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

[hyatt]

There WAS a reason for "why only him". YOU signed said reason. The formal protest.

It might well make good sense to do a pre-event screen on every program, any that look suspicious get a source-code exam. And then the version used for competition has to be compared to the pre-screen program obviously. And source has to be stored safely. This is not an easy task.

[Rebel]

There WAS a reason for "why only him". YOU signed said reason. The formal protest.

It might well make good sense to do a pre-event screen on every program, any that look suspicious get a source-code exam. And then the version used for competition has to be compared to the pre-screen program obviously. And source has to be stored safely. This is not an easy task.

How does this address the points I was making?

Do you really want to believe that INCREASING KNOWLEDGE doesn't affect originality?

Rememeber - Each program must be the original work of the entering developers.

If you (for example) learn from open source (forum or the CPW) to do things right the very first time it does affect originality.

Do you as ICGA want to move forward or stay in the pre internet times?

Your rule #2 (also the new one) is an obstacle for progress.

[hyatt]

I do not agree. You seem to think that the only way someone can learn from a program is to copy the program. Over the years much source code has been published, either open source, or in ICGA journals, or whatever. Many times source is not even given, but the idea is. Chess skill in Man and Machine (chess 4.x chapter) is an outstanding example. Several of us wrote chess engines from that "master plan". That was the first published iterative deepening program I had seen, first successful full-width, first example of killer moves, etc. Tom Truscott and I (or it might have been Bruce Wright) compared sources, (Duchess and Blitz at the time). The programs looked NOTHING alike. They used the same basic ideas. but coded in completely different ways. Years later I got a copy of chess 4.x from Dave Cahlander, and it looked nothing like my program (this was roughly 1981). Again, same basic ideas, nowhere near the same implementation choices.

So I don't buy this "all programs are going to look the same" nonsense. I do not believe it to be true in any way except at the most abstract level where you can say "both do iterative deepening, both have killers, both have history ordering, both do LMR, both do LMP, etc." But the devil is in the details. It is hard to find two programs that do history counters the same way, even though both use the basic concept of "history heuristic" as published by Schaeffer.

I think the only thing "new" in recent years is a complete lack of ethical standards. ACM addressed this growing concern (general lack of ethics in programmers) years ago by mandating some computer ethics coverage in a basic computer science curriculum. THAT is the main problem here, not the fact that source is readily available. The fact that STRONG source is available and some have a very WEAK ethical standard that allows them to copy and claim originality.

I don't see a reason for rewarding a poor standard of ethics by saying "OK, this is ok, we will just deal with it and move on as though nothing happened." Students KNOW what happens when they copy programming assignments in MY class. And they don't do it out of fear of an instant F in the course. It only takes a couple of cases to spread the word and virtually eliminate the problem.

[BB+]

It's indeed one of the first things Rajlich said, why only me? Check others too.

I believe that "others" have been checked to extent that any evidence warranted it. For instance, of the [other] engines that Rajlich mentioned (Dec 2005 interview) as getting a "massive jump" in the wake of Fruit, none of them show any significant move similarity therein (which was his preferred "objective" criterion). [Footnote 43 of the DHW paper recalls that the Hiarcs team was quick to dispute Rajlich's claims, and indeed Footnote 42 disputes the "massive" nature of these jumps, though perhaps VR feels "20 Elo" suffices]. Both prior to and after the Rybka incident, some preliminary disassembly has been done on "other" engines (primarily by "Internet forums"), and in the cases where it has been deemed warranted, some additional investigation has been undertaken (either by the ICGA or otherwise). As ICGA work is voluntary, perhaps some of Rajlich's Forum members could volunteer to check other engines? Otherwise, I can't expect there to be much done based upon unsubstantiated claims and a dearth of evidence.

[Rebel]

I do not agree. You seem to think that the only way someone can learn from a program is to copy the program. Over the years much source code has been published, either open source, or in ICGA journals, or whatever. Many times source is not even given, but the idea is. Chess skill in Man and Machine (chess 4.x chapter) is an outstanding example. Several of us wrote chess engines from that "master plan". That was the first published iterative deepening program I had seen, first successful full-width, first example of killer moves, etc. Tom Truscott and I (or it might have been Bruce Wright) compared sources, (Duchess and Blitz at the time). The programs looked NOTHING alike. They used the same basic ideas. but coded in completely different ways. Years later I got a copy of chess 4.x from Dave Cahlander, and it looked nothing like my program (this was roughly 1981). Again, same basic ideas, nowhere near the same implementation choices.

