Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:35:55 01/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1999 at 17:12:39, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On January 25, 1999 at 14:04:47, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On January 25, 1999 at 10:54:04, Albrecht Heeffer wrote: >>[snip] >> >>> >>>Hello all, >>> >>>It seems like a good time to introduce myself. I'm part of the Bionic team. >>>I provided the hardware, worked through the test sets, added the end-game >>>databases and did some optimisations. I was present at the Open Dutch during >>>the first weekend. >>> >>>Let me first clarify some things: >>> >>>1) You want data? There is a complete website explaining a lot of details >>>about Bionic. Please consult http://www.impakt.be/bionic/ There is >>>also explained what was added and changes to the Crafty version >>>we started from. >>> >>>2) All this was available before the start of the Open Dutch championship. >>>We did not hide anything. Bionic Impakt is for a large part based on >>>Crafty code, originally 9.26 and later based on 15.20. We never looked at >>>Crafty 16.x as some people suggested. If you want to compare, you'd >>>better use version 15.20 >> >>Hello Albrecht, >> >>Glad to meet someone new here, but sorry that my first response to you has to be >>an opposing point of view. >> >>This entire issue is extremely complex and controversial, but it really comes >>down to an issue of morality (not legality, not "we posted ahead of time", >>etc.). >> >>In the US, there are laws that state that a gift cannot be given to heads of >>corporations in order to make a business deal with them. In other parts of the >>world, these laws do not exist and these practices are encouraged. >> >>My point is that people in different parts of the world consider some actions as >>legal and/or moral and others do not. >> >>In the US, it is considered that someone who copies freeware software source, >>modifies it slightly, and re-sells it under a different name is doing something >>illegal. It is considered that someone who copies freeware software source, >>modifies it slightly, and does not re-sell it under a different name, but does >>use the software in a public domain is doing something immoral. >> >>Hence, the replies that you have seen previously. >> >>To me personally, it is a matter of fairness and personal integrity. Is it fair >>to use even a portion of someone else's years of hard work in a tournament >>designed for amateurs writing their own code? My answer is definitely not, >>regardless of posting a disclaimer on a web page. Your opinion of what is >>morally correct may differ. >> >>It doesn't matter to me if the programs play identically or as drastically >>different as possible, especially in a tournament designed for amateurs. >> >>I DO appreciate the amount of hard work your team has put into this program. I >>just feel morally uncomfortable on your approach. >> >>Remember the saying: If you get your material from a bunch of sources, it's >>research. If you get your material from a single source, it's plagerism. (And I >>realize that you got material from many sources, books, articles, code snippets, >>etc.; however, I was not being literal here). > >I think that it possible and even likely that Mr. Heeffer is acting completely >honestly and in accord with his own morality. I wouldn't doubt it in the least. That is why I gave the example I did. Different people around the world (and not just in different countries) have a different sense of what is morally and legally correct. That's no slight to them. It's just that it is different than my view. > >I think that where the seat of personality resides is a very difficult question >if we are talking about human beings. Regarding computer chess players I think >it has to be more easily answered, but I don't know if anyone else has tried to >do it. That's why I suggest that people run the test suite I posted elsewhere. > >It is possible that Bionic could play more like Crafty than other programs, >without it meaning that Mr. Heeffer hasn't done significant work, but rather it >may just mean that a program's playing style comes from the areas that he didn't >do as much work on. > >It's all uncharted territory, as far as I can tell. > >As I have said before, the reason I am interested in this issue is not because I >want to nail someone, but rather because I want to see how similar programs are >to each other. We have a case here where a program is evolved from another >program, so we can test the degree of evolution as well. The data would be interesting, however, I've noted that many programs play the same move in 70% to 90% of situations (other elements such as time and resources being equal). Therefore, it would seem that you would need even more data than what a log file can give you (although that would be a start). Unfair advantage is sometimes a hard quantity to state. Is it unfair to be running on different types of computers? Most of the CCC community would probably say no MERELY because a doubling of speed or an increase in hash table size has not been shown to significantly improve a program's ELO. To me, an advantage is an advantage if the playing field is not equal. Granted, in most of the tournaments, it is impossible to get a bunch of identical computers and even if you did, some programs are tweaked for different hardware or OSs and just making the computers the same would, in reality, make the playing field unequal. To me, what they did is similar to subscribing to a set of chess library software that nobody else is using and which has already been tested. But it goes one step beyond this. It's like they subscribed to the chess library without permission of it's author. > >bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.