Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI Open Source Software Games

World's Best Chess Engine Outlawed and Disqualified 315

Posted by samzenpus
from the cheaters-never-win-more-than-4-times dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Rybka, the winner of the last four World Computer Chess Championships, has been found guilty by a panel of 34 chess engine programmers of plagiarizing two open-source chess engines: Crafty and Fruit. The governing body of the WCCC, the International Computer Games Association, is even demanding that Rybka's author — the international chess master and MIT graduate Vasik Rajlich — returns the trophies and prize money that he fraudulently won. Rybka will no longer be allowed to compete in the World Championships, and the ICGA is asking other tournaments around the world to do the same."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Best Chess Engine Outlawed and Disqualified

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:10PM (#36614270)

    If he was just ripping off two other engines, why did his win?

    Sounds like he at least made improvements to them, and isn't that what open source is supposed to be all about? In fact, the article even acknowledges "ICGA isn’t even disqualifying Rybka because it copies Fruit — rather, it’s simply upset that Rajlich claims his engine is original, and refuses to give credit where it’s due." Okay, so maybe he should have given the other coders credit, but why should that disqualify him from winning? He still won. He didn't cheat. He didn't steal the code from the other engines (it was open source). His biggest offense is denying the other coders credit.

    I think he should have to share the prize with the other coders (since they contributed code to the final product). But it still doesn't take away from the fact that his fork won. It doesn't justify taking away the win, as if he had cheated. His engine is still the best, open source code and all.

    And, nothing against FOSS, but why on earth would you even release code designed for competition as open source, BTW? Aren't you essentially unzipping your fly and telling you competitors all your secrets? Couldn't releasing the source code wait until after the software was "retired" from competition?

    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:13PM (#36614298)

      Because he committed plagiarism, plain and simple.

      • by cultiv8 (1660093) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:22PM (#36614376) Homepage

        Unfortunately, Rybka’s source code has never been available, so reverse engineering and straight-up move-evaluation comparison was used to analyze the originality of Rajlich’s chess engine.

        I don't see how anyone can claim plagiarism if they haven't seen source code.

        • by devnull17 (592326) * on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:27PM (#36614428) Homepage Journal
          The same way that Google caught Bing ripping off search results a while ago: find some idiosyncratic behaviors (e.g. bugs) that serve no practical purpose and are highly unlikely to end up in two independent projects, and demonstrate the same weirdness in each.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Moryath (553296)

          FTFA:

          To come to this rather epic and libelous conclusion, the ICGA assembled a 34-person panel of programmers who have competed in past championships to analyze Rybka. Unfortunately, Rybka’s source code has never been available, so reverse engineering and straight-up move-evaluation comparison was used to analyze the originality of Rajlich’s chess engine. The panel unanimously agreed that newer versions of Rybka are based on Fruit — and worse, that the early beta versions were based on Cra

          • Re:Come Clean (Score:4, Insightful)

            by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:46PM (#36614652) Journal

            What if someone made it financially tenable for him to show his code?

            "Oh. You did in fact innovate. Okay, we're sorry. But we won't take back the reputation tsunami we unleashed on you."

            Anyone see parallels with the whole DHS theme of accuse first and question later?

          • by hattig (47930)

            Or he can get a lawyer and sue them for defamation and/or libel if what they are claiming isn't true. If it isn't, I am sure that he is already talking to a lawyer if there is no basis in the claim.

          • by geekoid (135745)

            - They empaneled as the "jury" a bunch of assholes
            Ad hom

            who were predisposed to want Rajlich banned from competition (he kept beating them, four competitions in a row).
            I know a lot of competitors and they don't want people who beat them banned.
            Idle speculation and ad homs help nothing.

            "except it's not a financially tenable move."

            They could get a third party to analyze and compare.
            And there are striking similarities in behavior.
            Also, why are you overlooking the fact that they reverse engineered it and found

            • Similarities alone don't mean plaigarism. Logic can be gleaned from open source code, then applied to other code, perhaps engines. So long as copyright isn't violated, and licensing strictures aren't violated, reading someone's code, understanding the logic, then re-writing it is a hallowed action. For arguments supporting this, go to Groklaw, understand what BSD is (or read about the AT&T-Regents of UCB litigation), and so forth. Ask RMS.

