Bob asks: Then why don't YOU come up with a rule 2?

[Rebel]

h. have a real address so you are accountable.
i. pay your taxes.

[hyatt]

I think that is a silly question. Suppose he went by the bank to deposit a personal check while at the event? Is THAT not allowed? Can't meet family or friends for dinner? Can't visit a local "thing to see"? You guys will do ANYTHING possible to cast aspersions on David, or anyone else you don't agree with on this topic.

Personally I have never had a job I thought claimed me for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Would not have such a job.

Dis you read Mark Watkins link concerning Levy?

look, this takes us to the Nintendo-Loop affair. let's hypothesise a scenario ... Nintendo want a chess program, they do a google search and find a link to icga. they send an email to the president.

I would argue, at this point, sonce igca is supposed to be a programmers organization, set up by programmers (as you are so fond of telling us) that the president lets it be known that Nintendo seeks a program, and suggests interested programmers contact them.

Or, does president, or representative, select a program, make a deal with Nintendo, and rake off a fee?

We don't know what happened in case Loop. Were icga registered commercial programmers advised?

No idea what happened, so I am not interested, since speculation leads nowhere. If you are talking about the MSO stuff by Levy, I glanced at it but it was old news several years ago. Not sure what it has to do with anything _here_. Since I am not a "commercial programmer" I have no idea if they were contacted or not, and don't care. It would be reasonable if they were. It would be reasonable if they were not.

I wasn't talking about that MSO stuff, Mark Waykins posted the link, one I hadn't seen before.

last time you answered this Nintendo speculated scanerio, it was: above your pay grade. But you should be interested. you started a programmers organisation, you are fond of telling us, but you are not interested if your elected board intercepts incomimg queries of interest to the paying programmer members? Does it or doesn't it? if an email comes in addressed to the board icga, can the board members answer that email in their own personal interest? do they? you don't know or care?

Is hyperbole ALL you know? "elected board intercepts...?" Intercept has a specific meaning. If David was asked "who should we contact?" that is NOT an interception. If someone asked me directly, that is NOT an interception.

[hyatt]

I think that is a silly question. Suppose he went by the bank to deposit a personal check while at the event? Is THAT not allowed? Can't meet family or friends for dinner? Can't visit a local "thing to see"? You guys will do ANYTHING possible to cast aspersions on David, or anyone else you don't agree with on this topic.

Personally I have never had a job I thought claimed me for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Would not have such a job.

David's abilities to organize events are not in question, nor the production of the journal etc. That's all fine. But the day will come he will retire, he is 70 now. And when that happens the CC division of the ICGA will be in big trouble. Who do you think has the capacity to organize the annual WCCC and everything that comes with it?

So there, I said it, I don't lack balance.

You are an academic and as you have indicated many times are not much interested in the financials that automatically come with running an organization but you are talking to 2 ex commercials who have been in the same shoes and know that's all fine to make a living from CC and all what comes with that without losing their passion for CC, else why would be here 10-15 years after?

And that's the part I blame David for, unlike commercial chess programmers David in his role as president and main responsible has a responsibilty to promoto CC passionately, serve the general interest. And it has become a job mainly. I take it for granted he was as passionate as you and me in the early days, he lost it during time, what dominates now is money. David doesn't give a hood about computer chess any longer, he cares for his annual WCCC tournament.

I noticed that already in the early 90's and it's best demonstrated by his continueis inflexible and destructive behaviour in the RF case. His actions damaged computer chess, he doesn't care about the split CC community. No leadership, nothing. The ICCA once was an organization I could subscribe as a uniting factor of chess programmers and chess programing in the widest sense of the word and promote it speaking with one voice.

Nothing has left, when confrontated with a letter of 16 angry programmers he had only one thing in mind, saving his annual WCCC by the Scorched Earth tactic.

In a normal world we would fire such as man, but by the lack of a good successor, it's maybe better to keep him after all?

