FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

[bob]

The investigation is certainly over, and was conclusive.

Conclusive?

Conclusive like: we've made up our minds?

Conclusive as in a significant group of people examined the evidence, presented it to another group of people who then acted on it.

[bob]

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?

Actually the GPL allows you to do ANYTHING with the source. Main stipulation is that if you release/sell/distribute the resulting executable, you have to also do the same for the source code. There are NO limits placed on how/where/when the code can be used, however.

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.

[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?

Actually the GPL allows you to do ANYTHING with the source. Main stipulation is that if you release/sell/distribute the resulting executable, you have to also do the same for the source code. There are NO limits placed on how/where/when the code can be used, however.

Sure, but what does the source have to do with this? You don't need the source to compete in a tournament. I can download a binary of Crafty and play against it on my PC.

If I'm allowed to run an executable, I can run it in a test environment such as TCEC or an ICGA tournament. That is, the license allows that.

The point, that seems hard to grasp, is that ICGA is a programmer's tournament where programmer's compete in their personal capacity (possibly represented by someone they appointed, but that makes no difference).

To purport that Marco/Joona/Tord agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing SF under the GPL, or to purport that Mark and Larry agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing Komodo under a license that is silent on testing Komodo against other engines, is nonsensical.

With TCEC there is no such problem, as TCEC does not purport that the programmer's agreed to personal participation (even though Martin seems to voluntarily respect the express wishes of authors that prefer their engine to stay out of TCEC).

[Roger Brown]

To purport that Marco/Joona/Tord agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing SF under the GPL, or to purport that Mark and Larry agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing Komodo under a license that is silent on testing Komodo against other engines, is nonsensical.

Hello Ronald,

I respect and understand the arguments but I am cutting to the core that others including H.G. - and possibly Robert - are getting at.

I would love to see Stockfish at this event.

Hosts of fans would love to see Stockfish there.

All I am asking, without violating anyone's rights - legal or otherwise - is there a way to get Stockfish there?

I am just trying to cut to the chase here.

Should it be the case that the Stockfish team adamantly refuses that this happen, then can there be a clear statement of that, so that all the posters can move on?

I mean, claiming to be the fastest is one thing but Asafa Powell, for all the sub 10 second times that he has run (more than any human I believe) in his life, is neither the Olympic champion or World Champion. It so happens that the fastest human ever has those titles at the moment, but during Asafa's dominance, he was unquestionably the fastest, just not the champion.

I respect the Stockfish authors' position, particularly Tord, whom I respect tremendously as a person, but then to claim that there is some fraud or con being perpetrated by the winner and user of such titles is unfair to say the least.

And no, I am not saying that Tord, or any of the Stockfish authors, made such a claim.

My opinion...

Later.

[hgm]

Sure, but what does the source have to do with this? You don't need the source to compete in a tournament. I can download a binary of Crafty and play against it on my PC.

Actually the GPL also does allow you to do ANYTHING with the binary. It would be a complete farce if people that modified the source and published it in accordance with the license requirements could then attach the condition "but you won't be allowed to use any compiled version that contains my modification, unless... (you pay me, etc.)"

The point, that seems hard to grasp, is that ICGA is a programmer's tournament where programmer's compete in their personal capacity (possibly represented by someone they appointed, but that makes no difference).

There is not much to grasp here. This is purely an ICGA decision. It has already happened before that a WCCC participant (GridChess) was based on open-source software (Crafty, Toga II) by authors that were not actively participating, and did have no interst in the project whatsoever. The ICGA in that case asked for explicit permission of Bob, Fabien and perhaps some others, which for the Crafty use was indeed a necessity (as the license normally forbids it).

But whether they would seek such explicit permission for GPL'ed software, and how much the contribution of any particular author must be to be granted such courtesy, is for them to determine. In an era where the paradigm for development of Chess programs is shifting towards collective efforts, it makes sense to adapt the policy for this so that it helps achieving the intended goal, rather than rigidly clinging to out-dated policies that are counter-productive...

To purport that Marco/Joona/Tord agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing SF under the GPL, or to purport that Mark and Larry agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing Komodo under a license that is silent on testing Komodo against other engines, is nonsensical.

'Non-sensical' is really a subjective assessment. If the Komodo license does not forbid this, I would say it is a rather serious oversight by Larry et al., if they would be really unhappy with this. Bob was not so naive when he drew up the Crafty license.

