World Computer Chess Championship ?

[Rebel]

Thumps up for you.

Thumbs of course

[Graham Banks]

It seems that a few can't get past the Rolf-inspired "If everyone is not investigated, Vas should not have been and he should be restored as a competitor once more."

It is an argument, but a very weak one. Who is going to investigate EVERY program? Who has the time? Or who is going to pay for the time?

Which is why I made the suggestion of selecting a couple of participants at random each year and putting them under the same scrutiny that Rybka was subjected to.

The Rybka investigation took several years. Hardly practical to "select 2 each year and commit several years of effort to examine them." If you require source, you will immediately run into trouble, because (a) commercial programmers; (b) authors with original private engines; (c) authors with non-original private engines; will, in general, rebel at the idea of having someone look at their code and discover any secrets they might have...

This is NOT an easy issue to resolve... Be much nicer if things were as they were back in the 70's and 80's, where ethical behavior was simply something everyone did...

Easy - they get disqualified, just as an athlete refusing to pee or provide a blood sample for a doping test would face severe consequences. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. It's all about fairness and equal treatment.

Do you not see the contradiction? Rather than getting DQ'ed, they simply won't enter in the first place... And we are right back to square zero. We need a solution that everyone can live with, but which protects the integrity of the event and its rules. It is not as easy as one might suspect.

Yes - I see your point. Forking out a lot of money in travel, accommodation and entry fees is just not worth the risk. However, that is of course, also the problem that we have now.
Tricky situation. Unless matters can be plainly clarified for programmers, it seems though that the current tournament is a dying, if not already dead duck.

[Adam Hair]

You be the judge of what is honorable and honest.
Since when has that authority.

You have the turkey up,

I am a newcomer, not posting does not mean being just arrived.
You will be more ancient, but I took four days in this forum, not in others.
And yet you would give him no more reason than me.

honest - honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair

In the context of computer chess, honest is usually associated with the act of attributing credit to others when you make use of their work.

Who judges honesty? That is the role of the entire community. I am not the arbiter of who is honest and who is dishonest. But I do throw my support towards those who are honest and away from those who are dishonest.

[Don]

It seems that a few can't get past the Rolf-inspired "If everyone is not investigated, Vas should not have been and he should be restored as a competitor once more."

It is an argument, but a very weak one. Who is going to investigate EVERY program? Who has the time? Or who is going to pay for the time?

Which is why I made the suggestion of selecting a couple of participants at random each year and putting them under the same scrutiny that Rybka was subjected to.

The Rybka investigation took several years. Hardly practical to "select 2 each year and commit several years of effort to examine them." If you require source, you will immediately run into trouble, because (a) commercial programmers; (b) authors with original private engines; (c) authors with non-original private engines; will, in general, rebel at the idea of having someone look at their code and discover any secrets they might have...

This is NOT an easy issue to resolve... Be much nicer if things were as they were back in the 70's and 80's, where ethical behavior was simply something everyone did...

Easy - they get disqualified, just as an athlete refusing to pee or provide a blood sample for a doping test would face severe consequences. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. It's all about fairness and equal treatment.

Do you not see the contradiction? Rather than getting DQ'ed, they simply won't enter in the first place... And we are right back to square zero. We need a solution that everyone can live with, but which protects the integrity of the event and its rules. It is not as easy as one might suspect.

Yes - I see your point. Forking out a lot of money in travel, accommodation and entry fees is just not worth the risk. However, that is of course, also the problem that we have now.
Tricky situation. Unless matters can be plainly clarified for programmers, it seems though that the current tournament is a dying, if not already dead duck.

I think there are some ideas that can help - but it would require some work for them and I'm not sure there is a will. But I'm going to think them through and make a proposal - or more properly some suggestions to be tossed around.

[Uri Blass]

If every program was the same exact strength, you could easily estimate the winning chances to be 1/24 (I think there were 24 entrants) since everyone in this scenario would have the same winning chances. That is only 4.2 percent! If you think you have MORE than a 4.2% chance of winning then you must believe your program is stronger than everyone else's. If you think your chances are close to 50% then you are outright cocky!

There is clearly a mistake in this logic because nobody believe that all the other programs have the same strength.

It is possible that there are 2 strong programs and 22 weak programs (1000 elo weaker than the strong programs) when the authors of the 2 strong programs believe their chances are close to 50% without believing their program is stronger than everyone else.

Of course it was not the case in the WCCC of 1995 but the case of equal probabilities for other participants also was not the case.

I believe that more than one program had more than 4.2% chance to win WCCC in 1995.

[bob]

It seems that a few can't get past the Rolf-inspired "If everyone is not investigated, Vas should not have been and he should be restored as a competitor once more."

It is an argument, but a very weak one. Who is going to investigate EVERY program? Who has the time? Or who is going to pay for the time?

Which is why I made the suggestion of selecting a couple of participants at random each year and putting them under the same scrutiny that Rybka was subjected to.

The Rybka investigation took several years. Hardly practical to "select 2 each year and commit several years of effort to examine them." If you require source, you will immediately run into trouble, because (a) commercial programmers; (b) authors with original private engines; (c) authors with non-original private engines; will, in general, rebel at the idea of having someone look at their code and discover any secrets they might have...

