michiguel wrote:
Just to clarify your position, you prefer a format that is free for all. Is that correct?
Miguel
NO, not at all! That is a complete missunderstanding of my position and what I wanted to say here!
It is just that if you follow the argumentation of the CSVN the rule set they implemented is useless as it proves nothing and is impossible to enforce. If one trys to follow their Rybka argumentation the only logical format for them would be to allow everything as they doubt any possible "proof" without getting willingly the original source!
So what I think is not not part of this thread but:
I think that the ICGa rule set is the only resonable. You have to support orginality, you have to forbide copying/cloning. If some resonable suspicion comes up you have to investigate exactly that. (Maybe the investigation process can be improved, but the principle is correct).
Again: Making rules knowing that you cant realy check them is complete nonsense and is just supporting unjustice even more!
Bye
Ingo
How the status quo better regarding remote engines? or anything else? Same enforcement issues, or worse. I think that if done properly, the similarity test may have a better chance to be applied uniformly. I think it is a matter of technical will, not philosophical. So far, only accused engines have been investigated, which always has stricken me as unfair.
Maybe a hybrid system in which every engine is sim-tested and the ones who do not pass it get an automatic investigation would be better?
michiguel wrote:
...
Maybe a hybrid system in which every engine is sim-tested and the ones who do not pass it get an automatic investigation would be better?
Miguel
That sounds like a reasonable compromise, just how to satisfactory, plausible test a remote engine - and assuming you can, there is no reliable data on clusters regarding the similarity ... Catch 22!
michiguel wrote: So far, only accused engines have been investigated, which always has stricken me as unfair.
If this is unfair the question is if it is better to test the ones who are on site but let some play without testing as you are not able to test them ...?
IWB wrote:Here I fully agree with you, I see that they want to have a "clean" tourney, just I see a bigger unjustice in testing some and let other(s) do whatever they want as it is impossible to test!
It comes down to: A rule has to apply to all or none!
Bye
Ingo
I'd like to see all the top commercials disassembled and be proven squeaky clean before those involved with them cast stones at everybody else.
Graham Banks wrote:
I'd like to see all the top commercials disassembled and be proven squeaky clean before those involved with them cast stones at everybody else.
Wait, coming from the one who is playing everything nowaday, not caring about any reasonable integrity!? And regarding the stones: Paulus to Saulus! Give me more
DaveKitt wrote:
After reading over the threads regarding the 60% rule and tournament qualification, I can say that that things have changed a great deal. There has been so much published code that I've seen, whether it has been RE'd or not, that the genie really is out of the bottle. I think it will be very difficult to ever find a solution for determining what is sufficiently 'original' and what has too much 'borrow' in it.
I am curious if anyone is still making any money with this activity. If not, then maybe tournaments should just open the gates to all, regardless of program lineage.
Graham Banks wrote:
I'd like to see all the top commercials disassembled and be proven squeaky clean before those involved with them cast stones at everybody else.
Wait, coming from the one who is playing everything nowaday, not caring about any reasonable integrity!? And regarding the stones: Paulus to Saulus! Give me more
Ingo
Ingo - like many others, I got sick of all the politics and hypocracy. Computer chess is supposed to a hobby to enjoy and I intend to enjoy it.
Each to his own.
Graham Banks wrote:
Ingo - like many others, I got sick of all the politics and hypocracy. Computer chess is supposed to a hobby to enjoy and I intend to enjoy it.
Each to his own.
Complaing about hypocracy but still fascinated enough to read all this tread and answer with baseless acusations while testing everything ...
Graham Banks wrote:
Ingo - like many others, I got sick of all the politics and hypocracy. Computer chess is supposed to a hobby to enjoy and I intend to enjoy it.
Each to his own.
Complaing about hypocracy but still fascinated enough to read all this tread and answer with baseless acusations while testing everything ...
You are not sick and tired - you are excited! The only problem is that you need more news and there are none!
Bye
Ingo
I am not interested in mudslinging. Have a nice weekend.
