Gerd Isenberg wrote:With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..
How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?
The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.
The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.
Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?
If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.
This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...
A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...
Guetti wrote:It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.
I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.
Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...
There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?
This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!
Eelco
OK, then what about the people that come here, ask questions, get lots of ideas and algorithms from active programmers, then they find a new idea, hide it and go commercial. I think they are "hooligans" just as much as this case.
Gerd Isenberg wrote:With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..
How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?
The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.
The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.
Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?
If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.
This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...
A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...
Oh yes, why don't you post this in the Rybka Forum?
Guetti wrote:It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.
I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.
Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...
There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?
This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!
Eelco
OK, then what about the people that come here, ask questions, get lots of ideas and algorithms from active programmers, then they find a new idea, hide it and go commercial. I think they are "hooligans" just as much as this case.
Robert,
if we extend your example then "all those students who go to universities and later invent something and use their invention to become successful are also hulligans." ... that doesn't seem right. The reason is that there is no equivalence, neither in spirit nor intent, that can be drawn between a forum where people exchange ideas, learning from one another, hoping to invent something and the action of stealing the unique ideas that someone might actually have.
Gerd Isenberg wrote:With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..
How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?
The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.
The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.
Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?
If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.
This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...
A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...
Sounds like the statement of a scientist filled with bitterness and animosity against commercial chess programmers. Of course Vasik didn't invent bitboards - but his initial Rybka was a kind of revolution, with so many elo-points above other top commercials at that time.
It is absolutely Ok, if one tries to make a living from that. And that he don't shares his tricks, to protect his work and livelihood - even if he profits from former forum discussions - and uses ideas from open source programs - and the community feels he should give something back.
It might be bad for science - but it is imho no justification to disassemble the program and to publish the sources. One may argue that Osipov's work is a great contribution for the computer chess community. But imho this is ethically dubious if not worse.
Gerd Isenberg wrote:The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.
My opinion is that if someone comes up with a significant improvement to chess software, rather than sell executable code (which can be reverse engineered), they might be better off running the code on a server, and giving customers access to it via a fee-based web page. As well as protecting the code, there would be other benefits - like being able to work out which features are most popular, and thus focusing development work on these.
Writing is the antidote to confusion.
It's not "how smart you are", it's "how are you smart".
Your brain doesn't work the way you want, so train it!
Gerd Isenberg wrote:With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..
How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?
The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.
The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.
Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?
If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.
This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...
A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...
Bob, like Gerd I ask you if you are really speaking as a honest scientist? With all what you said you cant wipe out that Rybka beta (2006) brought incredible superiority into the known ranking of chess software engines, yours included. Zero tricks in Rybka? Are you not ashamed with such a false staement? Already Chrilly Donninger after having compiled parts of it admitted that Rybka contained a lot of tricky new stuff.
But Bob, if you have a serious objection against Rybka and its author, then speak it out in all clearness but not with such infamous allegations which result in character assassination or at least give others energy for their own hatred. Do you completely miss that you cant compare an imperium like ChessBase with the little b usiness of Rajlich and his community? Is Gerd not right on the spot that you personally might be frustrated that you didnt have the astonishing results with your own attempts? I cant see the "old" Bob in such a nasty commentary here. Please give a correction or addition or whatever. Not for me but for all members of the community. Speak with a clear voice however. Thanks.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Gerd Isenberg wrote:With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..
How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?
The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.
The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.
Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?
If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.
This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...
A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...
Sounds like the statement of a scientist filled with bitterness and animosity against commercial chess programmers. Of course Vasik didn't invent bitboards - but his initial Rybka was a kind of revolution, with so many elo-points above other top commercials at that time.
It is absolutely Ok, if one tries to make a living from that. And that he don't shares his tricks, to protect his work and livelihood - even if he profits from former forum discussions - and uses ideas from open source programs - and the community feels he should give something back.
It might be bad for science - but it is imho no justification to disassemble the program and to publish the sources. One may argue that Osipov's work is a great contribution for the computer chess community. But imho this is ethically dubious if not worse.
Thanks, Gerd, for that message. I read this before I saw Bob's original which then justified my worst expectations. You are right on the point in your criticism. I hope Bob can clarify the situation.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Guetti wrote:It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.
I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.
Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...
There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?
This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!
Eelco
OK, then what about the people that come here, ask questions, get lots of ideas and algorithms from active programmers, then they find a new idea, hide it and go commercial. I think they are "hooligans" just as much as this case.
Robert,
if we extend your example then "all those students who go to universities and later invent something and use their invention to become successful are also hulligans." ... that doesn't seem right. The reason is that there is no equivalence, neither in spirit nor intent, that can be drawn between a forum where people exchange ideas, learning from one another, hoping to invent something and the action of stealing the unique ideas that someone might actually have.
Regards,
Hristo
For me, that analogy doesn't work. Here's why. At the university, there is a specific "quid-pro-quo" between faculty and students. Students pay tuition, which pays our salaries. We, in turn, teach the students about various subjects. There is a two-way interchange.
Between many of us here, there is a two-way interchange. We discuss ideas, we exchange ideas, we make suggestions, we might keep secrets for a tournament, but then we reveal what we are doing (in my case, this is pretty obvious since I release source).
The example I cited was missing exactly 1/2 of that. Discuss ideas, ask questions, even get pointers that take you in a good direction, but once you discover something new and different, clam up...
Not what we in academia do at all, which was my point...
Unfortunately, not everyone shares your outlook on this, Dr. Hyatt.
It isn't just in academia or in computer chess programming where forward thinking individuals whose intent is to learn and share their learnings with others become disillusioned with others who just don't think like they do - in a community sense of sharing and getting stronger, that is. I've seen this crap happen in the corporate world, and it certainly has jaded my outlook towards my peers and superiors.
