Igca Rules are not coming from Mount Sinai

[Carotino]

The ICGA line is correct ... In theory. In practice, however, the situation is not as straightforward as they describe Mr. Muller and Mr. Hyatt.
There are many who have cast their nets into the "Ippolit Sea". There are many programs that have sudden qualitative leaps, with sharp increases in ELO. No surprise for this, it's human.
Someone has admitted: "I took only the ideas!", well, stealing the ideas is perhaps more noble of stealing the code?
The main thing is that the code of Ippolit has been published and ALL, some more, some less, have taken something. Has happened, there is no going back. There is no more any virgin here. What can you do? It pretends that nothing happened? It's not possible, for me... Honestly, I do not know what might be the solution. I believe, however, that maintaining the current line will only serve to reward the smartest, not the best.

Cordially,
Roberto.

[bob]

I work on Crafty regularly. And it is improving. Without copying the code of others. I knew I was not going to catch deep thought / deep blue, as I understood their hardware advantage and how no general-purpose computer was going to catch up for MANY years.

This is not about jealousy. That is just your stupidity showing up...

There is an aspect of competition that is actually about competing. And the sense of self-satisfaction one obtains using one's own work, even if you don't win... You probably won't understand that. Some of us do...

Yeh sure, you have worked hard and long on Crafty, for years,, but it is not improving fast enough for some of us. Can't you see the huge gap between your ego and presumed technical stature on one hand and the stunted position of Crafty in the computer chess world on the other?

My stupidity is not intentional. It is only that, knowing how smart you are, it is hard to find a none stupid reason why you prefer technical stagnation to progress. Each and every one of your posts shows that computer chess progress is of zero value to you and originality is everything. You are taking this one dimenational position in this modular era where to make a computer you don't need to design each IC yourself. For most of us if you put together ICs and create something that is superior to what was there before that is progress. Every honest effort to find a rational explanation why you derive self satisfaction from defending an outdated craftsman approach to computer programming compounds my stupidity, and I dont like this.

In the case of Crafty, all that matters is "ME". I do as I want, and I enjoy the competition as a result. My first computer chess tournament was 1976. My first chess tournament (for my chess program) was 1974. Know anybody else that has been doing this for that long? there's a reason. I do what is enjoyable, and so long as it is enjoyable, I will continue to do it. I don't enjoy copying code from others. I do enjoy sharing ideas with others.

For me, progress is not of zero value. But originality/creativity is certainly most important to me. I compete vicariously through my chess program. It is MY program. Everyone can't win. But everyone can play fairly. And the best person wins. Unless the winner is also a cheater. Given the choice of cheating and winning, or playing by the rules and finishing up lower, I'll take the latter every time. Others might have a different ethical standard, of course.

BTW your implication seems to be "if you don't win, it is not fun." That's certainly not the case for me, and for quite a few others as well...

[bob]

If the Igca rules were to prevail in everything, scientific research would stop. Everything developed in every area comes from the use of previous materiel... To claim the obligation to reinvent the wheel each time, once and again, is preposterous.
Igca can establish the rules they wish for his competitions, but they have not moral or juridical weight, exception made of extreme cases of sheer copying.
To make of those rules kind of a divine decree is pedantic and sterile.
In fact, it is clear that it has been with all this supposed or real cloning, copying, codes stolen or lent, etc that the field has advanced at great steps these last three years after a lapse of comparative slowness and even stagnation.
Of course we have people that feel they have been hurt in his rights, and some times it has been so, but the progress is there to all to see.
Technological advance never has been a 100% clean affair regards
Fern

Good post old friend. With Dylan, times are changing but not everybody is willing to change. A quote from my Rybka-ICGA report:

The current situation anno 2011 is comparable with the year is 2020. Schoolbooks do not longer exists. Kids do not have to carry a bag full of heavy books to school any longer. The only thing children every morning take to school is their 10 inch tablet which has everything in it. Technology has replaced the old paradigm of schoolbooks. And the old paradigm folks are whining, all our stuff has been plagiarized. Of course in court they are without chance but when the old paradigm folks start to play the game of judge and jury themselves the outcome may differ.

