World Computer Chess Championship ?

[bob]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

What Bob is doing (questioning Stockfish and calling Richard a cloner) is scaring newcomers not to enter. I am sure the HGM in this universe is able to grasp it. Else go to the super market, some advertise with discount on EQ stimulators this week and try again.

I haven't called anyone anything with regard to stockfish and Critter. There have been discussions about both. I have not participated, nor did I follow them closely. End of story. If they enter, and if a protest is filed, we will be forced to examine one or the other (or both). Until then, I have NOT done so and have no plans to do so until required...

[bob]

I am sure no one is taking Bob serious. Are you? And I don't see what that has to do with rule #2. Why would newcomers care if others violate rule #2? Even if there are thousands of them, and they are all found out, and Bob nails them to a tree for display... Because you know whether you copied anything yourself.

Your reasoning is based on the assumption all programmers are in agreement with the Rybka verdict. You know that is not true.

The majority agrees. That is all that is needed. The majority also agrees with rule 2. Which is also all that is needed. The majority agrees with the long(ish) WCCC tournament (I am not a member of that majority), but that is all that is needed...

You can go along with the majority, or not participate. Same is true in any sport.

[bob]

I am sure no one is taking Bob serious. Are you? And I don't see what that has to do with rule #2. Why would newcomers care if others violate rule #2? Even if there are thousands of them, and they are all found out, and Bob nails them to a tree for display... Because you know whether you copied anything yourself.

Your reasoning is based on the assumption all programmers are in agreement with the Rybka verdict. You know that is not true.

Its very clear that a lot of people, particularly new authors, do not know what is copying and what is not. Everyone knows whether they cut and paste stuff, but that is not the standard definition of copying these days. Bob has said numerous times that the whole thing is a gray area (which I agree with) so by definition its practically impossible for an author to know for sure what the committee will find. If we had more examples, including some "innocent" verdicts that generated similar documentation as the Rybka situation, one could get a feel for what is OK and what is not, kind of like case-law. Of course, I doubt even the innocent would like to have their program innards publicly exposed like that unless its already open-source.

One suggestion I have (which I am not even sure I endorse and is far from a complete solution) would be that cut-off dates for entries be months ahead, and there be a pre-event protest period open to other entrants that would have a different deadline so the issue can be resolved before plane tickets and such are bought. Any protest brought during the actual tournament would have to be accompanied by evidence that the protest is due to moves played during the tournament, not pre-existing suspicions. In addition I would recommend a protest window: if you don't protest an engine by a certain point, it is too late. That way authors don't have to fear being hanged in effigy 6 years later, and any effect that may have on their actual careers.

-Sam

How do you solve anything with a "pre-event protest period?" Many engines are private. Anyone can play with an old, original version, prior to the tournament, then show up with their new version (+ lots of copied code). How could that be protested, yet it clearly should be, assuming someone can find some convincing evidence to go with the protest...

As to the "statute of limitations"... what is a reasonable period of time? 3 months? 3 years? This is a pretty serious issue, and serious crimes have a very long (or none at all) statute of limitations...

[bob]

So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.

I don't understand where you get this dillusion from. It is almost like you are living in some parallel univers, where there is another ICGA, and another rule #2. Because in the universe where the rest of us lives ICGA rule #2 is crystal clear. You cannot take anything. What don't you understand about 'not anything' that makes you equate it to 'an undefined limit'? The only thing that is 'apparent' is that you live in a fantasy.

Don, HGM, do you read?

Yes, I read. So Bob cannot judge a code he has not looked at. Big surprise. So what is your point exactly?

Perhaps that newcomer 'programmers' who have never seen their 'own' code cannot judge if it satisfies rule #2?

What Bob is doing (questioning Stockfish and calling Richard a cloner) is scaring newcomers not to enter. I am sure the HGM in this universe is able to grasp it. Else go to the super market, some advertise with discount on EQ stimulators this week and try again.

Ed, please let me try to understand what is in your mind about your "limits".

Do you want them (ICGA) to create a rule like: "On how much a programmer can safely take from another program without been caught."?? and then define a percentage based on the total size of the program, for example? Is that the kind of limit you are talking about? LOL

Typical youthful (and thus forgivable) over self confidence underestimating the intellect of the person he is talking too as if that person has not thought through the issue himself.

Notable you yourself subscribed to the new CSVN rule that uses similarity detector as the base of acceptance. It comes without prejudices, human errors, removes possible conflicting interests, is total impartial and weeds out the derivatives.

It doesn't "weed out all derivatives" which "weeds out THE derivatives" implies. And it will have false positives with equal probability. It is nothing more than a "first approximation". Using it as CSVN is using it is simply ridiculous as either Adam or Don has repeatedly stated...

[bob]

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Stockfish would be welcome to such events I am sure.

Good.

I don't see why you think there would be an issue.

Because I suspected (ICGA) Bob would mumble and I was right.

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

Bob a while also called Richard a cloner. Today I learned (from the other thread) he has accused Daniel S. of cloning Crafty. It made Dann Corbit (who inspected the source code and disagreed) to say: I think it should serve as a severe warning about using ideas from crafty. Basically, I now think it is a very bad idea to read the crafty code.

Now what should he mean by that?

I have no idea what you are talking about myself...

Did you apologize to Daniel ?

I will repeat: I have no idea what you are talking about...

[bob]

2. In the hypothetical case Critter enters then what do you do?

Stockfish would be welcome to such events I am sure.

Good.

I don't see why you think there would be an issue.

Because I suspected (ICGA) Bob would mumble and I was right.

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

In the case of Houdini, I don't believe there is any doubt someone would protest. Would you disagree with that, particularly in light of everything that has been discovered on OpenChess???

When in trouble, change the topic, classic. The topic was Critter and Stockfish, not Houdini.

