My two cents on Rybka's disqualification

[bob]

I think it is very likely that Vas has done something wrong. My big problem is with the process.

1. Vas was singled out. Where is the reverse engineering of Shredder, Hiarcs, Junior, etc.? Why has Vas been singled out for this scrutiny and the other commercial vendors have not?

Because a formal complaint was filed with the ICGA. This came from the strelka release that showed how close rybka and fruit were... Others will go under the microscope over time. Loop is already being discussed.

2. The process to find similarity is someone's recent invention. Has it been tested on other similar systems (meaning a test of similarity between TSCP and Brutus is absurd, a test between Junior and Shredder and other high end programs that are binary only against high-end open source programs makes sense)

Do you mean Mark's evaluation comparison? If you read his stuff completely, he _did_ compare a large matrix of programs to see who was similar to who. And Rybka/Fruit was the only one that reached a level of similarity that one had to believe in a rare 7.5SD event to be able to conclude the two programs were independently developed with so much similarity.

So someone with a competing program invented a comparison procedure that found Vas guilty. Rybka has a 4 MB binary and yet this incredible similarity is found with a tiny binary?
Where extremely strong programs compared against each other?
The idea of taking the prosecutor, having him invent the test, and then finding the opponent guilty does not sound very fair to me.

Errors:

(1) mark is not a competitor.

What's all this then:
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Mark+Lefler

Wrong Mark. Mark Watkins was the one that provided the most damaging evidence to the rybka case. He is the one that did much of the disassembly and comparison. And he is not a competitor. I do not know how long it has been since Now competed, you'd have to ask Mark Lefler about that. I've not competed in recent WCCC events either, although I compete in online events all the time...

My mistake.
BB+, seems to be someone who aims for fairness.
Because of his involvement in this issue over a long time, I still wonder if his judgement could have been colored by his opinions.

(2) what does the size of the binary have to do with it? add "static int x[1000000] = {0, 0, ...}; and you get a 4mb + binary instantly because of the compile-time static initialization. Does that mean anything? Rybka was rotated bitboards, extracted from Crafty. There are _large_ arrays used there. Fruit did not have those large arrays. So size doesn't mean a thing.

My point was that a teeny tiny portion of the source code base may match as a percentage. Does this matter? I don't have any idea but it might. Do you know the law? I'm not a lawyer.
Further, I guess that the 4 MB is not mostly populated with zero. No, wait a minute, I know because I have disassembled Rybka myself.

It is certainly populated with large arrays that are statically initialized. Or it might include Eugene's EGTB code which is _huge_ thanks to the templates. Nobody has contested egtb.cpp usage since many use it, so that was not a part of the investigation at all. Size doesn't matter. Percentages do not matter. If someone copies 200 lines of Crafty's eval, and puts it into a million-line evaluation, the evaluation is still illegal according to ICGA rules. Percentages don't count here, there is no "magic threshold".

There is such a thing as 'Fair use'
Vas has given credit to both crafty and fruit in his documentation.
Now, I have no idea if fair use applies. Do you?

(3) Mark didn't find Vas guilty. David and the ICGA board did. Mark just presented evidence, along with the rest of us.

Mark, a competitor of Vas, decided on a tool to find Vas guilty. The other competitors thought it was a neat idea. Does it occur to you that there is some slight possibility that your judgement could be clouded by the competitive nature of these contests?

First, the statistical analysis you are talking about (similarity between rybka 2.3.2 and fruit 2.1) was written by Mark _Watkins_. Who is most certainly a different person from Mark _Lefler_.

Second, you did notice that there was a ton of _other_ types of evidence produced, in _addition_ to the statistical analysis of the eval similarities? People go to prison from a pile of circumstantial evidence, at times. Each individual piece of evidence could be criticized, but the entire body of the evidence paints a clear (and ugly) picture...

I think that the mathematicians employed in the study should not have been persons involved in the disassembly, etc. since opinions were possibly already formed about guilt and/or innocense. Isn't it just slightly possible that his opinions might slightly lean him to form a mathematical process that would confirm what he has been saying for months?
I do not know that his opinions were colored by his feelings.

I have heard a rumor that it is so competitive that people are willing to destroy the reputation of another man for life and over what? Moveing little wooden horsies around on cardboard squares.

I have not heard that rumor. I have heard the rumor that some are so arrogant, and have such a poor sense of moral/ethical values, that they are willing to take any short-cut possible to produce a program that is the best in the world, so that they are recognized. Ever heard of such nonsense? oops, it happened several times, in fact, I don't think I need to name names.

