OpenChess

This poll is very black and white.

Peter

BTW, I didn't vote.

Roger Brown wrote:

Charles wrote:
SNIP

So Determining and defining which engines are clones, derivatives, or completely original is the only logical and moral choice

Hello Charles,

I respectfully submit that before we get to your point above - with which I agree - there has to be agreement as to what constitutes a clone, a derivative and a completely original chess engine.

Until then, this endless dance will continue.....

Later.

That is true, but I just want to throw it out there that by no means should any engine get a pass because it is free. I am all for open discussion of this, but we should be cautious in just blindly accepting any engine just because it is strong ... And I do think we should give credit to innovation ...though it seems that some have made innovation even if guilty of stealing a little. e.g. Vas may have ....from fruit, and now..... the story remains the same ..

xshat wrote:

Marek wrote:

xshat wrote:Solving chess would create a 32 man tablebases, in which every move would be known by the engine, hence they would all be clones since they would always make the perfect move.

No; for what is the "perfect move" in a position which has several drawing moves but no winning ones? You may have the 32-man tablebases, but what about your opponent? Let's assume the starting position is dead equal, with several drawing moves. Is it a good idea to play the Exchange Slav or the Exchange French? If your opponent has the 32-man tablebases then it makes no difference what is played - every game will be drawn (time and hardware permitting). But how do you know that he has them? Your own 32-man tablebases of themselves won't tell you how best to start against an opponent that doesn't have your tablebases but is otherwise a very strong player. So, for the fewest draws against imperfect opposition, the possessor of 32-man tablebases has to do some other analysis - and that gives scope to the programmers to produce different engines that will perform differently against imperfect opposition.

If every game is always a draw, or always a win for white, then engines are going to make the same moves as that is what tablebases are meant for.

No. Every engine v engine game will be always a draw only if all engines possess 32-man tablebases (and if the starting position is indeed a dead draw). But that doesn't mean that every engine v engine game will be the same. And it certainly doesn't mean that every engine that has access to 32-man tablebases will score the same against opponents without those tablebases. Question: What is the best move in a position that has several drawing moves but no winning ones? Answer: The move that scores better in practice. And the 32-man tablebases on their own can't tell you which move that will be. The 32-man tablebases will tell you that the Exchange Slav is as good as the King's Gambit - both are theoretically drawn (I guess). But in practice, against imperfect opposition, a "perfect" engine will score better (fewer draws) with the King's Gambit (I suppose). It is the quality of that kind of decision-making, at every single move, that would make one engine better overall than another even if both had 32-man tablebases. The availability of 32-man tablebases does not solve chess!

Charles wrote: That is true, but I just want to throw it out there that by no means should any engine get a pass because it is free. I am all for open discussion of this, but we should be cautious in just blindly accepting any engine just because it is strong ... And I do think we should give credit to innovation ...though it seems that some have made innovation even if guilty of stealing a little. e.g. Vas may have ....from fruit, and now..... the story remains the same ..

Hello Charles,

The difficulty in discussing and resolving this issue of clones, derivatives and original engines is easily captured with your statements quoted above.

What is a little theft Charles?

Is it acceptable if the pay-off is a supernaturally stronger chess engine?

I do not accept that, it is too much like being a little pregnant.

Stealing is wrong. To gloss it over is a source of difficulty but I make the point again - the free engine contributors have not compounded their theft by charging for it.

Until there is condemnation for the respected engines which "borrowed" more than just ideas - and you seem to regard Rybka's extraordinary strength as an innovation which justified theft (even a little, which is another issue up for discussion) - the charge of hypocrisy (not directed at you!) will be hard to avoid.

I mean, Ben Johnson was faster than any human ever was in his time. Does anyone here really believe that the steroids were the source of his speed? Really? Then take gallons of them and attempt to run the hundred in 10 seconds. Didn't think so.

Do you know why we condemn cheaters? Because they stand on the shoulders of giants and proclaim themselves king of the world, all the while taking an advantage from here and there.

It is sickening (again, not directed at you) and the little theft idea has to go if we are going to approach this thorny issue with anything like honesty.

My two cents....

Later.

You can always give credit for innovation even for a thief.

And there are degrees of wrongdoing. -- Stealing is not as bad as murder, downloading warez illegal software is not as bad as physically stealing from someone's pockets and so on.

Just as the legal system punishes different types of crimes accordingly -- we can pass judgment on how serious someone's crime is.

It is not enough to say that Vas took from Fruit -- how much did he take, how relevant is it and could it easily have been written differently without any problem?
I would ask the same about Houdini too or Ippolit.

Nothing is perfect if all information is known maybe we will have something like this:

person A took code from program x modified it, made innovative changes and charged money for it. Being fundamentally dishonest about original source .....**maybe**

Person(S) studied, rev. eng Person A's code, made some innovation enough changes to make it seem different , but the source of original strength is still program x. **unknown still *** call this engine I


Person H then takes Eng I available for free and studies it, but lifts certain parts **maybe** while claiming this did not happen and produces even strong engine.


