Computer Chess as it should be

[Harvey Williamson]

But why when Rybka first came in; why it was not investigated at that moment?

Fabien the author of Fruit left Computer Chess. When he actually looked at it around a year ago he realised that rybka = Fruit.

[ricard60]

But why when Rybka first came in; why it was not investigated at that moment?

Fabien the author of Fruit left Computer Chess. When he actually looked at it around a year ago he realised that rybka = Fruit.

That is the point i do not get. If we are clear that ICGA must investigate each new engine when it comes in, Why did not do it when Rybka first came in 4 years ago? I believe it is not a Fabien problem.

[Harvey Williamson]

But why when Rybka first came in; why it was not investigated at that moment?

Fabien the author of Fruit left Computer Chess. When he actually looked at it around a year ago he realised that rybka = Fruit.

That is the point i do not get. If we are clear that ICGA must investigate each new engine when it comes in, Why did not do it when Rybka first came in 4 years ago? I believe it is not a Fabien problem.

You did not read my previous reply:

If a new engine enters an ICGA event and an ICGA member asks a question about it the engine will probably be investigated.

Nobody asked them to investigate Rybka until fabien made his claim about its origin.

[ricard60]

But why when Rybka first came in; why it was not investigated at that moment?

Fabien the author of Fruit left Computer Chess. When he actually looked at it around a year ago he realised that rybka = Fruit.

That is the point i do not get. If we are clear that ICGA must investigate each new engine when it comes in, Why did not do it when Rybka first came in 4 years ago? I believe it is not a Fabien problem.

You did not read my previous reply:

If a new engine enters an ICGA event and an ICGA member asks a question about it the engine will probably be investigated.

Nobody asked them to investigate Rybka until fabien made his claim about its origin.

This is the weak point i am trying to show out; if Fabien would not ask to investigate Rybka. Rybka would probably go on and on winning world titles. What would ICGA have done if Fabien did not show up?

[Harvey Williamson]

But why when Rybka first came in; why it was not investigated at that moment?

Fabien the author of Fruit left Computer Chess. When he actually looked at it around a year ago he realised that rybka = Fruit.

That is the point i do not get. If we are clear that ICGA must investigate each new engine when it comes in, Why did not do it when Rybka first came in 4 years ago? I believe it is not a Fabien problem.

You did not read my previous reply:

If a new engine enters an ICGA event and an ICGA member asks a question about it the engine will probably be investigated.

Nobody asked them to investigate Rybka until fabien made his claim about its origin.

This is the weak point i am trying to show out; if Fabien would not ask to investigate Rybka. Rybka would probably go on and on winning world titles. What would ICGA have done if Fabien did not show up?

But he did turn up and theft was proven. We are going around in circles you obviously think it is ok to pretend someone elses work is their own. I think this is stealing. Now please go and read the evidence this is going nowhere.

[ricard60]

But why when Rybka first came in; why it was not investigated at that moment?

Fabien the author of Fruit left Computer Chess. When he actually looked at it around a year ago he realised that rybka = Fruit.

That is the point i do not get. If we are clear that ICGA must investigate each new engine when it comes in, Why did not do it when Rybka first came in 4 years ago? I believe it is not a Fabien problem.

You did not read my previous reply:

If a new engine enters an ICGA event and an ICGA member asks a question about it the engine will probably be investigated.

Nobody asked them to investigate Rybka until fabien made his claim about its origin.

This is the weak point i am trying to show out; if Fabien would not ask to investigate Rybka. Rybka would probably go on and on winning world titles. What would ICGA have done if Fabien did not show up?

But he did turn up and theft was proven. We are going around in circles you obviously think it is ok to pretend someone elses work is their own. I think this is stealing. Now please go and read the evidence this is going nowhere.

Yes we are going around in circles but i do not think i can get some somebody else work and be world champion, that is unfair for me.I will try to explain it in another way.

suppose i kill an innocent (get software from somebody else and i am world champion) but nobody complains to the police ( ICGA). I believe this is still a crime. What i am trying to show is that the police (ICGA) must have another methods to catch me before a kill 4 more inocent people ( 4 more world titles) and just catch me because somebody saw me when i comit the fourth crime. This is not the best way of getting criminals you are letting to many innocent people die.

[SirDave]

I have no chess programming expertise, but I have programmed and sold a complex business computer software package (compiled basic and C) in the past so I know something about the issue of protected, original content and particularly, the difficulty of protecting compiled code.

The argument being pressed above appears to be that the ICGA should have picked up the alleged plagiarism years ago, before the world championships ie. it should have had a mechanism for testing all software before allowing entry into competitions. Just looking at this chess-related issue, I cannot see how this would or could, in any way, be practical. Doing any kind of in-depth investigation of compiled code, or even the comparison of limited source code one may be lucky enough to find is both difficult and tedious with the emphasis on the latter. I don't think anyone with the required expertise wants to do this on a regular basis for free and I don't think the ICGA is any position to finance the sort of constant and/or periodic investigation of software that would be necessary to prevent unfair and/or illegal copying of chess software code.