Sorry, much of the discussion has been about Houdini, as the currently strongest program. In any case, there has been discussion about each of those three. Not within the ICGA, but here, on open-chess, etc. Until someone formally protests one, I do not see any issue. There is zero doubt that Houdini would instantly be protested by a large number of people based on evidence of direct copying presented by KinglVision on openchess... But until the protest hits the ICGA's mailbox, I don't intend to look unless I notice something unusual and get curious as I have about past Crafty clones...

[BubbaTough]

As to the "statute of limitations"... what is a reasonable period of time? 3 months? 3 years? This is a pretty serious issue, and serious crimes have a very long (or none at all) statute of limitations...

Not sure, maybe 3 months, or perhaps just until the event is over. If the protest is not registered before the event, then the protest should be due to behavior during the event, and in my mind such things should be obvious enough that it does not take years to uncover. Also, I would only want other participants to be protesting, not a situation where anyone in the world is invited to take pot shots.

To me personally, this is not very comparable to serious crimes, and should not be treated as such. Its more like a sport, and while some sports have obviously contemplated some odd retroactive anything goes type of penalties for things they don't like, most don't. If you win, you win. Protests can happen during the event by competing teams, you can have testing before, during, and immediately after events, but when the whistle blows and the testing is done its over and the winner is crowned.

-Sam

[bob]

As to the "statute of limitations"... what is a reasonable period of time? 3 months? 3 years? This is a pretty serious issue, and serious crimes have a very long (or none at all) statute of limitations...

Not sure, maybe 3 months, or perhaps just until the event is over. If the protest is not registered before the event, then the protest should be due to behavior during the event, and in my mind such things should be obvious enough that it does not take years to uncover. Also, I would only want other participants to be protesting, not a situation where anyone in the world is invited to take pot shots.

To me personally, this is not very comparable to serious crimes, and should not be treated as such. Its more like a sport, and while some sports have obviously contemplated some odd retroactive anything goes type of penalties for things they don't like, most don't. If you win, you win. Protests can happen during the event by competing teams, you can have testing before, during, and immediately after events, but when the whistle blows and the testing is done its over and the winner is crowned.

-Sam

Counter examples:

(1) Ben Johnson. Gold medal revoked well after Olympics ended.

(2) NCAA football championships revoked 5 years after it was won.

There are others. This is not that uncommon, as sometimes it takes a good bit of time to investigate, sometimes evidence surfaces well after the event (strelka to start the Fruit/Rybka investigation, etc).

[bob]

Apparently, you are a legend in your own mind. As +I+ clearly stated, until a protest is filed, nothing happens. If they apply, they get in. If someone protests and offers credible evidence that stockfish contains code copied from another program (such as fruit) then the onus moves to the secretariat to investigate that claim. And THEN a decision would be made. Until that point in time, they could enter if they choose to do so. How hard is that to grasp? You continually distort, twist, manipulate the words of others. Won't work here.

You called it "very likely" that someone would protest quickly.

In the case of Houdini, I don't believe there is any doubt someone would protest. Would you disagree with that, particularly in light of everything that has been discovered on OpenChess???

Why do you start about Houdini. You throw all kinds of words at Ed when he mentions that he already expected you to have an issue with Stockfish. The "very likely that someone would protest quickly" was directed at Stockfish and Critter, not at Houdini. Scroll up.

I've already answered that. Stockfish and Critter have been discussed here and on openchess. Which leads me to believe that someone would protest. So what? I have not LOOKED at either myself, and do not plan on doing so unless there is an actual protest that requires it...

End of story in my book. Ed just wants to twist and distort and try to create things that are not there. There is absolutely NO ICGA interest in Stockfish, or Critter, Or houdini, Or Ivanhoe, or in any of the ippo* family, at the moment. Only one has tried to enter an ICGA event (the most recent WCCC) with a robolito-copy that was rejected. The ICGA will become interested only when one of those enters, and someone protests... Not until. I don't think the robo* family will enter, there being no legitimate author that is known, and derivatives/copies are not going to be accepted due to rule 2.

[BubbaTough]

As to the "statute of limitations"... what is a reasonable period of time? 3 months? 3 years? This is a pretty serious issue, and serious crimes have a very long (or none at all) statute of limitations...

Not sure, maybe 3 months, or perhaps just until the event is over. If the protest is not registered before the event, then the protest should be due to behavior during the event, and in my mind such things should be obvious enough that it does not take years to uncover. Also, I would only want other participants to be protesting, not a situation where anyone in the world is invited to take pot shots.

To me personally, this is not very comparable to serious crimes, and should not be treated as such. Its more like a sport, and while some sports have obviously contemplated some odd retroactive anything goes type of penalties for things they don't like, most don't. If you win, you win. Protests can happen during the event by competing teams, you can have testing before, during, and immediately after events, but when the whistle blows and the testing is done its over and the winner is crowned.

-Sam

Counter examples:

(1) Ben Johnson. Gold medal revoked well after Olympics ended.

(2) NCAA football championships revoked 5 years after it was won.

There are others. This is not that uncommon, as sometimes it takes a good bit of time to investigate, sometimes evidence surfaces well after the event (strelka to start the Fruit/Rybka investigation, etc).

Yes. There are lots of counter examples. College sports and Olympics are probably rife with them. I suspect new steroid detection techniques have caused a few retroactive events in a few sports (cycling?). Of course, there are lots of example sports where it doesn't happen even when cheating has been clearly detected, a significant majority of sports are like that I suspect.

Anyway, it is my personal preference (and I see no reason why my personal preference should hold any weight) to leave serious issues such as legality to the courts, and to treat computer chess competitions as friendly competition with clear, simple, well established rules (which in my mind does not include never-ending periods of investigation and massively retroactive penalties).

-Sam