FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

[hgm]

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.

Indeed, the rules seem to allow this. But I am pretty sure this is by mistake. Of course the written permission would often be required to make the use legal. (Not so in the case of the GPL, though.) The clause was probably added with things like tablebase probing in mind. I don't think they realized that it would punch a whole large enough to sink the ship...

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 is exactly what GridChess was. It used Toga II binaries running on many different machines, and the original part of the program just coordinated their searches.

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."

This is for the Olympiad, not the WCCC/WCSC. Multiple programs here means programs for different games. Like I am participating in the Xiangqi, Shogi, mini-Shogi and Tori Shogi.

[Roger Brown]

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?

Ronald,

This might seem hard to understand or appreciate, but the fate of Rybka was never a consideration. I have never been pro-Rybka, anti-Rybka or anything in between those extremes. I just do not care. On the principle I am defending, of course I would want to see Rybka entered.

In fact, the Elo argument has always been the mainstay of the pro-Rybka faction, some members of whom now argue against world titles precisely because the strongest engine does not participate.

In my opinion, if Rybka was winning titles today and was clearly not the strongest engine, it would deserve every one of them.

I am not addressing the issues surrounding its present status, as much of that is several degrees above my head, but the issue of my perspective on it participating.

I think you are being a wee bit callous with my argumentation if you say, "by whatever means" in connection with me. I have made it clear that I will respect the authors if their wish is not to go there. "By whatever means" is hardly my position.

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.

No problem here. So if it is currently no and not likely to change, then we can all move on. I will therefore withdraw any suggestions on this point.

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 am somewhat confused here about the title not worn/won by Marco et al. I mean, if they entered it, why wouldn't it be theirs?

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 I accepted the retraction. However he is far from the only person holding that viewpoint.

Later.

[michiguel]

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.

Indeed, the rules seem to allow this. But I am pretty sure this is by mistake. Of course the written permission would often be required to make the use legal. (Not so in the case of the GPL, though.) The clause was probably added with things like tablebase probing in mind. I don't think they realized that it would punch a whole large enough to sink the ship...

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 is exactly what GridChess was. It used Toga II binaries running on many different machines, and the original part of the program just coordinated their searches.

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."

This is for the Olympiad, not the WCCC/WCSC. Multiple programs here means programs for different games. Like I am participating in the Xiangqi, Shogi, mini-Shogi and Tori Shogi.

Yes, but that is just an interpretation.

Miguel

[hgm]

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.

Note that the GPL is also very explicit in denying any liability for the usage of the program. So Tord et al. could never be hold accountable for any rule violations, in the same way that Vas was held accountable. This liability would fall solely on the person(s) entering Stockfish.

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.)

Or the ICGA could say: "We have this entry of Stockfish, by a guy who made a significant contribution to the code, and we judged this contribution large enough to accept him as someone who has the right to do this. After all, he complies with all the rules we published in advance, concerning mentioning the other authors and having their legal consent to use their code!"

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?

I would have no objection whatsoever against participation of a 'clean' Rybka. Even a Rybka that is so heavily based on Fruit that it is to be considered a derivative can participate, as far as I am concerned, provided that it lists Fabien as one of the authors. There would be a problem, however, for a Rybka version that violated the GPL. In that case the use of the Fruit code it included would not be 'legally used', and it could not be made legal without publishing the entire Rybka source (which Vas would never do). So I don't think there would be any way to enter that.

You insist on missing the point. Very well.

Or perhaps you had no point, or one that I just didn't agree with?

[hgm]

Yes, but that is just an interpretation.

Not sure to which part of my posting this refers. (Obviously not to that I entered an engine in the Xiangqi tourney...)

[syzygy]

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?

This might seem hard to understand or appreciate, but the fate of Rybka was never a consideration. I have never been pro-Rybka, anti-Rybka or anything in between those extremes. I just do not care. On the principle I am defending, of course I would want to see Rybka entered.

It was more a general thought. If it is considered (not by you) that SF's authors even have a moral obligation to participate, the same would seem to apply to Rybka. (If we accept that, we all should be happy that Rybka did participate and there is at most a slight blemish in that the entry form might have been filled out incompletely.)

I think you are being a wee bit callous with my argumentation if you say, "by whatever means" in connection with me. I have made it clear that I will respect the authors if their wish is not to go there. "By whatever means" is hardly my position.

OK, I should have been more clear when inserting that question while answering to you. (And those "means" would only be some bending of the tournament rules.)

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 am somewhat confused here about the title not worn/won by Marco et al. I mean, if they entered it, why wouldn't it be theirs?

If Marco et al. entered it, yes of course it would be theirs. If the ICGA enters it just to make the competition more "complete", then I'd say no. In my view you cannot force a title upon someone that is not interested in the title in the first place. It would anyway be meaningless.

[Roger Brown]

If Marco et al. entered it, yes of course it would be theirs. If the ICGA enters it just to make the competition more "complete", then I'd say no. In my view you cannot force a title upon someone that is not interested in the title in the first place. It would anyway be meaningless.

True.

However, despite my keen interest in it happening, I suspect that the title of Greatest Lover in the World will never be forced on me.

So, it is equally meaningless to attribute - or even desire - titles where it will never happen as well.

Alas.

Later.

[michiguel]

Yes, but that is just an interpretation.

Not sure to which part of my posting this refers. (Obviously not to that I entered an engine in the Xiangqi tourney...)

That two chess programs from the same author cannot be entered in the chess competition. It is not explicit.

Miguel

[syzygy]

However, despite my keen interest in it happening, I suspect that the title of Greatest Lover in the World will never be forced on me.

So, it is equally meaningless to attribute - or even desire - titles where it will never happen as well.

The nice thing of titles is that everyone can make them up.

The official ICGA World Champion Computer Chess
The offical <insert> Greatest Lover in the World

Just need to find one organisation or person willing to award you the title.

[Harvey Williamson]

However, despite my keen interest in it happening, I suspect that the title of Greatest Lover in the World will never be forced on me.

So, it is equally meaningless to attribute - or even desire - titles where it will never happen as well.

The nice thing of titles is that everyone can make them up.

The official ICGA World Champion Computer Chess
The offical <insert> Greatest Lover in the World

Just need to find one organisation or person willing to award you the title.

If Roger wishes to be innovative I am sure this could be arranged by the ICGA in Leiden. Dr. Levy has written a book called "Sex with Robots."