ethical dilemma

[George Tsavdaris]

You greatly overestimate the help I have received on Crafty. Eugene was by far the biggest contributor with the egtb stuff and some inline assembly for windows. More recently we have formed a small team which has led to lots of changes. But there are 5 of us total, and it has been going on for a year.

So "disappointed" rather than "angry" is the right adjective. There is a huge difference in the meanings as well... I've tried to live by a sort of "fair play" doctrine all my life. Alas, not everyone does. And I've pretty well come to that realization. But it does disappoint me at times.

One thing is for sure: There will always be people that will take advantage of other's people kindness and in this case other's people(like you for example) sharing spirit, and sometimes will even never say a simple thanks.

And the Chess development and evolution of today, without you and others that shared all these years their knowledge for free, will make some decades more to come. If no one wanted to share his knowledge and kept it to himself, then computers would still be far behind humans in strength now.
People owe you and others a big thanks but instead....

[hristo]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.

I am certain that I am. I have to deal with copyright attorney stuff on a regular basis...

I deal with IP attorneys frequently and have been involved in IP cases. I would like to know if your attorneys claim that the presence of source code is a mandatory requirement for copyright infringement. My attorneys have never said such thing and in fact I was asked to render an opinion on disassembled code without ever seeing the original source code. It is possible that your attorneys are better than mine and so I would love to know of a verdict (after all attorneys are bound by the judgments) that states that "source code similarity is the only way to assert copyright infringement in a software case".
The link I provided includes a number of cases where copyright infringement was asserted (and granted) without having anything to do with the original source code.

Yes. How can you copyright an "idea"? There is no copyright law to support that. That's where a patent comes into play. Otherwise what are you going to base a copyright claim on? Copyright _specifically_ applies to something written and then copied and used by someone else. Most notably in literature, but also in media derived from such (movies, recordings, etc)...

Robert,
it seems that we haven't gotten the issue of 'idea' vs 'expression' separated sufficiently so as to avoid making arguments that are unfounded. (This is probably my fault -- not being clear enough)

I have put the objectionable text in bold [above] because it seems that this text leads to some erroneous conclusions.

Copyright, in its general form, is by no means constrained to "written material" only and this applies to computer software. The fact that your source code is translated into a binary representation doesn't remove the copyrights you held on the original code. The fact that someone can go through another translation and convert the binary back into some other format [presumably a higher level language that can be read more easily] doesn't remove your copyrights (with respect to expression) either. If someone was to use this translated code without asking your permission to do so and without you granting such permission, explicitly, then said person is committing a copyright infringement against you -- without ever copying the original code that you wrote. In one of the examples (from the link earlier) the defendant used parts of the binary code with some considerable modifications and was found to be infringing on copyrights (no source code was involved), but the example went even further and discussed the copyright infringement that can be a result from augmenting the behavior of the application through external means -- without actually copying anything at all.

There are many criteria that come into play, and I certainly don't understand or know all of them, when deciding on a copyright infringement, but I'm certain that "literal copying of source code" is not a requirement in the case of software.

Additionally, parts of your program can be protected by the very nature of their creation, for instance a table of values (or small poem) is embedded in your application. If this table cannot be easily derived from first principles and if the infringing party cannot show how this table was derived then you have an infringement. (considering that they couldn't have copied this table of values from somewhere else, it doesn't matter how easy it is to create the table if the defendant cannot explain/show how he created it -- he copied it.)

If the infringing party admits to have disassembled your work and then literal or non-literal, as a result of translation (and consequent obfuscation), parts of the original are found in the derivative then you have very good chance of winning. (Notice that nowhere in this process one has to argue or defend the concept of 'idea')

All you are after is to show that your original work was used inappropriately. This is, usually, much easier to do when your work contains identifiable unique parts.

I hope this explains my opinion without the nagging issue of "ideas are not protectable".

