Plagiarism

[bob]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

Do a google search. How hard can it be?

Go to the US copyright law and read looking specifically for "computer software". How hard can that be?

[bob]

Hi Ed,

I want to make a plea here for a certain level of reasonableness and common sense because I believe you are being completely unreasonable.

Apparently you have a hard time reading, not the first time I noticed. The thread started with a quote of yours:

You are taking a dictionary definition way out of context and being unreasonable.

I took the time to refute your words with a new thread.

Plagiarism is also about ideas. Every chess programmer can code but the main secret to success is not to code but about ideas, new ideas especially. An average programmer with excellent ideas can lead the field, an expert programmer with average ideas never will.

Like Levy the use of the word plagiarism is just wrong and your mouth was also full of it in the thread I was referring too.

Plagiarism is NOT about "ideas" when applied to computer software. Copyright is NOT about "ideas" when applied to computer software. You've only had this pointed out a dozen times or more, so far. How many will it take??

[Laskos]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

Ed,

Is this software plagiarism:

for (;;) {
...
}

I use that for infinite loops and I saw the idea somewhere, it's not my own, I don't remember where.

I have never (at least until now) given credit for this idea which is in Komodo.

By the "dictionary" definition of plagiarism which you take absolutely literal, I am a plagiarist. Do you agree that this construct makes me a plagiarist?

By many definitions of plagiarism, say one with some more or less shades, you certainly have some shades of plagiarism. I would really like to see your prowess as a chess programmer in the 1960es, if you so blatantly claim that only some few, you among them, are building wheels. Really? What original wheel did you invent? Can you elaborate? And I would really like to see you without Fruit/Strelka/Glaurung/StockFish/IvanHoe and even Houdini (you seem to have its sources) open sources. For now, your "utterly original" wheels are the level of a _textbook_ called IvanHoe, that in science research is called "utter failure", "utter incompetence" and an "utterly unpublishable work". Are you doing "science research" or "science education", "science history", "science morals"? At my PhD, the weakest students, unable to do research, were going to "science education", and there is no other way around. Judging by your results and posturing, there is no way to science research for you too. Go on with education.

Kai

[gerold]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

Ed,

Is this software plagiarism:

for (;;) {
...
}

I use that for infinite loops and I saw the idea somewhere, it's not my own, I don't remember where.

I have never (at least until now) given credit for this idea which is in Komodo.

By the "dictionary" definition of plagiarism which you take absolutely literal, I am a plagiarist. Do you agree that this construct makes me a plagiarist?

By many definitions of plagiarism, say one with some more or less shades, you certainly have some shades of plagiarism. I would really like to see your prowess as a chess programmer in the 1960es, if you so blatantly claim that only some few, you among them, are building wheels. Really? What original wheel did you invent? Can you elaborate? And I would really like to see you without Fruit/Strelka/Glaurung/StockFish/IvanHoe and even Houdini (you seem to have its sources) open sources. For now, your "utterly original" wheels are the level of a _textbook_ called IvanHoe, that in science research is called "utter failure", "utter incompetence" and an "utterly unpublishable work". Are you doing "science research" or "science education", "science history", "science morals"? At my PhD, the weakest students, unable to do research, were going to "science education", and there is no other way around. Judging by your results and posturing, there is no way to science research for you too. Go on with education.

Kai

Plus one.

[Roger Brown]

By many definitions of plagiarism, say one with some more or less shades, you certainly have some shades of plagiarism. I would really like to see your prowess as a chess programmer in the 1960es, if you so blatantly claim that only some few, you among them, are building wheels. Really? What original wheel did you invent? Can you elaborate? And I would really like to see you without Fruit/Strelka/Glaurung/StockFish/IvanHoe and even Houdini (you seem to have its sources) open sources. For now, your "utterly original" wheels are the level of a _textbook_ called IvanHoe, that in science research is called "utter failure", "utter incompetence" and an "utterly unpublishable work". Are you doing "science research" or "science education", "science history", "science morals"? At my PhD, the weakest students, unable to do research, were going to "science education", and there is no other way around. Judging by your results and posturing, there is no way to science research for you too. Go on with education.
Kai

Hello Kai,

I may not be doing justice to your post but are you suggesting that Ivanhoe and Ivanhoe alone represents what's next in chess programming?

