bob wrote:I don't think anyone cares about the contributor list.
Given how much of SF's elo by now is due to "non-primary" contributors, this is really a strong thing to say.
Maybe they should also be able to veto participation in an author-based competition. Or at least those that contributed "significantly".
The ICGA can of course make an exception for SF and accept it as a "non-author-based entry". That might upset some of the participants, but if it's for the good of the ICGA and/or its leadership, they might not care too much. (Sorry for that, but I just read the whole GUNDA story.)
The actual Gunda story was pretty fractured at times. Here is what actually happened.
The 1996 event was in Jakarta, being hosted by the university there. The CS chair (perhaps, I am not certain on this) asked David if they could enter a modified Crafty as a participant. David asked me and I replied "Sure. I was going to participate, but if they are interested, that works for me." And I left it at that. But each time the new participant list was published, no "Gunda-1" entry. I sent David/Tony an email and they replied "we have not received an entry from them, do you want to enter yourself?" And I replied yes. I filled out the application, GM Roman Dzhindi had a friend that volunteered to operate AND buy us a pentium-pro box to use. He also bought the airline ticket and set up his room reservation at his own cost. Then at the last minute along came Gunda-1. Now there was a quandary, in that our guy had already bought a non-refundable airline ticket, booked a room, had sent the pentium pro to me to install linux, + crafty, plus 3-4-5 piece endgame tables, and then I had FedEx'ed it on to Jakarta. David promptly contacted me for advice. He did not want to refuse them entry since they were hosting the event, he did not want to exclude the real Crafty after the expenses we had spent, so I suggested they discuss it at the player's meeting, which they did. No one raised an objection after hearing the explanation, and the only stipulation the players wanted was to request that Gunda-1 and Crafty NOT be paired against each other unless it was absolutely unavoidable, for obvious reasons.
It was a silly mistake, but not one anyone would have been very likely to predict, so we made the best of it. Funny thing was the two programs tied for places 4-5, which was not expected. Crafty could certainly have won that event with a little luck, but you would not normally expect both to finish at the same position.
This was also the event where the newly seen "Ruy Lopez - crafty variation" first showed up. I can tell more about that if anyone is interested.
The Ruy with 4.Bc4 was a nice time advantage for Crafty.
I was at the players meeting and can't remember exactly on what you told now. Your old rgcc posts on GUNDA reads a bit differently
bob wrote:There are two Crafty programs there, mine, and 9.31 entered by the Indonesians. This is something that seems wrong to me and I'll take it up with the ICCA later, as this was discussed at length and I thought it was clear that Crafty is Crafty, period. Makes little sense to have two...
bob wrote:There are two Crafty programs there, mine, and 9.31 entered by the Indonesians. This is something that seems wrong to me and I'll take it up with the ICCA later, as this was discussed at length and I thought it was clear that Crafty is Crafty, period. Makes little sense to have two...
So it was not just me misreading the wiki
I just looked through the rgcc thread and at some point Bob clarifies:
bob wrote:In fact I was involved, but nothing happened, so I entered crafty myself.
If it had been different, I imagine Bob would have been a lot more upset about a renamed Crafty. Bruce later confirms there was an "imperfect flow of information" between the various entities. According to Bruce:
brucemo wrote:I missed the player's meeting, but apparently this situation was discussed, and approved, by those who attended. I do not know if there was any dissent, but nobody came up to me during the tournament and said, "this sucks", I got the feeling that any grumbling about it was at a low level, or that people basically didn't care, or that they agreed with the ruling.
bob wrote:I don't think anyone cares about the contributor list.
Given how much of SF's elo by now is due to "non-primary" contributors, this is really a strong thing to say.
Maybe they should also be able to veto participation in an author-based competition. Or at least those that contributed "significantly".
The ICGA can of course make an exception for SF and accept it as a "non-author-based entry". That might upset some of the participants, but if it's for the good of the ICGA and/or its leadership, they might not care too much. (Sorry for that, but I just read the whole GUNDA story.)
The actual Gunda story was pretty fractured at times. Here is what actually happened.
The 1996 event was in Jakarta, being hosted by the university there. The CS chair (perhaps, I am not certain on this) asked David if they could enter a modified Crafty as a participant. David asked me and I replied "Sure. I was going to participate, but if they are interested, that works for me." And I left it at that. But each time the new participant list was published, no "Gunda-1" entry. I sent David/Tony an email and they replied "we have not received an entry from them, do you want to enter yourself?" And I replied yes. I filled out the application, GM Roman Dzhindi had a friend that volunteered to operate AND buy us a pentium-pro box to use. He also bought the airline ticket and set up his room reservation at his own cost. Then at the last minute along came Gunda-1. Now there was a quandary, in that our guy had already bought a non-refundable airline ticket, booked a room, had sent the pentium pro to me to install linux, + crafty, plus 3-4-5 piece endgame tables, and then I had FedEx'ed it on to Jakarta. David promptly contacted me for advice. He did not want to refuse them entry since they were hosting the event, he did not want to exclude the real Crafty after the expenses we had spent, so I suggested they discuss it at the player's meeting, which they did. No one raised an objection after hearing the explanation, and the only stipulation the players wanted was to request that Gunda-1 and Crafty NOT be paired against each other unless it was absolutely unavoidable, for obvious reasons.