              Logic and code might or might not be two different things. He mig

            • by Moryath (553296) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @03:10PM (#36614978)

              First off: would it kill you to learn some basic HTML? Hard to separate out your comments when you're too lame to even italicize.

              I know a lot of competitors and they don't want people who beat them banned.
              Idle speculation and ad homs help nothing.

              Empanel the losers from the competition on a witch hunt against the winner. Sounds like a dick move to me. Definitely doesn't pass the smell test.

              They could get a third party to analyze and compare.

              Why, precisely, should the Rybka team have to pay for that? It's the ICGA that should have been the ones doing this. FIRST.

              And there are striking similarities in behavior.

              You can walk into any chess tournament and see "striking similarities in behavior" between members of the same chess club/team, or between players of equal skill. Chess is a logical game, relying on logical formulations. Eventually, like Checkers and Othello were, it'll be solved. The closer the programs get to solving it, the more moves alike they'll make. "Similarities in behavior" of mathematical problem-solving prove nothing. If anything, the fact that his program beat - rather than drew to - the other programs ought to prove that he was NOT using their source code.

              by your argument, opening moves in chess would have been the same for hundreds of years.

              Funny you should mention that.
              There are a grand total of 10 logical chess opening moves (8 pawns, 2 knights). Opening with knights has been derided as downright silly for centuries; the only "variation" there comes when it's immediately followed by a pawn push alongside, putting it back into "standard" opening land of a Kingside or Queenside gambit. Openings that begin with the A,H,B,G pawns are rightly derided as virtually useless. Even opening with the C and F pawns is viewed as akin to suicide, since it allows the opponent to open straight into the middle virtually uncontested.

              Queen's Gambit openings, of various sorts, have dominated the arena since the early 1400's. The Italian opening was the favorite kingside method for over 300 years, until the Ruy Lopez opening passed it up in popularity. The entirety of "Black Openings" in modern chess for the past 500 years have been attempts to devise responses to these three methods of attack.

              So now that I've given you a lesson, run back to your checkers board. The grownups are discussing things.

              • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @04:16PM (#36615938)

                As someone who is no chess master but can count, you are wrong. Those horsies move in Ls and each one has two possible Ls he could move into . Plus the pawns can move one spot or two spots. So that is 8 more moves. Up to 20 already. There might be more, but I am too busy playing Go to count.

          • by canajin56 (660655) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @03:10PM (#36614974)
            Read the fucking report. An analysis of the binary code revealed 60% similarity. So about 60% of the binary was completely identical. Most of the evaluation functions which are unique to Fruit (AKA not done in other algorithms) were mostly identical, usually with only some constants changed. These are functions that not only are unique in their purpose to those in Fruit, but which have the exact same binary code, the same local variables, declared in the same order. That much duplication is absolutely beyond the pale. In earlier versions of Rybka, they found that obsolete functions from the Crafty codebase were in there. So, you are claiming that not only did he magically duplicate most of the functions, he even had the same useless functions just sitting there not being called. And the exact same unit tests for those unused functions. So, there is a long history of blatant copy and pasting, some of it even completely mindless (copying unused functions). Additionally, he was offered the chance to be on the panel and offer his own input without having to release his sourcecode. He refused to respond whatsoever in his own defense.
    • Taking credit for others work is just part of the job!

    • His biggest offense is denying the other coders credit.

      Isn't that enough?

    • by Un pobre guey (593801) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:18PM (#36614358) Homepage
      He didn't steal the code from the other engines (it was open source).

      If he refused to disclose that he used open source code then he most likely violated the terms of the open source license and therefore did indeed cheat. Open Source [wikipedia.org] is not the same as Public Domain [wikipedia.org].
      • by pz (113803)

        Going to the Rybka web site www.rybkachess.com there does not seem to be a way to download the source code, which would be required for releases under the GPL, assuming there is validity to the claim that he's copied other open source efforts.

        • by Dog-Cow (21281)

          If he doesn't distribute the binary, he needn't release the source.

          • by Vario (120611)

            On the Rybka website you can buy the current version of either Rybka 4 for 36 Euros or Deep Rypka 4 for 65 Euros.

            If these downloads contain any of the stolen code in their binaries this definitely counts as distribution.

      • by mcmonkey (96054)

        Is it in the rules of these competitions that entries shall conform to the terms of software licenses?