With respect to using a defense where the defendant attempts to avoid responsibility purely based on the claim that the plaintiff might have also done something wrong: this would, IMO, probably lead to faster judgment against the defendant and then another case might be brought up. It is very unlikely that a judge would allow a counter suit where the defendant is not the actual party that was somehow hurt by the plaintiff. For instance: A claims that B did something wrong against A. In court B claims that A might have done something wrong against C and that therefore what B has done to A is 'OK'. Judge, rolls his eye and bangs the gavel on B's head. (surely, it doesn't have to be that way, but it is very likely)

Regards,
Hristo

[bob]

[quote="bob
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.

Bob you have made similiar statements before. I believe your envy/jealously have reached new heights.[/quote]

There is no "envy" or "jealousy" in my comments. If I help someone build a house, then they refuse to help me build one for myself, is that somehow translated to "envy"? I don't think so. If someone helps me build a house, then I help someone else build a house, and that person refuses to help the next person in line, is that "jealousy"??

Your comments simply don't belong here... You need to use a dictionary before using a keyboard...

[bob]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.

I am certain that I am. I have to deal with copyright attorney stuff on a regular basis...

I deal with IP attorneys frequently and have been involved in IP cases. I would like to know if your attorneys claim that the presence of source code is a mandatory requirement for copyright infringement. My attorneys have never said such thing and in fact I was asked to render an opinion on disassembled code without ever seeing the original source code. It is possible that your attorneys are better than mine and so I would love to know of a verdict (after all attorneys are bound by the judgments) that states that "source code similarity is the only way to assert copyright infringement in a software case".
The link I provided includes a number of cases where copyright infringement was asserted (and granted) without having anything to do with the original source code.

Yes. How can you copyright an "idea"? There is no copyright law to support that. That's where a patent comes into play. Otherwise what are you going to base a copyright claim on? Copyright _specifically_ applies to something written and then copied and used by someone else. Most notably in literature, but also in media derived from such (movies, recordings, etc)...

Robert,
it seems that we haven't gotten the issue of 'idea' vs 'expression' separated sufficiently so as to avoid making arguments that are unfounded. (This is probably my fault -- not being clear enough)

I have put the objectionable text in bold [above] because it seems that this text leads to some erroneous conclusions.

Copyright, in its general form, is by no means constrained to "written material" only and this applies to computer software. The fact that your source code is translated into a binary representation doesn't remove the copyrights you held on the original code.

I hope I never implied otherwise. That would be identical to translating a book from English to German, for example. And it would be a copyright violation. But browsing through a book, to learn how the author delivers the story, and then using that is _not_ a copyright violation.

For an example, Clive Cussler starts his books in a time-travel back to the distant past, where some natural history event (A boat sinks, a bomber crashes at sea, etc) is carefully explained, adding some key detail that will be critical to plot development later. Then he time-shifts back to the present, and somehow works that ancient event into the tale to give the NUMA guys a way to thwart some global terror plan. Absolutely nothing would prevent me from using that same sort of "twist" to write my own books. You can't copyright a "style", just the actual document itself.

That was my point with computer software. You naturally hold the copyright on the source you write, and on any translation made from it which would include the executable. But you don't hold any copyright on the ideas included therein because they are not subject to copyright. For that, you have to resort to a patent. And the patent office is loathe to grant patents on software algorithms because they are essentially unenforcable... I can't patent a sort algorithm, even if I could find one better than N log(N) in speed.

That was the point I was making. And disassembling a program to see how it works does not violate anything. Copying the thing and claiming it as your own won't fly. But disassembling, learning how the thing works, and then using that to write your own is perfectly safe...

The fact that someone can go through another translation and convert the binary back into some other format [presumably a higher level language that can be read more easily] doesn't remove your copyrights (with respect to expression) either. If someone was to use this translated code without asking your permission to do so and without you granting such permission, explicitly, then said person is committing a copyright infringement against you -- without ever copying the original code that you wrote. In one of the examples (from the link earlier) the defendant used parts of the binary code with some considerable modifications and was found to be infringing on copyrights (no source code was involved), but the example went even further and discussed the copyright infringement that can be a result from augmenting the behavior of the application through external means -- without actually copying anything at all.

