how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[M ANSARI]

The easiest way to deal with rule #2 is to tie it with a legally binding issue. If the code is legal then it is OK, if it is not legal in a court of law ... then it should not be allowed. At the moment things are in a very strange position, where you have people with differing opinions hacking it out on these boards. Why not let the legalities in a court of law be the arbiter? If engine is a legal engine without challenge by another author that is verified by a court of law ... then that would be it. If a court finds that the engine infringed on a license or law ... then throw the book at him. This would end this silly endless debate which really seems to be going nowhere and has only managed to destroy relationships between people that took decades to build.

Sorry, there is far too less money involved in computer chess that there is any need to go to the court. IMHO rule #2 is fine as it is. As far as I know there is no other discipline of the ICGA Olympiad where such a controversy exists. I don't know of any other programmers tournament or championship where originality is not part of the rules.
Following your proposal EVERY copy of Ippolit would be ok to enter in programmers tournaments. Because at current state they are legal. Do you want tourneys with 20 Ippos ? Is it that what the users want ?

Greets, Thomas

The problem is that you need an authority that is independent and not biased towards anybody. That is difficult to do especially with competitors.

With regards to 20 Ippos competing ... well if the Ippo is so good, maybe it should be the new platform for all new chess engines. That doesn't mean they will all stay static, and most likely in a year or two, non of them will play anything like the other. This kind of thing happens all the time ... if something is so much superior than anything else out there, then everyone will follow that path and use that as the new starting block.

[Don]

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No? Your actions say YES.

Welcome to the Hyattian Oligarchy, this what the majority of CCC members voted for, tyrany!

Cordially,

Sean

Sean,

Bob Hyatt enjoys a level of prestige and honor in the computer chess community, but he does not have nearly the power that people seem to ascribe to him. I laugh every time I hear someone imply that Bob is in charge of everything that happens in computer chess. He deserves honor and respect because of his contributions to computer chess and his longevity but it does not go any farther than that. Not to mention his willingness to share ideas and help others.

However he is no different from any other computer chess author when it comes to decisions made by the ICGA or anyone else. None of us speaks for the others or is specially looked to for guidance or direction. There is no power structure here. The ICGA probably is probably the defacto governing body for computer chess, but even their power is seriously limited - they don't make decisions for other organization.

The kind of talk I keep hearing is the result of an overactive imagination. The scenario being sold is that Bob Hyatt is a Mafia Don with all the chess authors who are his "gumbatta" and he is controlling the decisions of the ICGA. And he has put out a contract against Vas who must have crossed him. And you had better be careful about what you say about him or you are likely to wake up with a horse head in your bed.

I see that previously reasonable people seem to be buying into this at least to a degree.

[bob]

Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff).

How do you know? Up to now only versions up to 2.3.2a have been examined.

Because Vas stated that version 4 moved from rotated bitboards to magic multiply. How easy was that to answer???

[marcelk]

I like radical ideas, or at least the discussion thereof, because they help us look ahead. I completely agree with you we face a new reality and that it is wise to reconsider what we want with these tournaments. To me that is the only discussion worthwhile at this moment.

Marcel, 100% agree.

All of us (programmers and organizers) are facing an enemy we can't beat with the old paradigm (rule #2) that worked well for decades. With the appearance of the Fruit 2.1 sources (2005), Strelka (2007) and especially the hacked Rybka 3 (2009) sources fair play became in stormy weather and while the years went by it's now peaking at hurricane level.

In retrospect that, in that period (2005-2011) tournament organizers, rating lists, users and programmers have tried to deal with the clone-monster each on its own way and to their best knowledge, all of them having the same goal in mind but ending in different solutions.

That now is the time to act, we need a new paradigm that is solid enough to overcome the clones and guarantee fair play for the next decades to come. Programmers need to unite to establish that. An own hidden forum to discuss and decide their own future.

Provided you have read the discussion at Rybka forum, what do you think, could the brainstorm idea work ?

Maybe, I like to think things through and I find it difficult to follow threads on that forum because of the noise combined with the UI making it hard to find out what was posted. (Everything is sorted in some random order, not by time stamp).

Before proposing solutions (new rules, organizations etc etc) I would start with identifying the stakeholders and what is the core of the problem. This includes programmers, organizers and enthusiasts. The very basic question is what motivates them to not understand each other. I think the core is in attribution. There are programmers who have a 'take it all' mentality. At all cost they want to pretend that they did all the work on their program by themselves. That sets of everybody who did that work. On the other hand there is the feeling that it is unfair that people who added ELO are not rewarded for that. Also understandable.

