Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 09:03:58 05/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2005 at 05:04:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 30, 2005 at 04:00:22, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > >>On May 29, 2005 at 19:09:14, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>>On May 29, 2005 at 15:08:17, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>> >>>>On May 29, 2005 at 11:35:42, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 29, 2005 at 08:25:02, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 28, 2005 at 12:29:33, Günther Simon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 28, 2005 at 12:20:00, Vladimir Elin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi Alex, >>>>>>>>I think that reason for you to use only engines with open sources and delete >>>>>>>>all engines were you can see words : alpha, beta, prunning and many many etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Vladimir that is really a dumb post after all... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Guenther >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You idea that Patriot 2.0 is clone - full absurd. >>>>>>>>Best. >>>>>>>>Vladimir. >>>>>> >>>>>>Is it really such a dumb post ? I am not sure - whenever someone mentions >>>>>>"clone" , I am skeptical - inspite of the number of clones that are discovered. >>>>>>I prefer to give the author the benifit of doubt - a genourously large benifit >>>>>>at that. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nothing is opensource programs is a "secret" , I mean - even if they were not >>>>>>opensource , the amateur (and definitely professional) authors will have arrived >>>>>>(or already have) at them independently : by expiriments or through available >>>>>>docs. I dont really see any ground breaking code or idea in any of the >>>>>>opensource engines today - all are straight forward implementations of the >>>>>>standard theory. >>>>>> >>>>>>Most , if not all , clone accusations show as "proof" something really dumb - >>>>>>like string search , result in a single position , behaviour of a parser (which >>>>>>is _not_ part of the engine as such people !) , etc - maybe these are the only >>>>>>possible ways to identify clones (I am not sure - and as I have posted before , >>>>>>I dont really care much) , but based on such flimsy grounds people should not >>>>>>accuse others. >>>>>>When you accuse a program as a clone - you are also maligning the reputation of >>>>>>the author : which is the more serious thing IMHO. >>>>>> >>>>>>What Vladimir Elin is hinting at is that (I think) , people (usually non-chess >>>>>>engine programmers who know quiet little about the programming aspects) see >>>>>>something/anything strange (in their eyes) and cry wolf. >>>>>>Like a string search which returns strings - which might be what is defined in >>>>>>the pgn spec , or a binary search which returns data match (whcih might be de to >>>>>>a generated parser for pgn handling for book) , etc ! >>>>>> >>>>>>Ofcourse wachful people are always needs to see the hints which will lead to the >>>>>>identification of many clones , but IMO we need a better way to decide how to >>>>>>identify clones. >>>>>> >>>>>>The current process seems to be : 1) Accuse 2) Flame 3) Author defends 4) >>>>>>mudslinging 5) Nasty posts - brining the author's whole family history to the >>>>>>ground 6) Challenge (to show source) 7) If 6 accepted , cleared , else branded >>>>>>as clone. >>>>>> I dont know about others, but no I am never going to send my source code to >>>>>>someone I dont personally trust - even if the rest of the computer chess >>>>>>community might seem to. >>>>>>Not everyone knows what the non-opensource guys are doing in their code : and >>>>>>personally I do many a stupid things , but I might have something interesting >>>>>>too :) >>>>>> >>>>>>So why have opensource engines ? - different question anyway , we wont discuss >>>>>>that since it is largely an authors decision. >>>>>> >>>>>>We should try to promote the number of amateur engines so that as many people as >>>>>>possible should enter this field - not discourage people. (both within >>>>>>reasonable limits ofcourse) >>>>>> >>>>>>Mridul >>>>> >>>>>Mridul -- >>>>> >>>>>First of all, your post makes me wonder if you are familiar with the Patriot 2.0 >>>>>situation, but anyway those things are boring for me so let's talk philosophy >>>>>for a second :) >>>>> >>>>>I've had the good or maybe bad luck to spend at least 3 years living in five >>>>>different countries, and I can make a certain observation. In two of these >>>>>countries - USA and Germany - society essentially works. Wages are decent, crime >>>>>is kept down, things just work. In three of these countries - Hungary, Czech >>>>>Republic and Poland - no offense intended to anyone, but they just don't work as >>>>>well. People steal from the government without getting punished, people cheat on >>>>>their jobs, nobody is willing to deal with various problems, etc. >>>>> >>>>>What's the difference? A huge difference is that in Germany and USA, people >>>>>essentially care. If they see something wrong, they report it and attempt to >>>>>rectify it. This goes from cleaning up a small mess on the road, to calling the >>>>>police if the neighbor is beating his family, etc. Throughout Eastern Europe, >>>>>people are apathetic - and everybody suffers as a result. >>>>> >>>>>Sometimes, it can seem a bit too much. I remember I had this impression when I >>>>>first came to the US - why is everybody so concerned with things that aren't >>>>>their business. In the overall picture, though, society is better for it. >>>>> >>>>>So I certainly appreciate that there are people who are going to look into these >>>>>things and do something about it, rather than just endlessly holding their >>>>>tongue for fear of being out of line. Without it, computer chess will just be a >>>>>mess. >>>>> >>>>>Vas >>>> >>>>Hi Vas, >>>> >>>> Like I mentioned myself , we need people who will point out the >>>>errors/suspicions. >>>>But these are just that suspicions - a 35% binary match of the executables (egtb >>>>will account for that ;-) ) , a small set of common strings , a bug in the fen >>>>parser (I have seen multiple people misread/misinterpret the same spec - there >>>>will be grey areas even in the most well written specs) , etc are not enough by >>>>a long shot to accuse something as a clone - they can be indicators of a >>>>potential clone at best. >>>> >>>>I visit CCC less and less nowadays - and each time I do so , a new program seems >>>>to be accused of being a clone : personally I dont care , it is a hobby for me , >>>>something I use to fill my remaining freetime with when I am not busy with