As fields advance, the state of the art becomes well know and used. I certainly have read a lot of books om computer chess. I studied the ideas in Chess 4.6, Crafty, Fruit, Ippolit, etc. Combining ideas and adding to them, improving them is all part of programming. When the panel investigates Rybka, they certainly had this in mind and discussed it. In writing, people use similar phrases derived from past authors, but they add new things and reuse them in different ways. So the panel decided some metric was needed to see how much of one program had been taken from another. This is all documented in the reports we released.Rebel wrote:When I talk about Komodo it's not automatically about you. Don has been quite openly about his work, from the README of his first release -mjlef wrote:Ah, I see you are trying the Tu Quoque Fallacy now.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque The thing is, saying someone else breaks a rule in no way lessens the fact that the original person broke that rule.Rebel wrote:Give it up, it's still the same "name and shame them on the internet" mentality what's driving them.Modern Times wrote:A future lender yes, and there are strict controls as to who can access your credit record, and even then only with your permission. Certainly not available to the public at large.mjlef wrote: Regarding your loan rejection, in the United States, anytime you apply for credit becomes a part of your credit record. This is because people who apply for a lot of credit often are bad credit risks. And since any loans you do take out become part of your credit report, it is not hard for a future lender to see you were rejected (although they would not know why).
Not a lack of transparency at all, it is a matter of Privacy. Only if you think laws have been broken would you go further, and then you'd pass the information on to the appropriate authorities, not the world at large.mjlef wrote: I think rejecting an engine and not letting others know why is lack of transparency. All of this is up to the ICGA Board,
While in the meantime Komodo (and many others) has taken more stuff from other sources than Vas ever did from Fruit.
You also present no evidence at all that "Komodo (and many others) has taken more stuff from other sources than Vas ever did from Fruit." It is not true for Komodo.
Also, much credit goes to the authors of open source chess programs. Many of the ideas and techniques for doch have been borrowed from these wonderful works of art.
Secondly there are many postings (here in the archives and perhaps in Rybka forum as well) of Don (and Larry) that openly admit how they plundered the source code of Ippolit and friends, that Richard Vida sent Don the source of Critter in order (using his words) to shake the tree at the top.
So yes, adding things up, I stick to my former statement. You might have missed all those discussions but I really don't see the difference. Vas took a lot of ideas from an open source but so did Don.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against programmers taken ideas from open sources, as after all that's probably the idea of the programmer that put it online in order that others can profit.
And last but not least quoting Don again - Many of the ideas and techniques for doch have been borrowed from these wonderful works of art. Without them (the open sources) computer chess wouldn't be on its current level.
So maybe it's time for you as ICGA that you rethink your position about open sources and its usuage.
Say you hear about nullmove. The idea being to let your opponent move twice in a row with a reduced depth. If the evaluation is still great for you, then you prune that from the tree. That is the basic idea, but there are many ways to implement it. How much to reduce? Should the evaluation be used to increase or decrease the reduction? What about depth? Programs handle these in different ways. When I started working on Komodo it had a very unique way of handling a score component, which I have not seen in any other program. Anyway, there is a lot of room for creativity and differences, with some likelihood that different programs might converge to a moe similar implementation with time, that is assuming there is one "best" method.
So the panel examined program similarities, and they found a lot of differences, but the evaluation of Fruit 2.1 and the early Rybkas was too similar. There was too much of an overlap of the terms. They were freakishly similar. And they concluded it was too much. It was pretty much the whole evaluation. I have never done that and that is not what is in Komodo. Your claim that Komodo took more from other programs than the early Rybkas is just false. Even in general areas like null move, move count pruning, futility pruning... Komodo is very different. The move generator is different, the evaluation different, material eval is different, even how it does Multi-PV is different.