        If so, ban the cheater. (After establishing his code does in fact incorporate code from other sources and that he has violated the terms of the license on that code.)

        If not, sounds like the situation Moryath described above. He was too good, so a few spoiled brats are taking their chess sets and going home.

        • Is it in the rules of these competitions that entries shall conform to the terms of software licenses?

          If so, ban the cheater. (After establishing his code does in fact incorporate code from other sources and that he has violated the terms of the license on that code.)

          If not, sounds like the situation Moryath described above. He was too good, so a few spoiled brats are taking their chess sets and going home.

          Except of course he could comply with the OS license (assuming it's GPL'd) without any acknowledgment as long as he doesn't distribute it.

          So I agree with you, unless the rules stipulated 100% original code, what's the issue other than he was better at refining code than the others who had eh same code available?

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        If he refused to disclose that he used open source code then he most likely violated the terms of the open source license

        So, is the International Computer Games Association an organization to promote OSS?

        And is the World Computer Chess Championship about finding the most powerful chess computer or promoting open source software?

        I'm not familiar with either organization, so I'm not sure. I don't understand what "cheating" means in this particular case. If it was found that Viswanathan Anand had learned the

        • by Arlet (29997) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:58PM (#36614798)

          Cheating, in this case, means violating the rules of the championship:

          18th WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT RULES

          2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams
          whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all
          other authors, or the source of such code, in the details of their submission form

      • by LoveMuscle (42428) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @03:19PM (#36615086)

        Not necessarily, most Open Source Software (OSS) licenses (eg. GPLv2, EPL, etc.) only kick in on redistribution since you need the license to not be in violation of someone's copyright. You can USE all the OSS you want without complying with the license if you don't redistribute it. On top of that some OSS Licenses don't require that you disclose that there is OSS in your redistributable nor do they require you to provide source. (eg. 3-clause BSD).

        In this case however, he's clearly distributing the binaries. Fruit appears to be LGPLv2.1 and Crafty has some goofball custom pseudo-oss license that requires attribution. So if he did copy the code and redistribute he's not complying with the licenses and in violation of copyright law.

        I don't find it all that unusual that 2 different good chess programs might make similar decisions, and they don't have the source to compare so unless someone is going to sue and do discovery the claim of plagiarism is (IMO) premature.

        The courts exist to settle just these sorts of conflicts, and banning him on supposition is questionable.. IANAL....

    • What is relevant is whether or not he had permission to use that code, which he obviously did not.
    • by gubers33 (1302099)
      Same reason Reggie Bush had to give back his Heisman and USC had to give back their National Championship Trophy... politics.
    • by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte AT drunksnipers DOT com> on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:22PM (#36614382) Homepage

      Nothing wrong with reusing other people's work with permission. But claiming that you made it (i.e. plagiarizing) isn't.

      Also, Fruit 2.1 was released as GPL 2. Rybka is not, so it's a violation of copyright. And Crafty's license also doesn't permit the way Rybka used its source.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Copyright and plaigarism are two different things. Even if you expand upon and improve other peoples ideas, it's plaigarism if you do not credit them.

      • by KDR_11k (778916)

        Due to the whole derivative works clause that'd still be a matter of copyright as well.

    • by ewanm89 (1052822)
      He didn't even do that, he combined two separate opensource engine making one better engine. As long as he follows the licence terms for the engines, there is nothing wrong with what was done. Now if the licence said there must be attribution then there is a problem.
      • by Miseph (979059)

        At least one of the engines is GPL. Rybka is not. Ipso facto, there is copyright violation occurring.

      • by HanClinto (621615) <hanclinto@PLANCK ... minus physicist> on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @03:03PM (#36614870)

        He didn't even do that, he combined two separate opensource engine making one better engine.

        According to the allegations, he did not combine two open-source programs into a super-bot. They claim that the current version of his bot (Rybka) is a copy of Fruit, and an earlier version of his software was a copy of Crafty.

        As you said, he closed-sourced them and claimed them as his own without giving attribution -- thereby breaking the software licenses of at least one of them (Fruit), which is GPL.

    • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:33PM (#36614492)

      He didn't steal the code from the other engines (it was open source). His biggest offense is denying the other coders credit.