I don't disagree. But the basic premise in the above is that it was compiled, then disassembled, and the disassembled program was used as is. That does not seem to be the circumstance with Strelka unless there has been something claimed that I have missed. "Containing significant similarities" doesn't mean a thing.

There are many criteria that come into play, and I certainly don't understand or know all of them, when deciding on a copyright infringement, but I'm certain that "literal copying of source code" is not a requirement in the case of software.

Additionally, parts of your program can be protected by the very nature of their creation, for instance a table of values (or small poem) is embedded in your application. If this table cannot be easily derived from first principles and if the infringing party cannot show how this table was derived then you have an infringement. (considering that they couldn't have copied this table of values from somewhere else, it doesn't matter how easy it is to create the table if the can be created...

Now you are hitting on the essence of why we don't allow copyright to apply to a "program" in general, but specifically to its source and translated derivatives.

What set of values can't be produced by trial and error, when we are talking about any table that might appear in a chess program? It is easy enough to write a simple algorithm that can produce any set of parameters you want, totally by brute force... So it all goes back to proving that I stole your source or executable and used it in whole or in part, and that has proven to be _very_ difficult in all the copyright infringement cases I have followed over the years...

For example, the large table of "magic" numbers I use. Came from Pradu. They appear in several programs. And we all could have come up with the same numbers ourselves, just like we _could_ generate our own tablebases, but the effort would be wasted since it has already been done once.

If the infringing party admits to have disassembled your work and then literal or non-literal, as a result of translation (and consequent obfuscation), parts of the original are found in the derivative then you have very good chance of winning. (Notice that nowhere in this process one has to argue or defend the concept of 'idea')

All you are after is to show that your original work was used inappropriately. This is, usually, much easier to do when your work contains identifiable unique parts.

However, that is the sticky point as I mentioned. For example, old versions of Crafty used rotated bitmaps, with large tables of constants to generate moves. If someone copied those, I would have no chance to get relief under copyright law because the numbers are not unique (no number on a computer is ever unique) since they can be generated by an algorithm, which can never be copyrighted or patented...

I hope this explains my opinion without the nagging issue of "ideas are not protectable".

With respect to using a defense where the defendant attempts to avoid responsibility purely based on the claim that the plaintiff might have also done something wrong: this would, IMO, probably lead to faster judgment against the defendant and then another case might be brought up. It is very unlikely that a judge would allow a counter suit where the defendant is not the actual party that was somehow hurt by the plaintiff. For instance: A claims that B did something wrong against A. In court B claims that A might have done something wrong against C and that therefore what B has done to A is 'OK'. Judge, rolls his eye and bangs the gavel on B's head. (surely, it doesn't have to be that way, but it is very likely)

Regards,
Hristo

I have seen multiple cases where the judge did say "your claim has no merit, the injured party was the orignal author.." One of these was related to Xerox and windows, although I don't remember the specifics...

[bob]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.

I am certain that I am. I have to deal with copyright attorney stuff on a regular basis...

Until one stops to determine if there is any borrowed code in Rybka. Which was claimed by Vas to have come from fruit.

Literal and non-literal copies (with respect to original source code or binary output) are both subject to copyright violations. If there is disassembled code found in the Strelka (1.x - 2.x) that can be shown to have been taken from Rybka executable then the copyright infringement is a very likely outcome.

The courts have been _very_ precise in their dealing with software patent infringement. It is the "idea" that gets patented. For copyright, it is the actual text (or in this case program source code). reverse-engineering cases have _always_ revolved around patents, not copyright. There's no hope of pursuing a copyright infringement if you can't detail exactly what was copied.

It is not legal to disassemble a program and then assemble it again and claim copyright on the result and avoid the copyrights associated with the original -- even if you have never seen the code that produced the original binary.