Technology has changed the world ever since it made its entree and computer chess is not excused from that. Internet and its freely downloadable chess sources have changed the CC world once and for all. The old paradigm is gone and it's old rules don't work any longer, the new paradigm needs new rules.

http://www.top-5000.nl/rule2.htm

Is that rambling explanation supposed to have any point? An amazon kindle or Barnes-Noble nook? You DO have to purchase books for them. You just don't have to deal with paper.

What ARE you trying to say? Replacing books with e-readers is not going to change copyright law, nor book sales, except that the delivery process has been changed, and you can carry your books in a more compact fashion. But nothing else has changed at all.

That you fight a lost battle like the music and video industry. You can't beat the clones with old rules not fit to stand the pressure anno 2011. That is better to do something now that you still have influence then to wait the problem to grow above your head and then realize you have lost with no influence at all.

It's a matter of vision. But if you want to live in the pre-internet past go ahead. It's mainly the old 80's and 90's generation that want to put their head in the sand.

SO we can't defeat the terrorists outright. We should give up.

We can't stop copying completely, so we should just open the floodgates and let everyone copy and enter.

What a wonderful world you must live in. The music and video industries are hardly "losing" their battles. They are fighting on behalf of the artists making the videos or music. As they should.

[bob]

This is where you are wrong. The WCCC is not about the best Chess anymore than the marathon is about the fastest transportation, or the FIDE World title is about the best Chess. It is about the best Chess programmer.

If the WCCC was about the best chess programmer then all should play on equal hardware.

Why? Is not a parallel search a "programmer issue"? Is not using a GPU a "programmer issue"? Is not using MMX stuff (Gerd's floodfill, etc) a "programmer issue." If you pick a uniform platform, which platform? I want unix. With as many cores as possible.

This is an old argument. The old uniform-platform event Don Beal ran for a few years died. Due to lack of interest by the _programmers_.

The old idea of a "microcomputer world computer chess champion" separate from the "world computer chess champion" died. Due to lack of interest by the _programmers_.

I thought you were talking about stepping into the present or future, not going back 20 years to things that were unpopular and died, deservedly so.

[BubbaTough]

This is not, however, a mistake commonly made in the sports world. Things like fan enjoyment, funding, and promotion of the sport generally take precedence over all else, and appropriately so.

Apparently you think commercialization of sports is a holy grail. This is rather debatable.

Well, the commercialization of sports IS probably the holy grail of goal 1. (promotion of computer chess). I certainly agree with you that it may be imperfect for goal 2. (the promotion of computer chess research). I am guessing you think the only valid goal is goal 2, a valid perspective.

Fact is that the ICGA is an organization for and founded by Chess programmers, who like to have cozy get-togethers where they can have their programs play each other and exchange ideas. I don't think that is a mistake at all.

I personally don't find the founders or founding ideas very relevant, just the current state as presided over by David Levy (who clearly has his place in Computer Chess history, though not as a programmer). Such an attitude does not seem very popular here in the US, I must admit, where quoting the founding fathers is a popular past-time.

What you think would be good for 'computer Chess' does not sound good for me at all. How would I benefit from this? What do I care how many fans there are? And if it is not good for me, it can't be good for computer Chess. So I think the mistake is yours.

Without delving into a debate on the validity of the "what is good for hgm is good for computer chess" statement, which is tempting but not productive, here are my thoughts on popularization of computer chess versus direct promotion of chess research:

I happen to think popularization of computer chess does more for computer chess research long term than any other single thing, even sharing ideas with colleagues over boards and beers. It does this by increasing the number of people that end up researching the problem long term, and in some cases the time they have to do so (because of academic interest or material rewards). Certainly when measured over years rather than decades, however, the beers and boards approach is very appealing, possibly better, and certainly more fun for the participants. Alas, even if you believe the goal of WCCC should be promotion of collaboration, in my opinion the design of WCCC seems imperfect for this as well, providing some benefit as a by-product of being an in-person event but not truly designed to maximize the potential sharing of ideas.

