Rebel wrote:hyatt wrote: Doesn't that say EVERYTHING here? "Soren (a non-programmer)" getting involved in a technical discussion that can ONLY be understood by programmers.
Of course that explains the complete lack of veracity in his "article". He should also write an article explaining why direct connections between a computer and human brain tissue can not be done, he'd probably know JUST AS MUCH about that specific topic so in his world he would be well-qualified to explain that to the "non-technical readers" I presume?
Have you read it? What about the criticism on rule #2?
http://en.chessbase.com/post/a-gro-misc ... -part-one-
For a non-specialist, including tournament directors and other ICGA board members, the flaws in Rule 2 might not be so obvious. However, to begin to understand the problem with Rule 2 one can start by acknowledging the truth contained within Rajlich’s remark on this topic:
When two modern top chess programs play against each other maybe 95% of the programs are algorithmically the same. What is classing is the other 5%.
Putting it bluntly, Rule 2 has become obsolete. It is completely vague or unrealistic on critical points that have emerged in recent years, or have always existed but were not as well understood in the past. Years ago, because of the way chess programs were traditionally developed, it was much easier to identify fraudulent entries and programmer-poseurs. Perhaps in that era Rule 2 was quite sufficient to expel entries not meeting originality standards. But, as will be shown, times have changed in computer chess and some of the old standards have been undermined or supplanted due to advances in information technology.
To make Rule 2’s absurdity as clear as possible, let me pose some straightforward questions:
•Given the great algorithmic overlap between modern chess programs, what is the definitional distinction between “original” and “non-original” work?
•A modern computer chess program can consist of tens of thousands of lines of code. Which of these lines can a programmer feel certain are in public domain and therefore exempt from Rule 2, and which are not?
•What exactly is meant by “game playing code” and on what basis does the ICGA make its distinction?
•What exactly is the definition of a “close derivative”? Is this phrase entirely a “we know it when we see it” construct, and if not, then what sensible, consistent, well-defined and articulated principles is such a determination based upon?
•Does Rule 2 require all competitors to maintain a copy of any source code they used in competition for an indefinite number of years?
•Can Rule 2 be invoked after tournaments are completed without any time limitation whatsoever? (In law, there is a defense called laches, which certainly applies to the Rajlich/Rybka case.)
• Finally, what safeguards exist to prevent ex post facto interpretations of rules which are not fully consistent with what competitors understood at the time the tournament took place?
It seems to me rather imperative that a tournament billing itself a “world championship” have crystal-clear rules. These rules should evolve in response to circumstances, contain well-defined procedures and credible enforcement mechanisms, and be designed to protect the integrity of the competition and the title.
but I could lobby for it.