It depends on what he actually did. It is certainly not illegal to disassemble a program. There's no law regarding that period. Taking the assembly language result and calling it your own is a very grey area that would cost a fortune to litigate, and likely would ultimately if he could show that he modified it extensively. Just as the program he copied had its roots elsewhere...

It is illegal (in vast majority of the cases) to integrate machine executable code into your own application, without being given the explicit permission to do so.

That is a pure copyright issue. As you are copying a program in its entirety, what we are talking about is something far different.

Anyway,
copyright issues are often more complex than what we believe them to be.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/WebTable.htm

Among a copyright owner's exclusive rights is the right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). If, as we hold, the speeded-up Galaxian game that a licensee creates with a circuit board supplied by the defendant is a derivative work based upon Galaxian, a licensee who lacks the plaintiff's authorization to create a derivative work is a direct infringer and the defendant is a contributory infringer through its sale of the speeded-up circuit board.

Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.”

... source code is not necessary to have a copyright infringement.

Regards,
Hristo

I agree. But it is impossible to claim someone derived something from your work, if they can prove you derived yours from something else pre-existing. Now your copyright or patent is invalid...

As I said, expensive with no likely success...

You are talking about the USA, right? What if Vas is living in Europe? The EU?

No idea. So far as I know, both of us live in the USA and are subject to the laws here, not in Europe.

[Rolf]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.

I am certain that I am. I have to deal with copyright attorney stuff on a regular basis...

I deal with IP attorneys frequently and have been involved in IP cases. I would like to know if your attorneys claim that the presence of source code is a mandatory requirement for copyright infringement. My attorneys have never said such thing and in fact I was asked to render an opinion on disassembled code without ever seeing the original source code. It is possible that your attorneys are better than mine and so I would love to know of a verdict (after all attorneys are bound by the judgments) that states that "source code similarity is the only way to assert copyright infringement in a software case".
The link I provided includes a number of cases where copyright infringement was asserted (and granted) without having anything to do with the original source code.

Yes. How can you copyright an "idea"? There is no copyright law to support that. That's where a patent comes into play. Otherwise what are you going to base a copyright claim on? Copyright _specifically_ applies to something written and then copied and used by someone else. Most notably in literature, but also in media derived from such (movies, recordings, etc)...

Robert,
it seems that we haven't gotten the issue of 'idea' vs 'expression' separated sufficiently so as to avoid making arguments that are unfounded. (This is probably my fault -- not being clear enough)

I have put the objectionable text in bold [above] because it seems that this text leads to some erroneous conclusions.

Copyright, in its general form, is by no means constrained to "written material" only and this applies to computer software. The fact that your source code is translated into a binary representation doesn't remove the copyrights you held on the original code.

I hope I never implied otherwise. That would be identical to translating a book from English to German, for example. And it would be a copyright violation. But browsing through a book, to learn how the author delivers the story, and then using that is _not_ a copyright violation.

For an example, Clive Cussler starts his books in a time-travel back to the distant past, where some natural history event (A boat sinks, a bomber crashes at sea, etc) is carefully explained, adding some key detail that will be critical to plot development later. Then he time-shifts back to the present, and somehow works that ancient event into the tale to give the NUMA guys a way to thwart some global terror plan. Absolutely nothing would prevent me from using that same sort of "twist" to write my own books. You can't copyright a "style", just the actual document itself.

That was my point with computer software. You naturally hold the copyright on the source you write, and on any translation made from it which would include the executable. But you don't hold any copyright on the ideas included therein because they are not subject to copyright. For that, you have to resort to a patent. And the patent office is loathe to grant patents on software algorithms because they are essentially unenforcable... I can't patent a sort algorithm, even if I could find one better than N log(N) in speed.

That was the point I was making. And disassembling a program to see how it works does not violate anything. Copying the thing and claiming it as your own won't fly. But disassembling, learning how the thing works, and then using that to write your own is perfectly safe...

