Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 04:47:22 12/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2003 at 05:00:38, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >On December 03, 2003 at 11:52:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 03, 2003 at 04:59:59, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 03, 2003 at 04:10:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On December 03, 2003 at 03:23:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>You and a lot of people at CCC are missing the point. >>>> >>>>If we must proof something, we can be busy 30 years without result. >>>> >>>>Disproving for an author in general takes no more than 2 minutes. >>>> >>>>If such author refuses to cooperate, saying loudly he distrusts everyone on the >>>>planet especially professor Jaap v/d Herik (the only european professor with 2 >>>>professor titles and leading a big department; imagine what happens to >>>>netherlands if he is not trustable) and also refusing to proof 2 weeks after the >>>>event Dr Ernst A Heinz will come to him and he can show it at his laptop to Dr >>>>Ernst A Heinz, then the ICGA can take only 1 action and the author should be >>>>banned forever. >>>> >>>>The only possible thing with regards to source code is proving you are original. >>>>This is a 2 minute procedure in some cases. >>>> >>>>Proof that it is a crafty clone is not needed anyhow, he has to show he is an >>>>original engine and nothing more. >>>> >>>>Otherwise we get computer-go world scenes here where the winner of the world >>>>championships was a reversed engineered commercial program, which has lead to >>>>big courtcases and accusations world wide, and i am very sure that every serious >>>>programmer wants to avoid that. >>>> >>>>So the ICGA using the principle that programmers must proof they have an >>>>original engine is a very correct way to do things. >>>> >>>>If they would NOT do it, just imagine the number of clones. You can show up with >>>>shredder for example, put R to 2 and load it in Arena or wherever. What time do >>>>you guess it will take to proof that it is shredder when it just plays 1 move >>>>different, say Be2 instead of O-O? >>>> >>>>Furhter we change a few tables inside that executable of shredder so it won't be >>>>even closely playing everywhere the same move to it, i hope you realize how easy >>>>that is. This is a 2 minute thing for a good hacker. >>>> >>>>So now i hope you shut up about proving it is crafty. >>>> >>>>The guy was given weeks of time to proof he had an original engine. He failed to >>>>do so, so it is banned till 2006 from ICGA, as simple as that. >>>> >>>>That he was extremely rude towards the ICGA and professor Jaap v/d Herik >>>>especially, is not even relevant for that. >>>> >>>>Also distrusting his own openingsbook creator with his source code, it's >>>>incredible. >>>> >>>>Even Hyatt has had my source code on his machine, many have. >>>> >>>>At the national supercomputer there is at least 30 persons with root access and >>>>at SGI there is another 10 persons at least who have seen DIEP's source code. >>>> >>>>If my openingsbook creator would request me to ship the source code to proof >>>>something somewhere, i would blindfolded do it. Without hesitation. >>>> >>>>The List author doesn't even want to show it at his own laptop or own computer >>>>or own whatever, at a mathcongress to Dr Ernst A Heinz, where he has to show up >>>>in 2 weeks anyway. Of course in the sure know that Heinz is not a beginner and >>>>has had his own bitboard program. >>>> >>>>So even Reuls paranoia source code excuse is no longer valid. >>>> >>>>What must the ICGA do in such a case then? >>>> >>>>Ban him of course. >>>> >>>>If they wouldn't, next year 100 shredder clones would show up. >>> >>>I have no problem with banning somebody who behave in the same way that list >>>behaved. >>> >>>There are 2 problems: >>> >>>1)Banning a program in the middle of the tournament is wrong and it should be >>>done after the tournament or before the tournament(in case that the banning is >>>after the tournament it can include losing the title of world champion if it is >>>needed). >>> >>>2)If somebody makes claims against another program then I want to see the proof >>>for it. >>> >>>I have no problem with a rule that everybody has to show proof that he is not a >>>clone of another program before the tournament but if there is no rule that says >>>it I see no reason to ask List for the source code without good evidence against >>>it. >>> >>>Maybe there was a good evidence against it but I saw no proof for it and it may >>>be interesting to see the proof or if people do not want to give the proof in >>>order not to do the task of cloners easier in the future it is enough for me if >>>Bob Hyatt can be convinced about the proof. >>> >>>Uri >> >>The problem for me is that the evidence submitted was non-conclusive at >>best. >> >>1. Wrong version. It wasn't from the version that would play, because >>nobody had that version. >> >>2. module names mean little, particularly if they are not almost all the >>same. >> >>3. I need something to look at. IE the executable that is being questioned, >>not an old version. IE think about looking at an old gnuchess (non-bitboard) >>version 4, to try to decide if version 5 is a clone (it does use bitboards). >> >>In short, the evidence was suspicious, but barely so, and there wasn't anything >>I would be willing to use to say "this is a clone" as compared to the cases >>of Bionic, Voyager and Le Petite where I did examine the executables and >>was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were pure copies. >> >>I'm a firm believer of "innocent until proven guilty" and the proof here >>is _very_ thin, based on that one email that I received. It may well be >>true. Or it might not be. I certainly can't form any solid opinion from >>what I have been given so far, either here on CCC or via private email. >> > >Even I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and the initial outburst of >mine in this topic here at CCC and ICC were due to this. >I felt that the author was not given enough time to clarify his position. >But reading whatever has been written here it looks more like he decided to >ignore the warnings given to him. >There seems to have been ample oppurtunity for him to have clarified everything. >Also , considering that there is no fool proof way to detect a clone/code >plagarism , it does make sense for ICGA to ask for source code - it is anyway >already there in the tourny rules. >Now I feel a bit stupid for whatever I posted in good faith. I can assure you that you are not the only one feeling stupid about his previous posts. So, there are at least two of us. -:) Uli > >Mridul > ><snip> >>BTW
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.