So I don't buy this "all programs are going to look the same" nonsense. I do not believe it to be true in any way except at the most abstract level where you can say "both do iterative deepening, both have killers, both have history ordering, both do LMR, both do LMP, etc." But the devil is in the details. It is hard to find two programs that do history counters the same way, even though both use the basic concept of "history heuristic" as published by Schaeffer.

I think the only thing "new" in recent years is a complete lack of ethical standards. ACM addressed this growing concern (general lack of ethics in programmers) years ago by mandating some computer ethics coverage in a basic computer science curriculum. THAT is the main problem here, not the fact that source is readily available. The fact that STRONG source is available and some have a very WEAK ethical standard that allows them to copy and claim originality.

I don't see a reason for rewarding a poor standard of ethics by saying "OK, this is ok, we will just deal with it and move on as though nothing happened." Students KNOW what happens when they copy programming assignments in MY class. And they don't do it out of fear of an instant F in the course. It only takes a couple of cases to spread the word and virtually eliminate the problem.

Second time you ignore my questions.

Third try:

Each program must be the original work of the entering developers.

Do you really believe that INCREASING KNOWLEDGE doesn't affect originality?

If you (for example) learn from open source (forum or the CPW) to do things right the very first time does it affect originality or not?

Do you as ICGA admit you are guilty of neglect of not giving guidance to programmers who participate and that the ICGA has neglected setting new boundaries to the new lanscape Internet has created or does the ICGA deny any responsibily for the arisen problems?

Only three questions....

And one final on-topic remark.

While the ICGA basically after the R/F verdict gave programmers the middle-finger once again by doing nothing (no guidance, not setting new boundaries for the future) leaving the programmers confused what the hell is allowed and what is not I (3 years ago) launched the Programmer code of honor and proposed a model to which programmers could respond, subscribe. 38 programmers subscribed, described their work and made promises. I would had expect something like that from the ICGA, but nothing came. No guidance. Nothing.

[Rebel]

It's indeed one of the first things Rajlich said, why only me? Check others too.

I believe that "others" have been checked to extent that any evidence warranted it. For instance, of the [other] engines that Rajlich mentioned (Dec 2005 interview) as getting a "massive jump" in the wake of Fruit, none of them show any significant move similarity therein (which was his preferred "objective" criterion). [Footnote 43 of the DHW paper recalls that the Hiarcs team was quick to dispute Rajlich's claims, and indeed Footnote 42 disputes the "massive" nature of these jumps, though perhaps VR feels "20 Elo" suffices]. Both prior to and after the Rybka incident, some preliminary disassembly has been done on "other" engines (primarily by "Internet forums"), and in the cases where it has been deemed warranted, some additional investigation has been undertaken (either by the ICGA or otherwise). As ICGA work is voluntary, perhaps some of Rajlich's Forum members could volunteer to check other engines? Otherwise, I can't expect there to be much done based upon unsubstantiated claims and a dearth of evidence.

I mean what he said after the verdict. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqwahEtUYNo ] It's only 4 minutes.

[BB+]

As I pointed out on several occassions in the other thread (I am still waiting for your comments) ...

I didn't realise that thread had any useful content left. I thought it was dead when Mr. Whittington opened this one. But now I see that about 60 posts have arrived since I last posted there. Maybe I will respond to them, but I am busy with other things (someone who has worked here for 10 years is leaving, we have a luncheon, he has to move stuff, etc.). The patronising tone of Mr. Whittington does not urge me to return to the subject, but I will try to do so at some point.

... there were no (addapted | new) rules, no guidance from the ICGA to the new arisen situation of exploding knowledge available for everyone with a few strikes on the keyboard and how and to what extend the "KNOWLEDGE" should and could be used.

The ICGA Journal editorial in 29/2 regarding the LION++ case (entitled The Interpretation of Rules) was their most signficant attempt prior to the Rybka case.

