FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

[Henk]

If they want many programs to participate then they should allow clones too. For ideas are normally copied and changed to make it look original.

A programmers tournament is like a user tournament for you don't know who has written the software.

Or maybe before joining a tournament the author has to make test to see if he might have written a chess engine.

[hgm]

Having many different programs is a worthwhile goal, having many programs per se seems meaningless. (At least to me, and to ICGA.) What is the point of having a program with 100 participants if they are all Stockfish? It would just be a waste of time. Even if there were only 3 participants, all different, it would be infinitely more interesting.

The philosophy of a World Championship is that anyone must be able to compete. You just don't want to allow the same entity to compete multiple times. That would be a highly unfair way to rigg the odds in your favor.

[Harvey Williamson]

If they want many programs to participate then they should allow clones too. For ideas are normally copied and changed to make it look original.

A programmers tournament is like a user tournament for you don't know who has written the software.

Or maybe before joining a tournament the author has to make test to see if he might have written a chess engine.

Maybe the test should be to lock the entering programmer in a dark room and see how long or if they are able at all to write a simple chess engine that plays legal moves at say 2200 elo minimum If they enter a 3000 elo engine they should prove they understand the basics at least.

[syzygy]

Pretending to the outside world that Marco, Joona and Tord agreed to participation in an ICGA tournament would in fact appear to be an illegal form of misrepresentation to me and possibly criminal.

This is an utterly absurd claim. Which law exactly would have been broken? According to this 'reasoning' TCEC is illegal, and Martin Thoresen possibly a criminal for including engines without obtaining written permission of the authors. While in fact he just useslegally obtained software in accordance with the license agreement.

I've added some bold text. ICGA is a tournament for programmers. TCEC is simply about the best engine from a list selected by Martin.

So the ICGA would have to act very carefully, making clear that SF was being entered behind the backs of Marco, Joona and Tord. And they'd have something to explain to the actual competitors.

It is fully upto the ICGA to determine which criteria they will apply for admitting a legally-obtained program in the WCCC.

Only if the rules are clear upfront. ICGA kind of has a habit of changing the rules midgame (or rather, 6 years after the fact). If a programmer signs up for a tournament that is open to programmers, he may well feel pretty annoyed if the ICGA deviates from its own rules by entering any "missing" programs.

There can be nothing illegal about running software in accordance with its license agreement.

Of course the authors have no claim against it based on the GPL.

And as far as 'explaining to the actual competitors' is concerned: that is ICGA's problem. Why allow them to dodge it by chickening out yourself?

I wasn't the one complaining that Marco/Joona/Tord do not take part. In fact, unlike some others, I do respect their choice.

[syzygy]

Having many different programs is a worthwhile goal, having many programs per se seems meaningless. (At least to me, and to ICGA.) What is the point of having a program with 100 participants if they are all Stockfish?

The ICGA rules are much stricter (and vaguer) than that. I am almost sure you will agree that Rybka and Fruit, when competing in ICGA tournaments, were different.

[hgm]

I've added some bold text. ICGA is a tournament for programmers. TCEC is simply about the best engine from a list selected by Martin.

They agreed to it by drawing up the license agreement. Nothing to pretend there, it is all written in black and white. The GPL is not like the Crafty license, which explicitly forbids anyone to enter it, or any derivative, in a tournament.

Only if the rules are clear upfront. ICGA kind of has a habit of changing the rules midgame (or rather, 6 years after the fact). If a programmer signs up for a tournament that is open to programmers, he may well feel pretty annoyed if the ICGA deviates from its own rules by entering any "missing" programs.

Well, the rules are clear up front. And they do allow this. As one would expect they should. The GPL constitutes an irrevocable written permission of all contributors to enter the program in the WCCC.

The only aspect in which the current rules are deficient, and need amending, is that participation of Stockfish would bar any of its contributors from entering with a separate program of his own. Which everyone agrees is totally unreasonable, but no problem in the current situation.

I wasn't the one complaining that Marco/Joona/Tord do not take part. In fact, unlike some others, I do respect their choice.

Too bad. You had a unique opportunity to change history, and made a large number of people happy (if only because they could no longer be 'conned' ), at virtually no cost to yourself.