It is up to the ICGA to decide how many authorship articipation they will consider enough. Requiring none at all seems a bad idea. And requiring some would already prevent any Tom, Dick or Harry from entering Komodo. Not by virtue of its license, in that case, but by ICGA policy. So as soon as you require some, even when it is very little, the most obvious problems already disappear. Whether the ICGA would require 5% or 50% as mininmum contribution for the right to enter a program, and 95% or 0.1% as a threshold for require explicit written permission, does not seem to matter all that much.

With TCEC there is no such problem, as TCEC does not purport that the programmer's agreed to personal participation (even though Martin seems to voluntarily respect the express wishes of authors that prefer their engine to stay out of TCEC).

There is no reason why the WCCC must purport that either. The public at large seems to highly favor the TCEC model...

[hgm]

Should it be the case that the Stockfish team adamantly refuses that this happen, then can there be a clear statement of that, so that all the posters can move on?

The traditional members of the Stockfish team have already made such adamant statements on multiple occasions. But the point of this discussion is that the situation now is changing, and the number of contributors is rapidly increasing, now that everyone is allowed to contribute patches. So we are moving towards a situation where the entire world should be considered Stockfish author.

The question is what consequences this should have for ICGA policy. How much of an author do you have to be before they allow you to enter Stockfish in the WCCC (of course crediting all other authors for their contribution), if all other authors have declared to have no legal objections?

My take on this, if I were ICGA, would be: "Why prevent someone from entering an original program (i.e. sharing no code with other participants) if this doesn't cause any problems?"

[michiguel]

Sure, but what does the source have to do with this? You don't need the source to compete in a tournament. I can download a binary of Crafty and play against it on my PC.

Actually the GPL also does allow you to do ANYTHING with the binary. It would be a complete farce if people that modified the source and published it in accordance with the license requirements could then attach the condition "but you won't be allowed to use any compiled version that contains my modification, unless... (you pay me, etc.)"

The point, that seems hard to grasp, is that ICGA is a programmer's tournament where programmer's compete in their personal capacity (possibly represented by someone they appointed, but that makes no difference).

There is not much to grasp here. This is purely an ICGA decision. It has already happened before that a WCCC participant (GridChess) was based on open-source software (Crafty, Toga II) by authors that were not actively participating, and did have no interst in the project whatsoever. The ICGA in that case asked for explicit permission of Bob, Fabien and perhaps some others, which for the Crafty use was indeed a necessity (as the license normally forbids it).

But whether they would seek such explicit permission for GPL'ed software, and how much the contribution of any particular author must be to be granted such courtesy, is for them to determine. In an era where the paradigm for development of Chess programs is shifting towards collective efforts, it makes sense to adapt the policy for this so that it helps achieving the intended goal, rather than rigidly clinging to out-dated policies that are counter-productive...

To purport that Marco/Joona/Tord agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing SF under the GPL, or to purport that Mark and Larry agreed to competing in an ICGA tournament by releasing Komodo under a license that is silent on testing Komodo against other engines, is nonsensical.

'Non-sensical' is really a subjective assessment. If the Komodo license does not forbid this, I would say it is a rather serious oversight by Larry et al., if they would be really unhappy with this. Bob was not so naive when he drew up the Crafty license.

It is up to the ICGA to decide how many authorship articipation they will consider enough. Requiring none at all seems a bad idea. And requiring some would already prevent any Tom, Dick or Harry from entering Komodo. Not by virtue of its license, in that case, but by ICGA policy. So as soon as you require some, even when it is very little, the most obvious problems already disappear. Whether the ICGA would require 5% or 50% as mininmum contribution for the right to enter a program, and 95% or 0.1% as a threshold for require explicit written permission, does not seem to matter all that much.

With TCEC there is no such problem, as TCEC does not purport that the programmer's agreed to personal participation (even though Martin seems to voluntarily respect the express wishes of authors that prefer their engine to stay out of TCEC).

There is no reason why the WCCC must purport that either. The public at large seems to highly favor the TCEC model...

According to the rules:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.

I can enter a modified version of SF, use SF code since it is legal to use, name developers I see in the SF team and that should be the only requirement. It does not say permission is needed from them.

In fact, I cannot see how this rule forbids to use a program that searches and requests the eval from a another binary, as long as the authors are listed.

