Tournament Practice: Similarity Limits (Basic Discussion)

[Rolf]

I beg your pardon but this topic deserves to get a seperate thread. -

We should discuss the following. To what extent we should tolerate similarities of programs for tournament sports practice?

Similarity in the following variables:

- common parent program continued by either same or different programmers

- with different code

- with similar code but "translated" into a different approach (change to bitboard comes to mind; without that I could here understand the meaning) but still the same parent

- with different eval but still the same parent

- with different code but doing intentionally the same things to test different theories but still the same original parent

- with same parent, changed details, called GPL, what then allowed the implementation from ALL OTHER EXISTING GPL programs



I ask this to be done with clarity because to me it seems as if we had actually a confusion about the tournament "rights" of Fruit, Fruit 2.1, Chess64, Toga II. About Strelka I could read at a period of time that O should have simply defined it GPL and closing it and then everything could be done incl. tournament participation as independent program...

Please, dear experts, come to a clarification of what should be allowed. I think that the Ryan message hidden in a false thread (WCC is better than) is insufficient up to completely wrong. We need a basis of agreements also for the debates shortly before or at the next WWCCC in China. It would be ridiculous to see a legion of Fruit clones and bitboard versions with some eval changes or under GPL.

[Tony]

Except for when the same programmers work on it, I consider them all clones. They just vary in the amount of hiding.

Tony

[Mike S.]

Since the "experts" will never come to a common opinion, let me answer instead: The computer chess communitiy is not capable to handle sensible exceptions from primitive rules. It is also not capable of finding a common agreement about more intelligent but complicated rules.

So, the only choices are:

1. NO similarities allowed
2. ALL similarities allowed

Anything between (1.) and (2.) is too complicated for our intelligenzia. They are geniouses in programming, which means they are more or less incapable of anything else.

Anyway, I would introduce legality considerations more clearly. If someone disassembles Fritz and publishes the source code under GPL, rules must be made in a way to prevent participation of such an engine. Even if it is not 100% but only 97% sure that it's Fritz. But except for that, I would simply allow ALL other engines, even if some programmers would stay away in protest. The field is never complete anyway.

But if point (1.) is the choice, then I of course expect that in the next WCCC, there is only ONE chess program which is based on alpha/beta, thanks.

[PauloSoare]

Hey Myke, you are a bad guy

Paulo Soares

[Rolf]

Since the "experts" will never come to a common opinion, let me answer instead: The computer chess communitiy is not capable to handle sensible exceptions from primitive rules. It is also not capable of finding a common agreement about more intelligent but complicated rules.

So, the only choices are:

1. NO similarities allowed
2. ALL similarities allowed

Anything between (1.) and (2.) is too complicated for our intelligenzia. They are geniouses in programming, which means they are more or less incapable of anything else.

Anyway, I would introduce legality considerations more clearly. If someone disassembles Fritz and publishes the source code under GPL, rules must be made in a way to prevent participation of such an engine. Even if it is not 100% but only 97% sure that it's Fritz. But except for that, I would simply allow ALL other engines, even if some programmers would stay away in protest. The field is never complete anyway.

But if point (1.) is the choice, then I of course expect that in the next WCCC, there is only ONE chess program which is based on alpha/beta, thanks.

Also if I should ruin my good standing as a lay, Mike, I must ask you, tell me if it's therefore impossible to differentiate what is really similar or not? I tried to give some choices. Are they nonsense? I mean, cant we (the real experts) check out for the main clues of a machine program, describing it with a memorable expression and then being able to compare it with other variations of course always using these always mentioned essentials like alpahabeta, nullmove etc? Ot did I misunderstand that it's in real always only about constructing an Orient Express like train where always the same waggons are only put in a different serial choice? And the basic difference would then be clean code without many bugs and even better cleansified code with almost no bugs? Is there a concept of best or ideal code in programming languages? Or is it by definition always individual choice and therefore man made and buggy? Sorry if I asked too much to be taken for serious. But you confused me with your abrupt nub.

[Tony]

Since the "experts" will never come to a common opinion, let me answer instead: The computer chess communitiy is not capable to handle sensible exceptions from primitive rules. It is also not capable of finding a common agreement about more intelligent but complicated rules.

So, the only choices are:

1. NO similarities allowed
2. ALL similarities allowed

Anything between (1.) and (2.) is too complicated for our intelligenzia. They are geniouses in programming, which means they are more or less incapable of anything else.

Anyway, I would introduce legality considerations more clearly. If someone disassembles Fritz and publishes the source code under GPL, rules must be made in a way to prevent participation of such an engine. Even if it is not 100% but only 97% sure that it's Fritz. But except for that, I would simply allow ALL other engines, even if some programmers would stay away in protest. The field is never complete anyway.

But if point (1.) is the choice, then I of course expect that in the next WCCC, there is only ONE chess program which is based on alpha/beta, thanks.

It seems that the programmers have a common opinion. It's the non programmers / non participants that seem to disagree.

Tony

[Mike S.]

It seems that the programmers have a common opinion.

It seems that you have read statements of some programmers only, and ignored statements of other programmers. But that is normal. Nobody likes to read statements which disagree with his own opinion.

[Uri Blass]

It seems that the programmers have a common opinion.

It seems that you have read statements of some programmers only, and ignored statements of other programmers. But that is normal. Nobody likes to read statements which disagree with his own opinion.

Correct.

I clearly see disagreement here and there was a disagreement about the strelka question and if it can be considered as fruit clone.

Note that I am not talking about similiarity of strelka to rybka in this discussion and the question is if strelka can be allowed to participate assuming that Rybka does not exist.

I also remember disagreements about Sloppy.

Uri

[Tony]

It seems that the programmers have a common opinion.

It seems that you have read statements of some programmers only, and ignored statements of other programmers. But that is normal. Nobody likes to read statements which disagree with his own opinion.

Which programmers stated that clones should participate at WCCC ?

Reread what I wrote. People actually showing up at tournements have a pretty common opinion.

They just seem to make a lot less noice than the ones who don't.

Tony

[Mike S.]

People actually showing up at tournements have a pretty common opinion.

That is not surprising if people with a different opinion are excluded from showing up.