Yes, Vas may have enganged in wrongdoing.
That does not mean that it is OK to use wrong methods to convict him of it.

(4) Vas could have contested that comparison had he wanted to. He could have contested everything. But I am certain that he knew the truth and felt that the quicker this was over, the quicker it would be forgotten. So he elected to remain silent since anything he said could be used against him.

To go into a setting where there are no rules in writing and where the rules are invented by the opposition seems questionable to me. Perhaps it seemed questionable to Vas. Maybe he really was guilty and was afraid of the result. That too, is a possibility.

It is a near-certainty. I was investigated in 1986 at the request of Hans Berliner. I made all my source available. I asked Cray to provide computer time so that David, Tony, Ken T. and group could test the positions that Berliner thought that CB would not play the move actually played in the game. I provided large raw log files created game by game (just like Crafty's logs of today). The only questions that were left were that it appeared that once or twice we did not enter HiTech's move as soon as it was made. In trying to reconstruct events, we figured out via discussion that at least one of those cases was where we had both made a simultaneous bathroom break after playing for about 6 hours non-stop. We were open. We answered every question. We provided anything the ICCA (at the time ICCA, not ICGA) asked for. And we were found to be completely innocent of any wrong-doing.

Vas _could_ have done that. I found the process to be painless, we all followed the rules about providing source and logs, and such. And the correct verdict was rendered.

Vas did _not_ cooperate. Very similarly to a case a few years ago where a program was summarily ejected from the WCCC because the author failed to provide the source after a protest was filed. Sound similar???

I recall the Loop case. I suppose that there are some similarities. I have also exposed several engines that I suspected of cheating. So, in some sense, I have engaged in a process with some similarities to the current process that I object to. I am not sure that I did the right thing, but I somehow see things a bit differently, due to the weight of the outcomes.

If the experiment is run without any controls, then what have we really shown?
To my way of thinking, it would also be a good idea to perform the following exercise:
A. Take a strong open source program and copy it.
B. Make a bunch of changes and form a binary.
C. Study the program and use the algorithms in a new program.
D. Compare the results of the tool for case B and C
I doubt if anybody wants to put the work in to do this, but it seems a good way to model the problem and test the results of analysis.
3. The prosecution was formed by asking "Hey, anybody who wants to throw stones at Vas, gather over here in the barn."
Imagine if a jury were formed in that manner.

Juries are pretty much formed in that manner. Random sample of the population. The ICGA "jury" was not out to crucify Vas, they were out to answer a complaint. The prosecutor does pretty well go around looking for people that can impeach the defendant's credibility, provide evidence to support a guilty verdict, etc. Again, we were _not_ the "finders of fact" (the jury). We were "the presenters of evidence".

A jury of peers is not formed by putting an ad in the newspaper "Who would like to prosecute Joe?"
They are chosen at random. Many of the jurors clearly had an axe to grind. You, for instance, have been saying that Vas is guilty in this forum and in OpenChess. In a jury selection, you would have been dismissed instantly. I do not know about the others, but I have heard Vas being convicted in posts by chess programmers for months.

4. Look into your own source code at the following:
A. PVS search
B. Null move reductions
C. LMR reductions
Now, do these look a whole lot like those found in some other programs? If so, why are you not prosecuting yourself? If it is OK, then where is the line to draw in the sand that says "This amount of similarity is OK, but this amount is cheating"?

You keep harping on ideas, which is not what we are talking about. Look at how LMR is implemented in Crafty. In Fruit. In stockfish. In Robo*. Compare the _implementations_. They are wildly different. yet in Rybka, we have _identical_ blocks of code. Large identical blocks. I don't get why you keep harping on ideas, when everyone knows we are comparing source code explicitly.

Because you are still stuck on ideas. Which is different from _identical source code_. Extremely _different_. The idea argument is bogus, because it has not been mentioned once in the report we wrote, nor in the ICGAs verdict. This was about copying source code. nothing more. Nothing less.

We are not talking about "similarity". We are talking about copied source code.

If there were changes to the code, then it was only similar. How does one judge between code that was copied and subsequently changed verses code that was written from memory after studying a subject?

All that having been said, I think it likely that Vas was guilty of some wrongdoing.

It's just that the process appears to be the worst sort of kangaroo court I can possibly imagine.

Illustration:
President Obama has found Chrysler guilty of patent infringement.
His requested advisers and got some from Ford, Mitsubishi, Peugeot, Fiat, Mercedes Benz, Honda, and Kia motors.

