What the computer chess community needs to decide

[Rolf]

You really need to stop this line of argument. It is morally bankrupt and illogical,

It was a science argument but you are correct it in itself does not prove aomeone's innocence. I made the point and leave it there. If it doesnt please others. The relevant question is the magnitude and importance of chunks that have been examined.
I made the point and leave it to the technicians. Please let me makle other points if I see them. One thing is guaranteed. I am in no thinkable context a lawyer or substitute for Vas. So please just dont insult me for making some reasonable arguments from the outside of computerchess. Nobody must read me and nobody must believe that I have optioned the truth.

Perhaps I am obsessed by the concept of fairness. The whole topic is made for interdisciplinary approaches. I will refreign a bit more from answering or questioning too many messages. But it's so interesting for me. Excuse me. It's a privilege for being here at all. Regards and excuse my typos but I'm typing with two fingers lying flat on my belly.

[Rolf]

At that time Fabien was not happy that Vas used his program as a starting point. Later he said it was ok because Fruit at that time was open source. Fabien than upgraded his engine and put it up for sale.
Later he decided to give that same program away free.

So, do you remember if Fabien added the GPL only to the last mentioned free program? At least this is what I had in mind. So, I asked, what about the time period before. Also, why it would be indicated to later adapt to a new practice if earlier someone didnt have the GPL for example? This a reasonnable question, I do not attack or accuse anybody. Thanks for your input.

[gerold]

At that time Fabien was not happy that Vas used his program as a starting point. Later he said it was ok because Fruit at that time was open source. Fabien than upgraded his engine and put it up for sale.
Later he decided to give that same program away free.

So, do you remember if Fabien added the GPL only to the last mentioned free program? At least this is what I had in mind. So, I asked, what about the time period before. Also, why it would be indicated to later adapt to a new practice if earlier someone didnt have the GPL for example? This a reasonnable question, I do not attack or accuse anybody. Thanks for your input.

I am not sure on the GPL part. I thought it was on the first free fruit he
posted. As far as the last program that he sold and than gave away
free i do not know the status of the GPL.

[bob]

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

Dont be so over-witty. You miss the main part of my critic and this is now all too clear. If the professor certainly had no own damage, the four musqetiers should have informed Fabien then if it had been a serious standpoint and not just a campaign. Since Fabien allegedly had the damage. I for one dont believe this. Just like I think that Vas didnt do something wrong. On the other hand the programs are all derivates from each other. A scientist should examine them all before he is scapegoating something in particular. That's basic. But you already knew that. So, then you also know where the idea of a hypocrisy is coming from. It's just not kosher science.

I've offered you the challenge previously to find any part of Crafty that was copied from another program, with the exception of Pradu's magic move generator code which is clearly acknowledged in main.c... Find any other copied code. And no, egtb.cpp does not count. Eugene developed that code as a part of Crafty, then distributed it to others...

Not _all_ programs are derivatives. Not all chess programmers are born with no ethics.

[Rolf]

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

Dont be so over-witty. You miss the main part of my critic and this is now all too clear. If the professor certainly had no own damage, the four musqetiers should have informed Fabien then if it had been a serious standpoint and not just a campaign. Since Fabien allegedly had the damage. I for one dont believe this. Just like I think that Vas didnt do something wrong. On the other hand the programs are all derivates from each other. A scientist should examine them all before he is scapegoating something in particular. That's basic. But you already knew that. So, then you also know where the idea of a hypocrisy is coming from. It's just not kosher science.

I've offered you the challenge previously to find any part of Crafty that was copied from another program, with the exception of Pradu's magic move generator code which is clearly acknowledged in main.c... Find any other copied code. And no, egtb.cpp does not count. Eugene developed that code as a part of Crafty, then distributed it to others...

Not _all_ programs are derivatives. Not all chess programmers are born with no ethics.

Do you really think that Im such an idiot? Crafty is designed as a lackmus model, sort of urmeter or atomic watch. I know that.

We have a minimal difference though with ethics. In truth nobody is born w/o ethics. It's all education, socialisation if you prefer.

