Annual reminder

[Ferdy]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

Is the ICGA have a similar code of ethics for computer chess programmers?

On your web page,

Due to the ongoing confusion among chess programmers regarding what is allowed and what is not we like to introduce a programmer code and ask you to subscribe via this form in case you agree.

This is one of the things that I don't subscribe because I am not confused. Also is the confusion still ongoing? You write this in 2012.

Regarding no. 3.

3. When I use an idea from other people I will mention the source in the README file unless they are widely recognized, standard, and present in the chess programming Wiki. The latter to avoid listing zobrist, alpha beta etc.

Even if it is in wiki it is always advisable to write in the readme of a program. There are programming techniques that are worth to be written in the readme. Pruning with different conditions, parameter tuning methods, and others, of course you don't write there as detailed as possible to protect your elo gain. Others probably would just say improve king safety, improve mobility, improve move ordering.

In the list there are 5 columns, no., Name, Program(s), Status, Your comments.
I have a suggestion.
1. Change the "Status" header to "Origin".
2. Add a new header "Source" with possible values open or closed.
3. Add a new header "Development" to know if the listed program is still actively developed or not. Possible values are active or inactive.
4. Add a new header "Available" with possible values yes or no, If yes then the binary can be downloaded or perhaps the author may only send to some people. For open source this is always yes. If no that would mean the program is private.

[Evert]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

See, this reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago, when we were living in North-America. We were following pre-natal classes and in one of them they covered the topic of shaking babies and how you should then never, ever do that. This was followed by a little ceremony where you could write a pledge on a piece of paper ("I promise that I will never shake my baby"), which you could then hand over to another participant to sign and witness.

I get it, the goal is to make people aware of the issue and having them put a statement on a piece of paper is a psychological trick to make them feel a stronger compulsion to do what they said they would (or would not, as the case may be). Thing is, both of us felt that it was a cheap and transparent trick, and neither of us considered such a written promise to be worth a damn: of course we had no intention of shaking a baby (or otherwise mis-treating a child) and saying so on a piece of paper signed by a random stranger wasn't going to affect the odds of us going against that intention one way or the other. In fact, we found the whole idea and ceremony slightly insulting and condescending.

So we passed on it. Not because we disagreed with the intent (on the contrary, shaking babies is bad) but because we found the method to be patronising.

I have a similar feeling here: I fully agree that acknowledging where ideas (or code) come from, and giving proper credit, is the right thing to do. In fact, I would consider it the most important thing to do. I also consider it something that goes without saying: it's simply the decent human thing to do, and I'll do it because I think it's right, not because I agreed to attach my name to some random list on the internet.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

[Rebel]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

Is the ICGA have a similar code of ethics for computer chess programmers?

On your web page,

Due to the ongoing confusion among chess programmers regarding what is allowed and what is not we like to introduce a programmer code and ask you to subscribe via this form in case you agree.

This is one of the things that I don't subscribe because I am not confused.

Also is the confusion still ongoing? You write this in 2012.

Yep, text is a bit outdated, rephrased it, thank you.

Regarding no. 3.

3. When I use an idea from other people I will mention the source in the README file unless they are widely recognized, standard, and present in the chess programming Wiki. The latter to avoid listing zobrist, alpha beta etc.

Even if it is in wiki it is always advisable to write in the readme of a program. There are programming techniques that are worth to be written in the readme. Pruning with different conditions, parameter tuning methods, and others, of course you don't write there as detailed as possible to protect your elo gain. Others probably would just say improve king safety, improve mobility, improve move ordering.

Sure.

In the list there are 5 columns, no., Name, Program(s), Status, Your comments.
I have a suggestion.
1. Change the "Status" header to "Origin".
2. Add a new header "Source" with possible values open or closed.
3. Add a new header "Development" to know if the listed program is still actively developed or not. Possible values are active or inactive.
4. Add a new header "Available" with possible values yes or no, If yes then the binary can be downloaded or perhaps the author may only send to some people. For open source this is always yes. If no that would mean the program is private.

This is all nice but falls outside the sole intend of the initiative. Nevertheless thanks for the suggestion.