But if that were all, it would be simple. For example I personally would be quite ok with allowing copy-cats, provided that (a) they list their co-authors and (b) they have added something substantial. The problems we see now is of people who pass criterium (b) but not (a). That is just greed, and I see no rule change or organization change that would change their minds. So then the problem stays.

I'm reluctant to start with changing rules or organizations, except for simple things. (1. Face to face competition and no operator crap 2. always verify the prize winners, 3. spell out more clearly what is considered ok and what not) In the end any rule will be subject to human interpretation. If the origin of the controversies lies with that, then nothing is going to repair that also. There will never be mechanical testable definition of originality. There isn't for copyright, so we can't expect one in computer chess also. And if people like Jaap or Ken are questioned, then there is IMHO no reason to expect any easy resolution.

[Rebel]

Code: Select all

The main criticism on [a] is that the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict. 

Ed,

This is something I want to challenge. We have heard this over and over again and I find it incredibly offensive. It's used as the primary explanation for why Rybka has been removed from ICGA tournaments, and yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

There has been talk of slander and ruining the reputation of others, but this is the most incredible piece of nonsense I have heard in this affair. And in all the talk about "facts" and "getting proof" and so on, why is this not challenged? Do you have some facts here? Do you have statements from his "jealous competitors" that prove this was the clear motive? Perhaps an email or something where one of Rybka's primary competitors said we must get rid of Rybka because it is too strong?

Otherwise, what right do you have for impugning the character of so many good people? If you don't agree with the decision, is the only recourse to impugn the character of a number of well respected computer scientists and program authors? Don't you have any compassion at all for people that you would resort to ad hominem assaults on good people in order attack the facts that they present?

Don

Hi Don,

You have my sympathy here of course. These allegations are totally uncalled for in my personal judgement. But realize what I saying, I don't accuse the voters. I accuse the system that allowed it.

It makes people doubt the procedure and portray the ones that voted guilty having an agenda. You and others became the victim of a wrong procedure.

Such pretence should have been avoided by all means, don't you think?

Best to you.

Ed

[michiguel]

I like radical ideas, or at least the discussion thereof, because they help us look ahead. I completely agree with you we face a new reality and that it is wise to reconsider what we want with these tournaments. To me that is the only discussion worthwhile at this moment.

Marcel, 100% agree.

All of us (programmers and organizers) are facing an enemy we can't beat with the old paradigm (rule #2) that worked well for decades. With the appearance of the Fruit 2.1 sources (2005), Strelka (2007) and especially the hacked Rybka 3 (2009) sources fair play became in stormy weather and while the years went by it's now peaking at hurricane level.

In retrospect that, in that period (2005-2011) tournament organizers, rating lists, users and programmers have tried to deal with the clone-monster each on its own way and to their best knowledge, all of them having the same goal in mind but ending in different solutions.

That now is the time to act, we need a new paradigm that is solid enough to overcome the clones and guarantee fair play for the next decades to come. Programmers need to unite to establish that. An own hidden forum to discuss and decide their own future.

Provided you have read the discussion at Rybka forum, what do you think, could the brainstorm idea work ?

Maybe, I like to think things through and I find it difficult to follow threads on that forum because of the noise combined with the UI making it hard to find out what was posted. (Everything is sorted in some random order, not by time stamp).

Before proposing solutions (new rules, organizations etc etc) I would start with identifying the stakeholders and what is the core of the problem. This includes programmers, organizers and enthusiasts. The very basic question is what motivates them to not understand each other. I think the core is in attribution. There are programmers who have a 'take it all' mentality. At all cost they want to pretend that they did all the work on their program by themselves. That sets of everybody who did that work. On the other hand there is the feeling that it is unfair that people who added ELO are not rewarded for that. Also understandable.

But if that were all, it would be simple. For example I personally would be quite ok with allowing copy-cats, provided that (a) they list their co-authors and (b) they have added something substantial. The problems we see now is of people who pass criterium (b) but not (a). That is just greed, and I see no rule change or organization change that would change their minds. So then the problem stays.

I'm reluctant to start with changing rules or organizations, except for simple things. (1. Face to face competition and no operator crap 2. always verify the prize winners, 3. spell out more clearly what is considered ok and what not) In the end any rule will be subject to human interpretation. If the origin of the controversies lies with that, then nothing is going to repair that also. There will never be mechanical testable definition of originality. There isn't for copyright, so we can't expect one in computer chess also. And if people like Jaap or Ken are questioned, then there is IMHO no reason to expect any easy resolution.