CC code isnt designet or created like a novel. It's like dada so to speak. That's why the programs are practically derivates or similar. Public domain is free down to the letters, UCI code and such is no question. The rest is tech. When will it be possible that a machine could program with less bugs than a human?

Bob, computerchess is a hobby and the so called business is sponsoring the future input of the programmer.

In a scene where the experts see it as absolutely normal that the tricks of the best are decompiled and made public (!!) by Lenins or Trotzkys, you wont find a court that is willing to lose time on the question if and if not why not a GPL allegedly had been forgotten in a early demo version some 5 years ago. We should get this into reasonable proportions.

Vas is a chessplayer, a master, but computerchess people are not. They prefer to play with program A against preferably orogram B which is another version of program A and they call this testing or competition.

Vas is a chessplayer and therefore he's interested in deeper chess applications as a training tool for talents and experts.

99% of the lay players almost always lost against the little entities 30 years ago! As a scientist, Bob, you should explain why the whole testing is nonsense and why tournaments are still fun. Sometimes I have the impression that the community needs wisdom and a reality check.

Please join the movement of those with peace of mind. Let's give a role model. Those with a defect in their frontal lobe will never be curable. That's why Vas left long ago.

[bob]

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

Dont be so over-witty. You miss the main part of my critic and this is now all too clear. If the professor certainly had no own damage, the four musqetiers should have informed Fabien then if it had been a serious standpoint and not just a campaign. Since Fabien allegedly had the damage. I for one dont believe this. Just like I think that Vas didnt do something wrong. On the other hand the programs are all derivates from each other. A scientist should examine them all before he is scapegoating something in particular. That's basic. But you already knew that. So, then you also know where the idea of a hypocrisy is coming from. It's just not kosher science.

I've offered you the challenge previously to find any part of Crafty that was copied from another program, with the exception of Pradu's magic move generator code which is clearly acknowledged in main.c... Find any other copied code. And no, egtb.cpp does not count. Eugene developed that code as a part of Crafty, then distributed it to others...

Not _all_ programs are derivatives. Not all chess programmers are born with no ethics.

Do you really think that Im such an idiot? Crafty is designed as a lackmus model, sort of urmeter or atomic watch. I know that.

We have a minimal difference though with ethics. In truth nobody is born w/o ethics. It's all education, socialisation if you prefer.

CC code isnt designet or created like a novel. It's like dada so to speak. That's why the programs are practically derivates or similar. Public domain is free down to the letters, UCI code and such is no question. The rest is tech. When will it be possible that a machine could program with less bugs than a human?

First, all programs are not "derivatives". They all have a bit of common ground, created by the rules of the game we are working on (chess in this case). But the way they play the game can vary tremendously, from pure brute force, to pure selective search and even to pure Monte Carlo methods. Derivative means "derived from" and that simply does not apply to my program, nor to several others. It certainly applies to the fruit/rybka/ip*/robo*/ivanhoe/houdini/et al group that share some significant "dna".

As far as when will a computer program itself? I won't live to see it, and can not speculate about things that far in the future.

Bob, computerchess is a hobby and the so called business is sponsoring the future input of the programmer.

In a scene where the experts see it as absolutely normal that the tricks of the best are decompiled and made public (!!) by Lenins or Trotzkys, you wont find a court that is willing to lose time on the question if and if not why not a GPL allegedly had been forgotten in a early demo version some 5 years ago. We should get this into reasonable proportions.

Vas is a chessplayer, a master, but computerchess people are not. They prefer to play with program A against preferably orogram B which is another version of program A and they call this testing or competition.

Vas is a chessplayer and therefore he's interested in deeper chess applications as a training tool for talents and experts.

99% of the lay players almost always lost against the little entities 30 years ago! As a scientist, Bob, you should explain why the whole testing is nonsense and why tournaments are still fun. Sometimes I have the impression that the community needs wisdom and a reality check.

I don't follow the "testing is nonsense". I have probably played more test games than anyone on the planet, using our cluster for 4-5 years now. But tournaments are still fun. As a human, I can't really appreciate the "chess" in testing, because I can't digest millions (or even thousands) of games. But I can use the results to improve my program. Then we play in tournaments, where the games are observed in real-time, to get a feel for how our changes affect the game our programs play.