      Well, it seems that Fruit [fruitchess.com] is open-source in the sense that people can look at the codebase, but it is not FOSS. The license text (see, e.g. readme in this tarfile [fruitchess.com]) says:

      All right reserved. Fruit and PolyGlot may not be distributed as part of any software package, service or web site without prior written permission from the author.

      Indeed it looks like a commerical product that you are meant to pay for. Rajlich's engine is closed-source and also commercial [rybkachess.com]. He is not making his code available, so even if Fruit were, say, released under the GPL, he would be in violation of the license. But in fact Fruit is "all rights reserved" so if Rajlich took code from it then he is blatantly violating copyright, and thus breaking the law.

      I would think that the competition has a blanket ethics rule that says that you cannot win by breaking the law. So Rajlich, if he did indeed appropriate code, doesn't deserve the wins. (Yes, he obviously did ~something~ to improve upon Fruit, but he still cheated.)

      • by Altus (1034)

        Of course, this is based on the assumption that he actually used the source from Fruit, which is pretty hard to actually verify when his source code is not available.

    • Many competitions have rules regarding dishonorable behavior. If he did use substantial amounts of open-source code without crediting the original authors as seems to be the case, that would be plainly dishonorable and thus grounds for disqualification.

      As for the open source aspect, in this case a quick skim of the Fruity site seems to indicate (it's not very clearly worded) that it was initially open source during development and then went to a closed/commercial model after it had some wins under its belt

    • by arth1 (260657)

      Sounds like he at least made improvements to them, and isn't that what open source is supposed to be all about?

      Having open source also helps.
      This guy has closed the source and sells the compiled result.

    • First, there is the question of if he is falsely claiming credit. Second, is whether or not his is the best.

      While there are nearly infinite moves in chess, there are not infinite ways of winning at chess. Last I heard, most systems use a scoring system to evaluate moves. And based on a final score tally, they make a decision. This is the "evidence" they have. But I would submit this to a group of non-chess playing programmers (who are unbiased as to who plays chess better).

      Submitting the Fruit engine a

      • by Skuto (171945)

        What you say is completely disconnected from what actually happened. The conviction didn't happen by observing the engine, the conviction happened because the panel reverse engineered the binary exacutable and found a huge similarity, including exactly identical implementations of non-obvious functions, identical bugs and identical dead code in the commercial engine and the opens source engines.

  • Best chess engine (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Arlet (29997) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:15PM (#36614310)

    No Rybka, but Houdini:

    http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm [cruxis.com]

    Rybka/Houdini played a 40-game match recently, and Houdini won by a wide margin of 23.5-16.5. You can see the match here:
    http://livechess.chessdom.com/site/ [chessdom.com] (Check for TCEC S1 Elite Match)

    • To be honest, since the advent of computers in chess I lost most of my interest - even in human tournaments. Every top player does lots of preparation by computer analysis these days. If I want to see some interesting and creative games, I usually grab a commented tournament book from the 20s or so, whenever I get my hands on one.
    • by Skuto (171945)

      Houdini is based on another open-source engine (Ippolit / RobboLito), which are based on reverse engineering Rybka, which is, well, see the original statement (the article is hopelessly biased and gets some facts wrong).

      It's a mess.

  • If the author still claims his software is original, he should release the source code to the panel under an NDA strictly for the purposes of evaluation.

    • Many people choose not to disclose their inventions and keep them a trade secret. This is done for a good reason. Disclosure, even under an NDA, doesn't guarantee it won't get disclosed to those you don't want to disclose it to.

      In this case we have a panel of 34 programming chess players. Would you want anyone of that group to see your code if you want to keep it away from programming, chess-playing people?

    • If the author still claims his software is original, he should release the source code to the panel under an NDA strictly for the purposes of evaluation.

      Except that would open the members of the panel up to potential future claims that they plagiarized from Rybka. They should have an independent third-party, one that does not write chess engines, audit the three software programs under NDA and return an analysis of how likely it is that Rybka includes code from the other engines (a la SCO vs. IBM.)

      • Until this third party panel, now equipped with knowledge of the inner workings of three competitive chess engines, develops the most powerful chess engine known to man! ...And then gets charged with plagiarism.
    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      According to the article the panel is actually made up of his competitors, past and present. An NDA won't cut it (certainly wouldn't for me anyway). They should have at least given him a more impartial jury.

