CCT: Update to rules for future events

[Look]

GPL has nothing to do with this. GPL deals with how you distribute the program and the source code. CC rules do not discourage distributing the source of your program. What do you mean?

The rules are clear when you combine it with the other rule that says that there should be no more than one entry per author.


SF has three authors (AFAIK) and it is not derived from any other engine from any other author.

Miguel

In fact GPL has something to do with this. Contributors have helped the project on the basis of GPL. The fact that Tord is now involved in Stockfish development does not change the GPL nature of SF. As I said if CC rules permit only GPL projects which original author is actively involved in, thats their choice but this is a clear limitation they are imposing on those projects. In this regards I may better not to release any more Crab codes based on SF, it is probably good for whole CC community that closed source programs rule, just as they have been before, no big deal anyway for me.

Regards and good luck guys.

[Don]

I second Bob's suggestion, but I would not call it draconian if N is reasonable. If is unfortunate, but the connection is part of the "chess entity" that is participating.

In fact, it follows the concept that the operator should have the minimum interference in the game. If the operator "decides" not to claim the win, it is in fact a huge interference, not only in that particular game, but in the whole tournament. It could easily benefit or harm a third party.

Miguel

I have changed the rule to:

Disconnection/Forfeit Rules

1. In the event of a disconnection, the party will be given 10 minutes to return to complete the game; and no more than 2 disconnections per game will be allowed. On the third time, the game will be a forfeit. This is absolute. Under no circumstances will the game continue.

Peter

[Don]

I second Bob's suggestion, but I would not call it draconian if N is reasonable. If is unfortunate, but the connection is part of the "chess entity" that is participating.

In fact, it follows the concept that the operator should have the minimum interference in the game. If the operator "decides" not to claim the win, it is in fact a huge interference, not only in that particular game, but in the whole tournament. It could easily benefit or harm a third party.

Miguel

I have changed the rule to:

Disconnection/Forfeit Rules

1. In the event of a disconnection, the party will be given 10 minutes to return to complete the game; and no more than 2 disconnections per game will be allowed. On the third time, the game will be a forfeit. This is absolute. Under no circumstances will the game continue.

Peter

I think that is a good rule. It avoids the situation where 2 different programs take 15 minutes but one is forfeited and the other isn't and this makes the results rather arbitrary and unfair.

I would suggest that if the next round has already begun it's too late to "notice" that this happened.

Is there a way to quickly determine and check each program before you schedule another round? Can't you grep the logs looking for the key word that represents a disconnection? Maybe the log says something like this: "Program Komodo disconnected" and you can just grep for the string "disconnect"?

I would also suggest that the rule not be based on how many disconnections but the total length of them. It is common when suffering Internet glitches to get several short disconnects then it's ok - not 1 long one. If you disconnect for 3 times but they are only for a few seconds, is it that really big a deal?

I don't know what the logs look like, but I would be willing to write a simple script that would scan them and add up the total length of all the disconnects for each program and also how many disconnects and any other relevant statistics. That would make it trivial for you to handle it. I would of course need an example of the logs where program disconnected.

[mcostalba]

GPL has nothing to do with this. GPL deals with how you distribute the program and the source code. CC rules do not discourage distributing the source of your program. What do you mean?

The rules are clear when you combine it with the other rule that says that there should be no more than one entry per author.


SF has three authors (AFAIK) and it is not derived from any other engine from any other author.

Miguel

In fact GPL has something to do with this. Contributors have helped the project on the basis of GPL. The fact that Tord is now involved in Stockfish development does not change the GPL nature of SF. As I said if CC rules permit only GPL projects which original author is actively involved in, thats their choice but this is a clear limitation they are imposing on those projects. In this regards I may better not to release any more Crab codes based on SF, it is probably good for whole CC community that closed source programs rule, just as they have been before, no big deal anyway for me.

Regards and good luck guys.

I would think it would be more constructive from your side to lay down a specific case and do let the discussion start. If I have correctly guessed what you are aiming to, it could be an interesting case to open new ground and collect people opinions and sentiments in this point in time, June 2010.


Taking back the ball and replying: "I go home, I don't want to play anymore!" is far less constructive IMHO.



Hint: Not me nor Joona (very probably) have the will to join this tournament, as all the others before BTW. I don't know about Tord, he has been silently in the last weeks, but I guess he will not partecipate too.

[michiguel]

GPL has nothing to do with this. GPL deals with how you distribute the program and the source code. CC rules do not discourage distributing the source of your program. What do you mean?

The rules are clear when you combine it with the other rule that says that there should be no more than one entry per author.


SF has three authors (AFAIK) and it is not derived from any other engine from any other author.