Please join the movement of those with peace of mind. Let's give a role model. Those with a defect in their frontal lobe will never be curable. That's why Vas left long ago.

He has a defect in his frontal lobe?

[Rolf]

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

Dont be so over-witty. You miss the main part of my critic and this is now all too clear. If the professor certainly had no own damage, the four musqetiers should have informed Fabien then if it had been a serious standpoint and not just a campaign. Since Fabien allegedly had the damage. I for one dont believe this. Just like I think that Vas didnt do something wrong. On the other hand the programs are all derivates from each other. A scientist should examine them all before he is scapegoating something in particular. That's basic. But you already knew that. So, then you also know where the idea of a hypocrisy is coming from. It's just not kosher science.

I've offered you the challenge previously to find any part of Crafty that was copied from another program, with the exception of Pradu's magic move generator code which is clearly acknowledged in main.c... Find any other copied code. And no, egtb.cpp does not count. Eugene developed that code as a part of Crafty, then distributed it to others...

Not _all_ programs are derivatives. Not all chess programmers are born with no ethics.

Do you really think that Im such an idiot? Crafty is designed as a lackmus model, sort of urmeter or atomic watch. I know that.

We have a minimal difference though with ethics. In truth nobody is born w/o ethics. It's all education, socialisation if you prefer.

CC code isnt designet or created like a novel. It's like dada so to speak. That's why the programs are practically derivates or similar. Public domain is free down to the letters, UCI code and such is no question. The rest is tech. When will it be possible that a machine could program with less bugs than a human?

First, all programs are not "derivatives". They all have a bit of common ground, created by the rules of the game we are working on (chess in this case). But the way they play the game can vary tremendously, from pure brute force, to pure selective search and even to pure Monte Carlo methods. Derivative means "derived from" and that simply does not apply to my program, nor to several others. It certainly applies to the fruit/rybka/ip*/robo*/ivanhoe/houdini/et al group that share some significant "dna".

As far as when will a computer program itself? I won't live to see it, and can not speculate about things that far in the future.

Bob, computerchess is a hobby and the so called business is sponsoring the future input of the programmer.

In a scene where the experts see it as absolutely normal that the tricks of the best are decompiled and made public (!!) by Lenins or Trotzkys, you wont find a court that is willing to lose time on the question if and if not why not a GPL allegedly had been forgotten in a early demo version some 5 years ago. We should get this into reasonable proportions.

Vas is a chessplayer, a master, but computerchess people are not. They prefer to play with program A against preferably orogram B which is another version of program A and they call this testing or competition.

Vas is a chessplayer and therefore he's interested in deeper chess applications as a training tool for talents and experts.

99% of the lay players almost always lost against the little entities 30 years ago! As a scientist, Bob, you should explain why the whole testing is nonsense and why tournaments are still fun. Sometimes I have the impression that the community needs wisdom and a reality check.

I don't follow the "testing is nonsense". I have probably played more test games than anyone on the planet, using our cluster for 4-5 years now. But tournaments are still fun. As a human, I can't really appreciate the "chess" in testing, because I can't digest millions (or even thousands) of games. But I can use the results to improve my program. Then we play in tournaments, where the games are observed in real-time, to get a feel for how our changes affect the game our programs play.

Please join the movement of those with peace of mind. Let's give a role model. Those with a defect in their frontal lobe will never be curable. That's why Vas left long ago.

He has a defect in his frontal lobe?

Certainly not. Vas is extremely emphatic and also not the least arrogant.

Let's quickly work out the remaining questions. I am astonished that you see differences in the chess programs like 30 years ago. I thought the pure hardware solution became the solution after ChrisW and Ed had left for good. Who actually is playing with the selective approach?

Then could you explain without formulas what chess programming is rather personal if it just should play chess in a simulation? Where are the differences? Of course I understand that aggressivity or more hesitating styles make a difference, but what has this to do with the programming of playing chess. Ist it always the same, a concrete position and then the tech to find a move. Where is the problem for a programmer after 50 years of experience in the field? I mean general experience not only yours.