I cannot even see (but I may have missed it) that an author cannot be listed in two different teams. Actually, it must be allowed since I read this

"Registration form
We changed the contribution fee for the Olympiad and Chess events:
Participation: 50 Euro for the first program, 25 Euro for the second, third, etc. program.

Use one form for each program. Multiple programs are allowed for one person."

Who write these rules?

Miguel

[syzygy]

All I am asking, without violating anyone's rights - legal or otherwise - is there a way to get Stockfish there?

If the ICGA changes the tournament rules to allow itself to enter Stockfish, then I see no problems with that. But they cannot publicly suggest that it would be Marco/Joona/Tord that were competing.

Note how Vas had to bear the responsibility for his decision to enter those tournaments. Such responsibility cannot be forced upon Marco/Joona/Tord without their explicit agreement. Arguing that the GPL implies such agreement is nonsensical.

So the ICGA would have to say: we organise a tournament for programmers in the usual way, BUT we'll add some engines to the mix in our own name. If the tournament has already been announced, the ICGA should in my view first seek the agreement of those that already entered. Participants may rightfully expect to play against entities that fully comply with the rules. (How else could the ICGA have felt obliged to investigate Rybka after receiving a complaint. At that time it seems even non-participants could complain that ICGA rules were violated. So those rules were not considered to be at the discretion of the ICGA.)

I'm curious. Suppose Rybka had still not been surpassed by other engines. Would you or anyone else have wished that it was entered, by whatever means, into ICGA tournaments?

Should it be the case that the Stockfish team adamantly refuses that this happen, then can there be a clear statement of that, so that all the posters can move on?

In the past at least Marco has made his position very clear on this point. Of course I cannot and will not speak for him and he has the right to change his mind even if that fully contradicts an earlier position he has taken.

I mean, claiming to be the fastest is one thing but Asafa Powell, for all the sub 10 second times that he has run (more than any human I believe) in his life, is neither the Olympic champion or World Champion. It so happens that the fastest human ever has those titles at the moment, but during Asafa's dominance, he was unquestionably the fastest, just not the champion.

Obviously SF will never be the "ICGA World Champion" if it never wins an ICGA World Championship.

If SF is entered by the ICGA and wins the tournament, it won't be a title that will be worn by Marco/Joona/Tord. Such a title seems kind of pointless. Better to award the #2 the title "ICGA World Champion of the rest", or so.

I respect the Stockfish authors' position, particularly Tord, whom I respect tremendously as a person, but then to claim that there is some fraud or con being perpetrated by the winner and user of such titles is unfair to say the least.

I agree. But the person using those words already retracted them if I understood right.

And no, I am not saying that Tord, or any of the Stockfish authors, made such a claim.

Marco did express a strong opinion here. But that is almost 3 years ago.

[syzygy]

Sure, but what does the source have to do with this? You don't need the source to compete in a tournament. I can download a binary of Crafty and play against it on my PC.

Actually the GPL also does allow you to do ANYTHING with the binary. It would be a complete farce if people that modified the source and published it in accordance with the license requirements could then attach the condition "but you won't be allowed to use any compiled version that contains my modification, unless... (you pay me, etc.)"

You insist on missing the point. Very well.

[syzygy]

According to the rules:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.

I can enter a modified version of SF, use SF code since it is legal to use, name developers I see in the SF team and that should be the only requirement. It does not say permission is needed from them.

In fact, I cannot see how this rule forbids to use a program that searches and requests the eval from a another binary, as long as the authors are listed.

This means that Rajlich was disqualified, life-banned and publicly degraced merely for incompletely filling out an entry form. (His code does not seem to have included game-playing code written by others (at most he took code and transformed it), but it may have included some data written by others in the form of PSTs or so.)

That's a pretty severe punishment. I wonder why he was not offered the option to apologise for his oversight and correct it retroactively. Would have saved a lot of hassle.

(Note that even if it is assumed that Rybka "included game-playing code" from Fruit, this was fully in compliance with the GPL in so far as Rybka's participation in ICGA tournaments is concerned.)

I have the feeling that the ICGA felt that permission from those other developers was required to put their name on the entry form, and to be honest, that seems quite reasonable. But the wording of the Rule indeed leaves a lot to be desired. Not an ideal basis for brutal convictions.