That is copying or translating - not taking ideas. If I make an exact copy of Crafty without looking at a single line of code, I don't even have to understand it, so how is that taking ideas? An idea is not something written on a piece of paper or byes in computer memory, it's something that has to be processed by the brain. Copying a table for instance is not sharing an idea from another program, it's copying someone else's implementation. Stealing a book from a book store is not "taking ideas" even though ideas are approximated by the written word. Understanding the book and making application is the free use of ideas (and that is WHY the book was published.) Making a copy of the book and selling it as your own is not "using their ideas."Uri Blass wrote:This is not correct.bob wrote:You keep saying this is about "taking too many ideas" but it is not. It is about taking too much of Fruit. Ideas and what was discovered in investigating Fruit/Rybka are two different topics. This is not now, and never was about just "taking ideas". It was about taking much more than just ideas.Rebel wrote:Don, it's not about Vas, nor Fabien. I support all previous ICGA cases of cloning. It's the way the ICGA has interpreted rule #2 and pushed it to its limits to get the desired result 16 programmers demanded and then leaving ALL of us in the dark by not specifying what is allowed and what's not.Don wrote:The ICGA DID indeed make a fundamental choice, one that earned my respect and many others as a result. Look at what their 2 fundamental choices were:Rebel wrote:A world championship is only a world champion if the best players (teams) participate. Occasionally it may happen some players (teams) are absent but when it becomes chronic the title loses its value. A world champion soccer tournament without Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy and Spain is no world championship.hgm wrote:But that is an amateur World Championship, right? And everyone knows that. The best Dutch players were also not participating in the Dutch team, because they play as professionals in the U.S. (Btw, the U.S. professional baseball championship is called the 'World Series', which is a real joke, as only North American teams participate...)Rebel wrote:As you know last year the Dutch became world champion baseball. For Americans that's a joke, and right they are.
Note that in the WCCC there is no such limitation; professionals (commercial engines) and amateurs can both participate. The commercials just pay a somewhat larger entry fee. But that is actually to their advantage, because it means that amateurs with no chance of winning still pay for part of the costs of the event.
The ICGA made a fundamental choice, whether you agree with that choice or not the yearly WCCC is now a second division tournament not worthy to be called a world championship. And they knew that when they made that fundamental choice.
1. Deny Fabien Letouzey fair recourse out of fear and cowardice of losing their top draw in these events.
2. Maintain high standards of integrity by not showing favoritism even though it may have unpleasant consequences.
Maybe point 2 is "old fashioned" to you, but not to me. I believe in being yielding and making compromises when it doesn't matter and it helps people come together, but I don't believe in making compromises like this which involve trading off integrity out of fear and cowardice. I also believe that in the long run they have not given up anything.
Yes, I know that Vas was a superstar but it's sad that anyone feels that should give him a pass or special treatment and that the needs of Fabien Letouzey should be sacrificed for their personal benefit.
I refer to a crucial quote of Mark Lefler: Ed, I think that is the best summary of this whole thing. Vasik took too much in the eyes of the panel.
So apparently the true meaning of rule #2 is that there is an (undefined) limit on the number of ideas you are allowed to take from open-sources. It's not about copying any longer (it always was) but the volume you take of common (non-copyrightable) chess knowledge idea's found in every decent chess program is suddenly a major issue.
And so open sources are hijacked by the ICGA to serve as a model and be careful you don't take too much. Problem is, there NEVER was (and still is) no definition of "too much".
This is a scaring scenario for newcomers, especially when you are good. I can perfectly imagine why the Vida's and Stockfishes of our time won't show up although they might have other reasons.
Ideas can be translated to code and even without copy and paste if you take all the ideas that are in another program it is going to be translated into an equivalent code that is not allowed.
I feel that something is lacking in you because very often in discussion you get fixated on a tree and cannot see what the forest looks like. Or you get hung up on some technical definition of something that is out of context but sounds good to you.
The complaint is NOT that he took too many ideas, that is your invention. Read the report, what we see is that he copied the implementation of several things. Fruit was open source, which means Fabien encouraged the use of those ideas. So if Fablen Letouzkey encouraged the use of all his ideas, why did he cry foul? Maybe you are just a lot smarter than he is, but I think not. It's just that you don't understand the distinction between code and ideas and he does. You have to go a little beyond simplistic concepts to make that distinction.
The exact values that you give to positional factors or to material or the exact definition of positional facrors like mobility and passed pawns are clearly ideas in chess and it is clear that the claim against Vas is that he took too many ideas from fruit(inspite of the fact that Vas did not took all the ideas of fruit or something close to it).