Re-activation Programmer Code of Honor

[Tony P.]

It's almost impossible to build something 100% original; maybe Leela may qualify

The legacy lczero backend was

an adaptation of GCP's Leela Zero repository to chess, using Stockfish's position representation and move generation. (No heuristics or prior knowledge are carried over from Stockfish.)

as per readme.md. The files copied from SF to that repo, such as Bitboard.cpp and Movegen.cpp, carry SF's copyright notice.

Therefore, the new lc0 repo falls into the category 'derived from SF but original at code level in the meantime'. Leela is an example of an honest derivative that has been playing a fully original style in all its releases. The fact that none other than one of the TCEC superfinalists started as the other's fork is another reason why I don't consider the 'derivative' status shameful a priori.

[Kotlov]

I'm in !!

[Rebel]

Did a quick depth=1 sim-test with the relative new engines.

None had a high similarity with Stockfish, simply outstanding.

http://rebel13.nl/dump/modern.html

[Terje]

Did a quick depth=1 sim-test with the relative new engines.

None had a high similarity with Stockfish, simply outstanding.

http://rebel13.nl/dump/modern.html

Very cool to see

[Dann Corbit]

There are no copyrights on tables of numbers.
Therefore, they can't be stolen.

And you can't steal an idea either, unless there is a patent.

Stealing code with copyright violation is wrong.
Reverse engineering can be a legal violation if done improplerly.
But I do not think the chess programmers have any idea what is actually allowed or not allowed so they are making up their own standards and judging people with those.

Now that the chess crowd seems to think they own math and algorithms, I am starting to wonder about the jealous protection of chess programs.
If the things that people are railing against are not wrong in the eyes of the law, then what is actually going on?
Maybe we should start another document called "the code of jealous protection".
"My things that are not protected will be jealously guarded as if they were. And I will publicly shame you as a criminal if you use them."

[Rebel]

There are no copyrights on tables of numbers.
Therefore, they can't be stolen.

And you can't steal an idea either, unless there is a patent.

Stealing code with copyright violation is wrong.
Reverse engineering can be a legal violation if done improplerly.
But I do not think the chess programmers have any idea what is actually allowed or not allowed so they are making up their own standards and judging people with those.

Now that the chess crowd seems to think they own math and algorithms, I am starting to wonder about the jealous protection of chess programs.
If the things that people are railing against are not wrong in the eyes of the law, then what is actually going on?
Maybe we should start another document called "the code of jealous protection".
"My things that are not protected will be jealously guarded as if they were. And I will publicly shame you as a criminal if you use them."

The paradox we are in is that the community more or less has decided that coping code is the death penalty and that copying ideas is free while the truth is that the real elo is in the ideas, the novelty. Living in this paradox we try to find reasonable rules. The perfect does not exist.

[chrisw]

There are no copyrights on tables of numbers.
Therefore, they can't be stolen.

And you can't steal an idea either, unless there is a patent.

Stealing code with copyright violation is wrong.
Reverse engineering can be a legal violation if done improplerly.
But I do not think the chess programmers have any idea what is actually allowed or not allowed so they are making up their own standards and judging people with those.

Now that the chess crowd seems to think they own math and algorithms, I am starting to wonder about the jealous protection of chess programs.
If the things that people are railing against are not wrong in the eyes of the law, then what is actually going on?
Maybe we should start another document called "the code of jealous protection".
"My things that are not protected will be jealously guarded as if they were. And I will publicly shame you as a criminal if you use them."

The paradox we are in is that the community more or less has decided that coping code is the death penalty and that copying ideas is free while the truth is that the real elo is in the ideas, the novelty. Living in this paradox we try to find reasonable rules. The perfect does not exist.

Just who is this “community”? Who is “we”? Since when can Internet forums make “rules”? Why should any of the 8 billion people out there pay any attention at all?
All I see is people wanting to be in a social group. The same social group that every now and again engages in vicious bouts of expelling people. How about engine programmers who don’t want to be part of this social group? One to one with other programmers, fine. Ed, I understand what you are trying to do, it’s very commendable, but collectivising chess engine programmers into one happy family? Flies in the face of history.
I agree with most of Dann’s post above, btw.

