It will never be possible to have a formal definition of "too much" - as comforting as that might be for us. You will find that even with libraries of books on law it still comes down the judgement of a judge. We are not robots. I think that you are asking for some sort of formula where you tally each line of code with some sort of weight based on content (which I'm afraid would also have to be judged) and then come up with a precise answer?
As far as the other stuff is concerned, I don't know what to say. You keep talking about ideas, "number of ideas" and "chess knowledge ideas" as if that is related to the issue of the ICGA decision. I know you want it to be about that, but it's just not.
My concern is the future, there must be guide lines for newcomers hence my programmer_code initiative. The ICGA needs one for themselves. For the sake of the future "too much" needs a definition. Before the Tilburg WCCC I wrote to David:
I foresee a rapid developing future that on ICGA tournaments the 5-10 best programs in the world can not play. Anno 2011 I wonder if programs like Houdini, Critter, Komodo, Stockfish could pass rule #2 successfully. Without a firm change of rule #2 I foresee a future I wonder if it makes sense for programmers to spend considerable time and money (new hardware, hotel costs, tickets) and travel 4000 miles around the globe to play in a second division tournament.
And in retrospect looking at Tilburg my prediction became reality even sooner than I expected, a second division tournament. And one obstacle is the unclear rule #2. I am pretty sure if I would do a poll if rule #2 can stand the pressure of 2012 the result would be negative. It needs an update.
What 5-10 best programs in the world can not play? Rybka? Derivative of Fruit. All of the robolito family? Derivatives of Rybka apparently. So ther eare not 5-10. There is really two if you count rationally. Rybka and the ip* family which make up the other 9 or so you talk about.
Calling that group 5-10 best in the world is really a stretch of reasoning...
The fundamental issue here is something that uneducated people do not understand, so you will have a lot of people (even on this forum which consists of generally pretty smart people) think, "why not?" In other words they will say, "just let all the clones compete and let the results speak for itself. It will prove whether the clones are better or not."
But the issue is how much representation that any given program gets. The ICGA has a rule about any author being represented more than once. Even being represented twice is a huge advantage. Imagine a tournament with 20 Ivahone clones - the same authors (whoever they are) would basically have 20 chances to win. It is almost a sure thing that one of the clones will win the tournament, and it's not likely it would be Houdini even though it might be the strongest program in the tournament.
Do you remember the Hong Kong WCCC? I cannot remember if you were there, but I talked to Murray Campbell and he told me that they estimated their winning chances to be just under 50%. That sounds very pessimistic when you consider that Deep Blue was way out of everyone's league. However if you look at this another way you can see that they had a huge amount of faith in Deep Blue's superiority - anyone audacious enough to give themselves 50/50 odds must think their program is pretty strong. Here is why:
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! Of course they had reason to be.
There is a reason why each program should be unique. If you want to have a side tournament of Ivahoe clones, that might be fun for you but it wouldn't be very meaningful.
I've explained that kind of math several times here. If your program is 200 Elo stronger than anyone else, you have a .75 probability of winning each game. The probability of winning ALL games in even a small 5-round event becomes .75 ^ 5 or roughly 25% probability of winning all 5 rounds. Luck abounds in these events. See Fritz vs Deep Blue prototype in that event.
As far as clones, another good example was WMCCC in Jakarta. Two Crafty's, Crafty and Gunda-1. They BOTH finished in the top 5. Gunda-1 was Crafty with just a couple of eval changes...
Rebel wrote:
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.
You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.
Rebel wrote:
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.
You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.
Bob a while also called Richard a cloner. Today I learned (from the other thread) he has accused Daniel S. of cloning Crafty. It made Dann Corbit (who inspected the source code and disagreed) to say: I think it should serve as a severe warning about using ideas from crafty. Basically, I now think it is a very bad idea to read the crafty code.
Peter Skinner wrote:
That is boring. I want participants to bring their absolute best to an event. Best engine, best book, best hardware, best operator, best internet connection.. you get the point. This is why upsets are so special, because the best doesn't always win...
Peter
How boring is it to see the person with the most money to buy the best hardware win every year?
bob wrote: 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.
"Speak now or forever hold your peace" this sentence has a sense !
What it means "until a protest is filed" ? Until tournament is finished and once a partecipant find itself lost then fills the protest ? Until 6 years later ???
I think partecipants have the right to rise concerns above competitors but before the start of the tournament, not after. Anyhow this is just a secondary issue compared to the real big issue of the strongest (not in ELO terms!) partecipants letting come in only who they like using the straw man and hypocritical argumentation of "original engine" (well supported in this by the ICGA).
Peter Skinner wrote:
That is boring. I want participants to bring their absolute best to an event. Best engine, best book, best hardware, best operator, best internet connection.. you get the point. This is why upsets are so special, because the best doesn't always win...
Peter
How boring is it to see the person with the most money to buy the best hardware win every year?
Very boring and elitist.
It does not happen.
There are years when the person with the most money does not win.
Peter Skinner wrote:
That is boring. I want participants to bring their absolute best to an event. Best engine, best book, best hardware, best operator, best internet connection.. you get the point. This is why upsets are so special, because the best doesn't always win...
Peter
How boring is it to see the person with the most money to buy the best hardware win every year?
Very boring and elitist.
You should try entering a formula-1 race. Or enter the NHRA drag championship. Or enter a NASCAR race. Or enter a river-race (1/4 mile outboard motor).
Rebel wrote:
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.
You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.
In the case of Houdini, I don't believe there is any doubt someone would protest. Would you disagree with that, particularly in light of everything that has been discovered on OpenChess???