Miguel

In fact GPL has something to do with this. Contributors have helped the project on the basis of GPL. The fact that Tord is now involved in Stockfish development does not change the GPL nature of SF. As I said if CC rules permit only GPL projects which original author is actively involved in, thats their choice but this is a clear limitation they are imposing on those projects. In this regards I may better not to release any more Crab codes based on SF, it is probably good for whole CC community that closed source programs rule, just as they have been before, no big deal anyway for me.

Regards and good luck guys.

It is not very clear what point you are trying to make and what rule you disagree with.

The option of releasing Crab code is not yours (if you release binaries) and has nothing to do with the CC rules.

Miguel

[Harvey Williamson]

GPL has nothing to do with this. GPL deals with how you distribute the program and the source code. CC rules do not discourage distributing the source of your program. What do you mean?

The rules are clear when you combine it with the other rule that says that there should be no more than one entry per author.


SF has three authors (AFAIK) and it is not derived from any other engine from any other author.

Miguel

In fact GPL has something to do with this. Contributors have helped the project on the basis of GPL. The fact that Tord is now involved in Stockfish development does not change the GPL nature of SF. As I said if CC rules permit only GPL projects which original author is actively involved in, thats their choice but this is a clear limitation they are imposing on those projects. In this regards I may better not to release any more Crab codes based on SF, it is probably good for whole CC community that closed source programs rule, just as they have been before, no big deal anyway for me.

Regards and good luck guys.

If you have complied with the StockFish licence and want to enter Crab in this tournament and Stockfish is not playing then this may be allowed. I think if Tord and the Stockfish team give their permission Peter might allow it.

[Look]

I would think it would be more constructive from your side to lay down a specific case and do let the discussion start. If I have correctly guessed what you are aiming to, it could be an interesting case to open new ground and collect people opinions and sentiments in this point in time, June 2010.

Well my case is this which I repeat:

According to rule 1 in Clone/Derivatives Rules, Stockfish should not be allowed to participate in this tournament, because it contains GPL code from people who are not part of the team. Thus SF is not an original work and it can not participate.

Hint: Not me nor Joona (very probably) have the will to join this tournament, as all the others before BTW. I dont know about Tord, he has been silently in the last weeks, but I guess he will not participate too.

Please do not make it personal. I do not plan to participate in this CCT or other similar events. If I want your permission, or others I would ask for it. Basically I want to encourage interested people to use SF as basis of other works. In this regards, it would be nice to make things clear now, better than later IMO.

[bob]

Clone/Derivatives Rules

1. Each participant (engine) must an original work. No entry can contain code from another program, or be a "clone" of another program. This includes any "personality" settings of an originating program. This includes opening books.

Hi,

Does it include StockFish too?

I believe that Tord is still a contributing author of Stockfish, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed to enter.

If someone wanted to challenge the code; well it is available for download, so it wouldn't be that hard...

But as I get the rule, you are particularly referring to engines, not original author, in this regards SF is based on Glaurang and it is not an original work itself.

Why would that be? Tord is one of the authors and was the sole author of Glaurung. I don't follow this reasoning. Crafty followed Cray Blitz. Is it not unique and legal? The "name" is irrelevant. The code base is the issue.

But I am saying something else. AFAIK GPL rights in fact belongs to Free Software Foundation not original author specifically. Now if tournament directors want to have specific rules about their event, that's their decision. To make myself clear, I specifically have a suggestion for GPL code, IMO it is better to be able to use one derivative of each GPL program for each tournament, and decision would be made by original authors of the GPL engine which derivative that would be. Otherwise, I assume it (though maybe unintentionally) would be encouraging closed code and possibility of breaking GPL license. Specially because you consider only _current_ version of an engine on the basis of clone suspicion. Let me ask a more specific question on this, if someone gets source of GPL code , then the person make drastic changes to code so that there could not be a well founded claim that it is based on GPL code, this could be allowed in if I understand you correctly. Note that I am not accusing anyone of doing this.

But overall conclusion for me is, CC guys are (knowingly or not) discouraging free and open source code while allowing "alternative" methods. Maybe I'd better spend my time on other areas instead of CC.

That's not quite right with respect to FSF/GPL. Anyone can release their source under GPL, and then later decide to not release any new programming, because they still own the copyright.

The rule is intended to only allow _one_ family member into the event. For examples from the past, either Fruit or Toga, but not both. Now, either Glaurung or Stockfish, but not both. Some professionals even change the name of their program for the WCCC to try to skirt the professional/amateur fiasco, but only one entry from a particular code base is allowed. Years ago I agreed to let a group enter a version of Crafty in a WMCCC event because I was not planning on playing.

The idea is one "copy" of any particular code, otherwise we could end up with all of the ip* family members, or in the past, multiple versions of GNU or Crafty, which is not desirable.

