chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:36 pm
Somebody, I read here, tested Shashchess against latest SF and got 98% similarity. If so, that's pretty conclusive.
Conclusive for what? It is not contested by anyone that Shashchess is a close Stockfish derivative. ICGA is well aware of it. So what is there to conclude that wasn't known beforehand?
Tournament Rules Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. In the computer system there is no restriction on the hardware. At least one of the program developers should attend the WCCC to operate the program, otherwise (i.e., for operators who are not developers of the program they are operating) the entry fee for the program is doubled. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
If what one reads about Shashchess is true, the entry appears to breach the above two rules (red sections).
chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:36 pm
Somebody, I read here, tested Shashchess against latest SF and got 98% similarity. If so, that's pretty conclusive.
Conclusive for what? It is not contested by anyone that Shashchess is a close Stockfish derivative. ICGA is well aware of it. So what is there to conclude that wasn't known beforehand?
Tournament Rules Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. In the computer system there is no restriction on the hardware. At least one of the program developers should attend the WCCC to operate the program, otherwise (i.e., for operators who are not developers of the program they are operating) the entry fee for the program is doubled. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
If what one reads about Shashchess is true, the entry appears to breach the above two rules (red sections).
Well, reading between the lines, looks like Mr. Andrea Manzo maybe perhaps just has to pay 2x the money.
chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:36 pm
Somebody, I read here, tested Shashchess against latest SF and got 98% similarity. If so, that's pretty conclusive.
Conclusive for what? It is not contested by anyone that Shashchess is a close Stockfish derivative. ICGA is well aware of it. So what is there to conclude that wasn't known beforehand?
Tournament Rules Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. In the computer system there is no restriction on the hardware. At least one of the program developers should attend the WCCC to operate the program, otherwise (i.e., for operators who are not developers of the program they are operating) the entry fee for the program is doubled. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
If what one reads about Shashchess is true, the entry appears to breach the above two rules (red sections).
Well, reading between the lines, looks like Mr. Andrea Manzo maybe perhaps just has to pay 2x the money.
It's a trifle ambiguous, but the idea is that the "Entry" is one thing, defined in first sentence. It's the application form and acceptance, basically a contract. Operation takes place afterwards and is conditional/dependent on the Entry/acceptance/payment process.
However, those of us with experience of this stuff know that the rules are just so much BS to the ICGA. They really do whatever they want. Money playing a very large part. Shaeffer may be a bit more honourable, but we'll see.
RE Shashchess, Each program must be the original work of the entering developers looks to be breached in any case.
chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:36 pm
Somebody, I read here, tested Shashchess against latest SF and got 98% similarity. If so, that's pretty conclusive.
Conclusive for what? It is not contested by anyone that Shashchess is a close Stockfish derivative. ICGA is well aware of it. So what is there to conclude that wasn't known beforehand?
Tournament Rules Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. In the computer system there is no restriction on the hardware. At least one of the program developers should attend the WCCC to operate the program, otherwise (i.e., for operators who are not developers of the program they are operating) the entry fee for the program is doubled. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
If what one reads about Shashchess is true, the entry appears to breach the above two rules (red sections).
My understanding is that it is the last sentences of the last paragraph that gets Shashchess in. As long as you name the other developers and have their permission.
... possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:36 pm
Somebody, I read here, tested Shashchess against latest SF and got 98% similarity. If so, that's pretty conclusive.
Conclusive for what? It is not contested by anyone that Shashchess is a close Stockfish derivative. ICGA is well aware of it. So what is there to conclude that wasn't known beforehand?
Tournament Rules Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. In the computer system there is no restriction on the hardware. At least one of the program developers should attend the WCCC to operate the program, otherwise (i.e., for operators who are not developers of the program they are operating) the entry fee for the program is doubled. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
If what one reads about Shashchess is true, the entry appears to breach the above two rules (red sections).
Well, reading between the lines, looks like Mr. Andrea Manzo maybe perhaps just has to pay 2x the money.
It's a trifle ambiguous, but the idea is that the "Entry" is one thing, defined in first sentence. It's the application form and acceptance, basically a contract. Operation takes place afterwards and is conditional/dependent on the Entry/acceptance/payment process.
However, those of us with experience of this stuff know that the rules are just so much BS to the ICGA. They really do whatever they want. Money playing a very large part. Shaeffer may be a bit more honourable, but we'll see.
RE Shashchess, Each program must be the original work of the entering developers looks to be breached in any case.
Then what would be the point of this:
Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
You need to be really special person to defend compulsive liar amchess who copies every single sf patch but somehow shits on sf testing methodology, period.
There is quite literally nothing to discuss. If you think that shashchess is "just a derivative which has interesting innovations" you are just a plain idiot.
One could say SF people never wanted to be in any part with WCCC being a grief, but their code, their right. Having it under GPL does not nullify any authorship, if people want to win a prize with it, they'd better be entitled to represent.
However, trying to defend a fraud entry with "98%" plagiarism is some next level gymnastics going down here. There has to be more to it, it isn't hard for anyone to see what's going on and yet we have people who is hell bent on being special something.
Is it worth it though, like, for real? This is what we've come to?
chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 10:45 pmTournament Rules Each entry is a computing system and one or more humans who programmed it. In the computer system there is no restriction on the hardware. At least one of the program developers should attend the WCCC to operate the program, otherwise (i.e., for operators who are not developers of the program they are operating) the entry fee for the program is doubled. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers, possibly with the inclusion of game playing code and/or data from other sources for which the entering developers have a legal right of use. Developers whose code is derived from or includes (1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom they are aware; and (b) the source of such code and/or data, in their tournament registration details.
If what one reads about Shashchess is true, the entry appears to breach the above two rules (red sections).
It seems you missed the part I highlighted in green. This clearly state that you can use code written by others, even game-playing code. As long as you have the legal right to do this (which requires no further demonstration for GPL code), and give proper credit in your registration details (which appears to have been done here).
So I see no breach of those rules.
It has always been like that, btw: participants have used Nalimov code for probing EGT for ages. I consider this actually more dubious, as multiple participants where then using the same code, while not everyone was allowed to use that same code. It created an unlevel playing field.
Viz wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 2:32 am
You need to be really special person to defend compulsive liar amchess who copies every single sf patch but somehow shits on sf testing methodology, period.
There is quite literally nothing to discuss. If you think that shashchess is "just a derivative which has interesting innovations" you are just a plain idiot.
But of course you are the only one who thinks that anyone here or at ICGA thinks that. So what does that make you?
chrisw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:40 pmHowever, those of us with experience of this stuff know that the rules are just so much BS to the ICGA. They really do whatever they want.
Of course. It is their tournament, and it are their rules. They are fully entitled to change them any time they like.
What was reported about this earlier in the thread suggests they even consulted the other participants to see if they had any objections.