The problem is there is a lot of unknowns when we try to determine how much have they stolen ...You can just broadly paint everyone as dishonest but we are not sure exactly to what degree of theft they are are guilty of.
There may be dishonesty among these people -- its just we have to also consider their contribution to chess engine development separately.
Ideally we will know and understand everything about engine origins and then reserve judgment

Peter C wrote:This poll is very black and white.

Peter

BTW, I didn't vote.

My same thoughts, that's why I abstained.

Gentlemen

Working towards "creating stronger engines "is the only thing thats important and meaningful. Strong chess players typically care nothing about this clone issue. I have realized that "determining and defining which engines are clones, derivatives, or completely original " is going to be debated for reasons that I will never understand by many on this site. Usually offering one of the many smiles in an attempt to prove their point, or :difus_27to really gain the upper hand in the discussion. Some of you guys kill me, but keep it going and enjoy your debate.

Thank you

Dr. Ivannik

Charles wrote:Why the heck would anyone want this:

Working towards creating stronger engines -- BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY?

This is absolute hogwash. So we should all steal commercial engines code put it on the web so we can ALL work create a stronger engine?

No way.. This is marxist gibberish!

There is a demand for stronger engines, we want stronger engines, and a few of us will work for it. However, we don't endorse lying, cheating , *killing* for it.

So Determining and defining which engines are clones, derivatives, or completely original is the only logical and moral choice

So you think we should not work on creating stronger engines because it's hogwash?

Your confusing Marxism with chess development, and taking what I mentioned to the extreme. I do not endorse lying cheating and killing in the name of chess.

In my opinion it is more logical for good programmers to work together rather than against each other, and that's all I stated. I never said we should embrace marxism no matter what the costs are.

Marek wrote:

xshat wrote:

Marek wrote:

xshat wrote:Solving chess would create a 32 man tablebases, in which every move would be known by the engine, hence they would all be clones since they would always make the perfect move.

No; for what is the "perfect move" in a position which has several drawing moves but no winning ones? You may have the 32-man tablebases, but what about your opponent? Let's assume the starting position is dead equal, with several drawing moves. Is it a good idea to play the Exchange Slav or the Exchange French? If your opponent has the 32-man tablebases then it makes no difference what is played - every game will be drawn (time and hardware permitting). But how do you know that he has them? Your own 32-man tablebases of themselves won't tell you how best to start against an opponent that doesn't have your tablebases but is otherwise a very strong player. So, for the fewest draws against imperfect opposition, the possessor of 32-man tablebases has to do some other analysis - and that gives scope to the programmers to produce different engines that will perform differently against imperfect opposition.

If every game is always a draw, or always a win for white, then engines are going to make the same moves as that is what tablebases are meant for.

No. Every engine v engine game will be always a draw only if all engines possess 32-man tablebases (and if the starting position is indeed a dead draw). But that doesn't mean that every engine v engine game will be the same. And it certainly doesn't mean that every engine that has access to 32-man tablebases will score the same against opponents without those tablebases. Question: What is the best move in a position that has several drawing moves but no winning ones? Answer: The move that scores better in practice. And the 32-man tablebases on their own can't tell you which move that will be. The 32-man tablebases will tell you that the Exchange Slav is as good as the King's Gambit - both are theoretically drawn (I guess). But in practice, against imperfect opposition, a "perfect" engine will score better (fewer draws) with the King's Gambit (I suppose). It is the quality of that kind of decision-making, at every single move, that would make one engine better overall than another even if both had 32-man tablebases. The availability of 32-man tablebases does not solve chess!

You have no proof that a perfect chess game will always be a draw. It is only theory at this point. Even if this was the case, the engines would always make perfect moves (not making any blunders). They would be clones because they would always make the moves outlined by the tablebases, which would result in 1 of 2 things, white always winning, or stalemate every time. Regardless of which of these it was, the engines would be programmed to always make perfect moves and not blunders, because they would just be following the tablebases. 32-men tablebases would be the solving of chess if they were complete.

Just like checkers, which has now been solved, chess will too. And at that point, like the perfect-moving checkers engine, the chess engine programmed to play a game in which white always wins or the game is always drawn, will technically never lose because it is fault-free. It is therefore a clone but in a different context than the current "clones" people are debating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess

The guy who solved checkers states it is possible in the future, and that we should not rule out the possibility.

What I say is that in the end when chess is solved there will be no need for different chess engines because the best will be programmed to always win or always force a draw, so if another engine was made like that it would be a clone.

So the crux of the poll is not whether we should resort to Marxist or Criminal methods in order to solve chess and/or make engines stronger. The question is whether we should continue to debate endlessly over whether the new engines that will still keep appearing are "legit" or "clones", or if instead we should work together and try to develop a more powerful superengine. I'm sure if Vas, Robert, Norman, and the rest all put their differences aside and worked together there would be significant progress.

Maybe it's just speculation after all.