The near future of computer chess

[Don]

If, as you say, the "new generation" of chess programmers want to participate with copies of the same source, with minor tweaks, eventually, they will become the majority and control the tournament rules.

I offered 2 brainstorm ideas to cover that.

Subject: Ippolit and related freeware source code.

Advantages:

1. No more hypocrisy among the established programmers condemning a programmer and in the meantime take from his legacy. They can now freely take.

There is no hypocrisy, you are continuing to propagate the unfair and yes, dishonest, straw-man argument that if you use any idea that is in another program then you are plagiarizing. It's sickening how often people just keep going back to that since there is no other way to make their ridiculous case that plagiarism is good.

2. New programmers can start from freeware sources and recognized as a valid engine as long as they contribute a substantial elo improvement such as Houdini.

And who is going to decide whether there has been a substantial improvement? If you envision this as a way to AVOID controversy I think this will have the opposite affect.

3. New programmers can safely come out of the closet without the risk being teared into pieces.

You really mean plagiarist can safely come out of the closet. You keep doing the straw-man thing to maximize the effect of your words. The issue is PLAGIARISTS, not new programmers and if you look there are many new programmers who are not having any problem with attacks.
The ones who are taking the heat are the clear and obvious plagiarists.

4. Restore the WCCC into its old glory. A real world championship can be held again.

I really don't think having a tournament with 50 different versions of Ippolit would have the effect you envision. Several authors would using the Ivanhoe latest source code, change the program name and author line, try to rewrite a few routines just to be able to say it's "different" and then watch the controversy begin as they play each other.

Of course the REAL authors would be competing against a crowd of authors who know less about computer chess than my grandmother.

Keyword: transparency.

I think you are in buzzword mode. Transparency is a good thing but please don't equate to the dumbing down of standards and common sense.

I would wish the ICGA to do that but sadly the time is not ripe for that.

Fortunately the ICGA has integrity. You essentially are advocating that anybody can come with any program (I'm sure you will deny that, but that is exactly the path you are going down) and that would make any of their events just meaningless fun that nobody could take seriously.

It's to hope the gap the ICGA has left is not picked up by some ego guy like Iljoemzjinov who had no moral problem to play chess with Kadhafi.

I think you are seriously misguided about how to solve the problem. It's almost as if you are saying the solution to crime is to declare that there is no crime - then we will not have to have courts, prisons or making anyone feel "guilty" just because they want to have a little fun molesting someone or beating someone senseless.

[Terry McCracken]

Has anyone combed through Ed's software? It makes one wonder.

[Don]

Has anyone combed through Ed's software? It makes one wonder.

I don't know what is up with Ed, but his program is clearly original and he is a brilliant and hard working programmer. I guess he just thinks there is a new generation of programmer who shouldn't have to be bothered with originality or hard work.

[Rebel]

There is no hypocrisy, you are continuing to propagate the unfair and yes, dishonest, straw-man argument that if you use any idea that is in another program then you are plagiarizing. It's sickening how often people just keep going back to that since there is no other way to make their ridiculous case that plagiarism is good.

http://www.webster.edu/students/plagiar ... rism.shtml

What is plagiarism?

Plagiarism means “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own” or to “use (another's production) without crediting the source” (Mirriam-Webster.com).

Following Webster taking ideas without crediting the source is plagiarism.

Deal with that first Mr. Insult.

Then read my article: http://www.top-5000.nl/rule2.htm

And don't call me dishonest again you jerk.

[Rebel]

Has anyone combed through Ed's software? It makes one wonder.

I don't know what is up with Ed, but his program is clearly original and he is a brilliant and hard working programmer. I guess he just thinks there is a new generation of programmer who shouldn't have to be bothered with originality or hard work.

It's about you and other established programmers who voted someone guilty of plagiarism while at the same time doing it yourself following the definition of Webster and not willing to accept it.

[Terry McCracken]

Has anyone combed through Ed's software? It makes one wonder.

I don't know what is up with Ed, but his program is clearly original and he is a brilliant and hard working programmer. I guess he just thinks there is a new generation of programmer who shouldn't have to be bothered with originality or hard work.

It's about you and other established programmers who voted someone guilty of plagiarism while at the same time doing it yourself following the definition of Webster and not willing to accept it.

Bullshit!

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Has anyone combed through Ed's software? It makes one wonder.

I don't know what is up with Ed, but his program is clearly original and he is a brilliant and hard working programmer. I guess he just thinks there is a new generation of programmer who shouldn't have to be bothered with originality or hard work.

It's about you and other established programmers who voted someone guilty of plagiarism while at the same time doing it yourself following the definition of Webster and not willing to accept it.

