The near future of computer chess

[bob]

The YouTube example is very good for the contrary reasons. If you demand to erase something, they will, but that petition is lost in an ocean of not demanded actions and so is that Youtube exist after all. If you rest all copyrighted materiel from it, youtube collapse.
Is this good? Am I supporting that?
Just like Ed, pointing a fact: copyrights and all those notions of private property on whose ground the concept of stealing comes are becoming obsolete.
A law or rule that cannot be enforced does not exist, neither has sense.
In the field of intellectual property, the avalanche of electronics means to get all has made nonsense of law persecution. You can pursue one or two guys, not millions.
We are becoming kind of collective mind, Mark, these are the first signs... In fact always has been so, but hidden behind the illusion of personality and private property.

Yes, difficult to swallow....

Still waiting a new NOW regards..

Fern

There is a TON of original stuff on youtube... I don't buy this "most is copyrighted but copied, so we may as well give up..."

[gerold]

Hi Kai.

Testing 9.46 IH now. Is this the latest one.

Best,
Gerold.

[Laskos]

Hi Kai.

Testing 9.46 IH now. Is this the latest one.

Best,
Gerold.

Yes, the latest one. In my test it performed ~40 points behind Houdini 1.5a, one of the best of the second place engines.

Kai

[Laskos]

Right, the main and original sources were written by these funny decembrists/octobrists, independently of what Norm or others were modifying. All Ippolit/Robbolito/Igorrit/IvanHoe original sources are theirs, "revolutionaries", are original, are their development, with IvanHoe being their last and best result for a year already. Houdini has nothing to do with this, in fact they seem to be very bothered that someone stole and sells their code.

That's very interesting, can you tell me more exactly what they said, or where to read it? What did they expect though, since they did not put any restrictions on the early Ippo releases? That's practically begging someone to take and sell the code with improvements. Surely anyone smart enough to write the Ippo code is smart enough to foresee that this would happen. Perhaps now they'll study the Houdini code, and modify Ivanhoe in the appropriate places to make it as strong as Houdini or stronger. That would be perfectly fair, "turnabout is fair play".

Larry

On their site, some time ago. Something like they saw a nick of someone on a forum, which they knew belongs to Houdart, who promoted Houdini. And that the forum protects the capitalist cheater Houdart, something like that, if I understood something of their peculiar language.

A longer time ago they stated that for a period of time they will not release a much stronger IvanHoe on purpose. I forgot the reasons, but they implied, if I understood something of their speech, that they have a much stronger version.

Kai

[geots]

Right, the main and original sources were written by these funny decembrists/octobrists, independently of what Norm or others were modifying. All Ippolit/Robbolito/Igorrit/IvanHoe original sources are theirs, "revolutionaries", are original, are their development, with IvanHoe being their last and best result for a year already. Houdini has nothing to do with this, in fact they seem to be very bothered that someone stole and sells their code.

That's very interesting, can you tell me more exactly what they said, or where to read it? What did they expect though, since they did not put any restrictions on the early Ippo releases? That's practically begging someone to take and sell the code with improvements. Surely anyone smart enough to write the Ippo code is smart enough to foresee that this would happen. Perhaps now they'll study the Houdini code, and modify Ivanhoe in the appropriate places to make it as strong as Houdini or stronger. That would be perfectly fair, "turnabout is fair play".

Larry

On their site, some time ago. Something like they saw a nick of someone on a forum, which they knew belongs to Houdart, who promoted Houdini. And that the forum protects the capitalist cheater Houdart, something like that, if I understood something of their peculiar language.

A longer time ago they stated that for a period of time they will not release a much stronger IvanHoe on purpose. I forgot the reasons, but they implied, if I understood something of their speech, that they have a much stronger version.

Kai

Listen to Kai- not just every sentence, but also every word of it is true.

I have myself read everything he is saying was written by them. These guys don't have the relationship with Kranium or Robert that some think.
But unlike many here- instead of bitching and trying to defame someone, they think the best answer is to pass him by producing better and/or stronger engines.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that if their ideas and so on were stolen, and that is how IvanHoe for one became so strong- somewhere along the line they would sooner or later go commercial with something. Which they never will. Or keep source code hidden- which they never will. Can't you see, no matter what you think about their engines- they offer you their code and you still cannot beat them. That is all they are interested in. Showing that except for Vas, they are just better than you. Throwing clones or illegal engines ag. you defeats their purpose. Until you understand how their minds work, you have no hope of beating them. And they are not bad guys- much more conscious of not hurting others feelings than you would ever imagine.


gts/CCRL

[K I Hyams]

The YouTube example is very good for the contrary reasons. If you demand to erase something, they will, but that petition is lost in an ocean of not demanded actions and so is that Youtube exist after all. If you rest all copyrighted materiel from it, youtube collapse.
Is this good? Am I supporting that?
Just like Ed, pointing a fact: copyrights and all those notions of private property on whose ground the concept of stealing comes are becoming obsolete.
A law or rule that cannot be enforced does not exist, neither has sense.
In the field of intellectual property, the avalanche of electronics means to get all has made nonsense of law persecution. You can pursue one or two guys, not millions.
We are becoming kind of collective mind, Mark, these are the first signs... In fact always has been so, but hidden behind the illusion of personality and private property.

