Author of NGplay_61 should give credit to tscp

[User923005]

Whether or not Tom says credit should be given, credit should be given. It is a matter of right and wrong. This is my opinion and you are free to ignore it, of course.
I did send an email to the author of NGPlay two days ago, who has not yet responded to me.
If you think that this thread should be avoided, then you miss completely the single fundamental problem that faces computer chess programming today.

[pedrox]

Whether or not Tom says credit should be given, credit should be given. It is a matter of right and wrong. This is my opinion and you are free to ignore it, of course.
I did send an email to the author of NGPlay two days ago, who has not yet responded to me.
If you think that this thread should be avoided, then you miss completely the single fundamental problem that faces computer chess programming today.

You can not make a claim based only on your opinion, you need evidence.

The evidence you've presented are meaningless, you can not denounce the engine because the engine in console mode print a phrase "Share and enjoie". This phrase can be a tribute to TSCP programmer without this meaning that code has been copied.

If NGplay started as TSCP should be easier to present other evidence to prove it, especially when you can see the source code because the author gives.

Thanks to your thread, users will believe that the author of NGplay has done something wrong and may not use the engine. You should think about the damage you can do NGplay programmer if you're wrong.

I agree that you can report in this forum that a engine is a clone or a derivative that does not comply with the original engine, but this must be done with evidence and not opinion.

You could have started a thread asking other forum members which was the review of the engine NGplay, if he could be a derivative or initiated TSCP, but you've started the thread assured that this is so and yet there are programmers who not have the same opinion as you see.

[User923005]

Certainly, you must be joking.

[pedrox]

Certainly, you must be joking.

Yeah, I thought the whole thread was a joke.

[User923005]

Whether or not Tom says credit should be given, credit should be given. It is a matter of right and wrong. This is my opinion and you are free to ignore it, of course.
I did send an email to the author of NGPlay two days ago, who has not yet responded to me.
If you think that this thread should be avoided, then you miss completely the single fundamental problem that faces computer chess programming today.

You can not make a claim based only on your opinion, you need evidence.

I gave several lines of clear evidence that would be enough for any reasonable person.

The evidence you've presented are meaningless, you can not denounce the engine because the engine in console mode print a phrase "Share and enjoie". This phrase can be a tribute to TSCP programmer without this meaning that code has been copied.

Yes, you quoted me nicely there. But when taken together with all the other facts, the outcome is obvious.

If NGplay started as TSCP should be easier to present other evidence to prove it, especially when you can see the source code because the author gives.

Indeed, that is exactly what I have done.

Thanks to your thread, users will believe that the author of NGplay has done something wrong and may not use the engine. You should think about the damage you can do NGplay programmer if you're wrong.

Here are the things I said about NGPlay:
"Author of NGplay_61 should give credit to tscp"
"Note that I do not consider NGplay_61 to be a clone."
Both of them are correct.

I agree that you can report in this forum that a engine is a clone or a derivative that does not comply with the original engine, but this must be done with evidence and not opinion.

Of course. That is exactly what I have done.

You could have started a thread asking other forum members which was the review of the engine NGplay, if he could be a derivative or initiated TSCP, but you've started the thread assured that this is so and yet there are programmers who not have the same opinion as you see.

I could do whatever I like and if the owners of the board don't like it they could tell me to jump in the lake. Since I am an avid open water swimmer, I would thank them profusely for the suggestion.

P.S.
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[User923005]

This is the email that I sent on the 18th, to the email address found on his chess engine page:

Subject: I suggest that you might give credit to Tom Kerrigan in your readme file

There is obvious influence from TSCP. Many other authors have similarly borrowed ideas, and I do not think it is a bad thing. But I do suggest that you might mention the influence of TSCP in a readme file.

I hope that you continue to make advancement with your chess engine.

[lucasart]

Allow me another illustration:
Suppose that instead of a header list the post had said the following fictional response:

Look! Both programs contain:
i = i++;
so it's obvious it's a clone!

This is very bad code! Why the f** would someone write some code like that ?

[User923005]

Yes, that is exactly the point.

Perhaps I was not clear enough.

I was suggesting that if some random poster had picked out a random line and then made a joke out of it, saying "This single line of code proves two programs are clones." Of course, it would be meant as a joke. But if by some strange chance the poster had chosen an obscure bug (I have found that exact construct in production code at a huge multinational corporation) to make his point and if further the obscure bug were found at the same place in both programs, then that would actually be very damming evidence that the two programs were clones.

Obviously, you should never use that construct because (as I said in my original post that used that construct) the result is undefined behavior.

[Pablo Vazquez]

Oh dear, Crafty and Arasan should also give credit to TSCP:

pablo@inspiron ~/Downloads/arasan-15.1.0/src $ grep "signal(SIGINT" *
arasanx.cpp: signal(SIGINT,sigHandler);
arasanx.cpp: signal(SIGINT,SIG_IGN);

pablo@inspiron ~/Downloads/crafty-23.4 $ grep "signal(SIGINT" *
main.c: signal(SIGINT, SIG_IGN);
option.c: signal(SIGINT, SIG_IGN);

[lucasart]

Yes, that is exactly the point.

Perhaps I was not clear enough.

I was suggesting that if some random poster had picked out a random line and then made a joke out of it, saying "This single line of code proves two programs are clones." Of course, it would be meant as a joke. But if by some strange chance the poster had chosen an obscure bug (I have found that exact construct in production code at a huge multinational corporation) to make his point and if further the obscure bug were found at the same place in both programs, then that would actually be very damming evidence that the two programs were clones.

Obviously, you should never use that construct because (as I said in my original post that used that construct) the result is undefined behavior.

OK, so what, he copied some xboard protocol code ? And it's not even copied it's mostly inspired. But that distinction doesn't even matter. The point is that the xboard protocol code is completely irrelevant. What makes plagiarizm is IMO (in no particular order)
1/ the board code
2/ the search code
3/ the eval
and everything that links these together

But code like xboard commands, frankly... Don't you think this entire thread is futile and ridiculous ?

At least he made his code available to everyone. That is both honest (not trying to hide anything) and very nice (as it may help some beginners to read other codes). Frankly if you want to go on a witch hunt against the usurpers, you're choosing the wrong one. Have a look at Bouquet, that's some SERIOUS usurpation:
- based on a GPL version of IvanHoe (by Kranium and Sentinel)
- author tried to hide it, but as evidence started to pile, he finally admitted
- the author of Bouquet doesn't wan't to release his source code (which is a patent GPL violation)
- and goes on spamming everyone on CCC, pretending to be the genious who wrote a 3000+ elo engine from scratch... And as most people out there are morons, he actually has a fan club on CCC's Tournament forum.

So hitting the poor little guy who developped a weak engine, for free and source code published, because he took some help from other open source on implementing the xboard protocol, is unfair.