You DO realize that David was not always the present of the ICCA/ICGA? IE Ben Mittman, Monty Newborn, Tony Marsland???

All you guys do is whine about the Rybka case. Claim the icga was on a vendetta. All sorts of nonsensical claims. Yet you never answer the one key question, "WHY"? What did the ICGA have to gain by DQing Rybka? What did ANYONE have to gain? All the made-up reasoning in the world still can't address that simple question. There MUST be a motivation. Wait! There WAS a motivation? WE (The ICGA) want participants to simply follow the rules. Nothing more, nothing less. That Vas didn't follow the rules was not OUR doing. HE made those (bad) choices. The only "vendetta" is the "vendetta against the rising incidences of copying code and calling it original work."

[Chris Whittington]

I think that is a silly question. Suppose he went by the bank to deposit a personal check while at the event? Is THAT not allowed? Can't meet family or friends for dinner? Can't visit a local "thing to see"? You guys will do ANYTHING possible to cast aspersions on David, or anyone else you don't agree with on this topic.

Personally I have never had a job I thought claimed me for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Would not have such a job.

David's abilities to organize events are not in question, nor the production of the journal etc. That's all fine. But the day will come he will retire, he is 70 now. And when that happens the CC division of the ICGA will be in big trouble. Who do you think has the capacity to organize the annual WCCC and everything that comes with it?

So there, I said it, I don't lack balance.

You are an academic and as you have indicated many times are not much interested in the financials that automatically come with running an organization but you are talking to 2 ex commercials who have been in the same shoes and know that's all fine to make a living from CC and all what comes with that without losing their passion for CC, else why would be here 10-15 years after?

And that's the part I blame David for, unlike commercial chess programmers David in his role as president and main responsible has a responsibilty to promoto CC passionately, serve the general interest. And it has become a job mainly. I take it for granted he was as passionate as you and me in the early days, he lost it during time, what dominates now is money. David doesn't give a hood about computer chess any longer, he cares for his annual WCCC tournament.

I noticed that already in the early 90's and it's best demonstrated by his continueis inflexible and destructive behaviour in the RF case. His actions damaged computer chess, he doesn't care about the split CC community. No leadership, nothing. The ICCA once was an organization I could subscribe as a uniting factor of chess programmers and chess programing in the widest sense of the word and promote it speaking with one voice.

Nothing has left, when confrontated with a letter of 16 angry programmers he had only one thing in mind, saving his annual WCCC by the Scorched Earth tactic.

In a normal world we would fire such as man, but by the lack of a good successor, it's maybe better to keep him after all?

You DO realize that David was not always the present of the ICCA/ICGA? IE Ben Mittman, Monty Newborn, Tony Marsland???

All you guys do is whine about the Rybka case. Claim the icga was on a vendetta. All sorts of nonsensical claims. Yet you never answer the one key question, "WHY"? What did the ICGA have to gain by DQing Rybka? What did ANYONE have to gain? All the made-up reasoning in the world still can't address that simple question. There MUST be a motivation. Wait! There WAS a motivation? WE (The ICGA) want participants to simply follow the rules. Nothing more, nothing less. That Vas didn't follow the rules was not OUR doing. HE made those (bad) choices. The only "vendetta" is the "vendetta against the rising incidences of copying code and calling it original work."

But he did follow the rules. There are no copyright violations. He followed the rules, so you made up another rule and got him anyway. YOU explain why you did that?Seems simple enough to me, a gang of losers on a vendetta to destroy the successful one they couldn't understand.

If YOU followed the rules, there would have been no ban for life or in fact any penalty other than making the program invalid at the time of the tournament - that's all your rule 2 allowed for. So WHY did you break the rules to ban him, destroy his business and even end up with an attack on his family and marriage? Jealous he has a successful family, marriage and business perhaps? You don't? Some of you doesn't? Something has to explain the extreme rule breaking and punishment frenzy, surely? Please tell us your speculations, because your concern over "rising incidence of copying code bla bla" doesn't quite seem to fit to the actual result, does it now, especially when you found NO copied code and NO copyright violations?

