hgm wrote:
I don't think that answers the question.
The question is: If I enter Ivanhoe, can someone else still enter FireBird? Or Robbolito? Or Ippolit?
In other words, how close is 'close'? Is Ivanhoe too close to Vitruvious? To Houdini, to Rybka? If they are too close, who of them will be allowed to enter? The first of the group that enters? Does every Ippo cloner counts as 'original author' so he can claim the use of that engine for himselve? Or can an early registration of my own Ploppolit (an epsilon-modified Ivanhoe) bar entrance of Ivanhoe?
That is a good point, and I am unsure of an answer. Do you have any suggestions?
1. Similarity tester. It ensures originality.
2. Give priority to authors who have been honest about their ippo origin.
While we're at it:
3. Give priority to authors who have been honest about their Fruit origin.
Rebel wrote:
It ensures nothing but is a useful tool.
Originality regarding moves choices depends where a TD draws the line. The CSVN made a choice for 60% which is tolerant. 55% is safe. Below 50% would be nonsense as it (for instance) would make Doch 9.980 (with 51½%) a clone of Fruit.
I think those who have studied the issue have recognized its importance and my advice to Peter would be to have some private talks with people who have experience with the software. The first person to talk to would be Adam. Others are, Miguel, Sven, Marcel.[/quote]
Since reading your post, I am wondering how many engines would fit in the 70% range. While tolerant, I would like to be more than safe.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
Harvey wrote:
It ensures nothing but is a useful tool.
Originality regarding moves choices depends where a TD draws the line. The CSVN made a choice for 60% which is tolerant. 55% is safe. Below 50% would be nonsense as it (for instance) would make Doch 9.980 (with 51½%) a clone of Fruit.
I think those who have studied the issue have recognized its importance and my advice to Peter would be to have some private talks with people who have experience with the software. The first person to talk to would be Adam. Others are, Miguel, Sven, Marcel.
Since reading your post, I am wondering how many engines would fit in the 70% range. While tolerant, I would like to be more than safe.
Peter
Since you mention 70% I am not sure if don't have it backwards. The higher the percentage of move similarity the more likely a derivative or a clone with only few changes. I suggest you have a look at the table with the dark red, red and orange colours, a sorted list of very likely clones and derivatives. That's what similarity tester can do for you.
hgm wrote:
I don't think that answers the question.
The question is: If I enter Ivanhoe, can someone else still enter FireBird? Or Robbolito? Or Ippolit?
In other words, how close is 'close'? Is Ivanhoe too close to Vitruvious? To Houdini, to Rybka? If they are too close, who of them will be allowed to enter? The first of the group that enters? Does every Ippo cloner counts as 'original author' so he can claim the use of that engine for himselve? Or can an early registration of my own Ploppolit (an epsilon-modified Ivanhoe) bar entrance of Ivanhoe?
That is a good point, and I am unsure of an answer. Do you have any suggestions?
1. Similarity tester. It ensures originality.
2. Give priority to authors who have been honest about their ippo origin.
While we're at it:
3. Give priority to authors who have been honest about their Fruit origin.
Fruit is a different animal than Ippo. Fruit is GPL copyright protected while Ippo is freeware. So those who started from Fruit either do their GPL duties first or make sure their code is totally Fruit-free. And similarity tester is an excellent tool for that.
Rebel wrote:
Since you mention 70% I am not sure if don't have it backwards. The higher the percentage of move similarity the more likely a derivative or a clone with only few changes. I suggest you have a look at the table with the dark red, red and orange colours, a sorted list of very likely clones and derivatives. That's what similarity tester can do for you.
Rebel wrote:
Since you mention 70% I am not sure if don't have it backwards. The higher the percentage of move similarity the more likely a derivative or a clone with only few changes. I suggest you have a look at the table with the dark red, red and orange colours, a sorted list of very likely clones and derivatives. That's what similarity tester can do for you.
Peter Skinner wrote:I have posted the details and rules of the event at http://www.cctchess.com.
A final date will be determined shortly.
As you can see at the bottom of the page, there is a blurb stating:
If a program is not open for matches or arrives late for a scheduled round, after 20 minutes the game will be considered a forfeit. This is common to all games such as these including in an online casino such as Intercasino and is instituted in order to eliminate one game holding up the tournament..
That is a paid link to which the event will get $100 from a sponsor. I will be trying to get others as well as a main sponsor for the event. If you or your business would like to gain advertising space on the website and sponsor the event, please contact me via the contact form on the website.
As the rules state, only the original author may enter an engine. This means that Houdini and Rybka will not be able to participate under this format. Houdini is based on Robbolitto and Rybka was based off Fruit. Being they are not the original authors of their respective program, they will not be allowed to participate. If either program wishes to compete, they would have to submit their code for inspection by a panel that I will be selecting shortly.
As the rules state, only the original author may enter an engine. This means that Houdini and Rybka will not be able to participate under this format. Houdini is based on Robbolitto and Rybka was based off Fruit.
casino
I have enough of Robert Houdart...
50 $
must care about my kids
Tournament Director
The Internet World Computer Chess Championship
blurb
-----------
As far as I know - in sports the arbiters and organizers should be fair and impartial and neutral. Talking too much and using unfavorable, negativee, insulting vocabulary is almost certainly a sign for prejudice or dishonesty. So, from that angle Peter Skinner is disqualified. But also HG Muller as server operator might have a wrong influence.
Actually I see no other qualified gents than the Dutch who are cooperating with Ed Schroder. Only they are looking unbiased enough for such a huge, almost a bit exaggerated idea as this World Championship. And such a thing will cost something. Peter with his micro finances could not heave such efforts but he could still be advisor of the final Tournament Director. IMO an official must show the ability to take a view in stepping back. Peter looks over-engaged, sorry.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
hgm wrote:
I don't think that answers the question.
The question is: If I enter Ivanhoe, can someone else still enter FireBird? Or Robbolito? Or Ippolit?
That is a good point, and I am unsure of an answer. Do you have any suggestions?
A similarity test.
Someone just emailed me that exact suggestion; do we exclude Houdini, Critter, and Rybka from the test being their authorship can be verified as Harvey suggested?
Peter
Exclude from the tournament or exclude from a similarity test?
I don't see a reason for the latter. In fact, all I would care about is similarity between pairs of actual entrants so that means every entrant needs to be finger printed.
For the former, I have no opinion. Either way goes with me. But I would find it a bit odd that the author doesn't need to take the initiative to enter, but does need to be known. (And that excludes all the NSA/FBI/CIA and other engines enhanced by other government agencies of course). Besides, Roberto Pescatore is just as acceptable as an author as Lady Gaga.