Primarily, we see inspired and inspiring scientists standing on each other’s shoulders to design an even better device. ... Clearly, a stolen program should be excluded from competition. This is rather simple (at least in theory). A software program is tangible or material, and so it can be traced, but how about ideas? They are vague and sensible, but also understandable and many times implementable. Is there a copyright, a patent, or another legal security issue? And how would our community deal with it? ... [LION++ case details] ... For long-standing members of our community – we assume – the above the interpretation of the rules is clear. In Turin, the ICGA had the pleasure to welcome some new members who became three-year members according to the rules for participating in a WCCC. So far, we believed that the three-year rule was a rule for the continuity of the membership, now we know that this rule should be interpreted as a rule for familiarisation with the ICGA community.

Note that in his "A Very Sad Case" (ICCA Journal 34/2), Levy indicated that Rajlich should have known about the LION++ interpretation (being in Turin), and if he had questions, should have asked. Indeed, in response to what Riis wrote about Rule #2, I pointed out that most (university) plagiarism policies [relevant as he discussed the plagiarism finding] explicitly say something like "When in doubt, ask."

As various people (including myself and Gerd Isenberg) suggested, one way to "fix" the attribution problem would simply be for the ICGA to adjoin Letouzey as a "Rybka" author for the relevant ICGA entries. But this had no chance of happening once Rajlich chose to abstain from the process, to the extent of ignoring Levy's emails.

Do you really want to believe that INCREASING KNOWLEDGE doesn't affect originality?

Many things can affect originality. If anything, I would argue that increasing knowledge in computer chess actually increases the capacity for originality. Once Letouzey had shown that a "low knowledge" EVAL could be competitive (already with Fruit 1.0 Rajlich had commented on this), there was plenty of room for exploring this idea, to what extent it could be taken, etc. Similarly, when Rajlich showed that "statisticial pruning" could be quite effective with today's (or 2005's) search depths, there were many ways to implement what was going on. Even with null move, there were (and are today) competing versions, including recursive nature, parameter tweaks (eg Heinz), when to turn it off, etc. But Rajlich largely took Fruit's (limited) EVAL knowledge, with a few replacements and additions. As Letouzey has said, it matters as much what VR didn't use as what he did. Similarly, IPPOLIT to some extent (large in some places, smaller in others) based its pruning schemes on Rybka 3's and its eval on Kaufman's R3 work. Neither of these have been transferred to the same degree in Stockfish or Komodo, but rather new "riffs" have been appeared, in concordance with Letouzey's extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.

[hyatt]

It's indeed one of the first things Rajlich said, why only me? Check others too.

I believe that "others" have been checked to extent that any evidence warranted it. For instance, of the [other] engines that Rajlich mentioned (Dec 2005 interview) as getting a "massive jump" in the wake of Fruit, none of them show any significant move similarity therein (which was his preferred "objective" criterion). [Footnote 43 of the DHW paper recalls that the Hiarcs team was quick to dispute Rajlich's claims, and indeed Footnote 42 disputes the "massive" nature of these jumps, though perhaps VR feels "20 Elo" suffices]. Both prior to and after the Rybka incident, some preliminary disassembly has been done on "other" engines (primarily by "Internet forums"), and in the cases where it has been deemed warranted, some additional investigation has been undertaken (either by the ICGA or otherwise). As ICGA work is voluntary, perhaps some of Rajlich's Forum members could volunteer to check other engines? Otherwise, I can't expect there to be much done based upon unsubstantiated claims and a dearth of evidence.

I mean what he said after the verdict. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqwahEtUYNo ] It's only 4 minutes.

How many times was that rehearsed? How is it even relevant? Do you think someone convicted in a criminal court would get very far with "but your honor, there are over 6 billion people on this planet, and the police didn't investigate every one of THEM in a quest to track down drug cartel money laundering. I shouldn't be singled out, it is not fair."

[Rebel]

It's indeed one of the first things Rajlich said, why only me? Check others too.