The fact that someone can go through another translation and convert the binary back into some other format [presumably a higher level language that can be read more easily] doesn't remove your copyrights (with respect to expression) either. If someone was to use this translated code without asking your permission to do so and without you granting such permission, explicitly, then said person is committing a copyright infringement against you -- without ever copying the original code that you wrote. In one of the examples (from the link earlier) the defendant used parts of the binary code with some considerable modifications and was found to be infringing on copyrights (no source code was involved), but the example went even further and discussed the copyright infringement that can be a result from augmenting the behavior of the application through external means -- without actually copying anything at all.

I don't disagree. But the basic premise in the above is that it was compiled, then disassembled, and the disassembled program was used as is. That does not seem to be the circumstance with Strelka unless there has been something claimed that I have missed. "Containing significant similarities" doesn't mean a thing.

There are many criteria that come into play, and I certainly don't understand or know all of them, when deciding on a copyright infringement, but I'm certain that "literal copying of source code" is not a requirement in the case of software.

Additionally, parts of your program can be protected by the very nature of their creation, for instance a table of values (or small poem) is embedded in your application. If this table cannot be easily derived from first principles and if the infringing party cannot show how this table was derived then you have an infringement. (considering that they couldn't have copied this table of values from somewhere else, it doesn't matter how easy it is to create the table if the can be created...

Now you are hitting on the essence of why we don't allow copyright to apply to a "program" in general, but specifically to its source and translated derivatives.

What set of values can't be produced by trial and error, when we are talking about any table that might appear in a chess program? It is easy enough to write a simple algorithm that can produce any set of parameters you want, totally by brute force... So it all goes back to proving that I stole your source or executable and used it in whole or in part, and that has proven to be _very_ difficult in all the copyright infringement cases I have followed over the years...

For example, the large table of "magic" numbers I use. Came from Pradu. They appear in several programs. And we all could have come up with the same numbers ourselves, just like we _could_ generate our own tablebases, but the effort would be wasted since it has already been done once.

If the infringing party admits to have disassembled your work and then literal or non-literal, as a result of translation (and consequent obfuscation), parts of the original are found in the derivative then you have very good chance of winning. (Notice that nowhere in this process one has to argue or defend the concept of 'idea')

All you are after is to show that your original work was used inappropriately. This is, usually, much easier to do when your work contains identifiable unique parts.

However, that is the sticky point as I mentioned. For example, old versions of Crafty used rotated bitmaps, with large tables of constants to generate moves. If someone copied those, I would have no chance to get relief under copyright law because the numbers are not unique (no number on a computer is ever unique) since they can be generated by an algorithm, which can never be copyrighted or patented...

I hope this explains my opinion without the nagging issue of "ideas are not protectable".

With respect to using a defense where the defendant attempts to avoid responsibility purely based on the claim that the plaintiff might have also done something wrong: this would, IMO, probably lead to faster judgment against the defendant and then another case might be brought up. It is very unlikely that a judge would allow a counter suit where the defendant is not the actual party that was somehow hurt by the plaintiff. For instance: A claims that B did something wrong against A. In court B claims that A might have done something wrong against C and that therefore what B has done to A is 'OK'. Judge, rolls his eye and bangs the gavel on B's head. (surely, it doesn't have to be that way, but it is very likely)

Regards,
Hristo

I have seen multiple cases where the judge did say "your claim has no merit, the injured party was the orignal author.." One of these was related to Xerox and windows, although I don't remember the specifics...

I dont want to break into that law debate as a lay but there is something that made me think of a question that stands besides all these copyright issues.

How do you as a university man, who also is connected with basic research, explain, not to even ask for a justification, that it should make sense to create programs which are basically made out of the same lent stuff? Giving them different names and even competing with them in big events? What is the sense of it? Where is the originality put into it by a specific author? I mean, if already you implement all kind of lent/"stolen" material, what should these ones should do who dont have your science connections?

