Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:43:59 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. > >Mridul > ><snip> >>BTW I think the evidence is certainly enough to raise questions, if not outright suspicions. I have just two complaints with this aspect of the handling of this. 1. It could have been handled quieter, rather than public letters and the like. Until it was really clear that something was wrong. Of course, it may well be that the ICGA knows more about the situation than they have revealed, so perhaps that revellation was OK. 2. It would have been better to let List complete the event, or else forfeit every already-played game. That provides balance and consistency in the field. However, I consider this to be just minor "static". The real firestorm should be caused by the Johnny/Shredder fiasco. There is absolutely no justification for how _that_ was handled. It was bungled from the get-go and even when the ICGA had enough information to reverse their decision and fix the problem, they passed...
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.