other >>>>opensource projects I am involved with - but true , there are people who take it >>>>seriously and for them and for the future (if not for other reasons) we should >>>>try to keep this field as clean as possible. >>>> >>>>But that should not be at the expense of any tom dick and harry coming out and >>>>accusing programs of being a clone. >>>>That is why I said - we should have a better process for clone issue : how clone >>>>suspicions are raised , how they are probed into , how they are proved/disproved >>>>, etc : a bunch of amateurish tests should not be the basis of flame wars here. >>>>Makes the whole forum (and field for that matter) more and more unreadable and >>>>uninteresting. >>>> >>>> The analogy you raised is not really valid in this context (IMHO :) ). >>>>I wrote a long response in this space on that - and then removed it. >>>>That is not the matter we are discussing here :) - it will most probably only >>>>expose my ignorance of the issues concerned since I have never physically been >>>>to the places mentioned like you though I am made aware of the ground realities >>>>through my friends. >>>> >>>>Anyway , you are correct about the first point - my understanding (from what >>>>little I read among the accusations and counteraccusations that kept flying >>>>around) was that Patriot 2 was accused of being a clone , author did not expose >>>>the source code , branded as a clone by the community here based on the >>>>circumstantial evidence found (I read a few - maybe I missed a lot more) and the >>>>ones I read looked not very solid to me (I have not done any research on Patriot >>>>and never used it for that matter , so likely that I am missing the finer points >>>>of the Patriot2 clone issue). >>>> >>>>My main problem with these accusations is that : >>>> >>>>1) People here follow the maxim guilty until proven innocent. >>>> >>>>2) Sensationalism in the accusations - I see more and more of this in the media >>>>where it is better to say something bad to get the max amount of publicity and >>>>attention : same thing is being "imported" into CCC. >>>> >>>>3) In general , it is the author's reputation which is more at stake than the >>>>program as such , and mudslinging is affecting the author's reputation (the >>>>accusations might or mightnot be correct). >>>>Hence , even if something is disproved - the result is not going to remove the >>>>damage already done to it ! >>>> >>>>"An arrow which leaves the bow and a word which leaves the mouth cannot be taken >>>>back" - an old saying here :) >>>> >>>>I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" too much (it might be a >>>>cultural/upbringing thing, not sure) , which is why these discussions disturb me >>>>more. >>>>Very few people seem to stick up for the author in general - like Peter Skinner >>>>seems to be doing right now (just skimmed through the posts now) , the more >>>>vocal group are the ones who are accusing. The others seem to be maintaining a >>>>studied silence - true , you should try not to react until you get all the facts >>>>- mark of a wise man , but sometimes it galls me when the more vocal group makes >>>>the community believe in an issue just because they keep repeating it and the >>>>others dont challenge or respond until everyone believes it ! >>>>I have seen way too many "discussions" of this nature in other forums online and >>>>now recently in CCC also. >>>>Justice happens when both sides are looked at impartially : assuming people are >>>>really interested in getting to the roots of the problem. (which most of us in >>>>CCC here are I assume). >>>> >>>>Note : even now I am not really saying whether the programs are clones or not , >>>>I dont have the data , unfortunately neither the time to investigate , or the >>>>patience for it right now and really appreciate the work people are puttig in >>>>this work. >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Mridul >>> >>>Hi Mridul -- >>> >>>Ok there is no way I can write something intelligent at this hour :) >>> >>>There is a balance of course between persecuting too many innocents, and >>>defending too many who are guilty. >>> >>>I guess I don't see this particular cause as very attractive. >>> >>>Here is some more stuff about it: >>> >>>http://www.uciengines.de/UCI-Engines/Patriot/Patriot2/hauptteil_patriot2.html >>> >>>But frankly - I don't really care. :) >>> >>>Vas >> >>Hi Vas, >> >> Thanks for the link - will look into it later today. >>My understanding of the legal system (atleast over here) is that even if a >>thousand guilty escape , one innocent should not be punished. > >Maybe 1000 is not a number that is big enough but I believe that there is X that >is big enough that it is better that one innocent person will be punished and >not X quilty people escape. > >The only way to be 100% sure of not putting innocent people in prison is to put >nobody in prison. > >It is always possible that all the people are lying or that the person is >unlucky to be similiar to the real criminal so people say that they saw him but >they really saw someone else. > >even finger print is no proof because it may be possible that 2 humans have >similiar finger. > >I see no 100% proof. >Even if the source code is public and 2 programmers have exactly the same code >then in theory it is possible that both thought the same things without copying. > >probability is practically 0 but I cannot say that it is 0 because even >1/(10^10000) is not 0. > >Uri Hi Uri, That is not something I made up , but a general saying here w.r.t how a ideal legal system should work :-) Ofcourse , you can never have 100% in the mathematical sense : so I think legally it gets stated as "without reasonable doubt" (or something similar). So , the defence attorney cannot claim things like aliens came did the crime , etc - mathematically non-zero probability , but in the interests of practicality I guess the legal system overlooks these. By the way (over here atleast) , the innocent is given every oppurtunety to defend himself starting from the court at which the case is presented all the way upto supreme court and then appeal it again. (all expensive and could be potentially foolish if the case has been proved conclusively). Like I mentioned in another post , there are lot of innocent people who get convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence (more so in fiction than real life) , you will get the punishment not because of the fault in the legal system but because of your inability to defend. The system is not making a preconcieved notion that you are innocent/guilty : sometimes life just sucksand you happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time doing and saying the wrong things. Mridul
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.