[Rebel]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

See, this reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago, when we were living in North-America. We were following pre-natal classes and in one of them they covered the topic of shaking babies and how you should then never, ever do that. This was followed by a little ceremony where you could write a pledge on a piece of paper ("I promise that I will never shake my baby"), which you could then hand over to another participant to sign and witness.

I get it, the goal is to make people aware of the issue and having them put a statement on a piece of paper is a psychological trick to make them feel a stronger compulsion to do what they said they would (or would not, as the case may be). Thing is, both of us felt that it was a cheap and transparent trick, and neither of us considered such a written promise to be worth a damn: of course we had no intention of shaking a baby (or otherwise mis-treating a child) and saying so on a piece of paper signed by a random stranger wasn't going to affect the odds of us going against that intention one way or the other. In fact, we found the whole idea and ceremony slightly insulting and condescending.

So we passed on it. Not because we disagreed with the intent (on the contrary, shaking babies is bad) but because we found the method to be patronising.

I have a similar feeling here: I fully agree that acknowledging where ideas (or code) come from, and giving proper credit, is the right thing to do. In fact, I would consider it the most important thing to do. I also consider it something that goes without saying: it's simply the decent human thing to do, and I'll do it because I think it's right, not because I agreed to attach my name to some random list on the internet.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

What's self-understood for you isn't necessary for the rest of the world, apparently in the area you once lived it wasn't.

On pledges:
I will never shake my baby.
I will never beat my wife.
I will never cheat on my wife.
I will never divorce.

For those who are vulnerable a pledge creates a psychological obstacle.

I will never smoke again, this is my last cigarette.
I will never drink again, this is my last beer.

If you really mean it, it helps.

[Rebel]

I'm not going to sign it with the current extra declarations.
I'm willing to declare that all of my chess programs are 100% my own work (well except 3 lines I stole from fairymax) but I'm not going to sign something that has not been reviewed by an apropriate lawyer.

It is not a contract, it is a pledge.

Miguel

That doesn't stop a judge for considering it as an intention.

What's a good english sentence (no liability | Sans préjudice) to add ?

[michiguel]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

See, this reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago, when we were living in North-America. We were following pre-natal classes and in one of them they covered the topic of shaking babies and how you should then never, ever do that. This was followed by a little ceremony where you could write a pledge on a piece of paper ("I promise that I will never shake my baby"), which you could then hand over to another participant to sign and witness.

I get it, the goal is to make people aware of the issue and having them put a statement on a piece of paper is a psychological trick to make them feel a stronger compulsion to do what they said they would (or would not, as the case may be). Thing is, both of us felt that it was a cheap and transparent trick, and neither of us considered such a written promise to be worth a damn: of course we had no intention of shaking a baby (or otherwise mis-treating a child) and saying so on a piece of paper signed by a random stranger wasn't going to affect the odds of us going against that intention one way or the other. In fact, we found the whole idea and ceremony slightly insulting and condescending.

So we passed on it. Not because we disagreed with the intent (on the contrary, shaking babies is bad) but because we found the method to be patronising.

I have a similar feeling here: I fully agree that acknowledging where ideas (or code) come from, and giving proper credit, is the right thing to do. In fact, I would consider it the most important thing to do. I also consider it something that goes without saying: it's simply the decent human thing to do, and I'll do it because I think it's right, not because I agreed to attach my name to some random list on the internet.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

What's self-understood for you isn't necessary for the rest of the world, apparently in the area you once lived it wasn't.

On pledges:
I will never shake my baby.
I will never beat my wife.
I will never cheat on my wife.
I will never divorce.

For those who are vulnerable a pledge creates a psychological obstacle.

I will never smoke again, this is my last cigarette.
I will never drink again, this is my last beer.

If you really mean it, it helps.

When you verbalize things is when you actually pay attention to a given concept. That is why it is important to sign the "I won't shake my baby" form. The more stupid it looks to do it, the better. By the time comes you have the impulse to do that, you immediately remember. Things that become "consensus" are easier to follow. It may not apply to Evert, that somehow is very aware of the problem, but it will apply to others. It saves lives. In other words, Evert is totally wrong on assuming that was silly. People organize those things for a very good reason.