Yes, difficult to swallow....

Still waiting a new NOW regards..

Fern

As an individual, you have the right to forgive those who steal from you but you do not have the right to forgive those who steal from other people, only the victim can do that.

As an organisation, if you can’t/don’t want to protect the intellectual property of those who work within an industry that you police, then you should warn them in advance so that they have the option of not investing their time and energy into something that will benefit thieves and so that they do not base the future well-being of their families on the belief that you will protect their property. If you do assure people that you will protect their property, then it is assumed that you can and will do so and you must either do so or withdraw the assurance.

However, both individuals and organisations should bear in mind that property protection laws, whether intellectual or otherwise, are there for a reason. Pharmaceutical drugs are effectively intellectual property; R&D costs greatly outstrip production costs. The effect on R&D of new drugs would be dramatic if those drugs were allowed to be copied as soon as they were released.

I can recall you giving a facetious answer to the question of how you would react to someone who put a new cover onto your latest book and sold it under a different name but not a sensible answer. If you did give an answer that was not facetious, would you please repeat it as a reply to this post.

[Rebel]

If you want to work on app servers, you can join an existing project like Tomcat. If you want to work on compilers, you can join the GCC project and contribute improvements. If you want to work on operating systems you can become a Linux comitter. I don't think anyone would consider you a second-rate programmer, or not an innovative one, because you were doing this on an existing foundation, vs. starting your own compiler project (for example). In fact these projects wouldn't have existed and advanced without a lot of dedicated contributors.

(Most commercial closed-sourced development is also like this. If you are in an early stage startup, you get to code stuff from scratch. But otherwise, you are probably fixing bugs and adding features to something that's existing, or at least building an add on of some sort that has to work with existing software).

So why is computer chess different?

--Jon

This ground has been covered over and over, but I'll remind you that we are talking about plagiarism. The FSF which STANDS for freedom strongly disagrees with you on this. It's not ok to plagiarize. Moral society has some bounds on what is acceptable and this is not.

Ed's arguments are just another way to justify plagiarism and dishonesty - by denying what is actually happening and trying to make it seems modern and new - but theft is very old and ancient.

If you want to work on an EXISTING project and share credit and be constrained by their rules, then there is nothing wrong with that. That's not what we are talking about here and nobody is going to care if some chess project is started where everyone is free to contribute. I'm all for that.

There are hundreds if not thousands of chess programs and this is not like compiler technology where there are only 3 or 4 compilers getting 99% of the usage. The compiler is a tool that we all need and there is no real need for incredible diversity or interesting variations. In fact the goal for compilers is that they should all just work the same. It makes huge sense to work together on projects like that.

Ed is suggesting that it's just plain ok to take anybody's program as a starting point and start your own chess project from that, WITHOUT any regard to the rule of law or the licensing or the feelings of those who did not want their own work plagiarized.

If I came into your home and starting taking stuff out and then attacked you for not being willing to share wouldn't you fight back? I cannot understand the lack of compassion that Ed and others have for Fabien and his hard work and a complete disregard for how HE feels about it. To me this is the height of immorality - it's rape. Now you and others are arguing that everyone should just be entitled to rape and that it's just the way of the world and just be declared acceptable.

Don,

If you don't have taken the time to read my article then why use such strong language use? I don't get it.

I am saying CC is in a transition period, classic old vs new generation conflict (parents vs teenagers) that always is won by the new generation because time is on their side and therefore I am trying to create AWARENESS............ Huston we have a problem.

The time will come and is near the new generation of chess programmers grown up with access to open source will give the old generation the middle finger because you (pre-internet generation) wants them to reinvent dozens of wheels.

If you had read my page then you would have realized the tone setting is concern, concern about the future of fair play and a call for discussion.'

Now read that page and call me dishonest after that again.

[Rebel]

Ed is suggesting that it's just plain ok to take anybody's program as a starting point and start your own chess project from that, WITHOUT any regard to the rule of law or the licensing or the feelings of those who did not want their own work plagiarized.

I pointed out (above) that this is not allowed and I don't support it. But I think Ed's larger point was that incremental evolution from a very strong starting point is becoming the norm and if that starting point is legitimate, and the derivation from it is clear and legal, then that is a good way to advance the state of the art IMO.

That's exactly how I understood Ed's point of view

You both got it right.

[Rebel]

I still believe this is more about trying to minimize what Vas did and make it appear to be OK because others have done it.

It's not about Vas this time. It's about the 2009 disaster to fair play, Ippo and friends, FREEWARE.

[Rebel]

fortunately, we must be patient...we all know this abuse of influence is ultimately in vain, and ultimately change is inevitable.

I hope you understand that as a pre-internet programmer I am not cheering nor looking forward to the inevitable but I do understand the need for change and have quite an interest in a sane process.