But all the above aside, the fact is that there is no other example (that I know of) where protected, original works are regularly tested and compared to other works in the same category to prove originality and disprove piracy. Book publishers don't check book content before releasing a book. Music producers don't check note-by-note originality before works are placed before the public. And computer programs in general are not checked for originality of code before a software package is released. No matter what the work of art or business, plagiarism is usually not discovered until after the fact and often, long after the fact. Some is probably never discovered.

In the end, it falls to the authors of, or publishers who have a vested interest in, works of art or business to present enough evidence to get investigations of piracy/plagiarism opened.

[ricard60]

In the end, it falls to the authors of, or publishers who have a vested interest in, works of art or business to present enough evidence to get investigations of piracy/plagiarism opened.[/quote]

That is why i believe this could happen again. Look at this coment from rule number two of the ICGA that is in another post on a page before

"Nelson Hernandez: The ICGA wishes to sustain a standard of property rights that simply does not exist and cannot exist in the current technological milieu, wherein once-proprietary information is a few mouse-clicks away and available to anyone on the Internet. The ICGA's Rule 2 is a relic of the pre-Internet years, superficially simple with its absolutist requirement for originality, yet a dead letter in the actual, irreversible reality that exists today.

The magnitude of the ICGA's error is manifest by simply taking a step backwards and looking at the situation with fresh eyes. Rule 2 is apparently unenforceable on its face by observing that their action required hundreds of "expert" man-hours, a reinterpretion the rule according to subjective ex post facto standards, and through the manufacture of "evidence" to support a publicly preconceived conclusion."

So maybe more inocent people will be killed.

[SirDave]

So maybe more inocent people will be killed.

Final thought: In keeping with the (unfortunate) metaphor: We can't prevent most crimes, but we imprison evil-doers as a precedent to impress on others the consequences of evil-doing. I'm the last one to be able to speak for the ICGA, but my humble perspective is that it had experts evaluate the evidence using Rule 2 as the guideline and then consequences were applied to act as a precedent. It's one thing to find fault with the current methodology, it's another thing to come up with a practical alternative.

[ricard60]

Maybe what ICGA can do before the competition of the world title is to allways check the 3 highest elo software but without checking the software we already know that are ok, like Hiarcs,Shredder,Fritz,Baron and others we know that are original work from the authors. Something like the olimpic games they do not check for esteroids an all competitors only on the first 3.

[Harvey Williamson]

Maybe what ICGA can do before the competition of the world title is to allways check the 3 highest elo software but without checking the software we already know that are ok, like Hiarcs,Shredder,Fritz,Baron and others we know that are original work from the authors. Something like the olimpic games they do not check for esteroids an all competitors only on the first 3.

To check programs like you suggest is months of work for unpaid volunteers. I think the only way to proceed is to act only when a complaint is made by an ICGA member/programmer.

I guess we could put up the entry and membership fees to $1000's a year to pay for people to do as you suggest.

[ricard60]

Maybe what ICGA can do before the competition of the world title is to allways check the 3 highest elo software but without checking the software we already know that are ok, like Hiarcs,Shredder,Fritz,Baron and others we know that are original work from the authors. Something like the olimpic games they do not check for esteroids an all competitors only on the first 3.

To check programs like you suggest is months of work for unpaid volunteers. I think the only way to proceed is to act only when a complaint is made by an ICGA member/programmer.

I guess we could put up the entry and membership fees to $1000's a year to pay for people to do as you suggest.

I believe $1000 a year is a fair price to be allowed in the world title and the ICGA can check the alternative way i am showing.

Altermnative way for rule number 2 regards
Ricardo

[Watchman]

I believe $1000 a year is a fair price to be allowed in the world title and the ICGA can check the alternative way i am showing.

So you are entering a chess engine this year and are happy to pay the $1000?

Or maybe you do not have a chess engine of your own and you are happy to be the sponsor (pay for another chess engine entry fee of $1000)...

Altermnative way for rule number 2 regards

I have a suggestion... how about "a man's word is his bond." The "honor system" is no longer worth using? I mean... you fill out an application stating "Yes, this my original work." That is not good enough?

Of course for some... we know it is not. There will always be men who lie and are liars. That does not make the rule "wrong".

Btw Ricardo... citing Nelson Hernandez's mini-treatise on ICGA's Rule No. 2... I find it roughly the moral equivalent of Bernie Madoff and his idea of "wealth management".

[ricard60]

I have a suggestion... how about "a man's word is his bond." The "honor system" is no longer worth using? I mean... you fill out an application stating "Yes, this my original work." That is not good enough? Of course for some... we know it is not. There will always be men who lie and are liars. That does not make the rule "wrong". Btw Ricardo... citing Nelson Hernandez's mini-treatise on ICGA's Rule No. 2... I find it roughly the moral equivalent of Bernie Madoff and his idea of "wealth management".

Sadly as we all know today a man's word is not enough and that is why there is a police. Maybe someday will come true the dream where there will be no man on earth that lies and we will not need the police but i believe we are still far away from there or maybe we will never get there. But we allways must think on how to do better each day because nothing is perfect for ever even the rules. So that is why we also must ask us if we can do better rules and not just saying that the rule is perfect. I also believe that if we can get better rules less people will try to lie because they will be caught immediatly. Of course this is not easy . If this were an easy task maybe you and me and all others that are writting these posts were doing something else.