FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
bob
Posts: 20472
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by bob » Mon May 04, 2015 8:09 pm

syzygy wrote:
Michel wrote:
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. :)

bob
Posts: 20472
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by bob » Mon May 04, 2015 8:14 pm

Michel wrote:
bob wrote:
Michel wrote:
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.
No, it is a FACTUAL thing to say. Contributors come and go. The primary authors are in for the long haul.
Can you give me a formal definition of a "primary author". Just so that we talk about the same thing.
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.)

Would you question who the primary SF authors are? Three names (and only three names) come to my mind instantly.

User avatar
Eelco de Groot
Posts: 4148
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Groningen

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by Eelco de Groot » Mon May 04, 2015 8:15 pm

Harvey Williamson wrote:
syzygy wrote:
syzygy wrote:
hgm wrote:Why do you think this a 'surprising interpretation' of ICGA rules?
The interpretation that anyone who contributed something to SF could enter it without the permission of at the very least the 3 main authors. That would be quite ridiculous. Interpreting the GPL as giving the permission that Rule 2 requires is an insult to those authors.

Of course the authors cannot prevent the ICGA from letting SF enter. The GPL allows it. But Rule 2 requires permission (it has always been said).
Pretending to the outside world that Marco, Joona and Tord agreed to participation in an ICGA tournament would in fact appear to be an illegal form of misrepresentation to me and possibly criminal. So the ICGA would have to act very carefully, making clear that SF was being entered behind the backs of Marco, Joona and Tord. And they'd have something to explain to the actual competitors.
I think at least one of the 3, main, authors would have to be directly involved with an entry.
Maybe Tord would enter Glaurung but not Stockfish as he is not the sole author anymore. Or he could enter with his imaginary 'Dam' program against Fabien, or Marco would reprogram Stockfish to play draughts or operate Skipper, just for the fun of it. Or HIARCS would one day day return to Leiden. I would not have bet on the odds but anything is possible I suppose 8-)
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23610
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by hgm » Mon May 04, 2015 8:24 pm

syzygy wrote:Maybe they should also be able to veto participation in an author-based competition. Or at least those that contributed "significantly".
It is really funny how some people's main worry seems to be to prevent engines participating in a tournament, rather than creating an environment where this is encouraged.

I wouldn't expect this to be the ICGA's main objective, though.

Michel
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by Michel » Mon May 04, 2015 8:47 pm

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.
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.

syzygy
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by syzygy » Mon May 04, 2015 9:03 pm

bob wrote:
Michel wrote:
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.
No, it is a FACTUAL thing to say. Contributors come and go. The primary authors are in for the long haul.
In the case of SF, for all intents and purposes Tord seems to have left. And there are others who seem to be in for the long haul.

syzygy
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by syzygy » Mon May 04, 2015 9:22 pm

bob wrote: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." (...)
Ah! That you were asked is something not clearly mentioned in the wiki:
https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Gunda-1

Still quite unfortunate how things went, but mostly a case of miscommunication it seems. The way it was handled (in particular asking the other participants) seems very reasonable.

So I retract any ICGA criticism hidden in my post :)

Thanks for clearing this up (probably not for the first time!).

syzygy
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by syzygy » Mon May 04, 2015 9:28 pm

hgm wrote:
syzygy wrote:Maybe they should also be able to veto participation in an author-based competition. Or at least those that contributed "significantly".
It is really funny how some people's main worry seems to be to prevent engines participating in a tournament, rather than creating an environment where this is encouraged.

I wouldn't expect this to be the ICGA's main objective, though.
The principle of an "author-based" tournament is not so difficult to grasp, me thinks. There are many other tournaments that are not author-based. And obviously the ICGA could run one if it wanted.

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by Gerd Isenberg » Mon May 04, 2015 10:04 pm

bob wrote:
syzygy wrote:
Michel wrote:
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 ;-)

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... 0s5AfH68zs
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...

syzygy
Posts: 4450
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

Post by syzygy » Mon May 04, 2015 11:11 pm

Gerd Isenberg wrote: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 ;-)

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... 0s5AfH68zs
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.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gam ... UqLZeGT6cJ

Post Reply