The chief engineers at Fiat devised a test to show that Chrysler has broken the law and all of the manufacturers voted unanimously that Chrysler was guilty. After some deliberation, Obama had no choice but to find Chrysler guilty.

Wrong. Chrysler would defend itself. Vas did not. Big difference.

Would Chrysler defend itself in this setting, or would it choose an actual court of law with rules set down in writing rather than invented by the opposing factions?

We do not know that Vas will not have a response.

This will never see a court of Law. It is a purely civil matter that could be handled in civil court. But only after the ICGA ruled. It was utterly stupid if his plan was to wait until the ICGA ruled, and then contest the result in civil court. First, he will lose again, and it will not be cheap either. Second, he has to deal with the "cheater label" for the year (or years) it takes the appeal to reach the civil courtroom. That makes no sense. You have to start early if you want to defend yourself.

I thought that copyright violation was a criminal offense, my mistake then.

? Looks like there is such a thing as criminal infringement.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Certainly there is. But that was not a subject of our investigation. FSF may choose to follow up since Fruit code was used. I'm not going to waste the time and effort for a copyright suit for the crafty code that was copied, I don't see the point.

[bob]

NASCAR has a set of rules. After the race, the winner's car is impounded and gone over with a microscope. If a violation is found, it is disqualified. In track and field events, if a drug test is failed, titles are vacated, participants can be banned for a period of time including life. This is common in any sort of organization that handles contests. Pete Rose comes to mind in baseball. A manager that bets on baseball games. Baseball has a rule that managers and players can not bet because they have the ability to alter the result of a game by how they play or how they manage, which is a big conflict of interest. Pete Rose violated that rule. Where is he today? outside looking in, yet he was one of the best ball players of all time. And won't be allowed in the hall of fame because he violated a simple rule. And he didn't even bet on his own team or games his team played in. But the rule was a rule.

Every decision made on the planet does not go through the courts. Nothing would get done if that were required.

Yes, those are good points and especially in the case of Pete Rose, the outcome clearly has the force of law because his reputation is utterly ruined and his livelihood is destroyed.

I still don't like the process chosen by the ICGA. I do not know enough about baseball bylaws and processes to know if I do not like the handling of the Pete Rose process.

The problem is, when you apply to play in an ICGA event, you are required to sign an entry form that includes specific requirements a program must meet, and requirements an author must meet should a protest be filed.

Do you know where I can find a copy of this agreement?
I would like to read it, in particular for each of the years that Vas competed in the competition.

I am particularly interested in the exact wording of the agreement and the exact wording of the penalties.

It is quite possible that the ICGA acted properly if Vas has violated his agreements and if the ICGA acted as they spelled out in their contracts.

I believe the entry forms are kept on the ICGA web site. I do not know if all versions are present, or just the one for the most recent WCCC event. But they have all been pretty clear about the requirement for source code should a protest be filed.

Here is rule 2 which is where the current issue lies:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

I have never seen a formal statement about potential penalties for failing to follow rules. In general, you get kicked out of any tournament where that happens. This is a first, so far as I know, for a case that spanned several years.

[Dann Corbit]

{Dann Corbit}
There is such a thing as 'Fair use'
Vas has given credit to both crafty and fruit in his documentation.
Now, I have no idea if fair use applies. Do you?

{Robert Hyatt}
Absolutely not. The ICGA rules are explicit. The program must be original, not containing parts of other programs unless those authors are listed on the entry form (and then those authors could not enter their own program, much like the Fruit/Toga issue where only one is allowed in an ICGA event).

You don't see any gray area here?
YBW is not original.
Alpha-beta is not original.
LMR is not original.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Why is it that 100% of all programs are not disqualified under this guideline?

[Dann Corbit]

NASCAR has a set of rules. After the race, the winner's car is impounded and gone over with a microscope. If a violation is found, it is disqualified. In track and field events, if a drug test is failed, titles are vacated, participants can be banned for a period of time including life. This is common in any sort of organization that handles contests. Pete Rose comes to mind in baseball. A manager that bets on baseball games. Baseball has a rule that managers and players can not bet because they have the ability to alter the result of a game by how they play or how they manage, which is a big conflict of interest. Pete Rose violated that rule. Where is he today? outside looking in, yet he was one of the best ball players of all time. And won't be allowed in the hall of fame because he violated a simple rule. And he didn't even bet on his own team or games his team played in. But the rule was a rule.

Every decision made on the planet does not go through the courts. Nothing would get done if that were required.