Bullshit!

Terry,are you totally convinced that Don & Co. don't read and use ideas from available source codes of top chess engines

[Don]

There is no hypocrisy, you are continuing to propagate the unfair and yes, dishonest, straw-man argument that if you use any idea that is in another program then you are plagiarizing. It's sickening how often people just keep going back to that since there is no other way to make their ridiculous case that plagiarism is good.

http://www.webster.edu/students/plagiar ... rism.shtml

What is plagiarism?

Plagiarism means “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own” or to “use (another's production) without crediting the source” (Mirriam-Webster.com).

Following Webster taking ideas without crediting the source is plagiarism.

Deal with that first Mr. Insult.

Then read my article: http://www.top-5000.nl/rule2.htm

And don't call me dishonest again you jerk.

Ok, I apologize for being so harsh. In reality I do have a high opinion of you and I do respect you for you accomplishments and openess. I just get carried away at times. I just have a very strong disagreement with you about your serious lack of compassion for the victims of the plagiarisms and your tacit approve for being a plagiarist and your blatantly unreasonable arguments in favor of plagiarism.

You are taking a dictionary definition way out of context and being unreasonable.
Am I to assume that if your program has null move pruning you are plagiarist? Unless of course if you ADMIT that you use null move pruning it's ok? What if your program has alpha/beta pruning or Hash tables? It's universally accepted that computer chess ideas are in the public domain. There is not a truly new original idea here ANYWAY - there are just a million minor variations of the same basic ideas and trying to nail down what an original idea really is becomes a fools errand.

You have a wonderful gift for trying to obfuscate the real issues with irrelevant distractions. There is NOBODY here on the anti-plagiarist side of the issue who is claiming it's wrong to use other peoples ideas. The issue is blatant CODE COPYING and shortcut taking. It's having a program like Houdini 1 that plays identical to Ivanhoe with the same scores (just scaled slightly differently) but advertising it as an original program. It does not make it right just to make the blanket statement and the "thank you" that it would not be possible without the great ideas from other programs. That is completely understood and does not need to be stated. It would be like Volvo issuing a statement that their vehicle would not have been possible without the work of Henry Ford and all the pioneers that came before him. That goes without saying and building automobiles is not plagiarism, except by your unreasonably liberal definition.

You seem to have a strong need to define everything in a chess program as plagiarism because it makes the next step easy. Also, there is no author I know of who is trying to claim his program is so completely original that NO ideas found in other program exist in his. I don't mean to offend or insult you but taking such extreme points of view is making you look like a fool. And I resent being called a plagiarist because I have built on the works of others, just as you have too. But there is NOTHING that comes from man that isn't that way, yet it doesn't make you a plagiarist. You really need to lose the straw-man "everyone is a plagiarist" argument you are clinging to because it's not working for you.

[Terry McCracken]

Has anyone combed through Ed's software? It makes one wonder.

I don't know what is up with Ed, but his program is clearly original and he is a brilliant and hard working programmer. I guess he just thinks there is a new generation of programmer who shouldn't have to be bothered with originality or hard work.

It's about you and other established programmers who voted someone guilty of plagiarism while at the same time doing it yourself following the definition of Webster and not willing to accept it.

Bullshit!

Terry,are you totally convinced that Don & Co. don't read and use ideas from available source codes of top chess engines

Are you also calling them plagiarists??? No, they don't steal other's work.
They work within the guidelines.

What Ed opines is all programmers plagiarize, cheat & steal!

That's Bullshit!

[Don]

Has anyone combed through Ed's software? It makes one wonder.

I don't know what is up with Ed, but his program is clearly original and he is a brilliant and hard working programmer. I guess he just thinks there is a new generation of programmer who shouldn't have to be bothered with originality or hard work.

It's about you and other established programmers who voted someone guilty of plagiarism while at the same time doing it yourself following the definition of Webster and not willing to accept it.

Ed,

Every program uses alpha/beta pruning, null move pruning, Hash tables and 95% of the same ideas. Many years ago the ICCA published an article with source code showing how to implement null move pruning. That basic idea has appeared in virtually every program since then.

But you are taking a very unreasonable and hard-headed approach by trying to equate that with blatant code theft.

If you cannot tell the difference, I just don't know where to go with this.

Suppose when Rebel was number 1 I had come out with a program that was identical and all I did was change the name of the program and put my own name down as author and perhaps change a few instruction around. Would you really have seen no problem with that? You would have been the one to call ME dishonest and unreasonable had I responded to you by just saying you were a plagiarist anyway and all that I am doing is building on the works of others. I could have lectured you on openness and "transparency" and I'm sure you would have responded by calling me a jerk.