What's Vasik Rajlich doing today?

[Graham Banks]

I will answer later in the day of your message!
But this one explain my opinion:

Here my view. I have the same as a friendly judge from me. I told him the situation for a while and he have no interest to discuss with me, because after a minute only the situation is more as clear for him. At first, most important are one question only.

Picture for an example:

1. Person A draw a picture

2. Person B have stolen the picture and changed a lot. For looking the picuture all is more nicely. Not important what he do ... selling or not.

3. Not know people "C" have stolen the picuture from person B. Not important free, selling or whatever.

4. Person D repair the mistakes the "unkown group "C" made. Not important what he do, selling, free or whatever.

5. Person E see that and works with the repaired code from Person "D".

6. Others are thinking great ... we can do the same and have stolen the work Person E made or used the work Person D made or used the work the "Unknown Group of Person "C" made.

The Judge answered directly very simple!
For me important is only one question at first. Was the picuture stolen from Person B or not. All others things arn't important at first, because if so ... all others have give his pictures to person A back. Simply, the picture of person A was Copyright. An other question is how big is damage for person A. After this different other things could be interesting.

If the Picture are changed is this much more interesting for him. Not important for him is the picture better or not better. No other person have to changed a Copyright work. I told him, that with changes the Picture is clearly better as before. The judge told me, that isn't important ... the originality was changed and this isn't right.

If such a case goes to a judge ... a big chaos for computer chess. Causal chain running a long time.

My opinion to open sources in chess programming aren't really good. The best way to solved such a problem isn't a judge, the important persons ... Person A and Person B should find a solution. That is most important I think.

I will not have the work from Person C or D or E or F in my list of engines for a _Continuous_ Tourney ... the complete work I do here, my complicated _continuous_ tourney is for the trash can. Much more interesting as to used such programs (at the Minimum we can say ... Status unclear) are to use the other available engines. And in my opinion the other available engines are much more interesting.

Furthermore:
For me most important are my stats to playing styles. I am not a programmer and originality I can checked with my method only in looking stats and comparing analyzes. If I can build the opinion that a program have today nothing to do with all this, I added the engine. Maybe I am wrong with different engines I added, but I am not a god. All other users are not a god and can build an own opinion, Sedat do, CEGT do, CCRL, Graham do, Ingo do with here IPON. It's complicated in my view. I wish me that the situation will be solved in the future. Thats is better for Computer chess as the situation we have. Because each time ... also in ten years it will be a main topic. It's a bad black hole in Computer chess and the most important persons here should try to clean it.

Best
Frank

How can you steal something that is freely given?

[hgm]

Your PST point addresses an issue I have raised many times. One PST is just "interesting". MANY PSTs is damning. The latter shows that little original research was done to choose the values.

But that does not really answer the question. Which was:

If some public copyrighted code XXX reads

Code: Select all

int KingPST[5][5];

init_pst()
{
  int i, j;
  for(i=1; i<5; i++) for(j=1; j<5; j++) KingPST[i][j] = (i-2)*(i-2) + (j-2)*(j-2);
}

and in my own program I would write

Code: Select all

int KingPST[25] = { // use same values as XXX
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  4, 1, 0, 1, 4,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
}

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Graham,

what you can have for free and what is own intellectual proberty is a big different. I am sure, if you an affected / concerned (not sure what is right) person you are building an other opinion automatically.

I wrote before about the "self-service-outlet".
The high entitlement mentality seduces.
A big danger in times today. So many interesting things are available.
A dream from so many People ...
One time in my life I will be a superstar!
Most forget an ex Superstar is most of the time very lonely.
In case of ... the Superstar used other works ... boomerang!

For minutes Luydmil wrote about it!
Interesting to read. Such comments I read often in the latest years and such opinions have disappointed people.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Ed,

life experience:
I would say ... in case of Computer chess ... 90% majority of cases, keep quit persons have bigger problems, in most of cases it have todo with own interest or something around the past in combination with own interest.

