ethical dilemma

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

Moderator: Ras

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2251
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by Gerd Isenberg »

Dann Corbit wrote:
Gerd Isenberg wrote:With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..
What did he say? Do you have a link?
The thread seems hidden now in the rybka-forum :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... id=3006#fp
User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by Rolf »

bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
ad a)

Of course I have to admit that as fact. From a science point, Bob, a paper like all the mentioned, is standing way above the practical performance of Vas. But there's the following objection: in the world of competition of chess or computerchess never those with the best papers were the most successful players. You will certainly show me the refutation for this claim. In other words Vas is the World's best who has understood and applicated what papers say. Even you as professor who could follow all these papers and has done own research, you could NOT compete with Vas who's an International Chess Master but no scientist. Can you explain this apparent truth without having simply to admire Vasik's sensational performance from 2006 on? You cant!

ad b)

I respect your standpoint. It's only natural after you condoned everything the IBM team of Hsu has done to Kasparov. Vas is for you a sort of "nasty" (metaphorically meant, not literally) Kasparov collegue who knows too much about chess and who must therefore be mated by simply adapting appropriate computer programming tricks. Because what else could you do as a weak chessplayer? Although as a scientist, Bob, you would give a better picture if you would resist and oppose any unfair and immoral activities against other people. And I can even show you where you live in a contradiction with your own practice. Because you are also secretive until the tournaments are over. Where is the difference to Vas? So, if I would break into your house and steal the actual secrets, you would then condone my activity too as understandable and tolerable?? You believe still in the allowance of using unallowed means to oppose annoying and angrying incidents set by other people in special with genius talents? You are allowed to use unfair and immoral reactions in such cases when you have no chance to win yourself?

Tell me that you are not *this* kind of guy!! And please admit that Vas isnt just claiming that he knows something about computerchess but that this is also true compared with what you had granted Kasparov.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by George Tsavdaris »

Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
I completely agree.

After all, if he asked questions on known and published issues that you and others were willing to explain, he has an obligation to reveal his trade secrets, and if he doesn't, then he should be forced by disassembling his program to "even the playing field". After all, there is nothing ethical about an uneven one when it is the result of secrets he discovered and won't share with others.

Yes, I completely agree....not.
:D

You don't get the point. In its deepest part. That is:
•The knowledge HAS TO BE shared. Has to be spread! To all the people. NO matter what. This is science....

•The other side we can look this, is the observance of laws.
-Vasik asked questions. Perfectly fine.
-He used the knowledge out of these questions to help him create new knowledge. Perfectly fine. No breaking of any law.
-He does not want this knowledge to be known for now to the public. Perfectly fine again. No breaking of any law again.
-Someone it seems he disassembled and got this knowledge and gave it to the public.
This is a possible violation of some laws.
So Vasik didn't do anything bad, while the other did.

Which of the 2 sides is the most important? Violation of laws or sharing the knowledge?
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
hristo

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by hristo »

George Tsavdaris wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
I completely agree.

After all, if he asked questions on known and published issues that you and others were willing to explain, he has an obligation to reveal his trade secrets, and if he doesn't, then he should be forced by disassembling his program to "even the playing field". After all, there is nothing ethical about an uneven one when it is the result of secrets he discovered and won't share with others.

Yes, I completely agree....not.
:D

You don't get the point. In its deepest part. That is:
•The knowledge HAS TO BE shared. Has to be spread! To all the people. NO matter what. This is science....

•The other side we can look this, is the observance of laws.
-Vasik asked questions. Perfectly fine.
-He used the knowledge out of these questions to help him create new knowledge. Perfectly fine. No breaking of any law.
-He does not want this knowledge to be known for now to the public. Perfectly fine again. No breaking of any law again.
-Someone it seems he disassembled and got this knowledge and gave it to the public.
This is a possible violation of some laws.
So Vasik didn't do anything bad, while the other did.

Which of the 2 sides is the most important? Violation of laws or sharing the knowledge?
George,
are you suggesting that so long as beneficial knowledge can be obtained (with respect to a group of people) then the individual's rights are not important (or are trumped) and any such rights are justifiably violated?
(It is ironic, but your 'friend', the one in your avatar, is probably going to agree with you, if you are suggesting that. :-))

Regards,
Hristo
Dann Corbit
Posts: 12777
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by Dann Corbit »

Uri Blass wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
I completely agree.

After all, if he asked questions on known and published issues that you and others were willing to explain, he has an obligation to reveal his trade secrets, and if he doesn't, then he should be forced by disassembling his program to "even the playing field". After all, there is nothing ethical about an uneven one when it is the result of secrets he discovered and won't share with others.

Yes, I completely agree....not.

Albert
I think that the fact that he asked questions is not relevant here.
I do not blame Vas for not publishing his source
It is clearly logical to do it and I plan to do the same(except not releasing misleading information about nodes per second and other things) because situation when I release source and other do not do it is not a fair situation and gives opponents unfair advantage but the main question is
if the rules should allow people to release or sell programs without source.

