ethical dilemma

[ozziejoe]

Hi Bob et al.

I respect the noble sentiments put forth here (about open sharing of ideas). However, i am not sure this is the only model. Bob, I too am a university academic, and there is plenty of stuff that gets done in academia that is than copyrighted. Every month we seem to have a new workshop on "intellectual property rights." Many people in academia don't just give their stuff away.

I am scientist and I give my stuff away (in the form of published articles)., because the government pays my salary. Who is paying vas' salary? It is precisely because he is able to sale rybka that he is able to devote his full time to improving it. He does not have to take another full time job.

What if intellectual property rights can, in some contexts, actually fuel innovation?

best
Joseph

[bob]

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.

[Mike S.]

(b) I am completely unconcerned (...)

Your statements about this matter would make sense (only) if Vas Rajlich was an university professor and has not to care for an income from software sales, based on his secrets and in that case, he could publish them in academic fashion. You seem to apply standards which are for the academic world, but in economy a trade secret can make the difference, which brings the advantage compared to the competition.

Vas Rajlich has developed good new elements of chess programming, and he earns his living from them, based on the fact that they are secret (or what is left from it after this affair). Why should he be obliged to make his valuable secrets public?! Nobody and no company would do that, and to spy on such information is usually a crime, industrial espionage.

Maybe you didn't have the economical aspect in mind? If you imply that Rybka's secrets do not need to be protected, you virtually say that the income the Rajlichs and (partially)Convekta people live from, does not need to be protected. I don't think this is ok.

P.S. ANY commercial engine could be the next target. This could end in a desaster. I don't want the computer chess sector to fall back into a pre-commercial stone age. I am completely concerned.

[Eelco de Groot]

I agree absolutely Mike. Well said. I would like to add that Vasik is about the most approachable chess programmer on earth that I know and saying that he somehow vanished from the scene and does not want to discuss his ideas anymore is simply not true. He will not discuss everything that is true but none of the commercial programmers can afford to do that. I don't think Bob has ever visited the Rybka forum in his life or he would be a bit less harsh in his criticism.

Regards, Eelco

[slobo]

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.

Of course. If someone save your life for free you are not obliged to save his life in return for free. You may charge your services if your life is more valueable than the life of your saver.

[Rolf]

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.

Doesnt work for me.

At the time before Vas came there we had a practically patt between the always same programs, who? Fritz, Shredder, Junior in the champions league. Your Crafty always way lower. Now imagine what Vas achieved with his first Rybka Beta in the end of 2005. He was over 150 Elo points stronger than all the rest.

Could you specify how these 150 points could have been hidden and not yet worked out, but already well known, when months later Rybka always improved from version to version while the programs of those who allegedly all told Vas their deepest secrets after he had contacted them, didnt follow him at all on his fly into the highest sky. Is that believable as an imagination? I dont think so.

There is a single possibility, that Vas himself has done this all like a true genius. You know what Kasparov just was telling the Dutch audience? He was asked if it hasnt been humiliating for all the mature masters, when he, Garri, came with 15 and blew them from the board? Yes, he agreed, it looked like a bit. But that were the destiny of genius who like nobody else in a field can grasp all the details and factors like nobody else. Faster and better.

Now you want to make me believe that the fact that he had asked question, where he allegedly didnt understand certain complex (or very complex) stuff. How do you know exactly what he undewrstood and what not? Genius doesnt mean all by himself on the basis of a white sheet of paper, but genius does always stand in his times and simply can grasp everything a bit more perfectly and for all faster than others who also do know all these details buit they cant combine everything like he does. Genius isnt spooky.

Although I would say that Vas must have found a sensational novelty that you others all missed. And therefore he is punished by a community and this is correct so???? Of course this is completely false and unethical reasoning.

Above all I dont get how you can state that the bad side of Vas was that after he has found all that, that he didnt tell those who formerly added some details to his knowledge. Because then everybody would be on Vas' height? Why should this be so?

Of course the title holders were angry or mad at Vas. They couldnt even easily get into his code because he had hidden it a bit. This also falsifies your theory that basically the others are also genius but simply Vas had this one single item in his knowledge. How could that be with 150 points of Elo?

Even today after two generations later Shredder and Junior are far away from Rybka. So that Vas can easily pretend that he can ignore the always two years late decompilation of his former version.


In all this I can see that the verdict that you get what you sew is a dirty character assassination in the case of Vasik Rajlich. He's one of the most communicational guy among the big experts in computerchess. Besides Bob Hyatt he's practically the only one who answered so many question of also ordinary people and that with his time schedule as programmer with the best engine on Earth. Uri has also many messages but his program is in a completely different legue. He is also able to attract GM just like you still do. What GM did ever even show interest for Shredder?? Also when Shredder was repeatedly champion?

I would like to compare Vasik's Rybka with Kramnik who also is the best but who doesnt 'must' win every single game or tournament. And still Vas keeps his mood - now this is great cinema!

One could compare him with Fischer who also never fought with his GM collegues but with the organisators who couldnt quite get what's important for the 'players'. Just like in the case of Elista where of course Fritz played against Junior, two progs clearly below Rybka in the ranking lists. But better likened by Levy&ChessBase. I for one find it fantastic that Zappa later won in Mexico and that proves another time that Vas isnt the killer who sees only his own advantages. Here he is different from Fischer and like Kramnik again. Not lke Kasparov either who also must win every show event. - So that all that together makes it rather improbable that Vasik is the one you described here who resembled more the thirsty wolf who sucked all the wisdom out of collegues only to then claiming to be dictator of the whole World. On a scale of obsession and relaxation and force out of calmness, Vas would be on the outer end of the scale completely opposite to obsession IMO. If he's a genius he's one of that sort of artists who appear as friendly and completely normal without psycho tics.

I dont get it why you dont like him. He must be similar to what you were decades ago. Am I totally wrong?

[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???

[Rolf]

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???

You wasted so much time in conversations with people like Vince or Kerrigan who always became a bit unfriendly or impolite after a while and still you explained patiently. What made you so bitter in Vasik's case??

[Dr.Ex]

(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...

Are you also completely unconcerned about reverse-engineering a program and publishing a modified version of the resulting code under one's own name?

[Dann Corbit]

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 one most qualified to speak on it (Fabian) has not ruled on this yet.
Now that the source code is there for all to see, I would like to know of one clear statement by someone that it clearly is a case of stealing and not rewriting. I think we could make a case both ways.

As far as Vasik's code goes it was never made public and it is not GPL. As we know, machine code can be disassembled legally in some contexts.

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.

I think Vasik has no blame whatsoever and so I do not understand any ire pointed in his direction. What exactly has he done wrong to deserve criticism? If someone makes their code open source, it seems to me that the intention is that other people should learn from it. Whether or not you share your new ideas should be (and is) a personal choice.