I would say ... in daily life ... 60%

After so many years Computer chess I can't build an other opinion. I wish me to build an other opinion but I can't.

---

Often I am read such things ... I started with chess programming for 10 years. The first version is available and we can see parts of an other program are changed only. How often we read that here in TalkChess!

Personality Problems people have. Do you remember ... Dr. Gabriele Müller with Voyager, LaPetite, LaGrande ... how many examples you need?

Do you replay games from IM Vas Rajlich?
A very aggressive Player in the openings and Rybka is passiv after the openings and strong in endgame?

Frank Quisinsky with older Cobol and TurboPascal knowlegde started with c++. After five years c++ and 500 mails with questions to other programmers and 200 questions to yourself about programming Frank started the developing from a chess program. What's your opinion what I would try to create? Clear, I would try to create a program like Spark, strong tactic in the beginning of the game. Never I would start with boring endgames. My own engine should Play that what I like.

Newer stronger engines, often updated (programmer unkown ... Vas was completly unkown for me in times Rybka 1 are available) is a good indiz for copy an other one. How many examples you need ... how often Rybka 1 was updated!

That is Computer chess history too.
Most situation are allways the same in our life.

---

You gave me 4 possibilties ...

Hm ...
I like this one

5. Could be a view from Vas ... made sense for me after all information I read about it.

---
I am very disappointed that Rybka is decompiled. All my work from the latest years others have now. But what can I do? Nothing, because if I do anything I have a problem. I am using in the beginning sources from others too. I have no chance to do anything and better is to give up the development.
---

Possible that Robert Houdart are thinking same things. Nobody know it.

Again:
Open source isn't good for Computer chess. Sooner or later each Talent with own good ideas will have such a problem. I wrote before about it.

I wrote to Robert Houdart, why you don't start a chess programming from the beginning in times Houdini 1.0 are available. Interesting was his answere.

Best
Frank

[Evert]

How can you steal something that is freely given?

This whole discussion is a train-wreck of confusion and people talking at each other without realising what exactly the other side is saying.

In this whole discussion, there are two (three) separate questions that are confused:
1. Is it allowed to take the source of one engine (Fruit), derive another engine from it (say, Vegetable) and enter it in a particular tournament (ICGA)?
2. Is it allowed to take the source of one engine (Fruit), derive another engine from it (say, Vegetable) and release it as a new product?
3. Did Rybka start as a Fruit (and/or Crafty) derivative?

Well,
1. No, or only under specific circumstances. I haven't looked at the rules here very much because I'm personally not interested. Either way, not following the rules of a tournament is not illegal or criminal.
2. Yes, as long as you abide by the license of the first engine (Fruit). Fruit source is licensed under the GPL. This means that the source code to Vegetable must also be released under the terms of the GPL (meaning at no extra cost and with no restrictions). This is the copyright side of the argument and has little or nothing to do with question 1.
3. People get into long and heated discussions over this.

So to answer your question: you cannot "steal" GPL code. You can fail to follow the license it comes with, which is arguably a form of software piracy. Another way to look at this is to realise that GPL code is not "free" in the broadest sense of the word (specifically, you don't have the right to make the code "non-free").

[Graham Banks]

How can you steal something that is freely given?

This whole discussion is a train-wreck of confusion and people talking at each other without realising what exactly the other side is saying.

In this whole discussion, there are two (three) separate questions that are confused:
1. Is it allowed to take the source of one engine (Fruit), derive another engine from it (say, Vegetable) and enter it in a particular tournament (ICGA)?
2. Is it allowed to take the source of one engine (Fruit), derive another engine from it (say, Vegetable) and release it as a new product?
3. Did Rybka start as a Fruit (and/or Crafty) derivative?

Well,
1. No, or only under specific circumstances. I haven't looked at the rules here very much because I'm personally not interested. Either way, not following the rules of a tournament is not illegal or criminal.
2. Yes, as long as you abide by the license of the first engine (Fruit). Fruit source is licensed under the GPL. This means that the source code to Vegetable must also be released under the terms of the GPL (meaning at no extra cost and with no restrictions). This is the copyright side of the argument and has little or nothing to do with question 1.
3. People get into long and heated discussions over this.