      • by Skuto (171945)

        The panel was made up of every computer chess expert the organization could get their hands on, which of course included competitors.

        But if he wanted to avoid those, he could have proposed to send his source to a neural subselection.

        He didn't reply at all. What could he say? The full reports are posted, and they're completely damning. I guess the writer of the article linked here didn't manage to understand that.

  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:17PM (#36614344)
    Now that it isn't distracted by chess this poor little computer will have nothing else to do except plot its revenge against man.
  • The correct course of action is erasure, following by enlightenment retraining.
    • by Miseph (979059)

      "The correct course of action is erasure"

      Always I want to be with you, and make believe with you, and live in harmo... oh, wait, wrong Erasure.

  • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:22PM (#36614380)
    TFA points out that Rajlich could exonerate himself by showing the source code, but then says that this isn't possible:

    It’s a tricky situation, though: with Rybka now outlawed from the WCCC, and with the ICGA asking other tournaments to block its entry, the only real way Rajlich and the rest of the Rybka team can clear their names is to show their source code — a financially untenable move. In short, Rybka is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    This doesn't really hold up. Yes, Rajlich is trying to sell his software, so he can't open-source it to the world. But to exonerate himself he doesn't have to release the source-code to the world; he simply needs to arrange for the source code to be shown to the expert panel. As long as they can both confirm that: (1) the provided source compiles to the binary used in competition, and (2) there is no substantial overlap between the provided source and other known codebases, then he's in the clear. The expert panel doesn't have to retain copies of the source code beyond the review period (all copies could be destroyed).

    So, really, it should be possible for Rajlich to demonstrate the originality of his code without releasing it or decreasing his commercial opportunities. The fact that he hasn't done this is strange. In that sense, it sounds to me like the ICGA made the right decision here.

    • by Shikaku (1129753)

      I have an honest question. I'm going to assume the program is compiled into an executable, and not a scripting language like python. How do they determine if code from an open source program was used from the binary program?

      • by Nemyst (1383049)

        From what I gathered from glancing at TFA, the panel was looking at algorithmic similarities, not necessarily code ones. In those cases, there is no need to have the source, since the algorithms will naturally be visible through the program's execution.

        From this point on, Rajlich will need to prove that he did not in fact copy Fruit or Crafty, though this may be hard to do so if the above is to be trusted (ie he could've made his own code but used the exact same behaviors by simply looking at how Fruit work

        • by Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @03:09PM (#36614954)

          The problem with looking at just algorithm similarities is that every modern chess bot uses some variant of the same algorithm so the executable code will superficially look similar (negamax.) Computers aren't powerful enough to search the entire game tree, so you have to stop after a certain number of levels (15, for instance) and use a heuristic to evaluate the strength of that position.

          The main differences between chess bots are found in that heuristic.

          According to the actual report [chessvibes.com] the heuristic is obviously based on Fruit's, which is what they're really angry about.

      • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:54PM (#36614756)

        I have an honest question. I'm going to assume the program is compiled into an executable, and not a scripting language like python. How do they determine if code from an open source program was used from the binary program?

        Compile it with debugging symbols and compare to the open source program compiled with debugging symbols and compare the symbol tables. How odd that so many functions are exactly the same length and have exactly the same arguments. Run both thru a profiler and notice any identical control flow loops. I suspect there's a way to ask the GCC optimizer to compare the psuedocode before it gets assembled. Heck, just rub the raw binaries against each other and look for matches. It would be hilarious to ask/force him to compile and/or link mixmaster style

        Ask a "windows security researcher" dude how he identifies a file with a virus. If he says, "use norton" then fire him and repeat. Eventually you'll find someone who knows how to use the binary equivalent of "substr".

      • by rwv (1636355)

        How do they determine if code from an open source program was used from the binary program?

        This would be determined by isolating a version of the executable used in competition and then asking the developers to run through a procedure using only the source code to create an exact duplicate of the competition binary. Comparing that the 1's and 0's in two different executables are identical is fairly trivial.

    • by digitig (1056110)
      He doesn't even have to show the code to the expert panel (who are all competitors). He could agree with the panel an independent arbitrator, and show it to them. I don't think they'd have to be experts in the field of chess programming to spot copied code, and it shouldn't matter if he's copied algorithms.
      • by vlm (69642)

        spot copied code, and it shouldn't matter if he's copied algorithms.

