There's usually not too much drama in the world of computer chess - at least, not to the level that it makes waves in the chess community at large. But this week, the International Computer Games Association made a decision that sent shock waves through chess: Rybka, the winner of four consecutive World Computer Chess Championships from 2007-2010, was going to have to forfeit those titles, and would be banned from future competitions.
The ICGA accused programmer Vasik Rajlich of stealing code from two other prominent chess programs, Crafty and Fruit. The announcement cited the following rule as the reason for 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. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
Rajlich appeared to deny the accusations, saying that his code wasn't derived from any other programs, except for a few "standard exceptions which wouldn't count as 'game-playing." According to a New York Times article, Larry Kaufman - a grandmaster who helped develop and refine Rybka - believes that the judgement is fair...for Rybka 1.0. However, versions 3 and later, he says, are a completely different program with few (if any) similarities to Crafty or Fruit.
It's clear why this would be an issue in a competitive arena; each program should be entirely independent, to prevent different programmers or teams from submitting programs that are essentially clones of one another. But there's another important question to be asked: does this effect the end consumer in any way? The Rybka creators certainly didn't do anything illegal, and if the end results provide consumers with stronger and more useful chess engines, do players care how they were created? Houdini was plagued with similar questions after it topped Rybka on most computer ratings lists, but it hasn't reduced interest in the program one bit.
What do you think: does it matter to you if the chess programs you buy are completely original, or would you rather have programmers stand on the shoulders of giants who came before them?
Comments
The issue isn’t whether it affects consumers or not. The issue is whether Rybka violated the rules of the competition. I agree that derivative works may actually make for better consumer products, but those are not supposed to be entered into the championships without full attribution of the source of the code. So, if you don’t want to play by the rules, don’t enter the competition.
I fully agree with Bob Price.
Bob price, well said. Rules were made to abide by and if he can’t by the rules, then he should not be playing at all.
“It’s only a game!” And it therefore it has rules which, not abided by, leaves cheaters and beneficiaries – as well as a disappointed set of fans.
Shame!
I fully agree with Bob Price (the top commentator). It is just like to copy a book, modify a few lines and send to the market with a new name as author!!!It is a ethical principle!!!
Rybka was pure theft. Apparently “R” was overcome by the desire to succeed, and he stole from Crafty and Fruit. (At least for the very first edition of Rybka.)
Had he admitted what he had done, it would not have been wrong, and he would never had a problem. (Both programs were “open source.”) However, he covered up the truth, and (in the end); it was that failure to be open, frank and 100% honest that got him in trouble.
No sympathy from this quarter.
I don’t get it. If Rybka is plagiarized from Crafty and Fruit, why did it win so many championships? Clearly the authors had done something right that the Crafty and Fruit makers couldn’t.