So to answer your question: you cannot "steal" GPL code. You can fail to follow the license it comes with, which is arguably a form of software piracy. Another way to look at this is to realise that GPL code is not "free" in the broadest sense of the word (specifically, you don't have the right to make the code "non-free").

Sounds 100% correct.
However, the use of ideas from such code are a different issue.

[bob]

Your PST point addresses an issue I have raised many times. One PST is just "interesting". MANY PSTs is damning. The latter shows that little original research was done to choose the values.

But that does not really answer the question. Which was:

If some public copyrighted code XXX reads

Code: Select all

int KingPST[5][5];

init_pst()
{
  int i, j;
  for(i=1; i<5; i++) for(j=1; j<5; j++) KingPST[i][j] = (i-2)*(i-2) + (j-2)*(j-2);
}

and in my own program I would write

Code: Select all

int KingPST[25] = { // use same values as XXX
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  4, 1, 0, 1, 4,
  5, 2, 1, 2, 5,
  8, 5, 4, 5, 8,
}

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

I do not believe so. IIRC, copyright infringement specifically excludes tables of numbers. It also explicitly excludes formulaes. But if there is more stuff found, I suppose a table produced by code from the original program, but used as raw numbers hand-coded in the suspected copy might be used as circumstantial evidence.

The real issue with copyright is "effort". The classic "can a PGN game be copyrighted?" question where the answer is a simple "no." But if you expend effort to collect several such PGN games, then the collection is copyrightable because of the effort expended to select them from an almost infinite game space.

I thought you were arguing this from the ICGA rule 2 POV as opposed to copyright. Perhaps I mis-read. For rule 2, taking a program's PST generator, running it, and then hard-coding the result doesn't leave anyone with a warm, fuzzy feeling of "gee, that's original". My king safety matrix generator could be hard-coded. I left it "as is" to make it easier to tweak numbers later, since there is zero computational cost during a game...

[Milos]

(plus similar stuff for all other piece types, to make sure it could be damningI), would it be a copyright infringement? Would there be striking similarity, substantial similarity or no similarity at all in the sense of copyright law between these two code fragments?

Are you serious?
Copyright infringement on trivial peace of code (formula) for writing some numbers?
Or copyright infringement on certain numbers?
Bob has no clue about copyright, never had, so no one takes him seriously when he blabbers about copyright, but it would be really surprising if you thought that any number or group of numbers could be copyrighted...
Even though there were some idiots trying to copyright some primes, but they were as successful as in finding the formula for primes .

[Rebel]

Does that mean you are prepared to finally admit that they are different?

Suggestive question.

From the Wiki -

A suggestive question is one that implies that a certain answer should be given in response, or falsely presents a presupposition in the question as accepted fact. Such a question distorts the memory thereby tricking the person into answering in a specific way that might or might not be true or consistent with their actual feelings, and can be deliberate or unintentional.

Show me where I stated they are equal.

More to the point, are you finally prepared to admit that exact PST's are a copyright infringment?

[carldaman]

Hello dear Frank,

Do you know where Vas made a BIG mistake ??
He worked very very hard...to add 500 Elo...is not as as it looks
I am still wondering: how is that possible over world strongest engine (Fruit) to add so extra many Elo points...

Yes.... Rybka's author made another BIG mistake:
Vas did not allow his engine to beatable in 6 years...I think it is 'too much' long period !)

BTW,
If the current thread was about opening books, for me will be much easier to prove you )
But it is not...so let's forget everything and let's concentrate as you said about girls, football, cars, movies...

Because we already talked a lot about these issues...
And as you see, our discussions are leading to nowhere...

Right now I am too busy...

See you later and please stay tuned )!



Best,
Sedat

This is a good point, Sedat. I know it happened to me once upon a time - after a while people will gang up on you to take you down, if they resent your success. It's the "let's vote him off the island" syndrome. A very nasty side to human nature.

Regards,
CL