Moderator: Andres Valverde
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:The two events I always supported are going. These are the two events clone free, where original programs could honestly compete
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:It's not to me to say what's original and what's not.
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:But philosophy of both events is that clones must be excluded and, when an engine is found to be a clone, it's kicked out.
Tuvoc wrote:It concerns *ALL* engines. As soon as Olivier claims that his list is for "original" engines, then the whole subject is opened up.
So the question is for Olivier:
-Give us a list of all engines which you have excluded because you think they are clones, and tell us what expert evidence you have relied on, and if you have considered counter-evidence to the contrary. And if there is credible counter-evidence, how you have formed your opinion as to who is right.
-Give us a guarantee that all engines that you say are "original" actually are
-Define "original"
Tuvoc wrote:It is obviously all about:
ChessWar claims to be a tournament for "original" engines only.
It is only right to question the criteria for inclusion of engines.
Tuvoc wrote:ChessWar claims to be a tournament for "original" engines only. it has to be able to demonstrate effective criteria and evaluation of engines for the implementation of that policy. It can't so it should stop claiming to be something it isn't. ChessWar could be riddled with derivatives and you wouldn't know it.
Far better to just say "Engines are included on the sole discretion of the tournament organiser, and any decision is final". Everyone would be happy with that. I'd be happy with that. It is clear and unarguable.
As for your obvious reference to Rybka - the ICGA case has been thoroughly discredited by a number of experts in the field. But this is not about Rybka. It is about ALL engines.
F. Bluemers wrote:You make the impression that you don't want any engine to be labelled as unoriginal,clone or otherwise.
Tuvoc wrote:F. Bluemers wrote:You make the impression that you don't want any engine to be labelled as unoriginal,clone or otherwise.
By labelling some engines as clones you are implying that the rest are NOT clones, and that is misleading because you just don't know. Yet, you don't have time to investigate every single engine. So yes I'm effectively saying that you should not label anything a clone or derivative, because by deduction you are saying that the rest are not.
Also, to label something as unoriginal or clone, you need a very high standard of proof in my opinion. Preferably that is an investigation supervised by a court of law, overseen by a judge, following proper legal process, and with truly independent experts. Of course this just isn't going to happen either.
So just avoid the issue altogether as I said. Test what you want to test, don't test what you don't want to test, and don't mention the words "original" or "clone".
Return to Winboard and related Topics
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests