Interesting reflection on a past statement

[BubbaTough]

In the early 80's I got my hands on every instructive chess book that was available and TOOK everything that was useful and put that into EVAL. I don't feel I did anything wrong.

And now (anno 2011) the same knowledge you can freely download and I really do not see any difference taking GENERAL PUBLIC AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE from books or from freely downloadable sources. That is of course as long as they write that learned KNOWLEDGE in their own code, as we did.

While attempting to avoid joining the general debate, I can't help but to nitpick this statement. There is a BIG difference between reading a general statement, and looking at a piece of code implementing it. The code usually narrows the scope of the main concept into something that can be efficiently implemented. For most, the effect is that when they look at a piece of code they end up implementing something similar, while when they read a general idea there is much more diversity in the resulting implementation. Just a few example concepts, with no particular attempt to cherry pick tough ones:

1. "passed pawns must be pushed"
2. "less pawn islands are better"
3. "quick development is less important in closed positions"
4. "keep the pawns shelter in front of your king intact"
5. "opposite color bishop endgames are drawish"
6. "bishops are better than knights if the knights cannot find good outposts"
7. "controlling the center is good"
8. "don't trade when you control more space"

Show someone these statements without code and the result is going to be much more diverse than showing them the code itself. This is particularly true for people that are not particularly strong at chess, since a strong chess player is more likely to look at code and generalize to the broader underlying chess idea than a coder without as strong a command of the related chess principles. Also, weaker coders are less likely to design efficient implementations on their own, and therefore more likely to settle on a similar implementation if they have seen one (showing a decent but not amazing programmer like myself an english description of SEE is very different than showing me Crafty's SEE code for example).

Even ideas that are stated with implied obvious implementations:
9. A rook on the 7th is worth a pawn
10. 2 bishops are worth about 1/2 a pawn

Are more likely to inspire diversity when stated in general than in code, since the exceptions and conditions that come to mind during implementation are more likely to be different when you have never seen a known effective implemented version.

NOTE: I am not trying to join a debate on what is right and wrong, I am just pointing out that looking at an idea expressed in code has a very different effect than something described in general principle. Obviously, I am not not arguing open source code should not be looked at, after all, the only point in being open source is to be looked at. Just that the analogy of reading a chess book and looking at source is not apt.

-Sam

[K I Hyams]

Graham has a big problem as well and needs to back off. He too is being dishonest, that or he's stupid.

All I have done is post Fabien Letouzey's own thoughts quoted from an interview he did with Frank Quisinsky. Those were his words, not mine. How is that being dishonest and stupid?

The difference between using ideas that other people have introduced and copying and pasting code has been made crystal clear to you on a number of occasions. As you are not particularly stupid, it is one that there is little doubt you understand.

Fabien’s comments, made in 2008, clearly refer to the use of ideas only, not to the copying of code, another point that will not have escaped you. That blindingly obvious point is backed up by by the fact that his comments and actions, made in 2011, prove that he believes that copying of code and/or the generation of semantically equivalent code is unacceptable. In light of the clarity of the issues, your comments can only be interpreted as disingenuous.

It is sad that you are reduced to behaving in that sort of way. It is equally sad that Ed feels the need to post the nonsense contained in the quote below.

You make an interesting statement. IMO the accusation stands or falls if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Vas took the Fruit sources as WHOLE, modified it and called the end-result (R1) his OWN.
Ed

You find the Ippolit engines unacceptable because there are rumours that they contain copied code. Why then do you find the Rybka engines acceptable when there is strong evidence that they contain copied code?

[Graham Banks]

......In light of the clarity of the issues, your comments can only be interpreted as disingenuous.

It is sad that you are reduced to behaving in that sort of way.........

I haven't made any comments except to say that it's interesting to reflect on what Fabien said in view of what has happened since. How is that either "disingenuous" or "sad behaviour"?

[Rebel]

as he failed to comply with the rules that stated he should have supplied source code on request.

Vas was never asked to hand-over his source code.

Well, there is the post below from Cimiotti that shows that the suggestion that he should hand his code over, thereby proving his innocence, was put to him but he refused to do so. His excuse that it would help his competitors is a non-runner for the following reasons:
1. The code was way out of date.
2. It would have been handed over to a secure source.
3. The Rybka 1 code was already, according to Rajlich, freely available in the form of Strelka.

