geots wrote:bob wrote:hristo wrote:bob wrote:hristo wrote:bob wrote:Eelco de Groot wrote:Guetti wrote: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.
I don't believe there is any existing algorithm used in computer chess that could not be re-invented from scratch. That should actually be intuitively obvious. But would you not agree that by "standing on the shoulders of others" you get a great boost with little effort?
I only wish most could have been around in the days of greenblatt (mack hack), kozdrowicki (coko), slate (chess 4.x/nuchess), Thompson (multiple versions of belle with and without hardware), Truscott/Wright (duchess), Schwartz (chaos), dan/kathe spracklen (multiple programs), Newborn (ostrich), Marsland (awit), Wendroff (lachex), Donskly (Kaissa), Scherzer (Bebe), Beal (program + papers), Kittinger (wchess among others), and a great number of others too numerous to mention. They all worked in a spirit of mutual benefit. And computer chess greatly benefitted. Some still work in that spirit today, no need to name them as most know who they are. But some do not. If someone works in a closet to develop an engine, more power to them. Even if they use published information, fine. But to ask dozens of questions, send hundreds of emails, and then disappear? A bit much, IMHO. If someone were to email me and say "I am thinking of doing a commercial chess program, will you answer these questions to get me started?" My answer would be "no"...