I strongly recommend to watch this video (one of the best TED talks I watched). You will see the effect of "honor codes" in the middle of the talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_ ... en#t-95697

Miguel

[hgm]

Well, what is silly for one person might be useful to another. Personally I find it extremely silly that when people want to know how much 17+17 is, they first spend 5 min searching for a pocket calculator. Although this is exactly what the bulk of humanity seems to need.

[bob]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

See, this reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago, when we were living in North-America. We were following pre-natal classes and in one of them they covered the topic of shaking babies and how you should then never, ever do that. This was followed by a little ceremony where you could write a pledge on a piece of paper ("I promise that I will never shake my baby"), which you could then hand over to another participant to sign and witness.

I get it, the goal is to make people aware of the issue and having them put a statement on a piece of paper is a psychological trick to make them feel a stronger compulsion to do what they said they would (or would not, as the case may be). Thing is, both of us felt that it was a cheap and transparent trick, and neither of us considered such a written promise to be worth a damn: of course we had no intention of shaking a baby (or otherwise mis-treating a child) and saying so on a piece of paper signed by a random stranger wasn't going to affect the odds of us going against that intention one way or the other. In fact, we found the whole idea and ceremony slightly insulting and condescending.

So we passed on it. Not because we disagreed with the intent (on the contrary, shaking babies is bad) but because we found the method to be patronising.

I have a similar feeling here: I fully agree that acknowledging where ideas (or code) come from, and giving proper credit, is the right thing to do. In fact, I would consider it the most important thing to do. I also consider it something that goes without saying: it's simply the decent human thing to do, and I'll do it because I think it's right, not because I agreed to attach my name to some random list on the internet.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the matter.

What's self-understood for you isn't necessary for the rest of the world, apparently in the area you once lived it wasn't.

On pledges:
I will never shake my baby.
I will never beat my wife.
I will never cheat on my wife.
I will never divorce.

For those who are vulnerable a pledge creates a psychological obstacle.

I will never smoke again, this is my last cigarette.
I will never drink again, this is my last beer.

If you really mean it, it helps.

What is the divorce rate where you live? And then do you not go through the "till death do us part?" with the minister/rabbi/etc? How well was THAT pledge followed?

If someone is dishonest, a pledge means less than nothing. If they are honest, a pledge is less than useless.

[bnemias]

If someone is dishonest, a pledge means less than nothing. If they are honest, a pledge is less than useless.

Exactly. It just becomes more red tape irrespective of ethics.

Waste my time, waste your time, waste everybody's time, particularly those who (like me) see this thread annually and can't help but point this out.

I appreciate this gives some people a warm fuzzy feeling. But to pretend it makes one iota of difference regarding people's intent is simply a detachment from reality.

[Evert]

What's self-understood for you isn't necessary for the rest of the world,

Never claimed it was (or should be).

apparently in the area you once lived it wasn't.

Not shaking a baby should be common knowledge (I was certainly aware of it before stepping into said class) but everyone needs to be aware of it - so by all means it needs to be covered in a pre-natal class and drilled into people's head that it's bad. You'll note that I didn't complain about that.
I doubt that awareness of shaken-baby syndrome is different in North-America than it is in Europe.

On pledges:
I will never shake my baby.
I will never beat my wife.
I will never cheat on my wife.
I will never divorce.

For those who are vulnerable a pledge creates a psychological obstacle.

I said I understood the idea behind it. Humans are social animals, and will tend to conform to social norms. A pledge is a ritualised form of that.

On those you mention, people do not just stop engaging in domestic violence because they said they wouldn't, it's not healthy or normal behaviour. Cheating on your partner is sleeping with other people after agreeing that you wouldn't, so in that sense is no different from any other case where you break a promise to (not) do something. Saying that you will never divorce someone is just downright silly, as there can be entirely good reasons for doing it.

I will never smoke again, this is my last cigarette.
I will never drink again, this is my last beer.

If you really mean it, it helps.

Yeah, I want some statistics on that. "I'll do one more and then quit" to me sounds like you're having trouble kicking the habit and makes you more likely to fail than quitting cold-turkey. I don't claim to have statistics for that either, but from what I remember deciding to quit works better than allowing yourself "one more" because it's a small step to "ah, I suppose just one more won't really make a difference..."
New-year resolutions tend to be abandoned by the second week of January for essentially that reason.