Yes, changing rules is bad, but... Rule #2 is poorly written, or, written like we are in the 70's. The part that says "engines that play same moves" may have anything to do with cloning is obsolete. In addition, rule #2 had lots of non-written exceptions just "out of convenience" (books & EGTBs).

Miguel

[marcelk]

Yes, changing rules is bad, but... Rule #2 is poorly written, or, written like we are in the 70's. The part that says "engines that play same moves" may have anything to do with cloning is obsolete. In addition, rule #2 had lots of non-written exceptions just "out of convenience" (books & EGTBs).

Are you a reader of the ICGA Journal? One must be a member to play in these tournaments, and if a new member has questions as an entrant the TD is more than happy to clarify. There is a lot of explanation in the older journals about the interpretation of this old rule. Like many laws, how they have been historically applied becomes part of the rule. And the ICGA is very careful those explain decisions. The things you mention have been addressed.

0. The rule was probably written in the 1970s. And applied and clarified in the years thereafter in the journals. My proposal #3 suggests to bring that all together for clarity to outsiders and new entrants.
1. Playing the same moves is given as an example, not a definition.
2. Books authors belong to one team from this year on, as requested by the programmers.
3. EGTBs have been allowed because the programmers agreed on that during a programmer's meeting.

[Graham Banks]

Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff).

How do you know? Up to now only versions up to 2.3.2a have been examined.

Because Vas stated that version 4 moved from rotated bitboards to magic multiply. How easy was that to answer???

Bob - I'd heard that a couple of members of the panel examined Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 and found them clean?

[Terry McCracken]

Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff).

How do you know? Up to now only versions up to 2.3.2a have been examined.

Because Vas stated that version 4 moved from rotated bitboards to magic multiply. How easy was that to answer???

Bob - I'd heard that a couple of members of the panel examined Rybka 3 and Rybka 4 and found them clean?

Graham we've been down this road and hearsay is meaningless. No one looked at the source of 3 and 4 and even if they had it would be meaningless as a defence. If they take these engines apart completely it's likely they're not clean regardless.

Why do you people persist? You should be ashamed to defend a liar and a thief like Vas!

[Don]

Code: Select all

The main criticism on [a] is that the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict. 

Ed,

This is something I want to challenge. We have heard this over and over again and I find it incredibly offensive. It's used as the primary explanation for why Rybka has been removed from ICGA tournaments, and yet there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

There has been talk of slander and ruining the reputation of others, but this is the most incredible piece of nonsense I have heard in this affair. And in all the talk about "facts" and "getting proof" and so on, why is this not challenged? Do you have some facts here? Do you have statements from his "jealous competitors" that prove this was the clear motive? Perhaps an email or something where one of Rybka's primary competitors said we must get rid of Rybka because it is too strong?

Otherwise, what right do you have for impugning the character of so many good people? If you don't agree with the decision, is the only recourse to impugn the character of a number of well respected computer scientists and program authors? Don't you have any compassion at all for people that you would resort to ad hominem assaults on good people in order attack the facts that they present?

Don

Hi Don,

You have my sympathy here of course. These allegations are totally uncalled for in my personal judgement. But realize what I saying, I don't accuse the voters. I accuse the system that allowed it.

It makes people doubt the procedure and portray the ones that voted guilty having an agenda. You and others became the victim of a wrong procedure.

Such pretence should have been avoided by all means, don't you think?

Best to you.

Ed

I don't feel that I'm a victim of anything here. Your argument should be with the ICGA not talkchess forum members who had nothing to do with the decision. There were no "voters", except perhaps the ICGA board members themselves. The only thing we can get from talking about it here is a bunch of opinions, a lot of hurt feelings and a lot of time wasted.

Even if the discussion remains civilized there is not much to be gained unless it actually promotes some kind of positive action. But the vast majority of us do not believe that there is a problem to be solved. What is the problem to be solved here? Is it how to get the ICGA to not make rulings that we disagree with? If the decision had gone differently would you have perceived that there was a big problem with the "process?"

I don't know what else to say here, it's all been said. Vas has not responded, but those who sympathize with him have served as his puppet and use all the tactics commonly used by people caught red-handed. Justify, minimize, shift the blame and attack the accuser.