"- N/- By Lukas Cimiotti (*****) [de] Date 2011-08-14 10:28
Vas and I discussed whether or not he should give source code to the ICGA. He really didn't like that idea. My idea was removing all comments and maybe changing all names of variables to make the code harder to understand. But as the guys that disassembled Rybka hadn't understood several parts of the code, we agreed it's safer to not give anything to our competitors.
So Vas only defended himself by saying: I did nothing wrong."
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ;hl=source

I am aware of the odd posting, but its conclusion is not correct. I made the same mistake by assuming the ICGA had asked for the R1 sources, it did not happen. Ask Bob, Mark Lefler.

Secondly Strelka is a mixture of Fruit and and only partly of RE Rybka and if you compare the search depth's it's sure Osipov took the secrets of Rybka's search.

[K I Hyams]

......In light of the clarity of the issues, your comments can only be interpreted as disingenuous.

It is sad that you are reduced to behaving in that sort of way.........

I haven't made any comments except to say that it's interesting to reflect on what Fabien said in view of what has happened since. How is that either "disingenuous" or "sad behaviour"?

Look at the responses to your post. The authors of the relevant ones felt that you were trying to imply a conclusion from Fabien’s post that was invalid. At least two of us believe that your understanding of the issue is sufficient for you to be fully aware that you were implying an invalid conclusion. Hence the comment that you are disingenuous.

Another example of your disingenuous behaviour is the way in which you subsequently hid behind the claim that your underlying motive was not tendentious.

I ask you again: you find the Ippolit engines unacceptable because there are rumours that they contain copied code. Why then do you find the Rybka engines acceptable when there is extremely strong evidence that they contain copied code?

[Rebel]

Just that the analogy of reading a chess book and looking at source is not apt.

Sam, there can't be copyright on chess knowledge. The code is copyrighted, not its knowledge.

My chess program in the 80's had more chess knowledge than Fruit. I can not say to Fabien, "you plagiarized my work".

I also may assume these open sources are meant for the greater good of sharing knowledge. When a GM publishes his opening preparation he can not complain later it is used against him, or that others use his knowledge.

If you upload your sources and especially when you are at the top rated -- and Fruit was at the time -- you know programmers will look into it to find something useful. And I may assume that was the whole idea.

Fabien gave his knowledge to programmers with only one restriction, do not copy.

[Graham Banks]

......In light of the clarity of the issues, your comments can only be interpreted as disingenuous.

It is sad that you are reduced to behaving in that sort of way.........

I haven't made any comments except to say that it's interesting to reflect on what Fabien said in view of what has happened since. How is that either "disingenuous" or "sad behaviour"?

Look at the responses to your post. The authors of the relevant ones felt that you were trying to imply a conclusion from Fabien’s post that was invalid. At least two of us believe that your understanding of the issue is sufficient for you to be fully aware that you were implying an invalid conclusion. Hence the comment that you are disingenuous.

Another example of your disingenuous behaviour is the way in which you subsequently implied that your underlying motive was not tendentious.

I ask you again: you find the Ippolit engines unacceptable because there are simply rumours that they contain copied code. Why then do you find the Rybka engines acceptable when there is extremely strong evidence that they contain copied code?

Firstly, as a non-programmer, I am not in a position to question whether or not the Rybka decision was correct. Therefore I haven't questioned that decision.
I have pointed out some aspects of the process that I was perturbed about (including the Leiden ultimatum since), but that's it.

Secondly, people can imply what they want, but that doesn't make them right. My motive for posting Fabien's comments was purely because I found them interesting in light of what has transpired since, nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding Rybka and other controversial engines, those tested by CCRL are marked as such in the rating lists. What does your question regarding controversial engines have to do with my post anyway?

[K I Hyams]

as he failed to comply with the rules that stated he should have supplied source code on request.

Vas was never asked to hand-over his source code.

Well, there is the post below from Cimiotti that shows that the suggestion that he should hand his code over, thereby proving his innocence, was put to him but he refused to do so. His excuse that it would help his competitors is a non-runner for the following reasons:
1. The code was way out of date.
2. It would have been handed over to a secure source.
3. The Rybka 1 code was already, according to Rajlich, freely available in the form of Strelka.