[hgm]

Having many different programs is a worthwhile goal, having many programs per se seems meaningless. (At least to me, and to ICGA.) What is the point of having a program with 100 participants if they are all Stockfish?

The ICGA rules are much stricter (and vaguer) than that. I am almost sure you will agree that Rybka and Fruit, when competing in ICGA tournaments, were different.

Sure. And I don't think they were even participating in the same tournament.

Of course when the purpose is to avoid multiple copies of the same program, you would have to make prety elaborate rules to enforce it. Otherwise dodging the rules would be so trivial that you might not have bothered at all. "It is not the same program, because I changed the name string!"

So the sensible rule would be: "no duplicate entry of any game-playing code". Which is what the ICGA rules are trying to achieve.

[Henk]

Having many different programs is a worthwhile goal, having many programs per se seems meaningless. (At least to me, and to ICGA.) What is the point of having a program with 100 participants if they are all Stockfish?

The ICGA rules are much stricter (and vaguer) than that. I am almost sure you will agree that Rybka and Fruit, when competing in ICGA tournaments, were different.

Sure. And I don't think they were even participating in the same tournament.

Of course when the purpose is to avoid multiple copies of the same program, you would have to make prety elaborate rules to enforce it. Otherwise dodging the rules would be so trivial that you might not have bothered at all. "It is not the same program, because I changed the name string!"

So the sensible rule would be: "no duplicate entry of any game-playing code". Which is what the ICGA rules are trying to achieve.

How often do I encounter changes that don't change ELO. So if you want an original clone just apply all those changes and the code will look quite different, play different and will almost have the same elo rating. That means only first place counts.

[bob]

Pretending to the outside world that Marco, Joona and Tord agreed to participation in an ICGA tournament would in fact appear to be an illegal form of misrepresentation to me and possibly criminal.

This is an utterly absurd claim. Which law exactly would have been broken? According to this 'reasoning' TCEC is illegal, and Martin Thoresen possibly a criminal for including engines without obtaining written permission of the authors. While in fact he just useslegally obtained software in accordance with the license agreement.

I've added some bold text. ICGA is a tournament for programmers. TCEC is simply about the best engine from a list selected by Martin.

So the ICGA would have to act very carefully, making clear that SF was being entered behind the backs of Marco, Joona and Tord. And they'd have something to explain to the actual competitors.

It is fully upto the ICGA to determine which criteria they will apply for admitting a legally-obtained program in the WCCC.

Only if the rules are clear upfront. ICGA kind of has a habit of changing the rules midgame (or rather, 6 years after the fact). If a programmer signs up for a tournament that is open to programmers, he may well feel pretty annoyed if the ICGA deviates from its own rules by entering any "missing" programs.

There can be nothing illegal about running software in accordance with its license agreement.

Of course the authors have no claim against it based on the GPL.

And as far as 'explaining to the actual competitors' is concerned: that is ICGA's problem. Why allow them to dodge it by chickening out yourself?

I wasn't the one complaining that Marco/Joona/Tord do not take part. In fact, unlike some others, I do respect their choice.

WHERE did the ICGA "change the rules 6 years after the fact?" Rule 2 has been around for as long as I can remember. 20 years prior to the Rybka case at least...

[syzygy]

I've added some bold text. ICGA is a tournament for programmers. TCEC is simply about the best engine from a list selected by Martin.

They agreed to it by drawing up the license agreement. Nothing to pretend there, it is all written in black and white.

It is utterly insulting and nonsensical to interpret the release of code under the GPL as agreement of the authors to participate as programmers in some tournament.

The GPL does not say "we agree to our participation in ICGA tournaments". In this respect the GPL does not differ one iota from any other license. Why should the GPL be interpreted as "we agree to participating in ICGA tournaments" but, for example, Komodo's license not?

The GPL is not like the Crafty license, which explicitly forbids anyone to enter it, or any derivative, in a tournament.

The Crafty license indeed purports to forbid running crafty in TCEC or any other testing environment without written permission from the authors. That clause has no legal meaning. It does make it clear that the mere release of Craty's code cannot be interpreted as agreement of its authors to participate as programmers in ICGA tournaments, but for that purpose it is entirely superfluous.