The near future of computer chess

[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

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!

No,I'm absolutely not calling them that,even more I think that Komodo is the most pure blooded chess program out there in the wild nowadays....

Of course anyone saying that all programmers are cheating and stealing is way over his head....

My point is that I partly agree with Ed that the collective mind work as a giudeline for progressing in chess programming is a fact and unstoppable one by that....
Dr.D

[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.

Bullshit!

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

Of course I used ideas from available sources, either source code or from this forum or others. Every program author does this.

This is how all human endeavors work and every computer chess program works. It's how it's supposed to be - you build on the works of others because it's just stupid to start from scratch. Surely you don't think that every new chess programmer has to re-invent alpha/beta pruning do you?

Stop being an unreasonable ass and try to understand the difference between natural progress by accumulating knowledge over time and outright code theft.

Go back about 60 years to see what has happened in computer chess. There was the discovery of alpha beta pruning, Hash tables, check extensions, futility pruning, null move pruning, reductions and many other techniques. This was ALL part of the natural progress that was made in computer chess and did not involve "plagiarism" - every program uses these techniques. In 20 years there will be more of them.

In Ed's view, if you use any of these techniques, you are a plagiarist you are not in a position to recognize blatant code theft.

You guys are in a desperate situation because you cannot make your justification for code theft seem plausible without making it seem like natural progress is really plagiarism anyway.

[Rebel]

Well, that is what I mean. Of course I would not enter the 100 engines under my own name. I have many nephews...

One phone call, a couple of technical questions will do.

Look... this kind of things are not the problem. Chess programmers are usually not the dumbest people on the planet, there is enough intelligence out there not to solve the clone problem once and for all. The problem is the acknowledgement there is a problem and the will to solve it.

[Don]

Well, that is what I mean. Of course I would not enter the 100 engines under my own name. I have many nephews...

One phone call, a couple of technical questions will do.

Look... this kind of things are not the problem. Chess programmers are usually not the dumbest people on the planet, there is enough intelligence out there not to solve the clone problem once and for all. The problem is the acknowledgement there is a problem and the will to solve it.

I think it HAS been solved. It will never be an exact science, but so far nobody has succeeded in getting away with what they have done and there will always be a few unethical people who try. It is possible that someone HAS succeeded and is so good at it that nobody has noticed - if so then if that makes them feel good about themselves then so be it.

So really I don't see a big problem here. The ICGA has the integrity to back up their own rules and seem to have a good handle on things.

[bob]

Well, that is what I mean. Of course I would not enter the 100 engines under my own name. I have many nephews...

One phone call, a couple of technical questions will do.

Look... this kind of things are not the problem. Chess programmers are usually not the dumbest people on the planet, there is enough intelligence out there not to solve the clone problem once and for all. The problem is the acknowledgement there is a problem and the will to solve it.

I don't understand your post. On one hand, you are saying "it can be solved if we have the will to solve it" yet in previous posts you are saying "this is the internet age and everyone should be allowed to copy/use what they want."

How can it be BOTH???

[bob]

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.

Note that your definition of "plagiarism" is not the definition used within the confines of discussing computer chess programs. One can't copyright/patent "software ideas", one can copyright "software source code." For a reference look at the US copyright code, specifically the section dealing with computer software as opposed to books, movies, music and such.

[bob]

There are lots of issues, and lots of alternatives, from "absolutely original source", to "original source + some allowed code written by others (this is today's state, allowing EGTB, magic move generators, rotated bitboard move generators, GUIs that implement book learning and play root EGTB moves), on up to the other end of the argument, "anything goes."

I believe that today's fairly liberal rules are about as far as one can go and live with them. If you allow more copying, the task of defining "the edge", that point beyond which one can't go, becomes highly subjective, and difficult to enforce.