[hyatt]

I think that is a silly question. Suppose he went by the bank to deposit a personal check while at the event? Is THAT not allowed? Can't meet family or friends for dinner? Can't visit a local "thing to see"? You guys will do ANYTHING possible to cast aspersions on David, or anyone else you don't agree with on this topic.

Personally I have never had a job I thought claimed me for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Would not have such a job.

David's abilities to organize events are not in question, nor the production of the journal etc. That's all fine. But the day will come he will retire, he is 70 now. And when that happens the CC division of the ICGA will be in big trouble. Who do you think has the capacity to organize the annual WCCC and everything that comes with it?

So there, I said it, I don't lack balance.

You are an academic and as you have indicated many times are not much interested in the financials that automatically come with running an organization but you are talking to 2 ex commercials who have been in the same shoes and know that's all fine to make a living from CC and all what comes with that without losing their passion for CC, else why would be here 10-15 years after?

And that's the part I blame David for, unlike commercial chess programmers David in his role as president and main responsible has a responsibilty to promoto CC passionately, serve the general interest. And it has become a job mainly. I take it for granted he was as passionate as you and me in the early days, he lost it during time, what dominates now is money. David doesn't give a hood about computer chess any longer, he cares for his annual WCCC tournament.

I noticed that already in the early 90's and it's best demonstrated by his continueis inflexible and destructive behaviour in the RF case. His actions damaged computer chess, he doesn't care about the split CC community. No leadership, nothing. The ICCA once was an organization I could subscribe as a uniting factor of chess programmers and chess programing in the widest sense of the word and promote it speaking with one voice.

Nothing has left, when confrontated with a letter of 16 angry programmers he had only one thing in mind, saving his annual WCCC by the Scorched Earth tactic.

In a normal world we would fire such as man, but by the lack of a good successor, it's maybe better to keep him after all?

You DO realize that David was not always the present of the ICCA/ICGA? IE Ben Mittman, Monty Newborn, Tony Marsland???

All you guys do is whine about the Rybka case. Claim the icga was on a vendetta. All sorts of nonsensical claims. Yet you never answer the one key question, "WHY"? What did the ICGA have to gain by DQing Rybka? What did ANYONE have to gain? All the made-up reasoning in the world still can't address that simple question. There MUST be a motivation. Wait! There WAS a motivation? WE (The ICGA) want participants to simply follow the rules. Nothing more, nothing less. That Vas didn't follow the rules was not OUR doing. HE made those (bad) choices. The only "vendetta" is the "vendetta against the rising incidences of copying code and calling it original work."

But he did follow the rules. There are no copyright violations. He followed the rules, so you made up another rule and got him anyway. YOU explain why you did that?Seems simple enough to me, a gang of losers on a vendetta to destroy the successful one they couldn't understand.

If YOU followed the rules, there would have been no ban for life or in fact any penalty other than making the program invalid at the time of the tournament - that's all your rule 2 allowed for. So WHY did you break the rules to ban him, destroy his business and even end up with an attack on his family and marriage? Jealous he has a successful family, marriage and business perhaps? You don't? Some of you doesn't? Something has to explain the extreme rule breaking and punishment frenzy, surely? Please tell us your speculations, because your concern over "rising incidence of copying code bla bla" doesn't quite seem to fit to the actual result, does it now, especially when you found NO copied code and NO copyright violations?

Please show me ANY reference to copyright in the ICGA rules. I'll be happy to show you the wording for derivative and original. I've asked MANY times in the past, and you guys have NEVER responded, "Why didn't the ICGA try to destroy chess 4.x, it dominated computer chess for a whole decade, what about deep thought? It dominated computer chess for 10 years also. Yet no attempt to run them off. SO why Vas? He did nothing that Slate, Thompson or Hsu did not do even longer and better.

So "please explain". We had no rule that said a program couldn't be banned as long as the ICGA decreed. There still is no such rule.