I dont know what you mean with testing to make it better, if the main difference is actually if a programmer has better skills in handling the special hardware embedding of the engine? This is where Vas seems to be better, not just in only squeezing some drops of Elo out in testings what alredy Louwman had done in the past. Problem is that in organisations like theSSDF the players have not the neccessary hardware to test parallelism at all.

What sense do you see in testing if the best program is playing with reduced strength so that it doesnt invite the cloners to steal.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

Dont be so over-witty. You miss the main part of my critic and this is now all too clear. If the professor certainly had no own damage, the four musqetiers should have informed Fabien then if it had been a serious standpoint and not just a campaign. Since Fabien allegedly had the damage. I for one dont believe this. Just like I think that Vas didnt do something wrong. On the other hand the programs are all derivates from each other. A scientist should examine them all before he is scapegoating something in particular. That's basic. But you already knew that. So, then you also know where the idea of a hypocrisy is coming from. It's just not kosher science.

I've offered you the challenge previously to find any part of Crafty that was copied from another program, with the exception of Pradu's magic move generator code which is clearly acknowledged in main.c... Find any other copied code. And no, egtb.cpp does not count. Eugene developed that code as a part of Crafty, then distributed it to others...

Not _all_ programs are derivatives. Not all chess programmers are born with no ethics.

Do you really think that Im such an idiot ? Crafty is designed as a lackmus model, sort of urmeter or atomic watch. I know that.

We have a minimal difference though with ethics. In truth nobody is born w/o ethics. It's all education, socialisation if you prefer.

CC code isnt designet or created like a novel. It's like dada so to speak. That's why the programs are practically derivates or similar. Public domain is free down to the letters, UCI code and such is no question. The rest is tech. When will it be possible that a machine could program with less bugs than a human?

Bob, computerchess is a hobby and the so called business is sponsoring the future input of the programmer.

In a scene where the experts see it as absolutely normal that the tricks of the best are decompiled and made public (!!) by Lenins or Trotzkys, you wont find a court that is willing to lose time on the question if and if not why not a GPL allegedly had been forgotten in a early demo version some 5 years ago. We should get this into reasonable proportions.

Vas is a chessplayer, a master, but computerchess people are not. They prefer to play with program A against preferably orogram B which is another version of program A and they call this testing or competition.

Vas is a chessplayer and therefore he's interested in deeper chess applications as a training tool for talents and experts.

99% of the lay players almost always lost against the little entities 30 years ago! As a scientist, Bob, you should explain why the whole testing is nonsense and why tournaments are still fun. Sometimes I have the impression that the community needs wisdom and a reality check.

Please join the movement of those with peace of mind. Let's give a role model. Those with a defect in their frontal lobe will never be curable. That's why Vas left long ago.

Oh Yeah....

[bob]

I repeat, you have in the past tried to smear Bob with implications stemming from the fact that that he would not take Rajlich to court. It is not practicable for the people who find the clone to take the issue to court for a number of reasons, one of which is that they have not been damaged. It is up to the person who was damaged by the accusation of cloning to take the case to court. That fact has been explained to you on a number of occasions.

Dont be so over-witty. You miss the main part of my critic and this is now all too clear. If the professor certainly had no own damage, the four musqetiers should have informed Fabien then if it had been a serious standpoint and not just a campaign. Since Fabien allegedly had the damage. I for one dont believe this. Just like I think that Vas didnt do something wrong. On the other hand the programs are all derivates from each other. A scientist should examine them all before he is scapegoating something in particular. That's basic. But you already knew that. So, then you also know where the idea of a hypocrisy is coming from. It's just not kosher science.

I've offered you the challenge previously to find any part of Crafty that was copied from another program, with the exception of Pradu's magic move generator code which is clearly acknowledged in main.c... Find any other copied code. And no, egtb.cpp does not count. Eugene developed that code as a part of Crafty, then distributed it to others...

Not _all_ programs are derivatives. Not all chess programmers are born with no ethics.

Do you really think that Im such an idiot? Crafty is designed as a lackmus model, sort of urmeter or atomic watch. I know that.

We have a minimal difference though with ethics. In truth nobody is born w/o ethics. It's all education, socialisation if you prefer.

CC code isnt designet or created like a novel. It's like dada so to speak. That's why the programs are practically derivates or similar. Public domain is free down to the letters, UCI code and such is no question. The rest is tech. When will it be possible that a machine could program with less bugs than a human?