I would not object one bit to going back to "100% original code." Magic move generation is not that hard to write once it is understood, ditto for rotated bitboards. Either could be written from scratch, pass the originality test, and a hundred programs could use either of those ideas with no problems. We can get rid of shared EGTB code. Write your own or do without. I generally do without anyway after testing showed me that there is no benefit to them. If you want book learning, write it yourself. Ditto for search, evaluation, and so forth.

I've argued for allowing the sharing of F(x) if, for each value of x, F(x) produces exactly one possible result. I'd rather see nothing shared, than going any further than we have gone today. Writing your own code is good for you. You understand it. You might discover improvements that were not previously known, something that would not happen if you just "copy and forget"...

In short, rather than pulling the rules farther toward "borrow what you want" I'd prefer to see them pulled farther back to "borrow nothing at all except ideas"...

That certainly worked through the 90's. And through today for me...

[kranium]

Of course I used ideas from available sources, either source code or from this forum or others. Every program author does this.
This is how all human endeavors work and every computer chess program works. It's how it's supposed to be - you build on the works of others because it's just stupid to start from scratch. Surely you don't think that every new chess programmer has to re-invent alpha/beta pruning do you?
Stop being an unreasonable ass and try to understand the difference between natural progress by accumulating knowledge over time and outright code theft.

Don-

if i understand this properly...
others plagiarize (i.e. Vas., Houdart, Ippolit, myself, etc., via 'outright code theft'), but what you do, or simply the manner in which you do it, is acceptable...?

my question is:
is this because you re-write the ideas sufficiently where they can no longer possibly be considered plagiarized, or it there another technique/secret (of which only you are aware perhaps)?

as Ed so aptly pointed out...all formal definitions of plagiarism refer to taking of ideas as well:
wikipedia:
"Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work"

PS-
I'm not sure why you must resort to name calling, (i.e. Ed 'an ass'), this is not good in any way shape or form,
he's communicating valid ideas in open discussion, in a respectable manner, must you insult him...?

finally: is Komodo the only 'clean' top engine, in your opinion?

Norm

[LucenaTheLucid]

This whole conversation reminds me of a blurb from Jurassic Park where Malcolm (Don) tries to explain to everyone why bringing Dinosaurs back is a bad idea:

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Gee, the lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me.
Donald Gennaro: Well thank you, Dr. Malcolm, but I think things are a little bit different then you and I had feared...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, I know. They're a lot worse.
Donald Gennaro: Now, wait a second, we haven't even seen the park...
John Hammond: No, Donald, let him talk. There's no reason... I want to hear every viewpoint, I really do.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Don't you see the danger, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun.
Donald Gennaro: It's hardly appropriate to start hurling generalizations...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done, and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you, you've patented it, and packaged it, you've slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now
[pounds table with fists]
Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it.
[pounds table again]
Dr. Ian Malcolm: You want to sell it, well...
John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
John Hammond: Condors! Condors are on the verge of extinction...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No...
John Hammond: If I was to create a flock of condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No. Hold on. This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or, or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction.
John Hammond: I simply don't understand this Luddite attitude, especially from a scientist! I mean, how can we stand in the light of discovery, and not act?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world.
Dr. Ellie Sattler: Well the question is, how can you know anything about an extinct ecosystem? And therefore, how could you ever assume that you can control it? I mean, you have plants in this building that are poisonous. You picked them because they look good. But these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they're in, and they'll defend themselves, violently if necessary.
John Hammond: Dr. Grant. If there's one person here who could appreciate what I'm trying to do...
Dr. Alan Grant: Well, the world has changed so radically, and we're all running to catch up. I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but look: Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by sixty-five million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?
John Hammond: I don't believe it. I don't believe it! You were meant to come down here and defend me against these characters, and the only one I've got on my side is the blood-sucking lawyer!
Donald Gennaro: Thank you.

[kranium]

another thought:
it would be very nice to see you (and Larry) stop trying to dictate the definition of what is acceptable and what is not...

seems overly ambitious, IMO
i.e. Komodo can make it to #1 and you can sell a lot of copies, without the endless propaganda that it's the only 'pure' engine available.