ethical dilemma

[bob]

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..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.

This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...

A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...

Oh yes, why don't you post this in the Rybka Forum?

Why would I care enough to waste the time???

Why are you wasting time with this issue, if you don't care???

It was being held in a forum where I participate. Why would I want to go to a forum that discusses a commercial program??? Particularly when I know that the author is not going to supply any technical details at all...

[Rolf]

If you don't see the difference between finding a specific sequence of moves, not yet used, and what I discussed, then so be it. But the differences between the two concepts would overflow the grand canyon...

And it boggles my mind that this actually happens, in fact...

What boggles me is that you as someone who lives from also public money in your university that allowed you a living, that you deny this with an own business to Vasik. How do you justify that double standard? You even became Wch with lend machines from the industry. Do you want to pretend that you were the only one who could cope with these machines? What do you advise Vas to do? Playing Black Jack in Vegas? What is consistent reasoning in your eyes? <sigh>

[Terry McCracken]

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..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.

This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...

A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...

Oh yes, why don't you post this in the Rybka Forum?

Why would I care enough to waste the time???

Why are you wasting time with this issue, if you don't care???

It was being held in a forum where I participate. Why would I want to go to a forum that discusses a commercial program??? Particularly when I know that the author is not going to supply any technical details at all...

Nor would SMK or any commercial programmer, here or anywhere else outside which is already known or won't compromise their business.

What really is your beef with Vasik?

Has he done something truly unethical?

I'd really would like to know and in a concise format.

I don't want to piece it together by wading through countless posts.

Terry

[geots]

It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.

I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.

Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...

There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?

This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!

Eelco

OK, then what about the people that come here, ask questions, get lots of ideas and algorithms from active programmers, then they find a new idea, hide it and go commercial. I think they are "hooligans" just as much as this case.

Robert,
if we extend your example then "all those students who go to universities and later invent something and use their invention to become successful are also hulligans." ... that doesn't seem right. The reason is that there is no equivalence, neither in spirit nor intent, that can be drawn between a forum where people exchange ideas, learning from one another, hoping to invent something and the action of stealing the unique ideas that someone might actually have.

Regards,
Hristo

For me, that analogy doesn't work. Here's why. At the university, there is a specific "quid-pro-quo" between faculty and students. Students pay tuition, which pays our salaries. We, in turn, teach the students about various subjects. There is a two-way interchange.

Between many of us here, there is a two-way interchange. We discuss ideas, we exchange ideas, we make suggestions, we might keep secrets for a tournament, but then we reveal what we are doing (in my case, this is pretty obvious since I release source).

The example I cited was missing exactly 1/2 of that. Discuss ideas, ask questions, even get pointers that take you in a good direction, but once you discover something new and different, clam up...

Not what we in academia do at all, which was my point...

Robert,
in a different world it would be possible to share ideas and property and be happy. But in our world we need people to be successful in order to have you (educational system) and other people be employed -- and this often means not sharing for free, but instead making money.
It seems that you claim that so long as one has paid money for the education received then one can "clam up", but if one has received education (knowldge) without actually paying to academia then one must contribute all ideas back to the general public.

This, if that is what you are saying, is untenable and contrary to the way our society works.

Many people don't have the funds that you have to run computer labs (clusters) to test their ideas and must find resources -- some of those resources might come from the application and development of their own ideas. It is not an easy path to start a business and make a living and pay taxes (some of which go towards funding universities) when people are unscrupulous and willing to demolish your chances for success -- merely because some believe that the inventor doesn't have a right to his own invention.

I have a fundamental problem with the above expressed [yours] notion that "Unless academia is paid up you don't have a right to your own ideas".

Regards,
Hristo

I didn't say what you are thinking. I said the analogy doesn't apply because of the fact that you pay to take classes. But let's take just two people here. A asks B (and others) about many technical details he does not understand. He asks them about very complex ideas that have been revealed but which he does not understand some aspects of. As B is working on something brand new, he also answers questions about that. A now uses all of that information to write a program, and as he stumbles along, he finds something that has not been identified as "good" although B might have given him a pointer into that direction. A now takes this, develops it, and gives B nothing in return for all the help.