What sense are making tournaments with such equally equipped entities? Yes, I hear you sigh, it's the basic chess game. Yes, I knew that for long, but where are the games discussed? What I see is pseudo science calculations beyond the 10th decimal and big classifications. Where is your objection?

How do you judge the business with all the borrowed and taken material, with even taken 'style', everything? No moral preaching but from a point of relevance from your standpoint of as someone who looks through all the ingredients. Where is the observing scientist in you who gives us a table with a description of all the program families? To ask you for such basics, is what I can do as distant observer of the computerchess tech details. On the other hand it's dubious howan independent scientist hasnt done all this already before because it's just a trivial question?

[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>

what "double standard" am I denying? I received plenty of help from early computer chess programmers. I've given plenty of help to current computer chess programmers. What I don't like is for someone to "act like an amateur" and then "go commercial". I doubt that was a last-minute decision. And had I been told of some of the commercial intentions, I can think of _lots_ of discussions I would have avoided. That's my complaint. I don't care who writes a program for sale. But do it openly and up front. Then I have the choice of whether to assist someone with a commercial development project or not...

that was, and is, my point...

How do you know when Vas decided to marry and have a family which then forced him to open a business?

The double standard is not the one you mentioned but the one you ignored. It's the gap between a university income having man and a family man who must make his own living. How do you dare to even criticise his steps after he created such a top engine like RYBKA which is much stronger than CRAFTY although you had years of experience even decades with stronger hardware and also internet GM help? That made me think of an extremest talent that Vas has shown and which could invite you to contact him for a different income source...

That you are a man of undoubtable honesty with your moral practice is absolutely no topic here. But exactly therefore I ask you to understand Vas.

[Jim Walker]

[quote="bob
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.

Bob you have made similiar statements before. I believe your envy/jealously have reached new heights.

There is no "envy" or "jealousy" in my comments. If I help someone build a house, then they refuse to help me build one for myself, is that somehow translated to "envy"? I don't think so. If someone helps me build a house, then I help someone else build a house, and that person refuses to help the next person in line, is that "jealousy"??

Your comments simply don't belong here... You need to use a dictionary before using a keyboard...[/quote]

My comments belong anywhere I decide to put them. Stop putting yourself above all others. You are just another poster here. Your analogy has no bearing to the discussion. It is as simple as this.
Some chess programmers do it for a hobby. Some do it for a living. You have a full time job with a comfortable income so you can afford to write a chess program and not seek compensation for it. Others have taken a different path. You should be smart enough to understand they guard their knowledge for economical reasons. It's really that simple. You give away your ideas freely and that's your choice. The chess community is thankful for that. You shouldn't try to force your beliefs on others.

[Rolf]

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"...

A concrete question then.

a) Did Vasik do this to you?

He did it to quite a few in fact. You can find old discussions on various topics here..

b) How could you be invited to do this? Mentioning your ideas or help? How far you could be publicly called a help to a commercial program?

Don't understand that question...

How could you be invited to mention your ideas or help him in general? How far did you already help professional authors so that you could be called a help for them commercial guys? I ask out of astonishment about your protest because Vas isnt certainly the first one who has it all from you and others, as we could read in the other message from you? Where is anyone that you know of who is outstandingly on his own?? I take you as the one who says that they all work with lent material.

c) Please what should people do who want to be creative and still want to have a living, Bob? Who dont have a job as a professor?

Again, I don't understand what you mean? Do you think that _only_ university professors can develop chess programs that are not commercial? What about Bruce (ferret)? Stanback (zarkov)? Slate (nuchess)? warnock (lachex)? Scherzer (Bebe), Thompson (Belle)? The list goes on and on, and none of the above were academically developed...

a) It's certainly a basic question if someone is married and who then brings home the money if the man is amusing himself with such a hobby...
But that topic is a sort of taboo. Of course you have an easy life because for you your job is your hobby and vice versa.

b) It blows my mind that Thompson isnt a scientist as that I took him all the time. Isw he in the computer tech insdustry? Why IBM team couldnt find another really independent guy to "watch" the output of Deep Blue Two?

