A Crime by a Board of Old Imposters

IMHO if the code for evaluation is taken from Crafty and changed a little,
it will play worse than Crafty.
Also I don't consider sharing of ideas as plagiary. Can anyone show
chess program that does not account material during evaluation?
I don't use the code of Crafty as source of code or ideas, but maybe
I will return to it for ideas if my program will lose badly, to recognize
what is going on. Is it a proper usage of a chess engine code?

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
It doesn't matter how different they are in behaviour. For example, I
could take a copy of the Crafty source and change the evaluation routines
so that all the pieces have negative value. This would play completely
different moves from Crafty but is certainly not my original work and
therefore would be disqualified from the WCCC (well, it would be if people
could stop laughing at it).


Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Postman (TM): it's like
a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ man who delivers the mail but it
wants
to kill you!

"Ulrik Løye" wrote

However, for the ICGA board to lift the burden of proof it needs to look
at the
code, thus it's fair and just to ban a member for not providing the code
on
request.

What if you do not want to show your source code?

If we are to learn something from this ordeal I would say that ICGA should
ask
for source code for every attending program before the tournament begins,
e.g.
in a sealed envelope.

What if you do not want your source code to be seen, copied and imitated by
others?

I am not talking about me, I like sharing ideas, source code, etc.. but I
know many people do not like that, and it is understandable. So, I do not
think that they should not be able to enter a competition for that reason.
Also, what about commercial programs?

Tommy

Tommy wrote:
"Ulrik Løye" wrote
However, for the ICGA board to lift the burden of proof it needs to look
at the code, thus it's fair and just to ban a member for not providing
the code on request.

What if you do not want to show your source code?

Simple: you don't enter competitions where the organizers can request to
see your source code as part of their dispute resolution procedures.
But, frankly, any sane competition is going to have that in the rules.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Aluminium Bulb (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a light bulb that's really light
but it wants to kill you!

"David Richerby" wrote#

Simple: you don't enter competitions where the organizers can request to
see your source code as part of their dispute resolution procedures.
But, frankly, any sane competition is going to have that in the rules.

So you think that Fritz, Shredder, Junior, The King, etc.. they all give
their source code away when they enter competitios?

Tommy

Alexander Belov wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
It doesn't matter how different they are in behaviour. For example, I
could take a copy of the Crafty source and change the evaluation
routines so that all the pieces have negative value. This would play
completely different moves from Crafty but is certainly not my original
work and therefore would be disqualified from the WCCC (well, it would
be if people could stop laughing at it).

IMHO if the code for evaluation is taken from Crafty and changed a
little, it will play worse than Crafty.

Probably, yes. But that isn't the point.


Also I don't consider sharing of ideas as plagiary. Can anyone show
chess program that does not account material during evaluation?

Is that a serious question? There seems to be a fairly obvious
distinction between two pieces of software sharing ideas (even much more
complex ones than your example) and one piece of software containing
sections of code copied from another.


I don't use the code of Crafty as source of code or ideas, but maybe
I will return to it for ideas if my program will lose badly, to
recognize what is going on. Is it a proper usage of a chess engine
code?

To my mind, that is entirely proper. And if you started copying chunks
out of Crafty and passing them off as your own work, that would be
entirely improper.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Revolting Chair (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a chair but it'll turn your
stomach and it's preserved in vinegar!

In article ,
"Znarf" wrote:


LIST was ONLY SUSPECTED of being a clone; it was NOT DISCOVERED TO BE A
CLONE. The rule, as written, places the BURDEN on the ICGA to prove it is a
close derivate of another before disqualification; it does not place the
burden on the accused to prove that it is not a derivative. Thus, the rule
is inapplicable to the present situation.

It cannot be discovered to be a clone unless the author accepts to give
the source code, which he refused. They had no choice but to disqualify
him.

henri

In article ,
"Tommy" wrote:

What if you do not want to show your source code?

Then you should voluntarily resign from the tournament if you are
suspected. The committee gives a guarantee that the source code will be
kept confidential, and if an author does not trust that, he should not
participate in the tournament or be ready to leave if his program is
questioned.

Henri

In article ,
"Tommy" wrote:

So you think that Fritz, Shredder, Junior, The King, etc.. they all give
their source code away when they enter competitios?

No one has accused them of copying their code. If he did without
sufficient reason just to see what could happen, he would probably be
slapped with a lawsuit for millions.

Henri

henri Arsenault wrote:

It cannot be discovered to be a clone unless the author accepts to give
the source code, which he refused. They had no choice but to disqualify
him.

Wrong math.

First of all there should be a case. So - they should have evidence of
suspicion. It is NOT enough to have someone who makes some allegations.

These points are not there or not yet published.

Please read for the rest of the problem my message above. Someone in university
examinations can't handle such problems.

If you say, what many do, Fritz Reul should have refused to participate then
this is foolish because he had an engaged operator. Reul himself was not
needed.

Hence - the whole argument that he should have refused to play is an empty one.

P.S. I am deeply disapointed by the rest of the programmers who continued the
tournament as if nothing had happened. A shame.

Rolf




henri

"Ulrik Løye" wrote:

You're making the same mistake as the ICGA board - namely using rumors and
here-say to reach conclusions.


Nope.

I don't decide after the reflections. And I agree with you:

I said all that is only true under the condition that Fritz didn't cheat. Know
ehat I mean? I suppose the ICGA had NO evidence but just a formal complaint.
And that is IMO not enough. Would they really ask ChessBase progs FRITZ or
SHREDDER to open their source codes if someone made some allegations?




If you read David Levy's letter once more you'd perhaps understand that List
wasn't banned for being a clone - rather it was banned because the author
failed
to provide the source code so the board could react to its own suspicion and
a
formal complaint. This is a very crucial point in this case. Normally a
person
is innocent until otherwise proven and the burden of proof is on the
prosecutor.
However, for the ICGA board to lift the burden of proof it needs to look at
the
code, thus it's fair and just to ban a member for not providing the code on
request.

I agree with you again. But like all judicial institutions the board should
have at first asked for clear evidence of the accuser. And up to now I cant
read something about the reasons why he complained. This man and his arguments
are the crucial point. But now I'm sure tht all the ICGA proxies are working to
create a scenario. This stinks.

BTW didn't you know that in real life the Attorney general does NOT make a
prosecution only after some formal complaints?






The fact that Reul is attending exams is really not important - after all,
Reul
made the decision to participate in the tournament while knowing he would
have
exams at the same time. I can imagine a minor inconvenience for him to have
to
send his source code while attending exams - but his part of this entire
investigation should take no longer than half an hour or less. Therefore,
when
you say "Fritz Reul has his examins in mathematics this week so it is a crime
to
disturb him at his home" you're really way out of line.

I think you possibly did not attend such examinations because 30 minutes is a
lot of time. But not the objective time is the reason but the condition your
brain is in during such examinations.

To say it in short: you are suddenly struck by a tree, you are perplex and you
doubt that this is all real. To master such a threat you must have your brain
clear. Therefore I attacked these people in the board since they know what I'm
saying here about examinations.





If we are to learn something from this ordeal I would say that ICGA should
ask
for source code for every attending program before the tournament begins,
e.g.
in a sealed envelope. If any complaints or suspicions arise the board would
have
immediate access to the code without having to be in the awkward situation of
having to get hold of the programmer first. Timely reaction to such
complaints/suspicions is crucial for the tournament's integrity, for computer
chess in general and for all authors of original source code.

Just read about the incident in Hamburg shortly before the team travelled to
NY. Who should pay the Army which should protect these codes.



Rolf








/UL