This is NOT an easy issue to resolve... Be much nicer if things were as they were back in the 70's and 80's, where ethical behavior was simply something everyone did...

Easy - they get disqualified, just as an athlete refusing to pee or provide a blood sample for a doping test would face severe consequences. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. It's all about fairness and equal treatment.

Do you not see the contradiction? Rather than getting DQ'ed, they simply won't enter in the first place... And we are right back to square zero. We need a solution that everyone can live with, but which protects the integrity of the event and its rules. It is not as easy as one might suspect.

Yes - I see your point. Forking out a lot of money in travel, accommodation and entry fees is just not worth the risk. However, that is of course, also the problem that we have now.
Tricky situation. Unless matters can be plainly clarified for programmers, it seems though that the current tournament is a dying, if not already dead duck.

It is definitely a problem. Once trust is broken, it is difficult to get it back. And clearly, there is much today that can not be trusted with regard to chess programs...

[bob]

You be the judge of what is honorable and honest.
Since when has that authority.

You have the turkey up,

I am a newcomer, not posting does not mean being just arrived.
You will be more ancient, but I took four days in this forum, not in others.
And yet you would give him no more reason than me.

Any chance you can stop using babblefish or google translate and just write what you mean???

[bob]

Don, it's not about Vas, nor Fabien. I support all previous ICGA cases of cloning. It's the way the ICGA has interpreted rule #2 and pushed it to its limits to get the desired result 16 programmers demanded and then leaving ALL of us in the dark by not specifying what is allowed and what's not.

I refer to a crucial quote of Mark Lefler: Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel.

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

And so open sources are hijacked by the ICGA to serve as a model and be careful you don't take too much. Problem is, there NEVER was (and still is) no definition of "too much".

This is a scaring scenario for newcomers, especially when you are good. I can perfectly imagine why the Vida's and Stockfishes of our time won't show up although they might have other reasons.

You keep saying this is about "taking too many ideas" but it is not. It is about taking too much of Fruit. Ideas and what was discovered in investigating Fruit/Rybka are two different topics. This is not now, and never was about just "taking ideas". It was about taking much more than just ideas.

Entirely missing the point. I have questions for you, maybe it's more clear then. Please answer them in your role as ICGA official.

1. In the hypothetical case the Stockfish guys enter then what do you do? Its source code is publicly available.

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Keep in mind there are programmers reading your reply with an interest to participate but also knowing what has happened with Rybka. Modern programmers who have borrowed from open sources and the CPW. Programmers like the SF guys and Richard Vida.

And one step further:

Say you allow both to play but during the tournament or afterwards another complaint is filed with the request of an investigation, then what do you do?

1 and 2. No idea.

Don, HGM, do you read?

The ICGA secretariat has no idea.

So how would newcomers know?

Cute. You ask me about two specific programs I have not looked at, nor has the secretariat/panel, and when I give you the honest answer "I don't know if they would be a problem with them or not" you respond as above? How COULD we have an idea about them since we have not investigated them? We DO know the standard to which they must adhere to participate. We do NOT know if they have adhered to that standard since we have not been asked to look.

What is wrong with you???

Why should they risk the chance of an investigation?

I have not looked at their code and compared it to anything.

You admittedly have experimented with the SF source code.

I run it as an opponent on my cluster testing. I disabled the TT-singular code to test its effectiveness. That is hardly an investigation to see if it looks like Fruit or any other engine. That might be the way YOU investigate something. That is NOT the way the panel investigated Rybka.

Some have reported similarities between Stockfish and Fruit. That doesn't concern me one bit at the moment since both are GPL and both are completely legal from a license point of view. But could stockfish enter the WCCC? No idea until it becomes an issue, because it will take time to answer.

Lemme stop here before I start throwing up.

Questioning Stockfish ??????????????????????????????????????

But thank you for showing the ICGA feathers.

Throw up all you want. That's my general reaction to most of what you write on THIS topic anyway...

I know practically nothing about critter other than what I have read. That is to say, I don't know enough to say whether it would be considered original or not until that point in time arrives and we are asked to evaluate the entry.

At the moment, I would assume either would be allowed to enter, but that it is very likely that someone would protest quickly and it would have to be addressed. I don't see any other way of handling this. Certainly, if a complaint is filed, it has to be addressed, so that question I don't understand. We would do the same thing that was done when Berliner filed a protest about Cray Blitz in 1986 (where I obviously was not part of the ICGA investigatory group). That is, examine the program to see if it was what it was claimed to be or not.

So how does that question even merit asking???

Of course, no answer to return questions...

[bob]

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Stockfish would be welcome to such events I am sure.

Good.

I don't see why you think there would be an issue.

Because I suspected (ICGA) Bob would mumble and I was right.

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

I cannot say what would happen with Critter. Based on what I know about it I would like to see it allowed.

Good. I trust your judgement because you have Richard's code.

Thumps up for you.

[velmarin]

Any chance you can stop using babblefish or google translate and just write what you mean???

You also admire him.

Thanks for your nice words
and not attack me.

Sincerely grateful.