I agree that broadcasting the tourney wouldbe a good thing. I just hope the ICGA did not bungle that. But my hopes are not very high. I still have the software available to set it up, in case nothing was organized at all. But it takes some time to set up a server, and partcicipants not using WinBoard (of which there fortunately are usually only a few) would not be able to use it without preparation.

In my opinion, even though I pretty much seem to disagree with you on every single thought related to the WCCC, I think the WCCC would be run better if all execution decisions were turned over to you .

-Sam

[Harvey Williamson]

In my opinion, even though I pretty much seem to disagree with you on every single thought related to the WCCC, I think the WCCC would be run better if all execution decisions were turned over to you .

-Sam

I nominate HGM as the next President of the ICGA

[Lusakan]

In the case of Crafty, all that matters is "ME". I do as I want, and I enjoy the competition as a result. My first computer chess tournament was 1976. My first chess tournament (for my chess program) was 1974. Know anybody else that has been doing this for that long? there's a reason. I do what is enjoyable, and so long as it is enjoyable, I will continue to do it. I don't enjoy copying code from others. I do enjoy sharing ideas with others.

For me, progress is not of zero value. But originality/creativity is certainly most important to me. I compete vicariously through my chess program. It is MY program. Everyone can't win. But everyone can play fairly. And the best person wins. Unless the winner is also a cheater. Given the choice of cheating and winning, or playing by the rules and finishing up lower, I'll take the latter every time. Others might have a different ethical standard, of course.

BTW your implication seems to be "if you don't win, it is not fun." That's certainly not the case for me, and for quite a few others as well...

This is clearly said Bob. All that matters is YOU and your fellow programmers. All that matters is the joy YOU derive from programming and competing among yourselves.

But guess what, the world of computer chess consists of more than just your small group of programmers; There is a much bigger community of computer chess anthusiasts out there. You have your interests they have theirs.

Let me put it this way, most of us dont care a hoot about your joys and fun because we dont share in those. We care about the quality of the product that you give us. Let me give an example. I love genuine Sony products; and then there are fake sony products. The fake Sonys are usually made of sub-standard materials and their performance is inferior to the genuine product. In this situation Mr sonys product represents better value for me and I will defend him any day because his interests and mine coincide.

Now what happens if the fake Sonys are made of higher quality materials and their performance is superior to the genuine product? At this point Mr Sony's interests and mine diverge because the fake product now has more genuine value to me than his product. I dont care how much joy and fun Mr Sony had in designing his product. I will look at what represents the most genuine value for ME. He will tell me "Hay dont you care about originality?" and I will tell him "Mr Sony, to ME originality without utility value is meaningless".

Here is an amendment to ICGA rule 2: If a cloner copies your program and produces a clone thats 100 elo stronger than your program it ceases to be clone.

[hgm]

I find this a very interesting suggestion. Indeed, why is taking code worse than taking ideas? To express an idea in code is only a technical, programming step, isn't it? Actually, copying code may be worse than programming the idea yourself because the code taken may not be optimal.

Again the marathon metaphor is very apt to answer this:

Why should athletes be excluded from running the marathon because they were not the first to have the idea to run 43km? Why should it be considered a valid defense for an 'athlete' caught riding the bus to the finish when he says: "But the one who finished first on foot did not get the idea to run 43km by himself. So why would he deserve to win this event anymore than I, who did not do the running himsef?"

Your remark suggests you are not a programmer...

[hgm]

But guess what, the world of computer chess consists of more than just your small group of programmers; There is a much bigger community of computer chess anthusiasts out there. You have your interests they have theirs.

So start your own organization, and organize your own tournaments, according to your own rules.

But don't tell us, Chess programmers, how we should run our organization. Because we don't care a hoot about you!

How long exactly have you been ICGA member?

[geots]

Someone has admitted: "I took only the ideas!", well, stealing the ideas is perhaps more noble of stealing the code?

I find this a very interesting suggestion. Indeed, why is taking code worse than taking ideas? To express an idea in code is only a technical, programming step, isn't it? Actually, copying code may be worse than programming the idea yourself because the code taken may not be optimal.

I agree with you 100%, Gabor. It couldn't be said better.