First, all programs are not "derivatives". They all have a bit of common ground, created by the rules of the game we are working on (chess in this case). But the way they play the game can vary tremendously, from pure brute force, to pure selective search and even to pure Monte Carlo methods. Derivative means "derived from" and that simply does not apply to my program, nor to several others. It certainly applies to the fruit/rybka/ip*/robo*/ivanhoe/houdini/et al group that share some significant "dna".

As far as when will a computer program itself? I won't live to see it, and can not speculate about things that far in the future.

Bob, computerchess is a hobby and the so called business is sponsoring the future input of the programmer.

In a scene where the experts see it as absolutely normal that the tricks of the best are decompiled and made public (!!) by Lenins or Trotzkys, you wont find a court that is willing to lose time on the question if and if not why not a GPL allegedly had been forgotten in a early demo version some 5 years ago. We should get this into reasonable proportions.

Vas is a chessplayer, a master, but computerchess people are not. They prefer to play with program A against preferably orogram B which is another version of program A and they call this testing or competition.

Vas is a chessplayer and therefore he's interested in deeper chess applications as a training tool for talents and experts.

99% of the lay players almost always lost against the little entities 30 years ago! As a scientist, Bob, you should explain why the whole testing is nonsense and why tournaments are still fun. Sometimes I have the impression that the community needs wisdom and a reality check.

I don't follow the "testing is nonsense". I have probably played more test games than anyone on the planet, using our cluster for 4-5 years now. But tournaments are still fun. As a human, I can't really appreciate the "chess" in testing, because I can't digest millions (or even thousands) of games. But I can use the results to improve my program. Then we play in tournaments, where the games are observed in real-time, to get a feel for how our changes affect the game our programs play.

Please join the movement of those with peace of mind. Let's give a role model. Those with a defect in their frontal lobe will never be curable. That's why Vas left long ago.

He has a defect in his frontal lobe?

Certainly not. Vas is extremely emphatic and also not the least arrogant.

Let's quickly work out the remaining questions. I am astonished that you see differences in the chess programs like 30 years ago. I thought the pure hardware solution became the solution after ChrisW and Ed had left for good. Who actually is playing with the selective approach?

Who? Rybka and derivatives. Even fruit was using LMR which is a selective algorithm. But today everyone is using LMR, forward pruning, null-move, futility pruning, etc... So a better question would be "who is not using the selective approach?"

Then could you explain without formulas what chess programming is rather personal if it just should play chess in a simulation? Where are the differences?

Significant differences in evaluation. Significant differences in how moves are ordered, which are extended, which are not, which are pruned, which are not, which are reduced, which are not, how the board is represented, how moves are generated, how the overall program is structured, etc...

Of course I understand that aggressivity or more hesitating styles make a difference, but what has this to do with the programming of playing chess. Ist it always the same, a concrete position and then the tech to find a move. Where is the problem for a programmer after 50 years of experience in the field? I mean general experience not only yours.

You could ask 5 different GM players what they think is the best move in a position, and in some cases get 5 different answers. Why?

I dont know what you mean with testing to make it better, if the main difference is actually if a programmer has better skills in handling the special hardware embedding of the engine? This is where Vas seems to be better, not just in only squeezing some drops of Elo out in testings what alredy Louwman had done in the past. Problem is that in organisations like theSSDF the players have not the neccessary hardware to test parallelism at all.

What sense do you see in testing if the best program is playing with reduced strength so that it doesnt invite the cloners to steal.

I am not sure what you mean there. What program intentionally plays worse than it could play???

[Rolf]

What sense do you see in testing if the best program is playing with reduced strength so that it doesnt invite the cloners to steal.

I am not sure what you mean there. What program intentionally plays worse than it could play???

The author decided to throw R4 not with the optimal strength, because it would be stlen (decompiled) by your allies. I read that already bugs weaken a program. Now the cluster Rybka gets full strength. What's your comment?

I see that I must move the schedule for my examins. It's too complex. I hope that the young or old silent readers could profit from the way you answered my questions. Just tell us how many of your students are interested in computerchess?