how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[Houdini]

Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff). Are you CERTAIN no versions of robo* nor Houdini copied THAT code when Rybka was RE'ed???

It is CERTAIN that Houdini does not contain any rotated bitboard stuff.

As for robo*, it's open source so you can EASILY verify your claim. Why don't you, instead of spreading nonsense?

[Rebel]

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 ?

[Thomas Mayer]

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 ?

Hi Ed,

I don't think that we need a new organisation. ICGA is fine, most of the members are programmers or have been programmers of game playing entitities. So why found a new organisation when we have already one. That doesn't help at all.
If we quit with rule #2 this is the end of competition. Following the CSVN would mean that you must allow every entrant, so anyone could play with whatever he wants. So just take e.g. the source of Ivanhoe, rename it, compile it and here you are with something that has good chances to win a tournament. I don't see any version of rule #2 with additions that allows engines like Rybka & Houdini (in case of Rybka with huge changes compared to the origin, in case of Houdini at least with some very clever changes) but disallows above mentioned engines. Or do you want tourneys about who can make the best Ippo/Fruit/Whatever-Clone ?

Greets, Thomas

[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.

[Thomas Mayer]

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

[Terry McCracken]

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 ?

If the only way to get ahead is to rob a bank in a bad economy then it's okay in your opinion?

Screw morals right? It'll get you nowhere fast these days.

[Rebel]

Hi Ed,

I don't think that we need a new organisation. ICGA is fine, most of the members are programmers or have been programmers of game playing entitities. So why found a new organisation when we have already one. That doesn't help at all.
If we quit with rule #2 this is the end of competition. Following the CSVN would mean that you must allow every entrant, so anyone could play with whatever he wants. So just take e.g. the source of Ivanhoe, rename it, compile it and here you are with something that has good chances to win a tournament. I don't see any version of rule #2 with additions that allows engines like Rybka & Houdini (in case of Rybka with huge changes compared to the origin, in case of Houdini at least with some very clever changes) but disallows above mentioned engines. Or do you want tourneys about who can make the best Ippo/Fruit/Whatever-Clone ?

Greets, Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I am not saying to replace the ICGA, I am saying we need a new body that offers an ALL-IN solution to get rid of the clones once and for all. That the chess programmers take their fate into their own hands and decide what is a clone and what is an original program.

And that such a body can serve as a source of information for the ICGA, CSVN, other organizers, rating lists to make decisions.

Please read the current discussion I am currently having with Bob for a better understanding.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid374916

I recently had a long conversation with David, I addressed the clone problem 2 times and he wasn't interested. Meaning, not my problem, I only care for my own tournament.

I can understand it but I think we need something better to deal the cloners. The WCC is great fun, but last just one week. But a year has 52 of them.

[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

[Damir]

Hi Don,

When it comes to money, there are no nice people. You either win or lose, live or die. That's a whole concept of commercial computer chess.

[Sean Evans]

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