Reasonable? Fortunately, during the 1970's and 1980's, it didn't work like that, or computer chess would be a decade or two behind where it is today.

Bob, im confused here. I read your "A" and "B" explanation above. And i have read more than once where in the past you stated that "certain people" or "certain person" has come on CCC, benefited greatly from ideas he got there, and then went off on his own and impemented these ideas with some of his own. It sounds to me like you believe whoever this person is, he could not have accomplished what he has without the benefit of knowledge gained from others. And you have stated that he was not willing to come back and share any of his thoughts or programming ideas. Im not concerned at all with the truthfulness of these statements one way or the other. What i would like- instead of referring to him or them as "A" or "B" or "this guy" or 'that person"- is for you to put a name to the exact person or persons you are referring to right here on the forum for all to see. Now that would really be something- tho i know it wont happen.

[Rolf]

Bob, im confused here. I read your "A" and "B" explanation above. And i have read more than once where in the past you stated that "certain people" or "certain person" has come on CCC, benefited greatly from ideas he got there, and then went off on his own and impemented these ideas with some of his own. It sounds to me like you believe whoever this person is, he could not have accomplished what he has without the benefit of knowledge gained from others. And you have stated that he was not willing to come back and share any of his thoughts or programming ideas. Im not concerned at all with the truthfulness of these statements one way or the other. What i would like- instead of referring to him or them as "A" or "B" or "this guy" or 'that person"- is for you to put a name to the exact person or persons you are referring to right here on the forum for all to see. Now that would really be something- tho i know it wont happen.

<satire of the day>

I can give you at least one name. It's Bob himself. Look, without all the friendly people from the net Bob could never have built his Crafty on such a top level. Standing on his own, Bob wouldnt be such a top player anylonger. Bob was the one of the big machines, but in the software program times Bob has much too many classes to teach that he could successfully compete. Somehow Bob is angry because Vas doesnt share all his ideas for free so that Bob could put them into his own program. For the overall benefit of Shredder, Junior, Hiarcs and Fritz (apart from SMK with some helpful little progs, where did the other EVER share some ideas for programming details??), whose organisators are never in Bob's critical focus for reasons unknown. We call this a still seeking strong sympathy potential... With Bob in his team Vasik would already be World Champion.

<that was the satire of a real world today>

[bob]

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..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.

This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...

A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...

Oh yes, why don't you post this in the Rybka Forum?

Why would I care enough to waste the time???

Why are you wasting time with this issue, if you don't care???

It was being held in a forum where I participate. Why would I want to go to a forum that discusses a commercial program??? Particularly when I know that the author is not going to supply any technical details at all...

Nor would SMK or any commercial programmer, here or anywhere else outside which is already known or won't compromise their business.

What really is your beef with Vasik?

Has he done something truly unethical?

I'd really would like to know and in a concise format.

I don't want to piece it together by wading through countless posts.

Terry

I don't have a "beef" with Vas. Specifically. I have a generic beef with anyone that asks lots of questions, gets detailed answers, then clams up and goes away. Lots of questions until he finds something new and better, then nothing...

You don't have to "wade thru countless posts" to figure that out. Several have voiced that opinion over the years. It hasn't been a secret...

[Uri Blass]

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..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.

This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...

A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...

Oh yes, why don't you post this in the Rybka Forum?

Why would I care enough to waste the time???

Why are you wasting time with this issue, if you don't care???

It was being held in a forum where I participate. Why would I want to go to a forum that discusses a commercial program??? Particularly when I know that the author is not going to supply any technical details at all...

Nor would SMK or any commercial programmer, here or anywhere else outside which is already known or won't compromise their business.

What really is your beef with Vasik?

Has he done something truly unethical?

I'd really would like to know and in a concise format.

I don't want to piece it together by wading through countless posts.

