Informational Question To ChrisW About Plagiarism

[Uri Blass]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

[Rolf]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

I did never expect something else in the case of Vas. He's an IM! That says that he must have an extreme memory. But since I read that Vas was also a top student I can imagine on the base of these two factors that Vas must already be estimated as a scientist with extraordinary talents and gifts. Thanks for mentioning this, Uri. Vas is somewhat typically highly sophisticated and he wrote his thanks in a manner that couldnt be fully understood by average people. When he wrote he looked into Fruit and he understood the ideas of Fabien he meant it. He really understood Fabien as if he had written the code himself. So, what is more natural than writing his own code with the Fabien glamour?

Then you mention the bitboard topic. That alone seems to be a top reason for a perspective that Vas couldnt have done something fishy. Folks, we are talking here about a sort of potential bank robbery against a guy who in the first place creates institutions like *banks*. A thinker who does that simply doesnt rob banks because he's simply too sophisticated and he simply has not enough time to being busy with crap. Sorry if I have given a new reason for not reading Rolf because he's too difficult to follow. I'm really proud of that, no, nonsense, it's my second nature as academic. No matter that I'm not in that league where Bob and Vas are playing, I have all the talents necessary to imagine how such super thinkers are functioning. Psychologists understand madman, genius and artists. To even imagine for a second that a high leveled thinker steals ideas because he's unable to write his own approaches, is a very funny view. Here indeed the fact, that Rybka is the top entity by a large margin to the rest, is the proof for Vasik's innocence what copy schmuddel is concerned. Nobody could ever prove how a dummkopf could create the best program by simply stealing protected ideas and tricks from other people which he himself couldnt understand.

Let's for a moment make an experiment. Who is the deeper thinker and programmer: Donninger, Hyatt or Rajlich?

Here is my answer: Rajlich! The first two are only top players with strongest hardware. Their normal programs cant compete with Rybka.

Shouldnt we therefore come to a ceremony where we bury the top nonsense that we should criticise and out-single Vas and his brillant program? The five campaigners should appear on the stage and take back their allegations and assumptions. What they might do in private is their decision. But to misuse such a forum as a stage for continually defaming the actually best talent in computerchess and a very decent gentleman should no longer be tolerated.

We should follow the mode of Dann and Grah that says we simply dont and cant know what exactly has happened but out of respect for the culture of relationships in our community such a public pre-judging and pre-condemning cant go on.

[bob]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

It just won't happen. Human short-term memory is _very_ limited. And to move stm to long term memory requires lots of "recitating". No time to do that in a class if they are paying attention. I'd bet I could speak 5 sentences and no one could recite them back word for word. Much less an hour.

As far as bitboard vs mailbox, the syntax will be different. But if we find _identical_ algorithms that will be suspicious.

[Terry McCracken]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

I did never expect something else in the case of Vas. He's an IM! That says that he must have an extreme memory. But since I read that Vas was also a top student I can imagine on the base of these two factors that Vas must already be estimated as a scientist with extraordinary talents and gifts. Thanks for mentioning this, Uri. Vas is somewhat typically highly sophisticated and he wrote his thanks in a manner that couldnt be fully understood by average people. When he wrote he looked into Fruit and he understood the ideas of Fabien he meant it. He really understood Fabien as if he had written the code himself. So, what is more natural than writing his own code with the Fabien glamour?

Then you mention the bitboard topic. That alone seems to be a top reason for a perspective that Vas couldnt have done something fishy. Folks, we are talking here about a sort of potential bank robbery against a guy who in the first place creates institutions like *banks*. A thinker who does that simply doesnt rob banks because he's simply too sophisticated and he simply has not enough time to being busy with crap. Sorry if I have given a new reason for not reading Rolf because he's too difficult to follow. I'm really proud of that, no, nonsense, it's my second nature as academic. No matter that I'm not in that league where Bob and Vas are playing, I have all the talents necessary to imagine how such super thinkers are functioning. Psychologists understand madman, genius and artists. To even imagine for a second that a high leveled thinker steals ideas because he's unable to write his own approaches, is a very funny view. Here indeed the fact, that Rybka is the top entity by a large margin to the rest, is the proof for Vasik's innocence what copy schmuddel is concerned. Nobody could ever prove how a dummkopf could create the best program by simply stealing protected ideas and tricks from other people which he himself couldnt understand.

Let's for a moment make an experiment. Who is the deeper thinker and programmer: Donninger, Hyatt or Rajlich?

Here is my answer: Rajlich! The first two are only top players with strongest hardware. Their normal programs cant compete with Rybka.

Shouldnt we therefore come to a ceremony where we bury the top nonsense that we should criticise and out-single Vas and his brillant program? The five campaigners should appear on the stage and take back their allegations and assumptions. What they might do in private is their decision. But to misuse such a forum as a stage for continually defaming the actually best talent in computerchess and a very decent gentleman should no longer be tolerated.

We should follow the mode of Dann and Grah that says we simply dont and cant know what exactly has happened but out of respect for the culture of relationships in our community such a public pre-judging and pre-condemning cant go on.

Rolf an academic didn't write the above, it's highly subjective and ill-informed from the first to the last sentence. It's all wild speculation, no data, no facts.

If I were grading a paper you would get a big fat zero!