I believe that "others" have been checked to extent that any evidence warranted it. For instance, of the [other] engines that Rajlich mentioned (Dec 2005 interview) as getting a "massive jump" in the wake of Fruit, none of them show any significant move similarity therein (which was his preferred "objective" criterion). [Footnote 43 of the DHW paper recalls that the Hiarcs team was quick to dispute Rajlich's claims, and indeed Footnote 42 disputes the "massive" nature of these jumps, though perhaps VR feels "20 Elo" suffices]. Both prior to and after the Rybka incident, some preliminary disassembly has been done on "other" engines (primarily by "Internet forums"), and in the cases where it has been deemed warranted, some additional investigation has been undertaken (either by the ICGA or otherwise). As ICGA work is voluntary, perhaps some of Rajlich's Forum members could volunteer to check other engines? Otherwise, I can't expect there to be much done based upon unsubstantiated claims and a dearth of evidence.

I mean what he said after the verdict. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqwahEtUYNo ] It's only 4 minutes.

How many times was that rehearsed? How is it even relevant?

Cycling?

Catch all the epo users?

By the words of Levy:

The ICGA would like to see this disgusting practice stopped and those who perpetrate the cloning publicly exposed for what they are. This article is the ICGA’s opening shot in that struggle.

Operation clean sweep as in cycling?

Many have plundered Vas' legacy the IPPO's and ROBBO's.

[Rebel]

... there were no (addapted | new) rules, no guidance from the ICGA to the new arisen situation of exploding knowledge available for everyone with a few strikes on the keyboard and how and to what extend the "KNOWLEDGE" should and could be used.

The ICGA Journal editorial in 29/2 regarding the LION++ case (entitled The Interpretation of Rules) was their most signficant attempt prior to the Rybka case.

Primarily, we see inspired and inspiring scientists standing on each other’s shoulders to design an even better device. ... Clearly, a stolen program should be excluded from competition. This is rather simple (at least in theory). A software program is tangible or material, and so it can be traced, but how about ideas? They are vague and sensible, but also understandable and many times implementable. Is there a copyright, a patent, or another legal security issue? And how would our community deal with it? ... [LION++ case details] ... For long-standing members of our community – we assume – the above the interpretation of the rules is clear. In Turin, the ICGA had the pleasure to welcome some new members who became three-year members according to the rules for participating in a WCCC. So far, we believed that the three-year rule was a rule for the continuity of the membership, now we know that this rule should be interpreted as a rule for familiarisation with the ICGA community.

Sure, the LION case of 2006 (Vas' first appearance) is very interesting but before commenting on this we should make sure we are talking about the same data available. On the CPW I see an historic overview of rule #2 starting at 2007. For our understanding I would like to know:

1. Was the LION case a trigger to the new 2007 rule #2?

2. What were the contents of rule #2 before 2007?

Rule #2 before 2007 is interesting because it was Vas' first ICGA tournament in 2006 so basically it's reasonable to assume he played with an improved Rybka 1.0 version.

Note that in his "A Very Sad Case" (ICCA Journal 34/2), Levy indicated that Rajlich should have known about the LION++ interpretation (being in Turin), and if he had questions, should have asked. Indeed, in response to what Riis wrote about Rule #2, I pointed out that most (university) plagiarism policies [relevant as he discussed the plagiarism finding] explicitly say something like "When in doubt, ask."

The LION guys promptly admitted the Fruit origin, with reference to Fabien's conjecture in this thread, copying. It's quite different with Vas who vehemently denied copying Fruit and from the beginning hinted using Fruit ideas only. Why would he care about the LION (a GPL breach) case?

As various people (including myself and Gerd Isenberg) suggested, one way to "fix" the attribution problem would simply be for the ICGA to adjoin Letouzey as a "Rybka" author for the relevant ICGA entries. But this had no chance of happening once Rajlich chose to abstain from the process, to the extent of ignoring Levy's emails.

I like elegant solutions. Some of my musings, but of course I am not Vas.

1. Would Levy accepted such a solution? He was already out for a kill. (Chessvibes)

2. I (while feeling innocent to the charges) probably would accept "something" like that depending on the tone setting and the financials pure out of commercial interests to end all the hoopla. Problem is that Fabien instead of talking to Vas first (I am not aware Fabien tried) immediately filed a complaint to the FSF and to the ICGA. Solutions like these with reference to (1) also are a missed opportunity once the cat is out the bag and war has been declared.