I mean, suppose an author, say H.G. or Richard Pijl to name two authors whose programs I use, take an original direction not involving the use of Ivanhoe sources. Are they not at the level of your textbook? Which would mean what exactly?

I have no Ivanhoe axe to grind, I am just not agreeing that Ivanhoe is all there is in chess programming. I do not think that strength alone should be the sole - or most important - criteria in what interests me in a chess program.

Just asking...

Later.

[Terry McCracken]

The ICGA can of course impose whatever they want. They could require participants to hang from the ceiling during the entire game... The WCCC is their tournament!

I meant impose their will on the rest of the world, such as this beauty from the Panel report:

● encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven “clean”.

I don't understand that statement - "encourage .... until it is proven clean". IIRC, the evidence showed that R3 and R4 were likely clean of all eval issues. That leaves only the transposition table code.

Not true. They weren't reviewed by the panel beyond R 2.3.2a, others may have looked at the latter but is inconclusive.

R3 was discussed by the panel.

No it wasn't. We stopped with 2.3.2a...

Thanks Bob.

P.S. He wants names.

The ONLY discussion about R3/R4 by the panel was "should we do this RE effort again, or does the R1/R2 evidence convince us that it is now time for Vas to come forward and produce the source for R3/R4 if he wants to continue to compete (if those versions were clean). We did not discuss 3/4 from a RE perspective. Nor did we investigate R3/R4 and find them "clean" as "some" want to purport...

Actually, that is what I thought, from what I've read. Thanks.

[Terry McCracken]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

Ed,

Is this software plagiarism:

for (;;) {
...
}

I use that for infinite loops and I saw the idea somewhere, it's not my own, I don't remember where.

I have never (at least until now) given credit for this idea which is in Komodo.

By the "dictionary" definition of plagiarism which you take absolutely literal, I am a plagiarist. Do you agree that this construct makes me a plagiarist?

By many definitions of plagiarism, say one with some more or less shades, you certainly have some shades of plagiarism. I would really like to see your prowess as a chess programmer in the 1960es, if you so blatantly claim that only some few, you among them, are building wheels. Really? What original wheel did you invent? Can you elaborate? And I would really like to see you without Fruit/Strelka/Glaurung/StockFish/IvanHoe and even Houdini (you seem to have its sources) open sources. For now, your "utterly original" wheels are the level of a _textbook_ called IvanHoe, that in science research is called "utter failure", "utter incompetence" and an "utterly unpublishable work". Are you doing "science research" or "science education", "science history", "science morals"? At my PhD, the weakest students, unable to do research, were going to "science education", and there is no other way around. Judging by your results and posturing, there is no way to science research for you too. Go on with education.

Kai

Kai, do you know Don's history in computer chess? From what I just read I don't think so. I think you need to do some research.

[Rebel]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

Do a google search. How hard can it be?

Go to the US copyright law and read looking specifically for "computer software". How hard can that be?

You make a claim, you provide the evidence.

[Terry McCracken]

Hi Ed,

I want to make a plea here for a certain level of reasonableness and common sense because I believe you are being completely unreasonable.

Apparently you have a hard time reading, not the first time I noticed. The thread started with a quote of yours:

You are taking a dictionary definition way out of context and being unreasonable.

I took the time to refute your words with a new thread.

Plagiarism is also about ideas. Every chess programmer can code but the main secret to success is not to code but about ideas, new ideas especially. An average programmer with excellent ideas can lead the field, an expert programmer with average ideas never will.

Like Levy the use of the word plagiarism is just wrong and your mouth was also full of it in the thread I was referring too.

Plagiarism is NOT about "ideas" when applied to computer software. Copyright is NOT about "ideas" when applied to computer software. You've only had this pointed out a dozen times or more, so far. How many will it take??

I think Ed isn't listening and now for whatever reason/reasons he has a bone to pick, like Chris Whittington, with the computer chess community.

It's sad.

[bob]

How about typing something that actually makes sense? "Computer software plagiarism." Read some of the stuff you get there.

Show me where.

Do a google search. How hard can it be?

Go to the US copyright law and read looking specifically for "computer software". How hard can that be?

You make a claim, you provide the evidence.

Sorry, I am not holding your hand. To date, you have made SEVERAL "claims" and not provided one scintilla of supporting evidence....

You don't know what the words mean? Don't use 'em in sentences or discussions... makes you look ridiculous.