted backward (!) I paid no attention to Ivanhoe until very recently. Anyway if they count backward then you have answered this question satisfactorily.

Since you are redefining 1.0 in this manner, it would have been desirable to state so before this, but better late than never!

Let me refer to my TalkChess post from May 16, 2010, 19:21 (the day I released Houdini 1.0), which demonstrates that I haven't redefined anything since the start:

As a guideline to Houdini, I tried to produce the most accurate evaluation as possible. In my view an evaluation of +1.00 (a clear pawn ahead) should mean that the position is nearly winning, as would be the case in most human chess matches.

This is not the same as stating that you now define 1.0 as a constant winning percentage expectancy, but no matter, you have so stated now.

Robert

Larry

[Peter Skinner]

Here is a serious question for you - are you prepared to (a) Adopt that position for CCT and (2) Make any notation beside Rybka's win in CCT 11? That would speak far louder about your position than stating it here.

There are some here that know I specifically entered Fruit in CCT13 just for this reason. In a manner of sorts, I dodged a bullet in that Rybka was unable to compete. If it had however, I would have entered the parent and not the child. Which is what I did.

If a decision comes down that indeed Rybka broke the GPL and was a clone/"derivative" of Fruit, then not only will I make a notation, but I will invalidate Rybka's result and promote 2-4 to 1-3.

Does that answer your question?

I am lost here. You knew that Rybka was at best somewhat suspicious from the start but you allowed iterations of the program to compete and indeed, win CCT. Why exactly? Why was Rybka not excluded using the same logic above? It is your event and you exclude or include at will but the inconsistency in the applicaton of the logic is difficult to understand.

At the time there was no proof offered that Rybka was a clone of Fruit. In fact we had speculation at best. Currently we still really only have the same except the original author has stepped forward and made claims.

This is significant. If Fabian makes a claim with the FSF and a decision is handed down, more actions will follow from me, and probably many organizers.

Again the hesitation to act when you have already indicated that you have no problem with being decisive in the case of the Ippp* engines and their alleged derivatives. This is one of the things that bothers some - the inconsistency in the application of the rules and "outrage".

Read my first answer. I believe it covers this.

Peter

[Houdini]

Larry,

My own test confirmed the claim that 49 was stronger than 47, but I was unaware that Ivanhoe counted backward (!) I paid no attention to Ivanhoe until very recently. Anyway if they count backward then you have answered this question satisfactorily.

Thank you for having the courage to admit that your libelous speculation about Houdini and myself was based on a basic lack of information about Ivanhoe.

The stupidity of all this is beyond me, I think I'd better take a leave from the forum for a while and start working on Houdini 2.0...

Cheers,
Robert

[bob]

So a "man of science" should be ok with breaking into a competitor's lab and stealing his science? Or a "man of science" should be able to copy significant parts of someone else's work and publish it as their own, ignoring copyright law, ethics, etc?

I do not get the argument. Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked for the "common good". And some of us share every new idea we discover and do exactly that. And some don't. And some try to short-cut the time/effort part of the equation and simply copy and change and then say "this is my original work."

Robert,

IMO a "man of science" should be ok with breaking into a competitor's lab and stealing his science as long as that contributes to the "common good". Definitely yes. Knowledge must be shared, this is the way I see it.

BR
Paulo

I don't believe in illegal and/or unethical behaviour to advance science... If one wants to look inside an executable to extract an idea, that is one thing. But if they copy code, this is another.

[Christopher Conkie]

Larry,

My own test confirmed the claim that 49 was stronger than 47, but I was unaware that Ivanhoe counted backward (!) I paid no attention to Ivanhoe until very recently. Anyway if they count backward then you have answered this question satisfactorily.

Thank you for having the courage to admit that your libelous speculation about Houdini and myself was based on a basic lack of information about Ivanhoe.

The stupidity of all this is beyond me, I think I'd better take a leave from the forum for a while and start working on Houdini 2.0...

Cheers,
Robert

And the cow jumped over the moon......



Houdini = Ivanhoe. Fact. Don't forget.

Chris

[Damir]

Larry,

My own test confirmed the claim that 49 was stronger than 47, but I was unaware that Ivanhoe counted backward (!) I paid no attention to Ivanhoe until very recently. Anyway if they count backward then you have answered this question satisfactorily.

Thank you for having the courage to admit that your libelous speculation about Houdini and myself was based on a basic lack of information about Ivanhoe.

The stupidity of all this is beyond me, I think I'd better take a leave from the forum for a while and start working on Houdini 2.0...

Cheers,
Robert

Hi Robert,

That would be an excellent idea. The stronger Houdini is, the more depressed Vas, Larry&co are going to be.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Larry,

My own test confirmed the claim that 49 was stronger than 47, but I was unaware that Ivanhoe counted backward (!) I paid no attention to Ivanhoe until very recently. Anyway if they count backward then you have answered this question satisfactorily.

Thank you for having the courage to admit that your libelous speculation about Houdini and myself was based on a basic lack of information about Ivanhoe.

The stupidity of all this is beyond me, I think I'd better take a leave from the forum for a while and start working on Houdini 2.0...

Cheers,
Robert

Hi Robert,

That would be an excellent idea. The stronger Houdini is, the more depressed Vas, Larry&co are going to be.

Yep,agreed here no matter of the real source of Houdini....
Dr.D

[Roger Brown]

Here is a serious question for you - are you prepared to (a) Adopt that position for CCT and (2) Make any notation beside Rybka's win in CCT 11? That would speak far louder about your position than stating it here.

There are some here that know I specifically entered Fruit in CCT13 just for this reason. In a manner of sorts, I dodged a bullet in that Rybka was unable to compete. If it had however, I would have entered the parent and not the child. Which is what I did.

If a decision comes down that indeed Rybka broke the GPL and was a clone/"derivative" of Fruit, then not only will I make a notation, but I will invalidate Rybka's result and promote 2-4 to 1-3.

Does that answer your question?

Hello Peter,

It does and more than that, it establishes you as a man of principle. I may not agree with everything you say - or how you choose to say it - but the principle is key to me.

I am lost here. You knew that Rybka was at best somewhat suspicious from the start but you allowed iterations of the program to compete and indeed, win CCT. Why exactly? Why was Rybka not excluded using the same logic above? It is your event and you exclude or include at will but the inconsistency in the applicaton of the logic is difficult to understand.

At the time there was no proof offered that Rybka was a clone of Fruit. In fact we had speculation at best. Currently we still really only have the same except the original author has stepped forward and made claims.

This is significant. If Fabian makes a claim with the FSF and a decision is handed down, more actions will follow from me, and probably many organizers.

Very well with that but until then Rybka can enter and win many more prizes.

Not your problem I know but it still seems .....

Later.