Yes, those are good points and especially in the case of Pete Rose, the outcome clearly has the force of law because his reputation is utterly ruined and his livelihood is destroyed.

I still don't like the process chosen by the ICGA. I do not know enough about baseball bylaws and processes to know if I do not like the handling of the Pete Rose process.

The problem is, when you apply to play in an ICGA event, you are required to sign an entry form that includes specific requirements a program must meet, and requirements an author must meet should a protest be filed.

Do you know where I can find a copy of this agreement?
I would like to read it, in particular for each of the years that Vas competed in the competition.

I am particularly interested in the exact wording of the agreement and the exact wording of the penalties.

It is quite possible that the ICGA acted properly if Vas has violated his agreements and if the ICGA acted as they spelled out in their contracts.

I believe the entry forms are kept on the ICGA web site. I do not know if all versions are present, or just the one for the most recent WCCC event. But they have all been pretty clear about the requirement for source code should a protest be filed.

Here is rule 2 which is where the current issue lies:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

I have never seen a formal statement about potential penalties for failing to follow rules. In general, you get kicked out of any tournament where that happens. This is a first, so far as I know, for a case that spanned several years.

Given rule 2, if Vas signed that agreement and then refused to provide code then any penalties spelled out in the documentation are deserved.

If there are no mention of any penalties, I think that is a signficant oversight that ought to be corrected.

[bob]

NASCAR has a set of rules. After the race, the winner's car is impounded and gone over with a microscope. If a violation is found, it is disqualified. In track and field events, if a drug test is failed, titles are vacated, participants can be banned for a period of time including life. This is common in any sort of organization that handles contests. Pete Rose comes to mind in baseball. A manager that bets on baseball games. Baseball has a rule that managers and players can not bet because they have the ability to alter the result of a game by how they play or how they manage, which is a big conflict of interest. Pete Rose violated that rule. Where is he today? outside looking in, yet he was one of the best ball players of all time. And won't be allowed in the hall of fame because he violated a simple rule. And he didn't even bet on his own team or games his team played in. But the rule was a rule.

Every decision made on the planet does not go through the courts. Nothing would get done if that were required.

Yes, those are good points and especially in the case of Pete Rose, the outcome clearly has the force of law because his reputation is utterly ruined and his livelihood is destroyed.

I still don't like the process chosen by the ICGA. I do not know enough about baseball bylaws and processes to know if I do not like the handling of the Pete Rose process.

The problem is, when you apply to play in an ICGA event, you are required to sign an entry form that includes specific requirements a program must meet, and requirements an author must meet should a protest be filed.

Do you know where I can find a copy of this agreement?
I would like to read it, in particular for each of the years that Vas competed in the competition.

I am particularly interested in the exact wording of the agreement and the exact wording of the penalties.

It is quite possible that the ICGA acted properly if Vas has violated his agreements and if the ICGA acted as they spelled out in their contracts.

I believe the entry forms are kept on the ICGA web site. I do not know if all versions are present, or just the one for the most recent WCCC event. But they have all been pretty clear about the requirement for source code should a protest be filed.

Here is rule 2 which is where the current issue lies:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

I have never seen a formal statement about potential penalties for failing to follow rules. In general, you get kicked out of any tournament where that happens. This is a first, so far as I know, for a case that spanned several years.

Given rule 2, if Vas signed that agreement and then refused to provide code then any penalties spelled out in the documentation are deserved.

If there are no mention of any penalties, I think that is a signficant oversight that ought to be corrected.

Probably so, although speaking as a charter member of the ICCA/ICGA, we never considered that refusal would happen.

[bob]

{Dann Corbit}
There is such a thing as 'Fair use'
Vas has given credit to both crafty and fruit in his documentation.
Now, I have no idea if fair use applies. Do you?

{Robert Hyatt}
Absolutely not. The ICGA rules are explicit. The program must be original, not containing parts of other programs unless those authors are listed on the entry form (and then those authors could not enter their own program, much like the Fruit/Toga issue where only one is allowed in an ICGA event).

You don't see any gray area here?
YBW is not original.
Alpha-beta is not original.
LMR is not original.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Why is it that 100% of all programs are not disqualified under this guideline?