[Rolf]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

It just won't happen. Human short-term memory is _very_ limited. And to move stm to long term memory requires lots of "recitating". No time to do that in a class if they are paying attention. I'd bet I could speak 5 sentences and no one could recite them back word for word. Much less an hour.

As far as bitboard vs mailbox, the syntax will be different. But if we find _identical_ algorithms that will be suspicious.

Bob, dont tell me that you are now also an expert of short-term-memory and its limitations. You pretend a general limitation, correct? So you would bet that nobody could recite youir laughable 5 sentences? If you offer 100000€ I come with someone who recites your whole lecture of 45 minutes. Bob, it seems to me that you really had never a student like Vas, neither you know what Stanford or Princeton means compared to Alabama or North Carolina... <cough> <friendly smile>

[Uri Blass]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

It just won't happen. Human short-term memory is _very_ limited. And to move stm to long term memory requires lots of "recitating". No time to do that in a class if they are paying attention. I'd bet I could speak 5 sentences and no one could recite them back word for word. Much less an hour.

As far as bitboard vs mailbox, the syntax will be different. But if we find _identical_ algorithms that will be suspicious.

I agree that human short memory of most humans is very limited but
I remember reading that bobby fischer could repeat 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

The story was that fischer tried to talk with some chess player from norway in the telephone(it may be another country but it is not important)

The important thing is that the daugther of this player said 2 sentences
in the telephone and fischer did not understand a single word.

Fisher remember every word and simply used the telephone to talk with another player from norway and asked him to translate it and the second player translated it.

I guess that 99.9999% of the humans cannot do it but there are people who can do it and it is no accident that fischer was the best player in the world and other players could not do it.

Better memory was a clear advantage of bobby fischer relative to his opponents.

Uri

[Rolf]

It was 1972 on Iceland and in that speech.

[bob]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

It just won't happen. Human short-term memory is _very_ limited. And to move stm to long term memory requires lots of "recitating". No time to do that in a class if they are paying attention. I'd bet I could speak 5 sentences and no one could recite them back word for word. Much less an hour.

As far as bitboard vs mailbox, the syntax will be different. But if we find _identical_ algorithms that will be suspicious.

Bob, dont tell me that you are now also an expert of short-term-memory and its limitations. You pretend a general limitation, correct? So you would bet that nobody could recite youir laughable 5 sentences? If you offer 100000€ I come with someone who recites your whole lecture of 45 minutes. Bob, it seems to me that you really had never a student like Vas, neither you know what Stanford or Princeton means compared to Alabama or North Carolina... <cough> <friendly smile>

First you find that "someone". Then we will talk.

There are also better CS programs than MIT. Not that that matters one bit here...

[bob]

Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?

If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...

You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.

Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.

Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>

Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.

First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.

Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.

Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.

The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.

All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?

If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?

Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?

Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.

Here's the question. If you sit in one of my lectures for an hour, and you understand the ideas I presented, can you explain them using exactly the same words, in the same order, with the same examples, etc? I can't do that. And neither can Vas or anyone else. Which is a simple way of saying that if I were to look at fruit's code, then write my own, I would not have exactly the same lines of code anywhere, the order I do things wold be different, etc. I might remember to evaluate passed pawns, candidate passed pawns, weak pawns, strong pawns, mobile pawns, immobile pawns, but it is _very_ unlikely that I would do those in the same order. And almost impossible that I would use the same lines of code for any one of those.

That's the problem here...

I think that things are dependent on the memory of the student.
If the student has a very good memory then he may be able to repeat at least some sentences that he understood with the same words.

I remember reading that Bobby Fischer could even remember 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

Note also that when we talk about rybka and fruit it is clear that they do not use the same lines of code to evaluate pawn structure because rybka is based on bitboards when fruit is not based on bitboard.

Uri

It just won't happen. Human short-term memory is _very_ limited. And to move stm to long term memory requires lots of "recitating". No time to do that in a class if they are paying attention. I'd bet I could speak 5 sentences and no one could recite them back word for word. Much less an hour.

As far as bitboard vs mailbox, the syntax will be different. But if we find _identical_ algorithms that will be suspicious.

I agree that human short memory of most humans is very limited but
I remember reading that bobby fischer could repeat 2 sentences in a language that he did not understand.

The story was that fischer tried to talk with some chess player from norway in the telephone(it may be another country but it is not important)

The important thing is that the daugther of this player said 2 sentences
in the telephone and fischer did not understand a single word.

Fisher remember every word and simply used the telephone to talk with another player from norway and asked him to translate it and the second player translated it.

I guess that 99.9999% of the humans cannot do it but there are people who can do it and it is no accident that fischer was the best player in the world and other players could not do it.

Better memory was a clear advantage of bobby fischer relative to his opponents.

Uri

OK. two sentences. A one-in-a-lifetime type of person. And now anyone can do this with thousands of lines of chess code, and then repeat selected blocks of that with 100% accuracy.

this is going nowhere, and fast...

[Rolf]

Bob, we can do it without money between the two of us. Would you believe that someone who doesnt know Icelandic, could learn it in 1 or 2 days and then give an exhibition in Iceland TV where he is interviewed in that specifically difficult language? What I want to show you is that such things are do-able. If you doubt it I raise my bet on 1 million €.

That's why I also disagree with Uri that the Fischer anecdote showed something spectacular. I would bet that almost all GM could do that.

But I know also that it's possible to reproduce the number chain of thousands of items, completely meaningless one by one.