As far as "no copied code" you are wrong. But keep repeating it if it makes you feel better...

[Rebel]

Please show me ANY reference to copyright in the ICGA rules. I'll be happy to show you the wording for derivative and original. I've asked MANY times in the past, and you guys have NEVER responded, "Why didn't the ICGA try to destroy chess 4.x, it dominated computer chess for a whole decade, what about deep thought? It dominated computer chess for 10 years also. Yet no attempt to run them off. SO why Vas? He did nothing that Slate, Thompson or Hsu did not do even longer and better.

interesting you bring up the old days of Chess 4.x, I remember someone who wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "look-alikes". You do realize that Slate publilshed the well-known chapter in "Chess Skill in Man and Machine" and that a year later, Duchess looked exactly like chess 4.x and was about as strong? Yet all original code because slate's chapter contained NO code? In fact, within 2 years of that publication, almost all programs used that same basic framework. Iterated search. Full width. killer moves. Trans/Ref table. Etc... Didn't seem to hurt because people STILL added original and new ideas to that to keep pushing progress along. Back in the "good old days" of course. Copying code, however, is both illegal and against the rules.

Isn't that exactly what Vas did as I suggested elsewhere in this thread using Fruit as a framework (I called it a model) to write his own program? Publication -> explosion of knowledge -> progress.

But some ideas are more "not equal" than others, taking search ideas seems to be all okay to freely grab, with eval ideas there is this tendency to get all excited about it. Why this difference? Where does it come from?

As an example, I once told you I took a small idea from Fruit, caught bishop on the 6th row, showed you the mailbox code and you went mad saying, your exact words:

It's definitely plagiarism unless you attribute it. It is a GPL violation unless you release your source. Whether it rises to the level of someone being interested in enforcing it, or preventing you from using it in a tournament is another matter. if that's all you copied, wouldn't bother me.

Why this utter sensitive nonsene? The caught bishop on the 6th row code I wrote is exactly the same as the caught bishop on the 7th row I wrote 20+ years earlier than Fabien, when he likely was stil driving his tricycle.

Don't try to make Fruit the mother of all chess engines, it for 90% relies on the work, ideas, publication of others.

[Chris Whittington]

Please show me ANY reference to copyright in the ICGA rules. I'll be happy to show you the wording for derivative and original. I've asked MANY times in the past, and you guys have NEVER responded, "Why didn't the ICGA try to destroy chess 4.x, it dominated computer chess for a whole decade, what about deep thought? It dominated computer chess for 10 years also. Yet no attempt to run them off. SO why Vas? He did nothing that Slate, Thompson or Hsu did not do even longer and better.

interesting you bring up the old days of Chess 4.x, I remember someone who wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "look-alikes". You do realize that Slate publilshed the well-known chapter in "Chess Skill in Man and Machine" and that a year later, Duchess looked exactly like chess 4.x and was about as strong? Yet all original code because slate's chapter contained NO code? In fact, within 2 years of that publication, almost all programs used that same basic framework. Iterated search. Full width. killer moves. Trans/Ref table. Etc... Didn't seem to hurt because people STILL added original and new ideas to that to keep pushing progress along. Back in the "good old days" of course. Copying code, however, is both illegal and against the rules.

Isn't that exactly what Vas did as I suggested elsewhere in this thread using Fruit as a framework (I called it a model) to write his own program? Publication -> explosion of knowledge -> progress.

But some ideas are more "not equal" than others, taking search ideas seems to be all okay to freely grab, with eval ideas there is this tendency to get all excited about it. Why this difference? Where does it come from?

As an example, I once told you I took a small idea from Fruit, caught bishop on the 6th row, showed you the mailbox code and you went mad saying, your exact words:

It's definitely plagiarism unless you attribute it. It is a GPL violation unless you release your source. Whether it rises to the level of someone being interested in enforcing it, or preventing you from using it in a tournament is another matter. if that's all you copied, wouldn't bother me.