People do not sell books without source and I think that it may be good for the world if it is going to be impossible(or at least illegal) to sell or release programs without source.

It will also be more easy to check if a program is a clone of another
program in that case because people will be able to look at the source to compare unlike the situation today.

Uri
I think that Vas has every right not to publish his source if he so chooses.
Just because he learned from open source or from academic articles does not pose any obligation upon him to publish his source or to write an article to explain what he has done.

If a person is willing to publish their source or to explain their ideas in an article, I think it is more noble than not doing that. But work that we perform belongs to us and we are free to make any sorts of choices about our work so long as we do not violate license agreements while we are doing it (so I cannot take GPL code, add my work, and claim it as my own).
Uri Blass
Posts: 10801
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by Uri Blass »

Dann Corbit wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
I completely agree.

After all, if he asked questions on known and published issues that you and others were willing to explain, he has an obligation to reveal his trade secrets, and if he doesn't, then he should be forced by disassembling his program to "even the playing field". After all, there is nothing ethical about an uneven one when it is the result of secrets he discovered and won't share with others.

Yes, I completely agree....not.

Albert
I think that the fact that he asked questions is not relevant here.
I do not blame Vas for not publishing his source
It is clearly logical to do it and I plan to do the same(except not releasing misleading information about nodes per second and other things) because situation when I release source and other do not do it is not a fair situation and gives opponents unfair advantage but the main question is
if the rules should allow people to release or sell programs without source.

People do not sell books without source and I think that it may be good for the world if it is going to be impossible(or at least illegal) to sell or release programs without source.

It will also be more easy to check if a program is a clone of another
program in that case because people will be able to look at the source to compare unlike the situation today.

Uri
I think that Vas has every right not to publish his source if he so chooses.
Just because he learned from open source or from academic articles does not pose any obligation upon him to publish his source or to write an article to explain what he has done.

If a person is willing to publish their source or to explain their ideas in an article, I think it is more noble than not doing that. But work that we perform belongs to us and we are free to make any sorts of choices about our work so long as we do not violate license agreements while we are doing it (so I cannot take GPL code, add my work, and claim it as my own).
Of course he has the right and I do not criticize him for not releasing his code.
The point is that I think that the world can be better if everyone is forced to release code that is not a code of a private program(and of course people are going to have author rights for the code)

The situation with programs should be similiar to the situation with books.

If you are the author of some book then the buyer of the book can read the book.
If you are the author of some program then the rules of better world should be that the buyer of the program is allowed to read the source.

Uri
hristo

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by hristo »

Uri Blass wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
I completely agree.

After all, if he asked questions on known and published issues that you and others were willing to explain, he has an obligation to reveal his trade secrets, and if he doesn't, then he should be forced by disassembling his program to "even the playing field". After all, there is nothing ethical about an uneven one when it is the result of secrets he discovered and won't share with others.

Yes, I completely agree....not.

Albert
I think that the fact that he asked questions is not relevant here.
I do not blame Vas for not publishing his source
It is clearly logical to do it and I plan to do the same(except not releasing misleading information about nodes per second and other things) because situation when I release source and other do not do it is not a fair situation and gives opponents unfair advantage but the main question is
if the rules should allow people to release or sell programs without source.

People do not sell books without source and I think that it may be good for the world if it is going to be impossible(or at least illegal) to sell or release programs without source.

It will also be more easy to check if a program is a clone of another
program in that case because people will be able to look at the source to compare unlike the situation today.

Uri
I think that Vas has every right not to publish his source if he so chooses.
Just because he learned from open source or from academic articles does not pose any obligation upon him to publish his source or to write an article to explain what he has done.

If a person is willing to publish their source or to explain their ideas in an article, I think it is more noble than not doing that. But work that we perform belongs to us and we are free to make any sorts of choices about our work so long as we do not violate license agreements while we are doing it (so I cannot take GPL code, add my work, and claim it as my own).
Of course he has the right and I do not criticize him for not releasing his code.
The point is that I think that the world can be better if everyone is forced to release code that is not a code of a private program(and of course people are going to have author rights for the code)
John Lennon wrote: Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...


You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
and the world will be as one.


Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
It might be actually nice ... instead, however, we have MacDonalds, etc. and obesity problems. ;-)
Uri Blass wrote: The situation with programs should be similiar to the situation with books.
It is a good idea, but there are some differences between "computer programs" and books that make this a rather difficult proposition. (that would be a completely different topic, though)
Uri Blass wrote: If you are the author of some book then the buyer of the book can read the book.
If you are the author of some program then the rules of better world should be that the buyer of the program is allowed to read the source.
The "better world" is not immediately obvious consequence from sharing the source code ... books perform a different function, are used for a different purpose and are created using a vastly different process when compared to computer programs.