"- N/- By Lukas Cimiotti (*****) [de] Date 2011-08-14 10:28
Vas and I discussed whether or not he should give source code to the ICGA. He really didn't like that idea. My idea was removing all comments and maybe changing all names of variables to make the code harder to understand. But as the guys that disassembled Rybka hadn't understood several parts of the code, we agreed it's safer to not give anything to our competitors.
So Vas only defended himself by saying: I did nothing wrong."
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ;hl=source

I am aware of the odd posting, but its conclusion is not correct. I made the same mistake by assuming the ICGA had asked for the R1 sources, it did not happen. Ask Bob, Mark Lefler.

Secondly Strelka is a mixture of Fruit and and only partly of RE Rybka and if you compare the search depth's it's sure Osipov took the secrets of Rybka's search.

Yes, I was aware of the possibility that the suggestion that the Rybka code be handed over to the ICGA may not have come from the ICGA itself. I therefore phrased my post carefully and didn't make that claim.

However, Cimiotti's post shows that someone pointed out to Rajlich the obvious fact that if he had nothing to hide, giving the code to the ICGA would have proved his innocence. Cimiotti's post also shows that Rajlich did not feel able to do so, despite the fact that it was obsolete and would be going into secure custody. Such a refusal, in those circumstances and without good reason, does not look good

[BubbaTough]

I am not making a claim about what is legal or moral, just that the two (implementing something after reading a high level description, and implementing something after reading code) are different enough to be a bad analogy. No one has a problem with someone reading a book that says pawn shelter is good and trying to translate it into code; many (but not all) do have a problem with cut and paste king shelter code, and in-between is a big messy confusing gray area.

When coding I pick the spot in the gray I and my teammate are comfortable with, and try not to criticize others too much for picking a different spot. In fact, I usually only speak up when someone is implying there is no gray area, which seems to happen on both sides of the discussion about equally.

-Sam

Just that the analogy of reading a chess book and looking at source is not apt.

Sam, there can't be copyright on chess knowledge. The code is copyrighted, not its knowledge.

My chess program in the 80's had more chess knowledge than Fruit. I can not say to Fabien, "you plagiarized my work".

I also may assume these open sources are meant for the greater good of sharing knowledge. When a GM publishes his opening preparation he can not complain later it is used against him, or that others use his knowledge.

If you upload your sources and especially when you are at the top rated -- and Fruit was at the time -- you know programmers will look into it to find something useful. And I may assume that was the whole idea.

Fabien gave his knowledge to programmers with only one restriction, do not copy.

[K I Hyams]

......In light of the clarity of the issues, your comments can only be interpreted as disingenuous.

It is sad that you are reduced to behaving in that sort of way.........

I haven't made any comments except to say that it's interesting to reflect on what Fabien said in view of what has happened since. How is that either "disingenuous" or "sad behaviour"?

Look at the responses to your post. The authors of the relevant ones felt that you were trying to imply a conclusion from Fabien’s post that was invalid. At least two of us believe that your understanding of the issue is sufficient for you to be fully aware that you were implying an invalid conclusion. Hence the comment that you are disingenuous.

Another example of your disingenuous behaviour is the way in which you subsequently implied that your underlying motive was not tendentious.

I ask you again: you find the Ippolit engines unacceptable because there are simply rumours that they contain copied code. Why then do you find the Rybka engines acceptable when there is extremely strong evidence that they contain copied code?

Firstly, as a non-programmer, I am not in a position to question whether or not the Rybka decision was correct. Therefore I haven't questioned that decision.
I have pointed out some aspects of the process that I was perturbed about (including the Leiden ultimatum since), but that's it.

Secondly, people can imply what they want, but that doesn't make them right. My motive for posting Fabien's comments was purely because I found them interesting in light of what has transpired since, nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding Rybka and other controversial engines, those tested by CCRL are marked as such in the rating lists. What does your question regarding controversial engines have to do with my post anyway?

I didn't mention CCRL. They are fully entitled to test what they like and what they do is none of my business.

Since you ask, I will tell you that the reason why I raised the issue of your double standards is because the maintenance of such standards requires, at best, a facility for self-delusion and I think that the most charitable interpretation of much of your behaviour would be that you have a facility for self-delusion.