Terry

I don't have a "beef" with Vas. Specifically. I have a generic beef with anyone that asks lots of questions, gets detailed answers, then clams up and goes away. Lots of questions until he finds something new and better, then nothing...

You don't have to "wade thru countless posts" to figure that out. Several have voiced that opinion over the years. It hasn't been a secret...

I do not see it as a problem and he has the right to do it.
I think that Vasik clearly helped computer chess by releasing rybka.

People could not get Strelka's code without Rybka but even without the code releasing a better program helps computer chess for the simple reason that programmers can learn from games against the new program.

The reasons for Vasik not to release the code are clear
and I think that most people are not going to release their code in a similiar situation.

Uri

[Rolf]

I don't have a "beef" with Vas. Specifically. I have a generic beef with anyone that asks lots of questions, gets detailed answers, then clams up and goes away. Lots of questions until he finds something new and better, then nothing...

You don't have to "wade thru countless posts" to figure that out. Several have voiced that opinion over the years. It hasn't been a secret...

Ok, I'll bite. To the best of my knowledge nobody besides you does ever ride on that pony and you are no evidence sitting on a safe chair at university. But what somehow stinks me is this: nobody else got such evil press comments from your side, no Uniake, SMK, no Ban, no Morsch or Feist. Only Rajlich now. That simply is something I wont classify here because it would mean a case for moderation. Too many here told you that they are completely astonished about you with that inconsistent position. You have more than one beef against Vas.

[Tony]

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..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

If that is true, I wonder how much of other already-released programs are incorporated into Rybka? Sounds a lot like the old pot/kettle thing to me... I'd bet you could find parts of other programs scattered in Rybka. He was not the one to "invent" the bitboard stuff at all, and I'd bet there are exactly zero "new bitboard tricks" in Rybka.

This is a tired, old, pointless discussion IMHO...

A day will come when Rybka is "yesterday's news" and this will all end by a natural death...

Oh yes, why don't you post this in the Rybka Forum?

Why would I care enough to waste the time???

Why are you wasting time with this issue, if you don't care???

It was being held in a forum where I participate. Why would I want to go to a forum that discusses a commercial program??? Particularly when I know that the author is not going to supply any technical details at all...

Nor would SMK or any commercial programmer, here or anywhere else outside which is already known or won't compromise their business.

What really is your beef with Vasik?

Has he done something truly unethical?

I'd really would like to know and in a concise format.

I don't want to piece it together by wading through countless posts.

Terry

I don't have a "beef" with Vas. Specifically. I have a generic beef with anyone that asks lots of questions, gets detailed answers, then clams up and goes away. Lots of questions until he finds something new and better, then nothing...

You don't have to "wade thru countless posts" to figure that out. Several have voiced that opinion over the years. It hasn't been a secret...

You mean "pulling a Vas" isn't actually in the english dictionary ?

Tony

[Albert Silver]

I don't have a "beef" with Vas. Specifically. I have a generic beef with anyone that asks lots of questions, gets detailed answers, then clams up and goes away. Lots of questions until he finds something new and better, then nothing...

You don't have to "wade thru countless posts" to figure that out. Several have voiced that opinion over the years. It hasn't been a secret...

Ok, I'll bite. To the best of my knowledge nobody besides you does ever ride on that pony and you are no evidence sitting on a safe chair at university. But what somehow stinks me is this: nobody else got such evil press comments from your side, no Uniake, SMK, no Ban, no Morsch or Feist. Only Rajlich now. That simply is something I wont classify here because it would mean a case for moderation. Too many here told you that they are completely astonished about you with that inconsistent position. You have more than one beef against Vas.

His number one beef is that Vas did it in 6 months, and won't tell him how. The punk. How dare he do in 6 months what others take years to do, if ever??

He feels this obligates Vas to tell him how he did it. Instead of lauding him as a genius, which most normal people would, he feels this justifies stealing his work to "level the playing field". A euphemism for saying that if someone can't do as well, steal it. It's ok. You have Bob's blessing. He won't lose any sleep over it.

Albert