Because the guideline is about _code_ and not _ideas_. I've only explained this a hundred times now. Containing "parts of other programs". That is a very clear statement, since a program is a set of source statements, and a part of that program is a subset of those lines of code. This is about code copying, not about idea copying... <again>

[Dann Corbit]

NASCAR has a set of rules. After the race, the winner's car is impounded and gone over with a microscope. If a violation is found, it is disqualified. In track and field events, if a drug test is failed, titles are vacated, participants can be banned for a period of time including life. This is common in any sort of organization that handles contests. Pete Rose comes to mind in baseball. A manager that bets on baseball games. Baseball has a rule that managers and players can not bet because they have the ability to alter the result of a game by how they play or how they manage, which is a big conflict of interest. Pete Rose violated that rule. Where is he today? outside looking in, yet he was one of the best ball players of all time. And won't be allowed in the hall of fame because he violated a simple rule. And he didn't even bet on his own team or games his team played in. But the rule was a rule.

Every decision made on the planet does not go through the courts. Nothing would get done if that were required.

Yes, those are good points and especially in the case of Pete Rose, the outcome clearly has the force of law because his reputation is utterly ruined and his livelihood is destroyed.

I still don't like the process chosen by the ICGA. I do not know enough about baseball bylaws and processes to know if I do not like the handling of the Pete Rose process.

The problem is, when you apply to play in an ICGA event, you are required to sign an entry form that includes specific requirements a program must meet, and requirements an author must meet should a protest be filed.

Do you know where I can find a copy of this agreement?
I would like to read it, in particular for each of the years that Vas competed in the competition.

I am particularly interested in the exact wording of the agreement and the exact wording of the penalties.

It is quite possible that the ICGA acted properly if Vas has violated his agreements and if the ICGA acted as they spelled out in their contracts.

I believe the entry forms are kept on the ICGA web site. I do not know if all versions are present, or just the one for the most recent WCCC event. But they have all been pretty clear about the requirement for source code should a protest be filed.

Here is rule 2 which is where the current issue lies:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

I have never seen a formal statement about potential penalties for failing to follow rules. In general, you get kicked out of any tournament where that happens. This is a first, so far as I know, for a case that spanned several years.

Upon examination of the rules, including this one:
"2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director."

It was not at all clear to me that the rule includes inspection long after the tournament is completed (indeed, such a rule makes little sense in that context).

I think that the rule should be amended to make this clear.

On the other hand, it also does not say that the tournament director cannot demand the source code years later. So, in some sense Vas seems to have "sworn to what was bad for himself" by agreeing to a highly ambiguous document.

In my opinion he should have furnished the source code when demanded.

In going over the documents I found, I was unable to find any specific penalties, for example at this location:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/e ... .php?id=12

[Dann Corbit]

{Dann Corbit}
There is such a thing as 'Fair use'
Vas has given credit to both crafty and fruit in his documentation.
Now, I have no idea if fair use applies. Do you?

{Robert Hyatt}
Absolutely not. The ICGA rules are explicit. The program must be original, not containing parts of other programs unless those authors are listed on the entry form (and then those authors could not enter their own program, much like the Fruit/Toga issue where only one is allowed in an ICGA event).

You don't see any gray area here?
YBW is not original.
Alpha-beta is not original.
LMR is not original.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Why is it that 100% of all programs are not disqualified under this guideline?

Because the guideline is about _code_ and not _ideas_. I've only explained this a hundred times now. Containing "parts of other programs". That is a very clear statement, since a program is a set of source statements, and a part of that program is a subset of those lines of code. This is about code copying, not about idea copying... <again>

How would you tell if someone copied and pasted LMR and then edited it, verses learning it and writing their own version?

Isn't it even possible to learn the mistakes in an algorithm and publish a faulty version?

I am just saying that I think there are gray colors here and not only black and white.

I also want the competitions to be as fair and open as possible and I cannot say that I have any special insight as to how to achieve this. My interest in this controversy is that I want the process to be very fair for all of the parties involved. I think that having a fair process in place is more important than others might and that is my perogative.

[bob]

NASCAR has a set of rules. After the race, the winner's car is impounded and gone over with a microscope. If a violation is found, it is disqualified. In track and field events, if a drug test is failed, titles are vacated, participants can be banned for a period of time including life. This is common in any sort of organization that handles contests. Pete Rose comes to mind in baseball. A manager that bets on baseball games. Baseball has a rule that managers and players can not bet because they have the ability to alter the result of a game by how they play or how they manage, which is a big conflict of interest. Pete Rose violated that rule. Where is he today? outside looking in, yet he was one of the best ball players of all time. And won't be allowed in the hall of fame because he violated a simple rule. And he didn't even bet on his own team or games his team played in. But the rule was a rule.

Every decision made on the planet does not go through the courts. Nothing would get done if that were required.

