Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:Norman Schmidt wrote:Christopher Conkie wrote:Norman Schmidt wrote:i'm a bit uneasy here...i have only seen what's been posted so far in this thread. i would hate to see any unintentional injustice done to Cipollino (or any other engine for that matter).
maybe others need to be involved ... i.e. reach a consensus, and carefully consider if this constitutes irrefutable proof, or is it only enough to be strongly suspicious, or what...?
i know there's no such thing as 100% proof, so i realize a less-than-perfect decision has to be made at one point...
The programmer does not know how to play chess Norman but he like anyone be they an Anthony or a Thomas or a Norman....has the right of reply. I don't know about you but I am not into witch hunts, I am into fact hunts.
The fact is that Cipollino looks very much like Fruit and you should bear in mind that you were not told what it was.
You will of course be able to tell me how one could write an original chess engine (a 2800elo one) from scratch without knowing how to play chess.....
Christopher
you're right of course, and my intention is not to cast doubt on your findings.
my conflict over what constitutes proof, and what does not, likely stems from the CCC fruit/strelka/rybka debacle from this summer.
pages and pages (hundreds of lines of code) were taken from both strelka source code and disassembled rybka 1.0, and they matched fruit 2.1 very closely, but this was not enough, the case was thrown out of court (and the individuals driving the discussion ridiculed).
there seems to be differing standards (i.e. between here and the CCC), and double standards (perhaps depending on how established the engine is and it's overall prestige level).
in the Cipollino case, however, i do firmly believe that since it's Olivier's tournament, he has the right to refuse any engine that he suspects may not be legitimate.
Norm
The engine was not released? I can't see what the problem is. GPL is violated when you release software without sources. If you keep your engine private, you can do whatever you want with it. Right?
Anyway, this is a hobby for me and my engine is not that strong, so I do not care too much about it, but I understand that it is frustrating to be chasing clones all over the place.
Miguel
I think the point Miguel is that an unreleased engine can take part in tournaments and that is therefore up to that tournament director. The tournament director needs a decision based on their own situation. This is not so much about licences being broken as to what happens next.
For example, tourney director gets engine that could be Fruit. Would you the tourney director play it, or would you check it first? Would you the tournament director like to play with more than one of the same program in any tournament?
If you don't check it....you might get an El Chinito or even dare I say it...a Cipollino. What happens next is that if that error is replicated on other occasions you get as far as a Patriot or a Cyclone. Some at this point might even like to say....a Rybka (although I know of no more checked engine).
If you do check it, you would be able to circumvent those problems that arise from recieving say a Toga. Before you know it....somehow....it becomes legitimate in some peoples eyes and then you get a Gridchess.
It is a difficult situation, but I believe that the tournament directors are their own best police. If they are not....they should be. Hang it all...electricity costs money.....but most important is what a tournament director is doing it for. I have never seen the fun or the point of playing Patriot against Toga to know the difference.
It is not so much frustrating, as time consuming, to be chasing clones.
I've only ever looked at anything in those terms that someone asked me to look at. It's more a pain than anything else.
Christopher