And above all? What do you want right now? Being a public institution in a field isnt enough for you? Could Vasik become a sort of assistent for you with a university job? That would be great. Not knowing if he would want to do that. But speak it out in honest - you've always given your word. Why do you speak with so many insinuations between the lines. In the case of Vas I know for sure, and others have confirmed this, that he's among the business programmer the one with the most intensive feedback back and thro. As I said, he's comparable to you. Any other, Ban, SMK, take who you want, are like autists in comparison.

What "insinuations"??? I have been very specific. I have two things I don't like. Commercial programmers lurk here, and occasionally pick up on new ideas and incorporate them into their programs, offering nothing in return. Not much can be done about that except to have some discussions in private, which many of us do in fact...

The second is for someone to jump in, ask for help, reach a mature point with the development, then find a new idea and run and hide with it. It's bad for computer chess. Where would we be if _everyone_ had to discover null-move by themselves, rather than having Beal's original paper to work from? What about Slate/Atkin's paper in Chess Skill? Does everyone need to discover bitboards by themselves? What about alpha/beta which is not exactly obvious unless you are heavily into AI and tree searching. What about search extensions? And then reductions? The "openness" of the past 40 years led to greatly accelerated development. Most anyone can put together a 2600 program with a year or two of steady work. Because of the wealth of published information describing most of the important features of a good engine.

So those are my two main issues... For the former, we could just stop public discussion, although one would still be subject to a current amateur "going commercial". For the latter, there is little that can be done. Eventually everything gets exposed after a lot of hard work by someone re-discovers the idea. But it is a time-waster. I probably started the "bitboard revolution" 12 years or so ago, although I certainly didn't invent them. But I found a new way of using them that made them far more efficient than previously done. And I made it public instantly. Who would have guessed that the "magic" development would add even more advantages to the idea? But not if someone else had to come up with rotated bitboards first, to make them fast enough that lots of people started playing around with them. That led to what we are using today, and who knows what it will lead to in the future? But clearly nothing if it was not originally disclosed to start the evolutionary trail...

You argue as if you must defend anything of your side. Not at all. But wouldnt it help a scientist to take a higher stand to then having a more objective view on those who take and lend and steal (?) while you know exactly that the law has no easy copyright rules? Basically you sound in two directions:

I. I am angry that Vas took all I and others told him although I know others did it too but I had wished I could control who might profit the most out of what "we" told them...

II. (as a typical Rolf) Look, I cant admit to you that I have helped Vas a lot, but of course as American I was pleased to see how strong his Rybka has become. But I wont say it in public, only between the lines. Publicly I will criticise thos who only take and dont give. The family stuff doesnt interest me because I have a safe position here. (Of course no response necessary.)

[bob]

[quote="bob
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.

Bob you have made similiar statements before. I believe your envy/jealously have reached new heights.

There is no "envy" or "jealousy" in my comments. If I help someone build a house, then they refuse to help me build one for myself, is that somehow translated to "envy"? I don't think so. If someone helps me build a house, then I help someone else build a house, and that person refuses to help the next person in line, is that "jealousy"??

Your comments simply don't belong here... You need to use a dictionary before using a keyboard...

My comments belong anywhere I decide to put them. Stop putting yourself above all others. You are just another poster here. Your analogy has no bearing to the discussion. It is as simple as this.
Some chess programmers do it for a hobby. Some do it for a living. You have a full time job with a comfortable income so you can afford to write a chess program and not seek compensation for it. Others have taken a different path. You should be smart enough to understand they guard their knowledge for economical reasons. It's really that simple. You give away your ideas freely and that's your choice. The chess community is thankful for that. You shouldn't try to force your beliefs on others.[/quote]

As I said, if everyone agreed with your approach, computer chess would _still_ be in the dark ages. Fortunately not _everybody_ agrees...