Regards,
Hristo
User avatar
GenoM
Posts: 911
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria
Full name: Evgenii Manev

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by GenoM »

Uri Blass wrote:
The situation with programs should be similiar to the situation with books.

If you are the author of some book then the buyer of the book can read the book.
If you are the author of some program then the rules of better world should be that the buyer of the program is allowed to read the source.

Uri
Nice idea, indeed.

Regards,
Geno
take it easy :)
playjunior
Posts: 338
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:53 am

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by playjunior »

Uri Blass wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
I completely agree.

After all, if he asked questions on known and published issues that you and others were willing to explain, he has an obligation to reveal his trade secrets, and if he doesn't, then he should be forced by disassembling his program to "even the playing field". After all, there is nothing ethical about an uneven one when it is the result of secrets he discovered and won't share with others.

Yes, I completely agree....not.

Albert
I think that the fact that he asked questions is not relevant here.
I do not blame Vas for not publishing his source
It is clearly logical to do it and I plan to do the same(except not releasing misleading information about nodes per second and other things) because situation when I release source and other do not do it is not a fair situation and gives opponents unfair advantage but the main question is
if the rules should allow people to release or sell programs without source.

People do not sell books without source and I think that it may be good for the world if it is going to be impossible(or at least illegal) to sell or release programs without source.

It will also be more easy to check if a program is a clone of another
program in that case because people will be able to look at the source to compare unlike the situation today.

Uri
I think that Vas has every right not to publish his source if he so chooses.
Just because he learned from open source or from academic articles does not pose any obligation upon him to publish his source or to write an article to explain what he has done.

If a person is willing to publish their source or to explain their ideas in an article, I think it is more noble than not doing that. But work that we perform belongs to us and we are free to make any sorts of choices about our work so long as we do not violate license agreements while we are doing it (so I cannot take GPL code, add my work, and claim it as my own).
Of course he has the right and I do not criticize him for not releasing his code.
The point is that I think that the world can be better if everyone is forced to release code that is not a code of a private program(and of course people are going to have author rights for the code)

The situation with programs should be similiar to the situation with books.

If you are the author of some book then the buyer of the book can read the book.
If you are the author of some program then the rules of better world should be that the buyer of the program is allowed to read the source.

Uri
Great argument Uri.
If you are an author of a computer program then a buyer expects it to run on a computer. According to your logic, then, if you are an author of a book then the book should be able to run on a computer.
Enrico

Re: ethical dilemma

Post by Enrico »

Dann Corbit wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
bob wrote:All I will say is that (a) Vas used to ask questions, look at other engines (hence the self-proclaimed fruit influence on his program among other things) and so forth. Then when he discovered something new, off he went. Compare that with the _wealth_ of computer chess papers describing everything from iterated deepening, to hash table implementations, to bitboards, to null-move, to singular extensions, to endgame databases, to you-name it. There is a big difference.

(b) I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern...
I completely agree.

After all, if he asked questions on known and published issues that you and others were willing to explain, he has an obligation to reveal his trade secrets, and if he doesn't, then he should be forced by disassembling his program to "even the playing field". After all, there is nothing ethical about an uneven one when it is the result of secrets he discovered and won't share with others.

Yes, I completely agree....not.

Albert
I think that the fact that he asked questions is not relevant here.
I do not blame Vas for not publishing his source
It is clearly logical to do it and I plan to do the same(except not releasing misleading information about nodes per second and other things) because situation when I release source and other do not do it is not a fair situation and gives opponents unfair advantage but the main question is
if the rules should allow people to release or sell programs without source.

People do not sell books without source and I think that it may be good for the world if it is going to be impossible(or at least illegal) to sell or release programs without source.

It will also be more easy to check if a program is a clone of another
program in that case because people will be able to look at the source to compare unlike the situation today.

Uri
I think that Vas has every right not to publish his source if he so chooses.
Just because he learned from open source or from academic articles does not pose any obligation upon him to publish his source or to write an article to explain what he has done.

If a person is willing to publish their source or to explain their ideas in an article, I think it is more noble than not doing that. But work that we perform belongs to us and we are free to make any sorts of choices about our work so long as we do not violate license agreements while we are doing it (so I cannot take GPL code, add my work, and claim it as my own).
And that's exactly where the fence stands between both viewpoints on this issue. Clearly some feel (strongly) that GPL code was taken, added to and claimed as one's own work. The obfuscated node count is another split-issue. Clearly it's been done to camouflage what's really taking place internally (fast searcher with very little [new] knowledge + material tables) -- Is this done to protect a relatively simple but amazingly effective new method or help hide origin?

Clearly, disassembly is nothing new. One must ask himself why Vasik has earned this attention and not other commercial programmers? Shredder spent many years on the top of the commercial computer chess scene, as did Fritz and others. I am sure some disassembly went on, but nothing like what we see here with source code being released.

I fully agree with Bob on this -- we reap what we sow. Period.

-elc.