Why this utter sensitive nonsene? The caught bishop on the 6th row code I wrote is exactly the same as the caught bishop on the 7th row I wrote 20+ years earlier than Fabien, when he likely was stil driving his tricycle.

Don't try to make Fruit the mother of all chess engines, it for 90% relies on the work, ideas, publication of others.

If they treated SEARCH the same as they treated the Rybka EVAL ...... strip out the weights, numbers, R=2 etc ...... then just about ALL their SEARCHES would be "SEMANTICALLY EQUIVALENT". Maybe there is a bit of divergence as search has developed over time, but basically all searches are semantically the same, probably in the same order as well. This is allowed in the mad world of Rule 2, it seems. One rule for Hyatt plus friends, another rule for Hyatt enemies.

[hyatt]

Please show me ANY reference to copyright in the ICGA rules. I'll be happy to show you the wording for derivative and original. I've asked MANY times in the past, and you guys have NEVER responded, "Why didn't the ICGA try to destroy chess 4.x, it dominated computer chess for a whole decade, what about deep thought? It dominated computer chess for 10 years also. Yet no attempt to run them off. SO why Vas? He did nothing that Slate, Thompson or Hsu did not do even longer and better.

interesting you bring up the old days of Chess 4.x, I remember someone who wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "look-alikes". You do realize that Slate publilshed the well-known chapter in "Chess Skill in Man and Machine" and that a year later, Duchess looked exactly like chess 4.x and was about as strong? Yet all original code because slate's chapter contained NO code? In fact, within 2 years of that publication, almost all programs used that same basic framework. Iterated search. Full width. killer moves. Trans/Ref table. Etc... Didn't seem to hurt because people STILL added original and new ideas to that to keep pushing progress along. Back in the "good old days" of course. Copying code, however, is both illegal and against the rules.

Isn't that exactly what Vas did as I suggested elsewhere in this thread using Fruit as a framework (I called it a model) to write his own program? Publication -> explosion of knowledge -> progress.

But some ideas are more "not equal" than others, taking search ideas seems to be all okay to freely grab, with eval ideas there is this tendency to get all excited about it. Why this difference? Where does it come from?

As an example, I once told you I took a small idea from Fruit, caught bishop on the 6th row, showed you the mailbox code and you went mad saying, your exact words:

It's definitely plagiarism unless you attribute it. It is a GPL violation unless you release your source. Whether it rises to the level of someone being interested in enforcing it, or preventing you from using it in a tournament is another matter. if that's all you copied, wouldn't bother me.

Why this utter sensitive nonsene? The caught bishop on the 6th row code I wrote is exactly the same as the caught bishop on the 7th row I wrote 20+ years earlier than Fabien, when he likely was stil driving his tricycle.

Don't try to make Fruit the mother of all chess engines, it for 90% relies on the work, ideas, publication of others.

It is not even CLOSE to what Vas did. Slate published no code. He published general ideas. As I said, comparing sources showed no direct similarities. In fact, Duchess was written in IBM /360 assembly language, chess 4.x was written in CDC assembly language, Blitz was written in Fortran. So not only didn't any of those share any code, they didn't even share a common language. When you looked at the abstract implementation of each, they were so different as to not be recognizable. Only when you saw their output could you notice "iterated search". And even the OUTPUT didn't look the same. I printed a PV each time it changed. Slate printed the PV at the end of each iteration only. For hashing, Slate actually encoded the full position, so there were zero collisions, I did the usual "store the hash signature only" (NOT usual in the mid 70's however).

Again, you want to abstract out so far that you say "but they all look the same, because they all play chess." But the devil is in the details. Nobody has tried to make Fruit "the mother of all chess engines". It just happens to be the one Vas copied in 2005 or so, AFTER he copied Crafty of course. And as always, there is a HUGE difference between using someone's source code and using someone's ideas.