It was a silly mistake, but not one anyone would have been very likely to predict, so we made the best of it. Funny thing was the two programs tied for places 4-5, which was not expected. Crafty could certainly have won that event with a little luck, but you would not normally expect both to finish at the same position.
This was also the event where the newly seen "Ruy Lopez - crafty variation" first showed up. I can tell more about that if anyone is interested.
The Ruy with 4.Bc4 was a nice time advantage for Crafty.
I was at the players meeting and can't remember exactly on what you told now. Your old rgcc posts on GUNDA reads a bit differently
bob wrote:There are two Crafty programs there, mine, and 9.31 entered by the Indonesians. This is something that seems wrong to me and I'll take it up with the ICCA later, as this was discussed at length and I thought it was clear that Crafty is Crafty, period. Makes little sense to have two...
I still feel that way. But there was at least a logical explanation for how/why it happened. My complaint was it improved Crafty's chances for winning or placing highly since there were two of them.
Sure. The originators of the program. You can figure this out for most any program. Slate/Atkin for chess 3.x/4.x... Ken for the various flavors of Belle. Hsu/Campbell for Deep Thought. Hyatt/Gower/Nelson for Cray Blitz. Me for crafty. Fabien for Fruit. (and if anyone's name is misspelled, I simply get tired of matching wits with Apple and their auto-correction stuff.)
Well with this definition SF has one primary author and that is Tord....
Would you question who the primary SF authors are? Three names (and only three names) come to my mind instantly.
What "comes to mind instantly" is not a valid definition since it differs from person to person. I do not know what would come to mind instantly to the ICGA people having to deal with a potential SF entry
Joking aside, I for one would add Gary Linscott as a major author for his creation of fishtest which has allowed SF to gain hundreds of elo in a short period of time.
I'd bet if you asked a dozen people here, you would get the SAME three names every time.
Sure. The originators of the program. You can figure this out for most any program. Slate/Atkin for chess 3.x/4.x... Ken for the various flavors of Belle. Hsu/Campbell for Deep Thought. Hyatt/Gower/Nelson for Cray Blitz. Me for crafty. Fabien for Fruit. (and if anyone's name is misspelled, I simply get tired of matching wits with Apple and their auto-correction stuff.)
Well with this definition SF has one primary author and that is Tord....
Would you question who the primary SF authors are? Three names (and only three names) come to my mind instantly.
What "comes to mind instantly" is not a valid definition since it differs from person to person. I do not know what would come to mind instantly to the ICGA people having to deal with a potential SF entry
Joking aside, I for one would add Gary Linscott as a major author for his creation of fishtest which has allowed SF to gain hundreds of elo in a short period of time.
I'd bet if you asked a dozen people here, you would get the SAME three names every time.
I am not trying to be contrarian, but I agree with Michel. Gary should be considered a major contributor to SF. Right or wrong, I would name him as a primary author before I would name Tord.
Sure. The originators of the program. You can figure this out for most any program. Slate/Atkin for chess 3.x/4.x... Ken for the various flavors of Belle. Hsu/Campbell for Deep Thought. Hyatt/Gower/Nelson for Cray Blitz. Me for crafty. Fabien for Fruit. (and if anyone's name is misspelled, I simply get tired of matching wits with Apple and their auto-correction stuff.)
Well with this definition SF has one primary author and that is Tord....
Would you question who the primary SF authors are? Three names (and only three names) come to my mind instantly.
What "comes to mind instantly" is not a valid definition since it differs from person to person. I do not know what would come to mind instantly to the ICGA people having to deal with a potential SF entry
Joking aside, I for one would add Gary Linscott as a major author for his creation of fishtest which has allowed SF to gain hundreds of elo in a short period of time.
I'd bet if you asked a dozen people here, you would get the SAME three names every time.
Even if that is true you surely understand that this cannot be part of a formal policy of ICGA... You wouldn't expect the ICGA to base its rules on the results of a TalkChess poll, would you?
You have not given an unambiguous definition of "primary author" and I am sure you can't. The only unambiguous concept is "copyright holder" (informally: author). SF has about 80 of them and that number will continue to grow.
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.
Michel wrote:Even if that is true you surely understand that this cannot be part of a formal policy of ICGA... You wouldn't expect the ICGA to base its rules on the results of a TalkChess poll, would you?
You have not given an unambiguous definition of "primary author" and I am sure you can't.
One approach that works at least in this particular case: the authors mentioned as authors:
$ stockfish
Stockfish 100415 64 POPCNT by Tord Romstad, Marco Costalba and Joona Kiiski
Clearly, Tord is the primary primary author.