The Glaurung/Stockfish issue is a particularly good example of "not a problem" because Tord is the author of Glaurung, and is a member of the team working on stockfish. So there we even have the same author involved.

When I started the "Crafty" project in 1994, I could have continued the name "Cray Blitz". Crafty was originally designed for the Cray and its 64 bit words, in fact. But it was a radical departure from CB and I changed the name to reflect this. And nobody would have considered (a) that both could play in the same event, or that (b) because CB came first, Crafty would therefore be illegal, even though one author (me) was common to both programs... CB had a different team (except for me) than does Crafty. However I can't imagine anyone trying to make the case that CB and Crafty are two completely different programs even if one was FORTRAN and the other is C.

[bob]

I would think it would be more constructive from your side to lay down a specific case and do let the discussion start. If I have correctly guessed what you are aiming to, it could be an interesting case to open new ground and collect people opinions and sentiments in this point in time, June 2010.

Well my case is this which I repeat:

According to rule 1 in Clone/Derivatives Rules, Stockfish should not be allowed to participate in this tournament, because it contains GPL code from people who are not part of the team. Thus SF is not an original work and it can not participate.

Can you cite the specific rule wording that mentions GPL? The rule for past events has always been that one author can not contribute to two different entries in a tournament. Stockfish has _replaced_ glaurung. The original author of Glaurung has teamed up with two more programmers, they changed the name of the program, and continue to use it in competition. I don't see any rule that disallows this. Lots of people have contributed lots of code to various engines. Nalimov? Pradu's magic move generation code. Steven Edward's old egtb code and EPD code. Since stockfish is simply a more recent version of Glaurung, nobody has any issues with that program entering at all, and I am not sure why this discussion is even happening. Surely you would not apply that same argument to Crafty? At some point in the past, the current "team" started working together. Is the versions beyond that point somehow no longer allowable even though the original author is still active in the project??

Hint: Not me nor Joona (very probably) have the will to join this tournament, as all the others before BTW. I dont know about Tord, he has been silently in the last weeks, but I guess he will not participate too.

Please do not make it personal. I do not plan to participate in this CCT or other similar events. If I want your permission, or others I would ask for it. Basically I want to encourage interested people to use SF as basis of other works. In this regards, it would be nice to make things clear now, better than later IMO.

I believe this _is_ clear. _NO_ program that is derived from Stockfish will be allowed to participate in any CCT, ICGA, ACCA, etc events. Unless the stockfish authors decide to not participate and allow _one_ derivative to play in its place, which is allowable. Again, the idea is, and always has been, one program from any author is allowed. Never more than one. This even applies to books, where a single program can not use a book from the same author as another program's book.

[bob]

I second Bob's suggestion, but I would not call it draconian if N is reasonable. If is unfortunate, but the connection is part of the "chess entity" that is participating.

In fact, it follows the concept that the operator should have the minimum interference in the game. If the operator "decides" not to claim the win, it is in fact a huge interference, not only in that particular game, but in the whole tournament. It could easily benefit or harm a third party.

Miguel

I have changed the rule to:

Disconnection/Forfeit Rules

1. In the event of a disconnection, the party will be given 10 minutes to return to complete the game; and no more than 2 disconnections per game will be allowed. On the third time, the game will be a forfeit. This is absolute. Under no circumstances will the game continue.

Peter

I think that is a good rule. It avoids the situation where 2 different programs take 15 minutes but one is forfeited and the other isn't and this makes the results rather arbitrary and unfair.

I would suggest that if the next round has already begun it's too late to "notice" that this happened.

Is there a way to quickly determine and check each program before you schedule another round? Can't you grep the logs looking for the key word that represents a disconnection? Maybe the log says something like this: "Program Komodo disconnected" and you can just grep for the string "disconnect"?

I would also suggest that the rule not be based on how many disconnections but the total length of them. It is common when suffering Internet glitches to get several short disconnects then it's ok - not 1 long one. If you disconnect for 3 times but they are only for a few seconds, is it that really big a deal?

I don't know what the logs look like, but I would be willing to write a simple script that would scan them and add up the total length of all the disconnects for each program and also how many disconnects and any other relevant statistics. That would make it trivial for you to handle it. I would of course need an example of the logs where program disconnected.

I don't like the time idea. Allows manipulation of results. If your opponent disconnects, and you are using xboard, your program is terminated and restarted to prepare for the next game. No pondering. Losing hash and everything else. If we allow 10 minutes total time, I could have crafty disconnect right before each move it makes, to kill opponent's ponder hits. And it can reconnect in a fraction of a second since it runs on a gigabit (all the way to internet backbone) connection.