Your tunnel-vision misses what "Duchess looked exactly like chess 4.x" means. That BOTH used similar ideas, written in completely different ways, implemented in completely different languages, using completely different hardware approaches, etc. If you compared code you would find NOTHING that looked similar except for perhaps procedure names like search() and evaluate().

[hyatt]

Please show me ANY reference to copyright in the ICGA rules. I'll be happy to show you the wording for derivative and original. I've asked MANY times in the past, and you guys have NEVER responded, "Why didn't the ICGA try to destroy chess 4.x, it dominated computer chess for a whole decade, what about deep thought? It dominated computer chess for 10 years also. Yet no attempt to run them off. SO why Vas? He did nothing that Slate, Thompson or Hsu did not do even longer and better.

interesting you bring up the old days of Chess 4.x, I remember someone who wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "look-alikes". You do realize that Slate publilshed the well-known chapter in "Chess Skill in Man and Machine" and that a year later, Duchess looked exactly like chess 4.x and was about as strong? Yet all original code because slate's chapter contained NO code? In fact, within 2 years of that publication, almost all programs used that same basic framework. Iterated search. Full width. killer moves. Trans/Ref table. Etc... Didn't seem to hurt because people STILL added original and new ideas to that to keep pushing progress along. Back in the "good old days" of course. Copying code, however, is both illegal and against the rules.

Isn't that exactly what Vas did as I suggested elsewhere in this thread using Fruit as a framework (I called it a model) to write his own program? Publication -> explosion of knowledge -> progress.

But some ideas are more "not equal" than others, taking search ideas seems to be all okay to freely grab, with eval ideas there is this tendency to get all excited about it. Why this difference? Where does it come from?

As an example, I once told you I took a small idea from Fruit, caught bishop on the 6th row, showed you the mailbox code and you went mad saying, your exact words:

It's definitely plagiarism unless you attribute it. It is a GPL violation unless you release your source. Whether it rises to the level of someone being interested in enforcing it, or preventing you from using it in a tournament is another matter. if that's all you copied, wouldn't bother me.

Why this utter sensitive nonsene? The caught bishop on the 6th row code I wrote is exactly the same as the caught bishop on the 7th row I wrote 20+ years earlier than Fabien, when he likely was stil driving his tricycle.

Don't try to make Fruit the mother of all chess engines, it for 90% relies on the work, ideas, publication of others.

If they treated SEARCH the same as they treated the Rybka EVAL ...... strip out the weights, numbers, R=2 etc ...... then just about ALL their SEARCHES would be "SEMANTICALLY EQUIVALENT". Maybe there is a bit of divergence as search has developed over time, but basically all searches are semantically the same, probably in the same order as well. This is allowed in the mad world of Rule 2, it seems. One rule for Hyatt plus friends, another rule for Hyatt enemies.

Again, you use a term you have no understanding about. "semantic equivalence". Which means, at one level, they produce the SAME output given the same input (no chess engine except for pure clones will do this). At another level they do exactly the same operations. Neither of which applies here. Just compare the search code from Crafty, and from Fruit, and from Stockfish, and from Texel, and from <pick one> They do NOT look very similar at all until you abstract out so far that you end up with a VERY broad view and see "OK, they check for repetitions, they probe hash, they try a null-move search, then they iterate over the move list." But as you step in closer, all of those details are done differently, PARTICULARLY the search the list of moves part. They are anything BUT "semantically equivalent."

[Rebel]

Chris,

Isn't it fascinating how this search [grab all] vs eval [red flag] line of thinking has developed? When I showed him my 6th row code which is 100% semantical equal with Fruit but then again is also is 100% semantical equal with my "caught bishop on the 7th row" I was merely showing how simple chess knowledge may end up in identical code.

And immeditely after followed by the usual spanking, nuking and bullying.

Applying Bob's logic Fabien is guilty plagiarising my caught bishop on the 7th row I wrote in the early 80's, it's 100% semantical equal. Perhaps you could make the same claim.

It's too silly for words.