        Isn't copied algorithms the stereotypical way to catch programming school plagiarizers? Why look, one smart-ish guy, and his three moron drinking buddies, all had exactly the same picket fence error in exactly the same place... What a coincidence? This does not work on tiny toy programs, but something big enough to win at chess is probably big enough.

    • by vlm (69642)

      But to exonerate himself he doesn't have to release the source-code to the world; he simply needs to arrange for the source code to be shown to the expert panel.

      Alternately, they could deploy several classic crypto solutions, which means they're easy to half ass and screw up.

      There's a couple good crypto algorithms to hash the unknown and known source code, compare the hashes, etc. No need to let anyone directly read the unknown source code.

      To prove he's not handing you hashes of /dev/random you can compile the code, see if it matches his binary.

      Besides simple hash comparisons, there are some digital cash algos oriented around detecting double spending... You could

    • Yeah, TFA sounds pretty seriously confused on that point. Commercial software sourcecode is, in part or in full, shown to Customers Who Matter all the time. Sometimes, it is even made publicly available, but under a license that forbids much of anything other than inspecting it. It isn't rocket surgery.
    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Yeah, but the expert panel in this case includes many of his competitors. It would be like Apple being forced to show MS their source code, with the promise that MS wouldn't steal it.

    • by Altus (1034)

      The expert panel is comprised of his competition. They are the very people he wants to keep from seeing his code.

      The only way this could be done is with an impartial third party audit... but who pays for it?

  • It's the Turk [wikipedia.org] all over again! Will these chess computer scandals never end?!
  • Since Rybka's source was not released, let alone compared, they sure seem sure of their conclusions.

    Also, the article states that they "unfairly cheated" but, aside from not disclosing the alleged plagiarized work, why is that "unfair". Or is the use of the open source codes considered "unfair".

    • by Arlet (29997)

      The rules of the International Computer Games Association that hosts the championship state that the program must be an original work of the developers. If the program is derived from other sources, they must be named together with the original authors.

    • by digitig (1056110)

      Also, the article states that they "unfairly cheated" but, aside from not disclosing the alleged plagiarized work, why is that "unfair". Or is the use of the open source codes considered "unfair".

      More interesting is how does one cheat fairly?

    • What aside is there? It's fairly clear that his claiming the work of others as his own is the issue.

      Here's a quote from the an open letter announcing the ban.

      "Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details."

      Open source is fine - so long as credit is given.

  • Crafty is not open source software, though its license has similarities to an open source software license. Crafty is for "personal use only", which means that it fails the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] criteria "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".

    Crafty's main.c file says: "All rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced in any form or by any means, for other than your personal use, without the express written permission of the authors. This program may not be used in whole, nor in

  • Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bobfrankly1 (1043848) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:36PM (#36614530)
    Checkmate?
  • The article makes the bold claim that "IBM's Deep Blue cheated to beat Garry Kasparov" the link they give mentions merely that Kasparov made such an accusation, and that the accusation was repeated in a documentary. On what basis did he make such a claim?

  • Maybe chess-playing people just don't like losing to computers. After all, the article mentioned by the OP states that:

    Not since IBM’s Deep Blue cheated to beat Garry Kasparov in 1997 has the world of computer chess been so uproarious!

    As if it were a fact. Was this ever found to be the case? I thought it was only alleged by Kasparov and never proven.
    Since the 34-person panel of chess-playing programmers never saw the source code to Rybka, yet still concluded that different versions were plagiarizer

    • Humans haven't been able to compete against computers for quite a few years. Even a cheap netbook can plow through more levels of the game tree than Deep Blue could, and Deep Blue was even using custom hardware specifically designed for chess. It's not a simple case of a sore loser.

    • How the hell do you cheat at chess when you don't know what moves the other person is going to make? Unless Deep Blue made an illegal move, which Kasparov should have immediately caught.
      • by mschaffer (97223)

        Kasparov thought that people were helping Deep Blue during the game. That would be cheating.

  • by idontgno (624372) on Wednesday June 29, 2011 @02:52PM (#36614728) Journal
    "Your [chess program] is both good and original; but the parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original are not good."

"Bureaucracy is the enemy of innovation." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Working...