[Rebel]

There are no copyrights on tables of numbers.
Therefore, they can't be stolen.

And you can't steal an idea either, unless there is a patent.

Stealing code with copyright violation is wrong.
Reverse engineering can be a legal violation if done improplerly.
But I do not think the chess programmers have any idea what is actually allowed or not allowed so they are making up their own standards and judging people with those.

Now that the chess crowd seems to think they own math and algorithms, I am starting to wonder about the jealous protection of chess programs.
If the things that people are railing against are not wrong in the eyes of the law, then what is actually going on?
Maybe we should start another document called "the code of jealous protection".
"My things that are not protected will be jealously guarded as if they were. And I will publicly shame you as a criminal if you use them."

The paradox we are in is that the community more or less has decided that coping code is the death penalty and that copying ideas is free while the truth is that the real elo is in the ideas, the novelty. Living in this paradox we try to find reasonable rules. The perfect does not exist.

Just who is this “community”? Who is “we”? Since when can Internet forums make “rules”? Why should any of the 8 billion people out there pay any attention at all?
All I see is people wanting to be in a social group. The same social group that every now and again engages in vicious bouts of expelling people. How about engine programmers who don’t want to be part of this social group? One to one with other programmers, fine. Ed, I understand what you are trying to do, it’s very commendable, but collectivising chess engine programmers into one happy family? Flies in the face of history.
I agree with most of Dann’s post above, btw.

Fair competitions need rules, true in every sports.

[xr_a_y]

This is not a competition to everyone. I hope...

[chrisw]

There are no copyrights on tables of numbers.
Therefore, they can't be stolen.

And you can't steal an idea either, unless there is a patent.

Stealing code with copyright violation is wrong.
Reverse engineering can be a legal violation if done improplerly.
But I do not think the chess programmers have any idea what is actually allowed or not allowed so they are making up their own standards and judging people with those.

Now that the chess crowd seems to think they own math and algorithms, I am starting to wonder about the jealous protection of chess programs.
If the things that people are railing against are not wrong in the eyes of the law, then what is actually going on?
Maybe we should start another document called "the code of jealous protection".
"My things that are not protected will be jealously guarded as if they were. And I will publicly shame you as a criminal if you use them."

The paradox we are in is that the community more or less has decided that coping code is the death penalty and that copying ideas is free while the truth is that the real elo is in the ideas, the novelty. Living in this paradox we try to find reasonable rules. The perfect does not exist.

Just who is this “community”? Who is “we”? Since when can Internet forums make “rules”? Why should any of the 8 billion people out there pay any attention at all?
All I see is people wanting to be in a social group. The same social group that every now and again engages in vicious bouts of expelling people. How about engine programmers who don’t want to be part of this social group? One to one with other programmers, fine. Ed, I understand what you are trying to do, it’s very commendable, but collectivising chess engine programmers into one happy family? Flies in the face of history.
I agree with most of Dann’s post above, btw.

Fair competitions need rules, true in every sports.

What competitions? The 'community' doesn't organise any competitions. There are people performing mass engine testing on a an entirely voluntary basis and publishing results. There are others making what seem to be aimed at getting some kind of revenue stream doing live games and giving themselves mnemonical names. What's wrong? They kind of have their own rules already.
Tour de France has rules, competitors have to sign a contract. Tour de France is a big commercial operation. If you or I want to dose ourselves up on anabolic steroids and going riding our bicycles wherever, whenever we are entirely free to do so, nothing to do with Tour de France. I am not getting this 'community' rule set concept, sorry. It's not up to any 'community' to operate peer group pressure or any of the other nasty processes computer chess has become famous for, onto 8 billion people. And when the 'community' is some kind of self-defined gathering (with a tendency to mobbing) on the internet, absolutely not.
If you like, make a competition, announce a rule set, invite participants and make a contract with them. But not arbitrary internet forum rules which for absolutely sure, are going to get used in another repeat witch-hunt, sometime, someplace.