Somewhat unfortunately, Crafty has no primary author by this definition
The only unambiguous concept is "copyright holder" (informally: author). SF has about 80 of them and that number will continue to grow.
Just to nitpick: I think author is the better term. A copyright can be transferred quite easily, authorship not.
Anyway, I can think of a further reasonably unambiguous concept: the person who "owns" the name of the program. I'm not thinking of the holder of the trademark, but of the person who "morally" has the better rights to the name. In case of Stockfish, that is indisputably Marco.
Sure. The originators of the program. You can figure this out for most any program. Slate/Atkin for chess 3.x/4.x... Ken for the various flavors of Belle. Hsu/Campbell for Deep Thought. Hyatt/Gower/Nelson for Cray Blitz. Me for crafty. Fabien for Fruit. (and if anyone's name is misspelled, I simply get tired of matching wits with Apple and their auto-correction stuff.)
Well with this definition SF has one primary author and that is Tord....
Would you question who the primary SF authors are? Three names (and only three names) come to my mind instantly.
What "comes to mind instantly" is not a valid definition since it differs from person to person. I do not know what would come to mind instantly to the ICGA people having to deal with a potential SF entry
Joking aside, I for one would add Gary Linscott as a major author for his creation of fishtest which has allowed SF to gain hundreds of elo in a short period of time.
I'd bet if you asked a dozen people here, you would get the SAME three names every time.
I am not trying to be contrarian, but I agree with Michel. Gary should be considered a major contributor to SF. Right or wrong, I would name him as a primary author before I would name Tord.
There is a HUGE difference between testbed and program author. And I DO mean huge. An author actually write part of the code. I wrote all of my cluster-testing stuff, but I don't consider any of that a part of "Crafty".
As far as Tord goes, you only have to look at stockfish to see parts of Glaring. That's an "author".
Sure. The originators of the program. You can figure this out for most any program. Slate/Atkin for chess 3.x/4.x... Ken for the various flavors of Belle. Hsu/Campbell for Deep Thought. Hyatt/Gower/Nelson for Cray Blitz. Me for crafty. Fabien for Fruit. (and if anyone's name is misspelled, I simply get tired of matching wits with Apple and their auto-correction stuff.)
Well with this definition SF has one primary author and that is Tord....
Would you question who the primary SF authors are? Three names (and only three names) come to my mind instantly.
What "comes to mind instantly" is not a valid definition since it differs from person to person. I do not know what would come to mind instantly to the ICGA people having to deal with a potential SF entry
Joking aside, I for one would add Gary Linscott as a major author for his creation of fishtest which has allowed SF to gain hundreds of elo in a short period of time.
I'd bet if you asked a dozen people here, you would get the SAME three names every time.
Even if that is true you surely understand that this cannot be part of a formal policy of ICGA... You wouldn't expect the ICGA to base its rules on the results of a TalkChess poll, would you?
You have not given an unambiguous definition of "primary author" and I am sure you can't. The only unambiguous concept is "copyright holder" (informally: author). SF has about 80 of them and that number will continue to grow.
I would expect the ICGA to do due diligence in investigating the provenance of an engine. There are plenty of people to ask.
As far as this example goes:
This is scattered throughout the StockFish6 source:
search.cpp: Copyright (C) 2008-2015 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Tord Romstad
I'd think that would be the definitive list of primary authors.
Sure. The originators of the program. You can figure this out for most any program. Slate/Atkin for chess 3.x/4.x... Ken for the various flavors of Belle. Hsu/Campbell for Deep Thought. Hyatt/Gower/Nelson for Cray Blitz. Me for crafty. Fabien for Fruit. (and if anyone's name is misspelled, I simply get tired of matching wits with Apple and their auto-correction stuff.)
Well with this definition SF has one primary author and that is Tord....
Would you question who the primary SF authors are? Three names (and only three names) come to my mind instantly.
What "comes to mind instantly" is not a valid definition since it differs from person to person. I do not know what would come to mind instantly to the ICGA people having to deal with a potential SF entry
Joking aside, I for one would add Gary Linscott as a major author for his creation of fishtest which has allowed SF to gain hundreds of elo in a short period of time.
I'd bet if you asked a dozen people here, you would get the SAME three names every time.
Even if that is true you surely understand that this cannot be part of a formal policy of ICGA... You wouldn't expect the ICGA to base its rules on the results of a TalkChess poll, would you?
You have not given an unambiguous definition of "primary author" and I am sure you can't. The only unambiguous concept is "copyright holder" (informally: author). SF has about 80 of them and that number will continue to grow.
I would expect the ICGA to do due diligence in investigating the provenance of an engine. There are plenty of people to ask.
As far as this example goes:
This is scattered throughout the StockFish6 source:
search.cpp: Copyright (C) 2008-2015 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Tord Romstad
I'd think that would be the definitive list of primary authors.
And the primary authors do not wish to participate to the ICGA tournament. Case closed! Yet this thread (which is more about SF than Rybka by now) never ends. Why? You guys really have nothing better to do or what?
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.