Yes, those are good points and especially in the case of Pete Rose, the outcome clearly has the force of law because his reputation is utterly ruined and his livelihood is destroyed.

I still don't like the process chosen by the ICGA. I do not know enough about baseball bylaws and processes to know if I do not like the handling of the Pete Rose process.

The problem is, when you apply to play in an ICGA event, you are required to sign an entry form that includes specific requirements a program must meet, and requirements an author must meet should a protest be filed.

Do you know where I can find a copy of this agreement?
I would like to read it, in particular for each of the years that Vas competed in the competition.

I am particularly interested in the exact wording of the agreement and the exact wording of the penalties.

It is quite possible that the ICGA acted properly if Vas has violated his agreements and if the ICGA acted as they spelled out in their contracts.

I believe the entry forms are kept on the ICGA web site. I do not know if all versions are present, or just the one for the most recent WCCC event. But they have all been pretty clear about the requirement for source code should a protest be filed.

Here is rule 2 which is where the current issue lies:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

I have never seen a formal statement about potential penalties for failing to follow rules. In general, you get kicked out of any tournament where that happens. This is a first, so far as I know, for a case that spanned several years.

Upon examination of the rules, including this one:
"2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director."

It was not at all clear to me that the rule includes inspection long after the tournament is completed (indeed, such a rule makes little sense in that context).

I think that the rule should be amended to make this clear.

On the other hand, it also does not say that the tournament director cannot demand the source code years later. So, in some sense Vas seems to have "sworn to what was bad for himself" by agreeing to a highly ambiguous document.

In my opinion he should have furnished the source code when demanded.

In going over the documents I found, I was unable to find any specific penalties, for example at this location:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/e ... .php?id=12

I think that was one of the things we chose to leave until the circumstance arose, rather than have long debates, and try to cover every conceivable case. It is easier to let it happen, then you have context for making the decision...

[Dann Corbit]

NASCAR has a set of rules. After the race, the winner's car is impounded and gone over with a microscope. If a violation is found, it is disqualified. In track and field events, if a drug test is failed, titles are vacated, participants can be banned for a period of time including life. This is common in any sort of organization that handles contests. Pete Rose comes to mind in baseball. A manager that bets on baseball games. Baseball has a rule that managers and players can not bet because they have the ability to alter the result of a game by how they play or how they manage, which is a big conflict of interest. Pete Rose violated that rule. Where is he today? outside looking in, yet he was one of the best ball players of all time. And won't be allowed in the hall of fame because he violated a simple rule. And he didn't even bet on his own team or games his team played in. But the rule was a rule.

Every decision made on the planet does not go through the courts. Nothing would get done if that were required.

Yes, those are good points and especially in the case of Pete Rose, the outcome clearly has the force of law because his reputation is utterly ruined and his livelihood is destroyed.

I still don't like the process chosen by the ICGA. I do not know enough about baseball bylaws and processes to know if I do not like the handling of the Pete Rose process.

The problem is, when you apply to play in an ICGA event, you are required to sign an entry form that includes specific requirements a program must meet, and requirements an author must meet should a protest be filed.

Do you know where I can find a copy of this agreement?
I would like to read it, in particular for each of the years that Vas competed in the competition.

I am particularly interested in the exact wording of the agreement and the exact wording of the penalties.

It is quite possible that the ICGA acted properly if Vas has violated his agreements and if the ICGA acted as they spelled out in their contracts.

I believe the entry forms are kept on the ICGA web site. I do not know if all versions are present, or just the one for the most recent WCCC event. But they have all been pretty clear about the requirement for source code should a protest be filed.

Here is rule 2 which is where the current issue lies:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

I have never seen a formal statement about potential penalties for failing to follow rules. In general, you get kicked out of any tournament where that happens. This is a first, so far as I know, for a case that spanned several years.

Upon examination of the rules, including this one:
"2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director."

It was not at all clear to me that the rule includes inspection long after the tournament is completed (indeed, such a rule makes little sense in that context).

I think that the rule should be amended to make this clear.

On the other hand, it also does not say that the tournament director cannot demand the source code years later. So, in some sense Vas seems to have "sworn to what was bad for himself" by agreeing to a highly ambiguous document.

In my opinion he should have furnished the source code when demanded.

In going over the documents I found, I was unable to find any specific penalties, for example at this location:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/e ... .php?id=12

I think that was one of the things we chose to leave until the circumstance arose, rather than have long debates, and try to cover every conceivable case. It is easier to let it happen, then you have context for making the decision...

Doesn't that strike you are rather arbitary?