OpenChess

Should chess engines get asterisks if there are question marks about their legitimate status? Should they be allowed in official listings for computer test suites but given "asterisks" until further notice by officials?

This is not about whether engines should be "banned". Apart from the legitimacy claims...should engines get asterisks by chess professionals in the chess community who have legitimate concerns over the engine's authenticity yet allow them to be used without shame if their merits override their origins?

No!

My take is that once a program is proven to be non-original, it ought not be tested or anything any longer. Why continue to play a song you know was ripped off of a CD that someone sells to make a living? What is the point of rewarding "bad behavior".

Hagen wrote:Should chess engines get asterisks for official testing?

What do you mean by official testing?

"Official testing" as in by authorities who are in a position to allow engines to be used for computer ratings that's considered kosher in chess circles.

hyatt wrote:Why continue to play a song you know was ripped off of a CD that someone sells to make a living?

Because it's not the same song, it's a remix. If the remix sounds so much better, why would I be happy playing just the original?

Uly wrote:

hyatt wrote:Why continue to play a song you know was ripped off of a CD that someone sells to make a living?

Because it's not the same song, it's a remix. If the remix sounds so much better, why would I be happy playing just the original?

Are you talking about enjoying a remix, in a private session, of something that has not been released publicly? If you are, there are no issues with your remix. If you are talking about the remix in the context of a public release, you need to take the following issues into account:
1..Whether the consent of the original author has been obtained.
2. Whether licence terms have been broken.
3. Whether end-users have been given the complete picture.
4. Whether competitors in tournaments containing the remix have been given the complete picture.
5. Whether tournament directors have been given the complete picture.

If the underlying reason for discussing this is the Rybka case, then the answers to those questions would appear to be as follows.

1. No, the consent of an original author does not appear to have been obtained.
2. Yes, licence terms do seem to have been broken.
3. No, end-users do not appear to have been given the complete picture.
4. No, competitors in tournaments containing the remix do not appear to have been given the complete picture.
5. No, tournament directors do not appear to have been given the complete picture.

In short, if you issue a remix of a chess engine, complete honesty is necessary. That may not have been the case if Rybka is/was a remix.

K I Hyams wrote:4. Whether competitors in tournaments containing the remix have been given the complete picture.

Here is where the analogy breaks down, there are no tournaments for remixed music. I think the Rybka case is unrelated to illegal MP3s in the internet, or ripping commercial songs from CDs and releasing them. So it's not an argument for "not testing an engine once it's found it's not original".

Hagen wrote:"Official testing" as in by authorities who are in a position to allow engines to be used for computer ratings that's considered kosher in chess circles.

I am afraid I still do not understand. I apologize for my lack of knowledge but which authorities are you talking about? Which chess circles?

Uly wrote:

K I Hyams wrote:4. Whether competitors in tournaments containing the remix have been given the complete picture.

Here is where the analogy breaks down, there are no tournaments for remixed music. I think the Rybka case is unrelated to illegal MP3s in the internet, or ripping commercial songs from CDs and releasing them. So it's not an argument for "not testing an engine once it's found it's not original".

You are correct that the remix or illegal downloading analogy is not the strongest when referring to the Rybka case or any of the Ipps and the houdini guy.

BUT there is one musical analogy that is relevant. Plagiarism!

Plagiarism in music is a complicated issue as it is in computer chess.

Basically in music harmony is not copyright protected but melody is.

In other words chords already exist, and therefore can't be protected by copyright. (sometimes harmonic rhythm might be cast as melody or a guitar riff or something)

Melody IS and CAN be copyright protected. That is the part the composer creates.

If someone steals (or slightly tweaks a melody) they can and have lost plagiarism suites in court.

So did Vas just use Fruit's harmony or did steal some melody? Same questions for the ipps and the houdini guy.