Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 12:45:05 05/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2005 at 11:57:01, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >On May 30, 2005 at 05:11:50, Vasik Rajlich 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. >>> >>>But you are correct - even I dont really care about clone issue (you publish the >>>source , you expect others to use it - else dont publish it !) , and as I said >>>before , if I ever do opensource any of my programs , I still wont care if >>>someone clones them :) >>>All this discussions is just to support the rest who do and the lend moral >>>support to the programmers in general :-D >>>In most of clone "discussions" here (I might have missed some) , I always >>>support the programmer even when the evidence seems a bit too overwhelming and >>>back off only when it becomes a certainity ... maybe it is just the romantic in >>>me :) >>>Even if initially through a clone , I would prefer more people getting into a >>>field - later on they might start off on their own and create something really >>>interesting (ideas I mean - I dont care much about implementation details) , >>>etc. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Mridul >> >>I tend to think like this myself but over time I've come to realize that if >>everybody was like this, there would be a lot of robbers and thieves floating >>around. > > >Well , not everyone thinks that way (unlike you and me :) ) - general people >usually are the first to brand someone as a criminal on the basis of flimsy >evidence : usually what gets fed to them through the media and based on >sensational/gruesome facts. >As an individual , everyone is free to form their own opinions (and he does not >need to justify/defend it to anyone). >But before we (as a community) declare that something is a clone , get it >removed from tourny's , brand the author as a clone-creater , etc (which could >be considered parallel to dishing out a verdict in court ?) we should try to be >more rigourous. >For me personally it is not important whether program X (whether written by me >or not) is branded as a clone : since I do think for kicks during free time , >but not everyone will take this attitude : and I want to give those people >support who might not be very vocal or have a large support group - until >atleast it is conclusively proved. > > >> >>A lot of wrongdoing depends on the uncertainty of the audience - people may >>pretty much understand what is happening, but they can't "prove" it, while >>others are talking about "innocent until proven guilty" and in other ways >>rewarding doing nothing. In the meantime, the robbers are laughing all the way >>to the bank. > > >Very true - we have way too many incidents in nearly all countries about people >who have scammed , conned , robbed (some going into billions of dollars) and >still walk around free. >I heard that a murderer in highly publicized case in US also escaped this way >(vaguely remember hearing something like this). > >But that does not remove the fundamental tennent of the justice system , which >is justice and the accused is held innocent until proven guilty. >In some case , this gets modified as proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - >which is when a really unlucky innocent guy gets the sentence based on >circumstantial evidence. (I dont know how many actual cases have gone through >like this , but there are way too many movies here which highlight these >loopholes here :) ) > >Innocent until proven guilty does not mean that the robbers get to roam around >free. >It means that the system will not brand someone as a criminal until the >investigation is over and all sides of the case/arguments are looked into - the >case is still in active scrutiny and until it is cleared , it will be ... >There just wont be a bias against the accused. (Example : society looking at a >chain killer with very hostile viewpoint , if public decide his case, he will >get lynched - but if justice is to be served , the court will hear his side , >give him oppurtunatet to defend (most important !) and then decide impartially >on the basis of the facts presented - not on passion). > > The cases where this really becomes a tricky area is when it's pretty obvious to anybody with some common sense what has happened, but there is still the question of going through the correct process. For example - imagine that you are a cop trying to put Al Capone in jail. Everybody knows he should be there, but you haven't been able to formally collect the evidence. Now, you have a chance to illegally sieze the key evidence, in such a way that you'll still get it admitted. Do you do it? Actually, there was a really cool (and really old) movie about this sort of thing. The name was something like "The Star Chamber" or maybe "Red Star Chamber". A bunch of cops got sick of criminals wiggling out by legal loopholes and technicalities, so they made a secret group. They would meet, review a case, and if they voted unanimously that the guy was guilty, one of them would get the task to kill him. I think you can probably guess how the plot developed :) Vas >> >>That's what happens when things start to fall apart. >> >>Of course this is all maybe a bit too dramatic for copying some computer chess >>code. BTW - do check out that link - it's pretty funny IMHO ... > > >Very true :) >I did look at the website and had a real good laugh :) >One important question I had though was - I would be scandalised with the nodes >to depth and branching factor :-) > >Thanks, >Mridul > >PS : Feeling damn sleepy , so maybe the post is semi to full rambling and >totally incoherent - will rephrase/repost if that is the case tommorrow morning >:) >Personally I get disturbed when I see accusations like this - I like to keep the >field clean if possible with as much cooperation between contributors : ah well >, I like to live in utopia :-D > >> >>Vas
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.